Skycorp announced back in Oct 2000 that an agreement was signed with NASA to launch the project.. Beta test period was for month of Nov 2001... The web site hasn't been updated with any new info since June of 2001...
Either, tests failed miserably and they want to try again before mentioning anything or...
If apple pull this satellite WAN broadband thing off they're gonna be the dog's ballearicks! I would love this to happen, but the only thing that worries me is that their hype is too low key for something like that. It might not be ready or it might be available in a very limited or expensive way. Otherwise I'm sure Apple would be hyping it even more.
Just to throw in my two cents -- you need to realize that Apple will never live up to the hype, and they will get flak no matter what it is they end up releasing. But that's ok, they realize this.
There is a difference between what Apple watchers will expect or find significant, and what is significant to the public at large, and Apple itself. By hyping the expo in this manner, they are doing a great job having Apple fans send out the message like a sesmic wave -- by the time it reaches the masses, it will be more realistic in scope.
My personal opinion is that the "big thing" will simply be the new iMacs. Consider how important the iMac is to Apple, to your average computer buyer, and also consider that the last time they hyped an expo like this ("Pro. Go. Woah"), it was the intro of the original iMac.
The iMac was initially met with derrision, and much of it from Apple fans who were expecting much more. However, it went on to make serious waves in the industry, and arguable was single-handedly responsible for Apple's turn-around.
I know, I know -- "But that sucks, there has to be something more!" Perhaps there will be something more, but personally I'm expecting speed bumps around the product line, and new iMacs. And yes, they are very cool and unusual -- but you're going to have to wait 3 days to find out why.
sleep.. who needs sleep... had to find something interesting on the net...
looking for Skycorp in looksmart shows an old link with the following description... article is no longer available, however..
SkyCorp, Inc. Aerospace Engineering company developing the first G4 apple internet server to go into Earth's orbit which will be used for wireless hand held devices.
I really don't think this is what the hype is all about, but I'd love it.. Imagine Apple running it's iTools servers in the sky, allowing a new handheld (hate to say it but future iWalk?) to access mail, movies, homepage sites, news, etc... how absolutely awesome would this be..
and conspiracy theorists can say that the hype quotes on Apple's site would fit the description..
one more thing.. According to the papers signed by Skycorp with NASA, the price for the initial launch and test was to be 2 million dollars... I would assume some larger company or investors are backing them, and it seems like its a possibility that Apple is more directly involved than their website shows...
anyway, maybe it is time for some sleep.... till tomorrows' quote...
Back in the late eighties/early nineties, there was a secret project at Apple called Star Trek. Because it was "to go where no MacOS had gone before". It was porting system 7 to intel, they were partly funded by the ever-paranoid Intel, and they got much of the old toolkit running on 486s...
Now look at the front page of Apple.com. As much as I just can't believe OSX X86, This clearly alludes to it...
<strong>Now look at the front page of Apple.com. As much as I just can't believe OSX X86, This clearly alludes to it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Purely from a technical point of view, I can tell you that while OS X on x86 would be much more doable than OS 9, there are still significant hurdles that couldn't be surmounted without involving third party developers.
We would need to know significantly in advance to ensure there aren't endian issues, and to have product ready to ship. If Apple ever does move to a new processor architecture (which I don't think is necessary, btw), there will have to be lead time between the announcement and the reality, just as there was with the PPC and with the Carbon APIs. Some things you can't just furtively work on and then release with a surprise.
Hell, Apple has had a hell of a time getting their various APIs done for their own hardware, let alone the engineering resources they'd need to dedicate to making it work on Intel, and the myriad of hardware configurations they'd encounter there.
This of course ignores the radical company paradigm shift that would have to happen too. I don't attach much credibility to seeing OS X on Intel as the big announcement, and I doubt Steve or the advertising folks even know what the "Star Trek" code name stands for, to be honest.
Well the line is definitely a Star Trek reference, whether or not they're aware of the codename is of course another issue. I don't believe they'd come out with OSX86 either, but face it, there are a LOT of people willing to go OSX if only they didn't have to pay a premium for the hardware. Apple could hit a deal with a certain HW man., and only stay with them, thus tackking driver etc. dev. Carbon isn't necessary, and NEXTSTEP (API and OS) worked fine under x86, so I guess the endian issues are already figured out (in that I think there are flags you just have to switch to go from big-endian to little-endian).
What I'm trying to say is: I don't believe Apple will come out so soon with OSX86. However, it is not as undoable as it seems, IMO.
<strong>Carbon isn't necessary, and NEXTSTEP (API and OS) worked fine under x86, so I guess the endian issues are already figured out (in that I think there are flags you just have to switch to go from big-endian to little-endian).
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How would Carbon not be necessary? All of the major applications for Mac OS X are carbon apps. Who would care about OS X on Intel if all they can do is play with Apple's System Profiler (oops... they can't play with that either, it is a Carbon app)?
Even Cocoa apps would likely need some tweaking to make sure they are using the proper APIs, and haven't taken any shortcuts, and of course the necessary quality assurance and regression testing.
As for endian issues, it is a bit more involved than you think. Yes, there are routines in Cocoa to deal with the various endian translations, and it isn't hard to write macros to do it either. However, it still would need to be done to existing apps. Many Mac developers are still realing from the transition from OS 9 to OS X, I can't see this being a happy prospect for them.
The most common place where you run into endian issues is when reading from/writing to the disk, or sharing information by other means. Your binary structure in memory can't just be written blindly out to disk as is typically done, it must be oriented to a particular endianess before doing so.
Major xplat apps like Photoshop do this already; that's why you can share files regardless of the platform, endian issues are already taken into account. That isn't the case for a whole lotta software.
The bottom line is: could it be done? Yes, you could port Mac OS X to Intel significantly easier than you could any other Mac OS (assuming of course that they have maintain xplat as a company-wide goal when they rewrote their major APIs -- Mac OS X is significantly more than just NeXTSTEP).
However, you would have no Classic, and without involving third party developers early on in the porting process, no native applications to run either. If it happens, it would be suicide for Apple to not involve developers early on.
And that's just from the technical point of view...
OSX for x86 is the only way that Apple are ever going to gain significant market, though like many people just the thought of it scares me half to death. :eek:
If a launch of OSX for PC's was not in conjunction with cheaper AMD or INTEL based iMac's and very much faster PowerMacs running on Athlons or G5s, I could see Apples main source of revenue drying up within the year.
OSX for x86 is the only way that Apple are ever going to gain significant market, though like many people just the thought of it scares me half to death. :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
To quote Yoda, "Hear you nothing that I say?" Oh forget it, I give up!
As for the marketshare issue, gaining marketshare would be nice, but Apple doesn't _have_ to gain marketshare at all, any more than BMW needs to take marketshare from Geo.
The Apple market is a healthy, sustainable market right now. Growing it a bit would be nice, but it isn't vital by any means.
While I'm not convinced they would put OSX on x86 (lots of people would buy it, but they would kiss bye-bye to Office, and they need Office) it does seem odd that Apple would say "To go where no 'PC' has gone before". I didn't think they were a big user of the term "PC" because people seem to associate that with Wintel only. You'd think it would say "To go where no Mac has gone before".
I have to agree this latest Macworld teaser is a Star Trek reference. Hmm, in ST they always carry around those computing pads. This is Jobs' way of hyping a digital handheld? iWalk? iPad? Seems clear this show is going to be less about gigahertz but rather the "digital lifestyle."
<strong>I have to agree this latest Macworld teaser is a Star Trek reference. Hmm, in ST they always carry around those computing pads. This is Jobs' way of hyping a digital handheld? iWalk? iPad? Seems clear this show is going to be less about gigahertz but rather the "digital lifestyle."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gotta agree with you on that one... Then again I want (no NEED) the iWalk to be real! But lets face it... Nobody here thinks Apple is going to out Mhz the PeeCee world (2.5Ghz would be where no PeeCee has gone before) and when I say PeeCee I mean standard desktop Dell/Gateway (intel/AMD) box.. (had to say that cause someone would find something running at that speed).
Then again I also think Apple could just as easly come out with some announcement on Monday that still fits the home page teasers and it NOT be an iWalkish device...
iWalk / Tablet or not... For the next three days I'll just hope that Apple isn't over hyping things too much. Then again I have a feeling you guys are feeling the same way.
Regarding all this talk about the Star Trek project (Mac OS on x86):
I don't think Apple will do this until they're just about to expire. A last ditch effort to remain viable. Like when Next went from selling hardware to selling only software. Apple would follow the same path.
However, I haven't read any posts speculating on porting OS X *frameworks* to other platforms. You could have Cocoa running under Windows. That would be pretty cool and would certainly entice developers to the Cocoa environment. Port your app to Cocoa and it will work on OS X *and*, with a simple re-compile, it'll work in Windows.
Next already had NextStep running under Windows. And I'm not talking about at the end when the Next OS was running on x86 hardware. I mean, NextStep (now Cocoa) running *in* Windows. Your NextStep application would look like a Windows application. It was done with runtime libraries (er, dll's).
Comments
Skycorp announced back in Oct 2000 that an agreement was signed with NASA to launch the project.. Beta test period was for month of Nov 2001... The web site hasn't been updated with any new info since June of 2001...
Either, tests failed miserably and they want to try again before mentioning anything or...
MWSF 2002
hmmm
Apple will rely on 3rd parties to deliver those services not do it themselves. Getting your hopes up for that is really asking for a let down.
There is a difference between what Apple watchers will expect or find significant, and what is significant to the public at large, and Apple itself. By hyping the expo in this manner, they are doing a great job having Apple fans send out the message like a sesmic wave -- by the time it reaches the masses, it will be more realistic in scope.
My personal opinion is that the "big thing" will simply be the new iMacs. Consider how important the iMac is to Apple, to your average computer buyer, and also consider that the last time they hyped an expo like this ("Pro. Go. Woah"), it was the intro of the original iMac.
The iMac was initially met with derrision, and much of it from Apple fans who were expecting much more. However, it went on to make serious waves in the industry, and arguable was single-handedly responsible for Apple's turn-around.
I know, I know -- "But that sucks, there has to be something more!" Perhaps there will be something more, but personally I'm expecting speed bumps around the product line, and new iMacs. And yes, they are very cool and unusual -- but you're going to have to wait 3 days to find out why.
looking for Skycorp in looksmart shows an old link with the following description... article is no longer available, however..
SkyCorp, Inc. Aerospace Engineering company developing the first G4 apple internet server to go into Earth's orbit which will be used for wireless hand held devices.
I really don't think this is what the hype is all about, but I'd love it.. Imagine Apple running it's iTools servers in the sky, allowing a new handheld (hate to say it but future iWalk?) to access mail, movies, homepage sites, news, etc... how absolutely awesome would this be..
and conspiracy theorists can say that the hype quotes on Apple's site would fit the description..
one more thing.. According to the papers signed by Skycorp with NASA, the price for the initial launch and test was to be 2 million dollars... I would assume some larger company or investors are backing them, and it seems like its a possibility that Apple is more directly involved than their website shows...
anyway, maybe it is time for some sleep.... till tomorrows' quote...
"To go where no PC has gone before"
Back in the late eighties/early nineties, there was a secret project at Apple called Star Trek. Because it was "to go where no MacOS had gone before". It was porting system 7 to intel, they were partly funded by the ever-paranoid Intel, and they got much of the old toolkit running on 486s...
Now look at the front page of Apple.com. As much as I just can't believe OSX X86, This clearly alludes to it...
<strong>Now look at the front page of Apple.com. As much as I just can't believe OSX X86, This clearly alludes to it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Purely from a technical point of view, I can tell you that while OS X on x86 would be much more doable than OS 9, there are still significant hurdles that couldn't be surmounted without involving third party developers.
We would need to know significantly in advance to ensure there aren't endian issues, and to have product ready to ship. If Apple ever does move to a new processor architecture (which I don't think is necessary, btw), there will have to be lead time between the announcement and the reality, just as there was with the PPC and with the Carbon APIs. Some things you can't just furtively work on and then release with a surprise.
Hell, Apple has had a hell of a time getting their various APIs done for their own hardware, let alone the engineering resources they'd need to dedicate to making it work on Intel, and the myriad of hardware configurations they'd encounter there.
This of course ignores the radical company paradigm shift that would have to happen too. I don't attach much credibility to seeing OS X on Intel as the big announcement, and I doubt Steve or the advertising folks even know what the "Star Trek" code name stands for, to be honest.
What I'm trying to say is: I don't believe Apple will come out so soon with OSX86. However, it is not as undoable as it seems, IMO.
<strong>Carbon isn't necessary, and NEXTSTEP (API and OS) worked fine under x86, so I guess the endian issues are already figured out (in that I think there are flags you just have to switch to go from big-endian to little-endian).
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How would Carbon not be necessary? All of the major applications for Mac OS X are carbon apps. Who would care about OS X on Intel if all they can do is play with Apple's System Profiler (oops... they can't play with that either, it is a Carbon app)?
Even Cocoa apps would likely need some tweaking to make sure they are using the proper APIs, and haven't taken any shortcuts, and of course the necessary quality assurance and regression testing.
As for endian issues, it is a bit more involved than you think. Yes, there are routines in Cocoa to deal with the various endian translations, and it isn't hard to write macros to do it either. However, it still would need to be done to existing apps. Many Mac developers are still realing from the transition from OS 9 to OS X, I can't see this being a happy prospect for them.
The most common place where you run into endian issues is when reading from/writing to the disk, or sharing information by other means. Your binary structure in memory can't just be written blindly out to disk as is typically done, it must be oriented to a particular endianess before doing so.
Major xplat apps like Photoshop do this already; that's why you can share files regardless of the platform, endian issues are already taken into account. That isn't the case for a whole lotta software.
However, you would have no Classic, and without involving third party developers early on in the porting process, no native applications to run either. If it happens, it would be suicide for Apple to not involve developers early on.
And that's just from the technical point of view...
OSX for x86 is the only way that Apple are ever going to gain significant market, though like many people just the thought of it scares me half to death. :eek:
If a launch of OSX for PC's was not in conjunction with cheaper AMD or INTEL based iMac's and very much faster PowerMacs running on Athlons or G5s, I could see Apples main source of revenue drying up within the year.
<strong>Surely it has to be OSX for x86
OSX for x86 is the only way that Apple are ever going to gain significant market, though like many people just the thought of it scares me half to death. :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
To quote Yoda, "Hear you nothing that I say?" Oh forget it, I give up!
As for the marketshare issue, gaining marketshare would be nice, but Apple doesn't _have_ to gain marketshare at all, any more than BMW needs to take marketshare from Geo.
The Apple market is a healthy, sustainable market right now. Growing it a bit would be nice, but it isn't vital by any means.
Having read these issues regarding Classic etc, I going to change my mind . . .
It's not OSX for x86
What would easier OSX for x86 or WinXP for PowerPC? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
can't you read or do i miss some point here???
"to go where no pc has gone before."
i think pc's haven't gone often anywhere else than x86.
especially with the g5 in the pipeline. it may not come now but it surely comes this year.
'Internet everywhere'; migod this *is* Star Trek.
Aries 1B
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: thinklikeacriminal ]</p>
<strong>I have to agree this latest Macworld teaser is a Star Trek reference. Hmm, in ST they always carry around those computing pads. This is Jobs' way of hyping a digital handheld? iWalk? iPad? Seems clear this show is going to be less about gigahertz but rather the "digital lifestyle."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gotta agree with you on that one... Then again I want (no NEED) the iWalk to be real!
Then again I also think Apple could just as easly come out with some announcement on Monday that still fits the home page teasers and it NOT be an iWalkish device...
iWalk / Tablet or not... For the next three days I'll just hope that Apple isn't over hyping things too much. Then again I have a feeling you guys are feeling the same way.
Dave
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
I don't think Apple will do this until they're just about to expire. A last ditch effort to remain viable. Like when Next went from selling hardware to selling only software. Apple would follow the same path.
However, I haven't read any posts speculating on porting OS X *frameworks* to other platforms. You could have Cocoa running under Windows. That would be pretty cool and would certainly entice developers to the Cocoa environment. Port your app to Cocoa and it will work on OS X *and*, with a simple re-compile, it'll work in Windows.
Next already had NextStep running under Windows. And I'm not talking about at the end when the Next OS was running on x86 hardware. I mean, NextStep (now Cocoa) running *in* Windows. Your NextStep application would look like a Windows application. It was done with runtime libraries (er, dll's).