Marklar is a beast. Why not go In through the out door instead?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Ok, so I am not quite sure where to post this purely speculative thread - but since it involves all the Marklar rumors floating around, I figured the OS X forum would do.



Recently there has been all kinds of hubbub about Apple keeping an x86 version of OS X polished with the thought that if the opportunity presents itself (read: Palladium) that Apple could unleash this beast upon the unwashed masses. Theory: Happiness Ensues. Angry Wintel users snap up the Marklar goodness and come over to the OS X side of the tracks. Because it sells so well, Apple is smart, attractive, well-dressed and going places .



But this, as everyone knows, is a huge gamble, even if and when the unwashed Mongul masses are tearing down the walls of the M$ Palladium. Actually pushing the big red button on this plan probably means an instantaneous shift in Apple's core strategy, and a huge shift in their revenue stream - not a direction to be taken lightly. Time will tell how prices stack up in a years time, but if Apple did it tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar I would be running OS X on a brand new dual Athlon box.



So instead of betting the farm, why not take one small step for Apple, and one giant leap for Joe User kind? Why not buy (or partner with) Connectix and integrate VPC into the OS? Some thoughts before the poo-poo starts flying:



- Performance in the existing version of VPC isn't acceptable - that is a given. But what about after the 970s come out, and Apple OS gurus can spend some time massaging that emulation? And how bout *GASP* emulating a PIII instead of a PII? (just a personal gripe - ignore that)



- Nobody knows OS X like Apple (of course.) Leverage some of those smarts to bring VPC into the OS X 21st century - fully integrate Windows apps into the dock (a la VPC 6 on steroids). Is it possible to have apps run without the windows desktop showing? My brain is too small to know, but all signs point to yes (or is that Classic)? If so, then the integration would be no less seamless than the current implementation of Classic (course it would look a bit different - but these are windows users so it would look like home).



- How bout leveraging some of these next generation GPU's to handle the windowing environment (I can watch as the individual elements of each window get drawn on my Dual 500 in VPC 5). I am pretty sure a lot of the apparent molasses feel of VPC comes from the GUI. H311, put some of those Raycer guys on it, if there are any left lurking the back foozball tables of Cupertino.



This really is just a huge bran muffin for a potentially constipated "switch" campaign. Doing this wouldn't allow Joe User to immediately start using OS X (the benefit of Marklar) - but if Apple can staunch the hemorrhaging hardware and start offering comparable performance to Wintel systems it would break down a huge entry barrier to J. User. The potential market share increase might allow Apple to lower margins a bit to look even more competitive.



By the time something like this might happen, we will hopefully be sitting on 970s or their children - my pie in the sky sees us running neck and neck (or even neck to 4ss) with Intel speeds. If Apple could get Windows emulation to 50% the speed of a native app BUT the GUI was responsive because they are leveraging the GPU - then I bet Joe doesn't even notice (especially since he just upgraded his machine - it was 4 years old!).



The real win here is: "Switch to OS X on a Mac - now you can run all your existing Windows apps natively". Not really of course, but Joe has no clue. At that point Joe would (or at least could) actually be able to consider a Mac box as a drop-in replacement to their current machine when they decide to upgrade.



At some point in the medium term, Joe User is living the iLife, running his old Windows apps, but buying new OS X native ones because they are (in theory) more in tune with his mediocre consumer computer skills and questionable design talent (and they look pretty too). H311, why not partner with some big app makers and offer cross-platform upgrade specials?



If, after all that, market share still isn't in a comfortable range, then Apple can go back down in the basement and sneak a peek at that Marklar cage door. But right now (or anytime in the foreseeable future) unleashing Marklar has as much chance of biting the hand that feeds it, as biting the intended victim.



So why not go in through the out door?



EDIT: my trademark and bullet characters weren't rendering right and I don't want to look up the unicode versions!



[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    Wouldn't it be better for Apple engineers to focus on improving OS X and OS X application performance rather than on providing/improving Windows emulation. The typical applications that most home computer users need are available very cheaply or for free on the Mac. Apple should focus their "switch" energies on getting Windows users to switch to Apple hardware and Mac applications not Apple hardware and previously owned Windows applications. Supporting efforts like Move2Mac and Virtual PC as third party applications allows these tools to be available for those who need them while allowing Apple to focus on their core business.



    A release of Marklar does not necessarily equate to a dual Athlon system on your desk. Apple is not likely going to leave the hardware business. Releasing Marklar as an alternative to Windows would be very difficult to accomplish for several reasons....



    1) Applications would need to be ported to the new system by 3rd parties. This issue also suffers from the same issues you mention related to previous Windows application investment.



    2) Marklar would have to support the wide range of hardware possiblities which is something that Apple currently doesn't have to do.



    3) Joe Windows user knows nothing about DRM and the negative possibilities resulting from Palladium and will unlikely we swayed by these issues. All Joe Windows user will care about is that his/her Mariah Carey CD works when they drop in their computer.



    Wow...I was going to be brief and I got a little carried away.
  • Reply 2 of 11
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    No reason to buy connectix - 'bochs' is an open source x86 emulator.



    WINE is not an emulator... but bochs is. Combine them and you have a 'free as in whatever the GNU people call free' Doze replacement.



    Just don't expect speed.
  • Reply 3 of 11
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:

    <strong>No reason to buy connectix - 'bochs' is an open source x86 emulator.



    WINE is not an emulator... but bochs is. Combine them and you have a 'free as in whatever the GNU people call free' Doze replacement.



    Just don't expect speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple could take that open source project and make some thing out of it. Like KHTML.
  • Reply 4 of 11
    mokimoki Posts: 551member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:

    <strong>No reason to buy connectix - 'bochs' is an open source x86 emulator.



    Just don't expect speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Don't expect speed is right. Bochs is so ridiculously slow, it isn't even close to viable. Really, give it a try if you haven't already... painful.
  • Reply 5 of 11
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    If Mac OS X could run Window apps without any problems, noone would make Mac OS X apps.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    EXACTLY!

    jsut as if computers could run macosx and windows no one would make them either, at elast somebody sees sense round here
  • Reply 7 of 11
    [quote]Originally posted by sushiism:

    <strong>EXACTLY!

    jsut as if computers could run macosx and windows no one would make them either, at elast somebody sees sense round here</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Huh?
  • Reply 8 of 11
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>If Mac OS X could run Window apps without any problems, noone would make Mac OS X apps.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Is this really true though? Right now you have an installed base of Mac users large enough that developers feel they can make money building OS X apps.



    If I have a choice as an OS X user, I would rather run an app which integrates fully into OS X and keeps the same interface paradigms which make Mac apps all feel so similar and friendly. After a time living in the Mac world, I would imagine a lot of the new switchers might also.



    Native apps also run much faster/better than emulated ones. Given a choice would you rather run Photoshop native, or under emulation? Or if you have the choice to buy competing products, wouldn't you rather buy the one which runs twice as fast? So even if J User moves to OS X but continues to buy Windows apps out of habit, slowly after it dawns on him/her they run better and look nicer if they are OS X apps, he starts to switch purchasing habits.



    The whole idea isn't that OS X now runs Windows apps - it can never do that as fast or well as a Wintel box can. The point is to knock down a huge barrier to entry for existing Windows users who might consider a switch, but don't because of an existing investment in software.



    Lets say for arguments sake in a few years time Apple doubles its market share. Even if 50% of all Mac users out there start buying ONLY Windows apps to run on OS X (at quite a performance hit no less) - then you still have the same number of people buying Mac native apps as you do today. And if developers couldn't make money selling this much product, they all would have folded by now already, wouldn't they?



    Why spend double the development time to build two versions (or 1 1/2 the amount)? You are still competing for customers. If you can make a profit doing this, and you are not losing that business to a competetor, isn't that a win?



    I am just making this up as I go along and have no experience in marketing, but I don't know if I buy into the theory Mac app development would simply cease to exist if something like this happened.



    And on side note:



    Even if it did happen - OS X app development came screeching to a halt - does Apple really care? They are selling twice as many boxes - that is where they make their money. And their current developers would move to where the money is - making windows apps and selling them to OS X AND XP users. Who loses there?



    I would like to point out I really don't think something like this would ever happen. But I still think it is a cool idea.



    [ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 11
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    I've always wondered why Connectix hasn't made a version of VPC to run in Darwin.

    Seems to me that it would run much faster since OS X wouldn't be running. You wouldn't be able to cut and paste between OS X and VPC but I'd trade this for a much faster VPC experience.
  • Reply 10 of 11
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Pie Man:

    <strong>

    Is this really true though? Right now you have an installed base of Mac users large enough that developers feel they can make money building OS X apps.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Adobe don't want to make two versions of Photoshop if 100% of their customers can run the Windows version.





    [quote]Originally posted by The Pie Man:

    <strong>Native apps also run much faster/better than emulated ones. Given a choice would you rather run Photoshop native, or under emulation?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I did say: running Windows apps without any problems.
  • Reply 11 of 11
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>Adobe don't want to make two versions of Photoshop if 100% of their customers can run the Windows version.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That depends, the x86 world is about to split between AMD and Intel 64 bitness (or not) so depending on which platform is easier to work with/for and faster Adobe might have no reason to drop OSX support. We will have 2 different hardware platforms, unlike with OS/2, so I don't see why a WINE-x86 emulator would make Adobe drop their support for Apple. If anything the native version might be a lot faster and dropping it might make Adobe lose customers. Adobe is much more open that Quack in that regard.
Sign In or Register to comment.