<strong>Cocoa apps would be the easiest to get running since Cocoa is a direct descendent from the once-x86 NeXTSTEP system. Carbon is questionable and Classic is just out of the question. Making "fat" binaries is already quite possible thanks to Mac OS X's .app package structure. Rather than use the Contents/MacOS directory, a separate binary would conceivably go in Contents/x86 or similar. All the nibs and other resources would be shared. In fact, the early DP releases of Mac OS X's developer tools had options for x86 builds and fat binaries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, well, that cleared some things up. Wait, but would all the code still have to be re-written or modified? There would be no direct bring overs, would there?
In theory (let me emphasize that: IN THEORY) most programs would simply have to be recompiled as-is to build a binary for a different architecture. Of course, if there are any low-level optimizations (as I mentioned above), they would have to be scrapped and rewritten for the new architecture.
If in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion or acquired a new one, check your pulse, you may be dead.
-- Gelett Burgess
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong><insert very important point about Apple being a hardware company>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is a hardware company on the books. I find it amusing that people use this as an argument when considering Apple's options as a business.
If Apple didn't position itself as a hardware manufacturer on the books, then it's stock price would never go anywhere if it could, as it would be evaluated in the same league as Microsoft rather than Dell or HP. Apple is an anomaly in the "hardware only" market as it is selling its own operating system that runs the same software available to Windows. It also produces Filemaker, FCP, iTunes, iCal, iChat, Appleworks, and recently acquired Logic from eMagic. Don't forget WebObjects and all of the proprietary libraries that go with Cocoa. Doesn't sound like Apple is just a "hardwware" company to me.
If you're trying to say that Apple's profit design is based on controlling the hardware/software relationship (i.e. proprietary systems) then of course, you are correct. But that doesn't mean they're just a hardware company. That categorization is just for the books.
[quote]<strong>
<insert point about piracy, refer to first point about profit>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Piracy is an issue that any company in distrubution must face. It doesn't stop people from making a living from licensing products. Some companies actually "leak" pirated copies of product just to create market appeal or keep a product cycle "in flow". For example, Adobe "leaked" Photoshop 6, knowing users would get on board and upgrade to version 7 faster if they already had version 6 released. If they had waited for people to just "upgrade honestly" to version 6 from 5.5, they would have lost opportunity to release version 7 on schedule. Lost opportunity means lost revenue. Risks have to be weighed.
A company must adopt to the standard way of doing business before it can "change the rules." Apple is paying dearly for not licensing it's OS--mostly because it never had an OS worth licensing. OS X brings us to the forefront of competition. I'm not the only one to believe that Steve & Co. is not handling the situation properly.
[quote]<strong>
<insert point about incompatibilies with 3rd party PC hardware></strong><hr></blockquote>
I see this attitude a lot. It must come from the fact that as Apple users, we are often waiting for drivers from third party manufacturers on the Mac side. This is only because Macs make up a very "insignificant" portion of sales revenue for any company, except for Apple itself. This would be one reason Apple would want to increase market share--so that third party vendors would have the budget to tend to our needs faster. I don't see incompatibility to be a problem, because for the most part, it already is.
[quote]<strong>
<insert point about still not running Windows binaries>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay... who the fsck cares? You've got OS X on your machine. If you want to run Windows binaries, get Windows.
[quote]<strong>
<insert very important point about developers having to completely abandon and rewrite any PPC-optimized or AltiVec code>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I've said this before, I'll say it again. There's a wonderful thing that motivates people in life, it's called a paycheck. There's also a traditional hierarchy of business that goes like this: relationships -> solutions -> resources -> services/products -> profits.. If Apple's management does its job well then it should have solid relationships built that would allow them to convince developers to do whatever they wanted them to do, like Microsoft. If Apple cannot convince developers(relationships) that recompiling applications would be beneficial to the developer (profits), then Apple, as a business, isn't doing it's job properly.
[quote]<strong>
<insert very important point about clones canibalizing Apple sales>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When Steve Jobs "pulled the plug" on the clones a long time ago, it was said that it was due to the clones cannibalizing Apple's sales rather than increasing market share. The truth is, there was never enough time given for clone manufacturers to increase market share. Also, Steve Jobs is a one-trick pony--all he knows is how to sell proprietary systems. (This is probably due to his self-admittance of a facsination with Sony--once thinking that Apple would be the next Sony). Apple is in a different position with OS X. If Apple licensed it's OS, for example, and got a 50/50 split of all computer users worldwide, then they could be the top manufacturer of hardware within their piece of the pie. There will always be a niche market for well-designed computers. I'm not saying this is the best or only option, but dismissing the idea just because one cannot grasp the important fundamentals of such a venture is naive. Anything in business is possible. That's why Gawd invented lawyers.
[quote]<strong>
Really, do we have to rehash this story every other month?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If people are going to be obtuse about the possibilities of an alternate future for Apple, obviously it does.
No, see it would be computer specific, OS X would only run on that PC until apple slowly increased the software and drivers for it to go to 2 models, and then slowly up until it had a strong enough software base to carry it. Meanwhile keeping up the main (PPC) part of Apple Computer. You can't pirate software that has only drivers for one computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
what exactly is the damn point of this if people would still need to buy a stupid new computer?
OHES THE AMAZING POWERS OF 2.whatever GHZ procs, come on they're not that fast in reality, my friend with a brand new dual dell thing or something thinks my tibook is lovely and speedy and is buying one for himself in march.
Cheaper?
macs are already pretty cheap for what they are if you ask me and if your an american hahaha well how the hell can you complain its a heck of alot cheaper over there than in england, but then again you lot manage to complain about how horribly expensive cds are when we pay pretyty much double what you do here in many cases and it still seems reasonable to me.
To me this whole osx x86 mess doesnt seem to be able to hlep apple at all if your just going to have some single pc brand running it, what the heck is the point in that toher than it can boot up windows too, yeah like people are gonig to pay for 2os's when osx can do everything windows can and better most of the time, unless you like playing twatty pc games but if you do that then you clearly have no taste seen as they're dire when put against games from about 8 years ago
Apple would base their computers on intel or AMD CPU, then you would be able to run winblows without any mods and 'new' OS X. How many people would buy something like that? I think a lot if the price would make sence.
Theres still no benifits(besides running windows and god knoww hy you would want that) because the G4 isnt exactly out of date at all yet. Maybe in the future but still x86 would be a step backward, theres much better things you could look into.
Anyway you'd all only moan about having to boot into windows to run games or whatever garbage you run in it, PLUS! why make macosx software when macs can run windows?
what exactly is the damn point of this if people would still need to buy a stupid new computer?
OHES THE AMAZING POWERS OF 2.whatever GHZ procs, come on they're not that fast in reality, my friend with a brand new dual dell thing or something thinks my tibook is lovely and speedy and is buying one for himself in march.
Cheaper?
macs are already pretty cheap for what they are if you ask me and if your an american hahaha well how the hell can you complain its a heck of alot cheaper over there than in england, but then again you lot manage to complain about how horribly expensive cds are when we pay pretyty much double what you do here in many cases and it still seems reasonable to me.
To me this whole osx x86 mess doesnt seem to be able to hlep apple at all if your just going to have some single pc brand running it, what the heck is the point in that toher than it can boot up windows too, yeah like people are gonig to pay for 2os's when osx can do everything windows can and better most of the time, unless you like playing twatty pc games but if you do that then you clearly have no taste seen as they're dire when put against games from about 8 years ago</strong><hr></blockquote>
the point of this is that OS X needs exposure to PC communities. People think WinXP is the best and most advanced OS out there, and they probably dont even know what OS X is. I am not saying that Apple Computers are expensive but I think they could use PC hardware to make a cheaper computer and afford insignificant profits to get OS X exposure. Many people have said so themselves, PC users like OS X once they see it, perhaps they aren't sure enough jumping into a Mac, and would rather stick with hardware taht can run OS X, but windows or linux also. Once PC users see how beautiful, stable, and useful a mac really is, i think they then could switch but most people will not just make the jump, they have to be eased in or have somone to guide them into it...i want a big PC manufacturer to help apple get OS X the media attention it needs, its the best thing ever from apple and they dont even have a commercial showing it off!
No one would bother buying Mac OS X independently, and no one would bother to buy a PC with Mac OS X pre-installed any more than they would bother to but a Mac with Mac OS X pre-installed. Price has little to do with this. People buy what's convenient. None of this makes Mac OS more convenient. This isn't rocket science.
somone walks into a store, WinXP, WinXP, WinXP...computer that looks the same as the others but has a beautiful GUI. They ask or read about it and they find it can run WinXP AND OS X. Not only is there exporsure to OS X but the people that buy that computer will possibly learn OS X and tell their friends. Gaining market share is like a virus, it has to spread from somewhere
nah im sorry but it wouldnt work in the slightest all it would achieve is making less developers make osx apps. What apple should do if they want more osx users is to actually show the damn thing in action in adverts. I mean the switch adverts don't even have a screenshot on them, its terrible. How about another series of adverts showinghow to do default things in xp then how much easier and or better it is to do on a mac, pretty sure iphoto and imovie would get them some sales that way I mean my dads drooling over my mac for video editing.
All this osx x86 wouldnt get apple anywhere its just shallow minded peoples stupid fantasy of super cheap unrealistically fast macs that can run windows too.
If you want people to go into a store and see osx and go "ohhhhh tasty" then i think apple should talk to retailers and maybe slide some cash thier way to get macs shoved in the middle of the pc section. I know my local pc world was horrific for macs till recently didnt even have the ti800 when it had been out over a month and were charging the same price for the old model as the 800 was. They have improved recently which is perhaps a sign that macs are selling better now. Howerver went into a few other places and strangly enough selfridges of all plaes was packed full of macs.
i disagree, at MOST i think apple hardware would lose R&D devolopment, but apple would not die, they would in a year or two have software sales back up making up for hardware sales (IF apple could support hardware)
They wouldn't sell enough software to make up for lost hardware. I have no idea what the margins are for software, but considering the miniscule sales of people willing to go out of their way to either buy or install OS X on non-Macs, it doesn't matter.
However, if there's any market they can pursue with an OS -only strategy, it might be enterprise/servers. But even then, Apple's early hardware offerings are (surprisingly?) competitive with price and performance (yeah, they're still missing some redundancy measures at the moment but that's likely to change sooner than later) and can be integrated into heterogeneous networks where the hardest part is with the software/OS integration, not the hardware. So there's little for others to gain by this, and a lot apple can gain from their current Xserve enterprise hardware plans.
Comments
<strong>Cocoa apps would be the easiest to get running since Cocoa is a direct descendent from the once-x86 NeXTSTEP system. Carbon is questionable and Classic is just out of the question. Making "fat" binaries is already quite possible thanks to Mac OS X's .app package structure. Rather than use the Contents/MacOS directory, a separate binary would conceivably go in Contents/x86 or similar. All the nibs and other resources would be shared. In fact, the early DP releases of Mac OS X's developer tools had options for x86 builds and fat binaries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, well, that cleared some things up. Wait, but would all the code still have to be re-written or modified? There would be no direct bring overs, would there?
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
-- Gelett Burgess
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong><insert very important point about Apple being a hardware company>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is a hardware company on the books. I find it amusing that people use this as an argument when considering Apple's options as a business.
If Apple didn't position itself as a hardware manufacturer on the books, then it's stock price would never go anywhere if it could, as it would be evaluated in the same league as Microsoft rather than Dell or HP. Apple is an anomaly in the "hardware only" market as it is selling its own operating system that runs the same software available to Windows. It also produces Filemaker, FCP, iTunes, iCal, iChat, Appleworks, and recently acquired Logic from eMagic. Don't forget WebObjects and all of the proprietary libraries that go with Cocoa. Doesn't sound like Apple is just a "hardwware" company to me.
If you're trying to say that Apple's profit design is based on controlling the hardware/software relationship (i.e. proprietary systems) then of course, you are correct. But that doesn't mean they're just a hardware company. That categorization is just for the books.
[quote]<strong>
<insert point about piracy, refer to first point about profit>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Piracy is an issue that any company in distrubution must face. It doesn't stop people from making a living from licensing products. Some companies actually "leak" pirated copies of product just to create market appeal or keep a product cycle "in flow". For example, Adobe "leaked" Photoshop 6, knowing users would get on board and upgrade to version 7 faster if they already had version 6 released. If they had waited for people to just "upgrade honestly" to version 6 from 5.5, they would have lost opportunity to release version 7 on schedule. Lost opportunity means lost revenue. Risks have to be weighed.
A company must adopt to the standard way of doing business before it can "change the rules." Apple is paying dearly for not licensing it's OS--mostly because it never had an OS worth licensing. OS X brings us to the forefront of competition. I'm not the only one to believe that Steve & Co. is not handling the situation properly.
[quote]<strong>
<insert point about incompatibilies with 3rd party PC hardware></strong><hr></blockquote>
I see this attitude a lot. It must come from the fact that as Apple users, we are often waiting for drivers from third party manufacturers on the Mac side. This is only because Macs make up a very "insignificant" portion of sales revenue for any company, except for Apple itself. This would be one reason Apple would want to increase market share--so that third party vendors would have the budget to tend to our needs faster. I don't see incompatibility to be a problem, because for the most part, it already is.
[quote]<strong>
<insert point about still not running Windows binaries>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay... who the fsck cares? You've got OS X on your machine. If you want to run Windows binaries, get Windows.
[quote]<strong>
<insert very important point about developers having to completely abandon and rewrite any PPC-optimized or AltiVec code>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I've said this before, I'll say it again. There's a wonderful thing that motivates people in life, it's called a paycheck. There's also a traditional hierarchy of business that goes like this: relationships -> solutions -> resources -> services/products -> profits.. If Apple's management does its job well then it should have solid relationships built that would allow them to convince developers to do whatever they wanted them to do, like Microsoft. If Apple cannot convince developers(relationships) that recompiling applications would be beneficial to the developer (profits), then Apple, as a business, isn't doing it's job properly.
[quote]<strong>
<insert very important point about clones canibalizing Apple sales>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When Steve Jobs "pulled the plug" on the clones a long time ago, it was said that it was due to the clones cannibalizing Apple's sales rather than increasing market share. The truth is, there was never enough time given for clone manufacturers to increase market share. Also, Steve Jobs is a one-trick pony--all he knows is how to sell proprietary systems. (This is probably due to his self-admittance of a facsination with Sony--once thinking that Apple would be the next Sony). Apple is in a different position with OS X. If Apple licensed it's OS, for example, and got a 50/50 split of all computer users worldwide, then they could be the top manufacturer of hardware within their piece of the pie. There will always be a niche market for well-designed computers. I'm not saying this is the best or only option, but dismissing the idea just because one cannot grasp the important fundamentals of such a venture is naive. Anything in business is possible. That's why Gawd invented lawyers.
[quote]<strong>
Really, do we have to rehash this story every other month?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If people are going to be obtuse about the possibilities of an alternate future for Apple, obviously it does.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
No, see it would be computer specific, OS X would only run on that PC until apple slowly increased the software and drivers for it to go to 2 models, and then slowly up until it had a strong enough software base to carry it. Meanwhile keeping up the main (PPC) part of Apple Computer. You can't pirate software that has only drivers for one computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
what exactly is the damn point of this if people would still need to buy a stupid new computer?
OHES THE AMAZING POWERS OF 2.whatever GHZ procs, come on they're not that fast in reality, my friend with a brand new dual dell thing or something thinks my tibook is lovely and speedy and is buying one for himself in march.
Cheaper?
macs are already pretty cheap for what they are if you ask me and if your an american hahaha well how the hell can you complain its a heck of alot cheaper over there than in england, but then again you lot manage to complain about how horribly expensive cds are when we pay pretyty much double what you do here in many cases and it still seems reasonable to me.
To me this whole osx x86 mess doesnt seem to be able to hlep apple at all if your just going to have some single pc brand running it, what the heck is the point in that toher than it can boot up windows too, yeah like people are gonig to pay for 2os's when osx can do everything windows can and better most of the time, unless you like playing twatty pc games but if you do that then you clearly have no taste seen as they're dire when put against games from about 8 years ago
Apple would base their computers on intel or AMD CPU, then you would be able to run winblows without any mods and 'new' OS X. How many people would buy something like that? I think a lot if the price would make sence.
But it's not gonna happen.
l8tr
Anyway you'd all only moan about having to boot into windows to run games or whatever garbage you run in it, PLUS! why make macosx software when macs can run windows?
<strong>
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
what exactly is the damn point of this if people would still need to buy a stupid new computer?
OHES THE AMAZING POWERS OF 2.whatever GHZ procs, come on they're not that fast in reality, my friend with a brand new dual dell thing or something thinks my tibook is lovely and speedy and is buying one for himself in march.
Cheaper?
macs are already pretty cheap for what they are if you ask me and if your an american hahaha well how the hell can you complain its a heck of alot cheaper over there than in england, but then again you lot manage to complain about how horribly expensive cds are when we pay pretyty much double what you do here in many cases and it still seems reasonable to me.
To me this whole osx x86 mess doesnt seem to be able to hlep apple at all if your just going to have some single pc brand running it, what the heck is the point in that toher than it can boot up windows too, yeah like people are gonig to pay for 2os's when osx can do everything windows can and better most of the time, unless you like playing twatty pc games but if you do that then you clearly have no taste seen as they're dire when put against games from about 8 years ago</strong><hr></blockquote>
the point of this is that OS X needs exposure to PC communities. People think WinXP is the best and most advanced OS out there, and they probably dont even know what OS X is. I am not saying that Apple Computers are expensive but I think they could use PC hardware to make a cheaper computer and afford insignificant profits to get OS X exposure. Many people have said so themselves, PC users like OS X once they see it, perhaps they aren't sure enough jumping into a Mac, and would rather stick with hardware taht can run OS X, but windows or linux also. Once PC users see how beautiful, stable, and useful a mac really is, i think they then could switch but most people will not just make the jump, they have to be eased in or have somone to guide them into it...i want a big PC manufacturer to help apple get OS X the media attention it needs, its the best thing ever from apple and they dont even have a commercial showing it off!
PS: those videos on their website basically suck!
somone walks into a store, WinXP, WinXP, WinXP...computer that looks the same as the others but has a beautiful GUI. They ask or read about it and they find it can run WinXP AND OS X. Not only is there exporsure to OS X but the people that buy that computer will possibly learn OS X and tell their friends. Gaining market share is like a virus, it has to spread from somewhere
All this osx x86 wouldnt get apple anywhere its just shallow minded peoples stupid fantasy of super cheap unrealistically fast macs that can run windows too.
If you want people to go into a store and see osx and go "ohhhhh tasty" then i think apple should talk to retailers and maybe slide some cash thier way to get macs shoved in the middle of the pc section. I know my local pc world was horrific for macs till recently didnt even have the ti800 when it had been out over a month and were charging the same price for the old model as the 800 was. They have improved recently which is perhaps a sign that macs are selling better now. Howerver went into a few other places and strangly enough selfridges of all plaes was packed full of macs.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: sushiism ]</p>
Apple would die.
Period.
<strong>If OS X ran on PCs...
Apple would die.
Period.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i disagree, at MOST i think apple hardware would lose R&D devolopment, but apple would not die, they would in a year or two have software sales back up making up for hardware sales (IF apple could support hardware)
However, if there's any market they can pursue with an OS -only strategy, it might be enterprise/servers. But even then, Apple's early hardware offerings are (surprisingly?) competitive with price and performance (yeah, they're still missing some redundancy measures at the moment but that's likely to change sooner than later) and can be integrated into heterogeneous networks where the hardest part is with the software/OS integration, not the hardware. So there's little for others to gain by this, and a lot apple can gain from their current Xserve enterprise hardware plans.