Um, Intel compatibility?
Ok, layman here, but think this through.
The point of OS X (and unix, in general) is to separate userware from the hardware, toprovide stability, easy upgrading, memory protection etc.
Suppose that the OS realy did this and turned any software on top of it into platform agnostic software (ignore Altivec for a moment)?
The suppose the OS itself could run on Pentium 4's and PPCs, taking advantage of either SIMD layer.
Further suppose that Appl introduced a line of products that were not computers, but digital lifestyle devices and sought, over time, to replace their current hardware revenue with this new hardware revenue.
Then expand their software revenue by competing against the linuxen of the world, and the consumer Windows. Apple has nothing to lose here, sales wise - the only loss might be the investment in the port of X.
Remember what Steve said before Apple bought NeXT? I paraphrase: "If I were Apple, I'd ride the Macintosh for all its worth until the Next Big Thing comes, then jump on that."
Apple does not have to continue to make only per se computers in the long run to grow and prosper. Perhaps the only way they can appreciably grow is to expand their product line and use that expansion to make further inroads to the consumer market.
Yeah, I know, impossible.
The point of OS X (and unix, in general) is to separate userware from the hardware, toprovide stability, easy upgrading, memory protection etc.
Suppose that the OS realy did this and turned any software on top of it into platform agnostic software (ignore Altivec for a moment)?
The suppose the OS itself could run on Pentium 4's and PPCs, taking advantage of either SIMD layer.
Further suppose that Appl introduced a line of products that were not computers, but digital lifestyle devices and sought, over time, to replace their current hardware revenue with this new hardware revenue.
Then expand their software revenue by competing against the linuxen of the world, and the consumer Windows. Apple has nothing to lose here, sales wise - the only loss might be the investment in the port of X.
Remember what Steve said before Apple bought NeXT? I paraphrase: "If I were Apple, I'd ride the Macintosh for all its worth until the Next Big Thing comes, then jump on that."
Apple does not have to continue to make only per se computers in the long run to grow and prosper. Perhaps the only way they can appreciably grow is to expand their product line and use that expansion to make further inroads to the consumer market.
Yeah, I know, impossible.
Comments
DisablePIIISupport..DisableATHLONSupport....Disabl ePIVSupport...
I think that this is pretty clear......
<strong> Suppose that the OS realy did this and turned any software on top of
it into platform agnostic software (ignore Altivec for a moment)?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And precisely how do you plan to do this? Convincing everyone to code in
Java might work though
But if this does happen, I really hope Apple still continues to make macs. X on a PC still makes me shudder, though.
The mac Hardware is overpriced compared to the Pc side
If the OS handles the information transfer from app to hardware, the OS would handle the SIMD translation to and from the app. Just a guess.
Apple still has legendary ease of use and interoperability on the Wintel world. Making OS X work for Athlon and P4 would not necessarily hurt hardware sales - especially if Apple made the only PC units that worked with it... and made them cheaper... hmmm?
<strong>well I don't think so... the Apple Hardware especially on the desktop side connot compete with the wintel world....
The mac Hardware is overpriced compared to the Pc side</strong><hr></blockquote>
And just how would you support your statements with facts? IMO the Megahertz myth works both ways. I built two PC's using good quality HW and I can tell you from experience that PC's are faster in some areas and slower in others. I can also easily prove that a $2000 Mac purchase will retain much more of it's value than a $2000 PC purchase. Mac users have to stop whining about prices. PC's users don't have the luxury of selling their "former" top of the line PC's for %60 value 18 months later.
Did you read the entire thread before posting your reply???
The only reason Apple doesn't already make a "PC" is because they use chips from Motorolla and IBM that others don't, and they don't support the "PC" chips.
Other than that there is no difference aside from software.
Andrew
This thread [and all previous like it] = bad pipe dream
Apple does not have remain a computer hardware-only company. Their markup on hardware is roughly 25%, high for the industry but not very high compared to the markup on software and certain consumer goods - especially if one is the premier maker of those goods.
To note the X86 code in iDVD or DVDSP: Perhaps they are making X86 compatible versions to expand their software sales (Think AppleWorks, FileMaker).
<strong>As to the SIMD layer:
If the OS handles the information transfer from app to hardware, the OS
would handle the SIMD translation to and from the app. Just a guess.
Apple still has legendary ease of use and interoperability on the Wintel
world. Making OS X work for Athlon and P4 would not necessarily hurt
hardware sales - especially if Apple made the only PC units that worked
with it... and made them cheaper... hmmm ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Precisely _how_ do you expect instruction translation in software
(emulation, because that's precisely what it is) to be done at any
reasonable speed?
2) Macs are not expensive per se. Making a Mac isn't much more expensive
than making an x86 box (as cursory comparison of the two would have
indicated). Okay, the mobos might cost a fraction more, Moto probably
scalps Apple for processors, the cases aren't the cheapest (thank God),
and Apple probably doesn't have the ruthlessly hyperefficient channel
management of Dell. However all this would not add such a significant
margin to the Mac. It doesn't explain why Macs are so expensive. The
reason why Macs are expensive is simple: to subsidise Apple's R&D.
OS X on x86 (or any non-PPC platform) is doomed to fail. Piss in your
pockets as much as you like with vague ideas of `increased marketshare'
this and `reach' and other emptyisms, but the applications barrier to
entry is not going anywhere. Nowhere.
3) What `legendary ease of use' does Apple have in `the Wintel world', pray tell?
APPLE = Hardware
Id say
MICROSOFT = Software
Microsoft is the richest company on the planet
Porting X for Intel would not damage Apple, as long as they backed it up with hardware and software.
Apple could become the next M$
And I'd say the reason that is not available yet is because they're waiting for the end of the DOJ case. It kinda invalidates the monopoly claim if someone like Apple released a better OS for intel than M$
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>
<strong>This is too all the people who say
APPLE = Hardware
[...]
MICROSOFT = Software]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually taking this example beyond this,
Microsoft did equal Software, now the have the Xbox & have entered into a deal with a Japanese company (samsung? S**** something anyway) to produce PC's next year. So if Microsoft a "Software" company can shift into a Hardware company too, then obviously Apple as a "Hardware" company could certainly shift into Software too ...
This could also have to do with Hypertransport ... perhaps we'll all have N-force Mobo's in our "Macs". I wouldn't mind an AMD chip in my Mac as long as it gave me a big speed boost (or the same speed at a lower price). It may even help with hardware compatabilty (of course software would still need to be writen for X, but may not need as much if it had a PC Mobo & processor ...).
There's really 3 things that make me love Apple
1. OS
2. Case design
3. Intigrated features like Airport
Anywho, hopefully the G5 (with impressive speeds) will be released so any type of jump to the intel platform wouldn't even be needed.
But FileMaker is pretty spiffy on the PC, ease-of-use wise.
As to the harsh naysayers, remember to count yourselves amongst those who once castigated those who believed the world was round, that men could fly, and that the sound barrier could be broken.
Those who challenge narrow-minded assumptions make the progress in this world, in spite of you.
So Have a Happy New Year! :-) and let us dream.
Look at it this way:
The OS speaks natively to the SIMD (Altivec or MMX or XYZ+) ie no translation. The Frameworks for SIMD use the same names for the identical functions of each SIMD layer presenting the same application hooks in the OS across all platforms.
The app calls on the frameworks natively, never needing to know what specifc SIMD is in use .
Native OS support
Transparent Frameworks that send to the SIMD currently available.
Application hooks that call on those frameworks.
No emulation. Just an adaptable operating system.
Happy New Year!
<strong>Apple still makes a bunch of it's money in hardware. If OSX worked on PCs, they'd lose that.
The only reason Apple doesn't already make a "PC" is because they use chips from Motorolla and IBM that others don't, and they don't support the "PC" chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, what's the point?
BTW, what does PC stands for? It is Personal Computer, isn't it? Or proprietiary code?
And what is apple known for? It is Personal Computers with some ease of use, isn't it?
Actually, i did't get the point ...
<strong>BTW, what does PC stands for? It is Personal Computer, isn't it? Or proprietiary code?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The two most common (AFAIK) meanings of "PC" are "Personal Computer" and "Politically Correct".
<strong>As to the SIMD "translation:" that too was a bad word to use.
Look at it this way:
The OS speaks natively to the SIMD (Altivec or MMX or XYZ+) ie no translation. The Frameworks for SIMD use the same names for the identical functions of each SIMD layer presenting the same application hooks in the OS across all platforms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This wouldn't work all too well, 'cos the different SIMD implementations are way too dissimilar. 3Dnow! uses 64 bit wide vectors, whereas SSE, SSE2 and AltiVec use 128 bit, nobody else has anything like AltiVec's vector permute unit, etc. pp. In the end, you could only use the lowest common denominator of all SIMD architectures, and that would be wasting a LOT of potential.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
first of all, i've been involved in the dev of OS X as both and ADC member, and Darwin developer for quite some time. Darwin on Intel has been around for quite some time, and is making great progress. In fact, it's not impossible to get OS X to run on Intel based PC's now.
<a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.3/x86_install_notes.txt"; target="_blank">http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.3/x86_install_notes.txt</a>;
Here's a real quick picture...
'OS X'
------
Aqua (X Windowing scheme)
------
Darwin (BSD)
------
Mach (Kernel)
Like any other BSD derivative, you rewrite the kernel to work on the platform (Intel x86), you recompile and rewrite until the core of system functions work, you recompile apps, etc.
So, to say "what if?" is great, but it's more like "Will apple sell it, or will it simply be a 2 hour download for anyone who wants it?"
More importantly though, even if Apple does port OS X to run on x86, doesn't mean it would run on any machine. If its done to run on very specific hardware (ie, apple-proprietary chipsets/MB) then apple could sell both PPC-based hardware, and PIII/P4 based hardware with OS X. Just cuz it runs on x86, doesn't mean the average wintel-joe could borrow the OS X.x86 disc from his friend and go to town...
And as long as Apple controls the rights to the specific MB design/chipsets, then they are in complete control.
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: concentricity ]</p>
Of course! If Apple was the only one to make the X86-compatible chipsets or Mobos, then Apple could benefit from the economies of scale offered by that architecture and still control the hardware.
Sure, Joe Linux migh be able to make a board work with X, but NOT without violating Apple's copyrights, trademarks, etc.
Hm. I still don't think that X86 compatibility is the end desire, just might be a road to the destination SJ is aiming for.