<strong>I don't even think it (the term PC) is directed toward the x86 platform. I think it's a generalization. Nothing more.
Also whoever said "buyout of PPC/G4/G5 so amd could create the chips", or whatever. What makes you think AMD could create/fab a better PPC processor than IBM?
That statement is idiotic. AMD, x86, nor intel is the answer to your problem. You, And This Stupid Thread Are The Problem.
If you like x86 so much go get a PC, and keep this crap off these boards. Have a nice day.
I believe one of the first things I asked was that people not flame others for their opinions on this thread. This is not about anyone being an x86-hugger, it's about the future of the MacOS and a debate on the viability of different ways to expand the user base. I'm not a mod or anything, but I'd still appreciate if we could keep things civil, at least.
<strong>I don't even think it (the term PC) is directed toward the x86 platform. I think it's a generalization. Nothing more.
Also whoever said "buyout of PPC/G4/G5 so amd could create the chips", or whatever. What makes you think AMD could create/fab a better PPC processor than IBM?
AMD has a lot of resources and a plant or two that are pretty modern - Apple could as well contract AMD to manufacture the G5 as they could contract IBM. And _if_ AMD has the better facilities then AMD is the obvious choice.
So why is it a problem for us mac users, developpers and for Apple ?... they ALWAYS find a way to make better complete solution like now because they control the hard&soft !
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh huh. How would Apple be in control of the software if they had to rely completely on Wintel solutions? If you want to run Wintel software, doesn't it stand to reason that you'd use Windows? Apple can't out Microsoft Microsoft, they simply don't have the resources. Would you want to pay a premium to run Windows titles when you can simply run Windows titles on much cheaper PC hardware? No one's going to pay a premium for an Apple PC.
[quote] <strong>
For developpers it's better because they only have to enhance and aquafied their apps.
For Users, we have finally all the software (games) of the other side.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the whole point, developers will NOT enhance their WINDOWS applications and make them into Mac OS X applications. If this mythical Mac runs Windows applications at full speed and compatibility out of the box, then there is absolutely no reason for them to code for OS X. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp, I assure you. This isn't OOP. This isn't rocket science. Here's the outcome to scenario you advocate:
"Gee, I'm a dense developer. Either I can code for Windows and have my applications run both on Macs and PCs perfectly, OR I can DOUBLE MY COSTS and code SEPARATE Macintosh applications even though my Windows applications run perfectly AS IS on the Mac. Hmmm, what should I do, what should I do?"
[quote] <strong>
For Apple: They are the only company who have a full platforms solution.
[SNIP]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple would no longer have control over the whole widget; Microsoft would have complete control over Apple. Microsoft could change the code in an up coming Windows product to purposely prevent Apple from running Windows applications on OS X - they've done the same to many others many times before. But, then again, since Apple would be just another box maker, why would they want to develop OS X any further? They would cut their expenses without penalty and just switch over to Windows completely. That's the path that Wintel compatibility would take Apple. Come on, everyone should be able to comprehend simple truths. I can't believe I have to bang my head against the wall to drive this point home.
OK, I have a better idea. Now, I'm going to assume for the time being that Mac OS X will be ported to another chip architecture (I don't really believe, but let's assume for the sake of argument). Now, we all now that the business/server market is completely beyond Apple's grasp for the time being. While x86 chips have a large market share in the server business, they don't make up the high end, and they aren't the only alternative. Now, IBM, who happens to make some of the current chips that OS X runs on, also makes high end PowerPC-based server chips (ie, Power4). It would seem much easier and much more feasible for Apple to port OS X Server to run on IBM servers (since they use Linux right now). Could you imagine how fast window resizing would be on ASCII White?
now that's interesting. in the article the quote went like: "to boldly go where no Mac has gone before"....which is all to similar to the quote on their site. except why would Apple, years later, switch the word Mac for Pc....i think if you think about it, there is sense to it. imagine booting up a PC with OSX on it, and then the line "to boldly go where no PC has gone before comes up"....it works, don't you think.
Even if Apple were planning on switching over to x86, now would be the worst time in the history of Apple to make the switch. We are right in the middle of a transition to OS X, and people are all buying new software, new hardware, all to run OS X. So if Apple sprung this news about x86 OS X on everyone, it would be the end of them. Why spend even MORE money on Mac hardware/software right now?
And even if OS X would run on x86, OS 9 would not, although I'm not sure about classic. But OS X is not widely implemented yet, so most people would be left out in the cold.
It's just a bad time for this. Apple would do better to wait until the OS X transition was over.
The only way this scenario would make sense is if Apple decided to go face to face with Microsoft/Intel. If Apple has a secret skunkworks version of OS X that runs on x86, then all of the OSX-86 code would be a PPC emulator costing a performance hit. Or the OSX-86 code would allow the Windows versions of software to run natively in OSX-86.
In the latter case, if you can run Windows software on OSX-86 machines, developers would in fact, cut half their developerment right away. After all, no one likes to maintain two codebases.
In doing so, suddenly, in a short period of time, the differentiating factors between Windows and OS X is gone. And OS X faces Windows on a platform where the rules of the hardware are cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Apple does rely on hardware for profits.
Then, you might argue, they could go the MS route, and give up hardware for OS X licenses. That might get them some margin of profit, but that's a long, steep hill to climb. Ask BeOS (RIP).
Finally, the scenario where AMD fabs x86 style chips that are surrounded with ASICS (Application Specific Integrated Controllers, IIRC) to prevent any cloning might make sense, but you still run the risk of alienating the software vendors who have to re-do their software yet again to get a good run on the new hardware. Just ask them how much fun going form the "Classic" codebase to the "Carbon/Cocoa" codebase has been, and the aske them if they'd like to do it all again.
Apple, for good or for ill, has bet it's future on PPC, and there is no way out. The only solution for Apple is to take control of PPC development.
PPC development suffers from serving two masters: embedded processors and desktop processors. Clearly motorola and ibm have their own business concerns as well.
IMHO, Apple should design their own PPC chip, and contract the fab to IBM, who always has the latest and greatest fab tech on the planet (sorry Intel). That way, instead of having a chip serve two masters, Apple could custom-design the chip to be the bitchinest blazingest desktop/laptop processor ever. Except.....
Except that the era of the desktop/laptop processor is probably coming to a close, and low-power chips are probably the future. Which puts right back on square one, with chips designed for embedded usages. It would be a shame for Apple to design a big fast chip, only to have the market turn away altogether from that paradigm.
The new paradigm is that there is a heavy iron server that can really move and crunch, connected to a network of increasingly smaller and specific devices. So, the middle category of desktop/laptop may no longer exist.
Overall, when faced with these uncertainties, Apple has to decide whether it wants to spend its resources on chips that will only make the MHz insecure AI whiner happy, or one that will serve the emerging paradigm of portability.
Actually, in all the rough emulators that have existed to date, the MacOS has been pretty speedy on x86 hardware. It's much more efficient than Windows, so you don't see the huge speed hit that you get when trying to run VirtualPC on a Mac.
Anyone who thinks the man who killed the PPC clones would port OSX to x86 so it can run on any beige box built in the last couple years needs to get a clue.
The only reason to do so (performance) will not be an issue by this summer.
And if they switch over to Intel, that means they are abandoning every third party developer. Getting Carbon on Intel would require much more than a recompilation; moreover, many Carbon apps run so poorly on Mac OS X right now, and getting those programs on Intel would be a total nightmare. (Keep in mind that these Carbon apps run so poorly because they continue to utilize many of the old Classic programming models, including the classic, cooperative events model. These applications are native in name only, and Apple would have to do a tremendous amount of work with outmoded Classic APIs in order to get these applications over with a simple recompile.)]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, Carbon on X is a completely difference source code base than Carbon on 9. On 9, a lot of carbon calls through to the ROM calls...
The question that I have is that if, on X, Carbon doesn't call back to any ROM stuff, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, it would be very easy to recompile that for a different processor.. (although you might run into code that depends upon byte ordering type problems, so maybe moderately easy then).
It's an interesting idea - having a Mac with a intel chip in it.... it might be on the order of the move from 68K to PPC way back..
(1) Using an AMD chip does not necessarily imply that you could run Windows on the machine. The rest of the motherboard is important too. With different support chips Apple could maintain a unique platform. It would be easier for Wintel to port Windows to the machine however: Apple would be unlikely to want such a scenario!
(2) I don't know about secret ports of OSX but big chunks of the OS already run on top of NT and Sun...the chunks are called WebObjects.
(3) That leads to a somewhat more likely scenario for "Boldly goes...". Apple could reannounce Yellowbox.
Personally I think all of this speculation is off base. The indirect references to Star Trek etc are a teaze. They aren't going to post anything that might spoil Steve's fun on Monday. Most likely they are about a new gadget or my favourite....a tablet the size of an iBook with airport built in. It would make a terrific machine for artists and a nifty surf'n'mail machine as well. We also know that they have all the technological pieces they need.
<strong>(1) Using an AMD chip does not necessarily imply that you could run Windows on the machine. The rest of the motherboard is important too. With different support chips Apple could maintain a unique platform. It would be easier for Wintel to port Windows to the machine however: Apple would be unlikely to want such a scenario!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, given the required hardware functionality (a necessity for any Apple computer), Connectix could soon produce a full speed emulation layer, and so could the folks working on Windows ABI compatible interfaces for Linux. Hell, I'll do it myself, given time.
[quote]Nope, given the required hardware functionality (a necessity for any Apple computer), Connectix could soon produce a full speed emulation layer, and so could the folks working on Windows ABI compatible interfaces for Linux. Hell, I'll do it myself, given time.
Michael
<hr></blockquote>
Thus my line:
It would be easier for Wintel to port Windows to the machine however: Apple would be unlikely to want such a scenario!
* I should have noted that by "Wintel" I meant any windows-centric company wanted Windows on AMD-Mac. That would include various efforts like VPC.
This would definately be very bad news to me. Considering how bad PC hardware is. Luckily, I am really not worried about this... But, that is a pretty good connection you made there.
Comments
<strong>I don't even think it (the term PC) is directed toward the x86 platform. I think it's a generalization. Nothing more.
Also whoever said "buyout of PPC/G4/G5 so amd could create the chips", or whatever. What makes you think AMD could create/fab a better PPC processor than IBM?
That statement is idiotic. AMD, x86, nor intel is the answer to your problem. You, And This Stupid Thread Are The Problem.
If you like x86 so much go get a PC, and keep this crap off these boards. Have a nice day.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe one of the first things I asked was that people not flame others for their opinions on this thread. This is not about anyone being an x86-hugger, it's about the future of the MacOS and a debate on the viability of different ways to expand the user base. I'm not a mod or anything, but I'd still appreciate if we could keep things civil, at least.
-S
<strong>I don't even think it (the term PC) is directed toward the x86 platform. I think it's a generalization. Nothing more.
Also whoever said "buyout of PPC/G4/G5 so amd could create the chips", or whatever. What makes you think AMD could create/fab a better PPC processor than IBM?
That statement is idiotic.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD has a lot of resources and a plant or two that are pretty modern - Apple could as well contract AMD to manufacture the G5 as they could contract IBM. And _if_ AMD has the better facilities then AMD is the obvious choice.
<strong>[SNIP]
So why is it a problem for us mac users, developpers and for Apple ?... they ALWAYS find a way to make better complete solution like now because they control the hard&soft !
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh huh. How would Apple be in control of the software if they had to rely completely on Wintel solutions? If you want to run Wintel software, doesn't it stand to reason that you'd use Windows? Apple can't out Microsoft Microsoft, they simply don't have the resources. Would you want to pay a premium to run Windows titles when you can simply run Windows titles on much cheaper PC hardware? No one's going to pay a premium for an Apple PC.
[quote] <strong>
For developpers it's better because they only have to enhance and aquafied their apps.
For Users, we have finally all the software (games) of the other side.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the whole point, developers will NOT enhance their WINDOWS applications and make them into Mac OS X applications. If this mythical Mac runs Windows applications at full speed and compatibility out of the box, then there is absolutely no reason for them to code for OS X. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp, I assure you. This isn't OOP. This isn't rocket science. Here's the outcome to scenario you advocate:
"Gee, I'm a dense developer. Either I can code for Windows and have my applications run both on Macs and PCs perfectly, OR I can DOUBLE MY COSTS and code SEPARATE Macintosh applications even though my Windows applications run perfectly AS IS on the Mac. Hmmm, what should I do, what should I do?"
[quote] <strong>
For Apple: They are the only company who have a full platforms solution.
[SNIP]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple would no longer have control over the whole widget; Microsoft would have complete control over Apple. Microsoft could change the code in an up coming Windows product to purposely prevent Apple from running Windows applications on OS X - they've done the same to many others many times before. But, then again, since Apple would be just another box maker, why would they want to develop OS X any further? They would cut their expenses without penalty and just switch over to Windows completely. That's the path that Wintel compatibility would take Apple. Come on, everyone should be able to comprehend simple truths. I can't believe I have to bang my head against the wall to drive this point home.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
And even if OS X would run on x86, OS 9 would not, although I'm not sure about classic. But OS X is not widely implemented yet, so most people would be left out in the cold.
It's just a bad time for this. Apple would do better to wait until the OS X transition was over.
In the latter case, if you can run Windows software on OSX-86 machines, developers would in fact, cut half their developerment right away. After all, no one likes to maintain two codebases.
In doing so, suddenly, in a short period of time, the differentiating factors between Windows and OS X is gone. And OS X faces Windows on a platform where the rules of the hardware are cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Apple does rely on hardware for profits.
Then, you might argue, they could go the MS route, and give up hardware for OS X licenses. That might get them some margin of profit, but that's a long, steep hill to climb. Ask BeOS (RIP).
Finally, the scenario where AMD fabs x86 style chips that are surrounded with ASICS (Application Specific Integrated Controllers, IIRC) to prevent any cloning might make sense, but you still run the risk of alienating the software vendors who have to re-do their software yet again to get a good run on the new hardware. Just ask them how much fun going form the "Classic" codebase to the "Carbon/Cocoa" codebase has been, and the aske them if they'd like to do it all again.
Apple, for good or for ill, has bet it's future on PPC, and there is no way out. The only solution for Apple is to take control of PPC development.
PPC development suffers from serving two masters: embedded processors and desktop processors. Clearly motorola and ibm have their own business concerns as well.
IMHO, Apple should design their own PPC chip, and contract the fab to IBM, who always has the latest and greatest fab tech on the planet (sorry Intel). That way, instead of having a chip serve two masters, Apple could custom-design the chip to be the bitchinest blazingest desktop/laptop processor ever. Except.....
Except that the era of the desktop/laptop processor is probably coming to a close, and low-power chips are probably the future. Which puts right back on square one, with chips designed for embedded usages. It would be a shame for Apple to design a big fast chip, only to have the market turn away altogether from that paradigm.
The new paradigm is that there is a heavy iron server that can really move and crunch, connected to a network of increasingly smaller and specific devices. So, the middle category of desktop/laptop may no longer exist.
Overall, when faced with these uncertainties, Apple has to decide whether it wants to spend its resources on chips that will only make the MHz insecure AI whiner happy, or one that will serve the emerging paradigm of portability.
I'll give you three guesses where I stand.
SdC
<strong>If you rethink that thesis, you'll see that it's crap.
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
A smart little sentence, but can you back that up with your own critique of why it's crap?
-S
The only reason to do so (performance) will not be an issue by this summer.
<strong>
And if they switch over to Intel, that means they are abandoning every third party developer. Getting Carbon on Intel would require much more than a recompilation; moreover, many Carbon apps run so poorly on Mac OS X right now, and getting those programs on Intel would be a total nightmare. (Keep in mind that these Carbon apps run so poorly because they continue to utilize many of the old Classic programming models, including the classic, cooperative events model. These applications are native in name only, and Apple would have to do a tremendous amount of work with outmoded Classic APIs in order to get these applications over with a simple recompile.)]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, Carbon on X is a completely difference source code base than Carbon on 9. On 9, a lot of carbon calls through to the ROM calls...
The question that I have is that if, on X, Carbon doesn't call back to any ROM stuff, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, it would be very easy to recompile that for a different processor.. (although you might run into code that depends upon byte ordering type problems, so maybe moderately easy then).
It's an interesting idea - having a Mac with a intel chip in it.... it might be on the order of the move from 68K to PPC way back..
(2) I don't know about secret ports of OSX but big chunks of the OS already run on top of NT and Sun...the chunks are called WebObjects.
(3) That leads to a somewhat more likely scenario for "Boldly goes...". Apple could reannounce Yellowbox.
Personally I think all of this speculation is off base. The indirect references to Star Trek etc are a teaze. They aren't going to post anything that might spoil Steve's fun on Monday. Most likely they are about a new gadget or my favourite....a tablet the size of an iBook with airport built in. It would make a terrific machine for artists and a nifty surf'n'mail machine as well. We also know that they have all the technological pieces they need.
<strong>(1) Using an AMD chip does not necessarily imply that you could run Windows on the machine. The rest of the motherboard is important too. With different support chips Apple could maintain a unique platform. It would be easier for Wintel to port Windows to the machine however: Apple would be unlikely to want such a scenario!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, given the required hardware functionality (a necessity for any Apple computer), Connectix could soon produce a full speed emulation layer, and so could the folks working on Windows ABI compatible interfaces for Linux. Hell, I'll do it myself, given time.
Michael
Michael
<hr></blockquote>
Thus my line:
It would be easier for Wintel to port Windows to the machine however: Apple would be unlikely to want such a scenario!
* I should have noted that by "Wintel" I meant any windows-centric company wanted Windows on AMD-Mac. That would include various efforts like VPC.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: MemeTransport ]</p>
How about a Classic environment that, instead of OS9, runs Windows?
Hey, everyone else can speculate wildly, why can't I?
<strong>Just a quick thought:
How about a Classic environment that, instead of OS9, runs Windows?
Hey, everyone else can speculate wildly, why can't I?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This would kill os X development. Read the whole thread, this has been addressed and shown why it will not work.
-Paul
"To boldly go wher no PC has gone before" denotes to run on 64-bit architecture before anyone else.
As I said, just my opinion.
--Alexis
Well, I guess it depends on how you define PC.
Itanium is 64bit as well as Alpha, HPs chip, and others. Not as consumer level as Apple for sure though...