Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 - desktop or workstation OS, supports dual processors
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems - (Windows 2000 Datacenter supports 32 CPUs, I could not find how many the 64-bit version supports, but it will probably be similar.)
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems - (# of CPUs - I am not sure, probably 8 )
I think it is best that Microsoft differentiates the versions, otherwise a desktop user will be paying way too much or a server user might be paying far too little.
Afterall, OS X Server isn't on the same CD as the home version, is it?
I DO understand that MS needs to differentiate between it's operatingsystems. Each of them has different target groups, and their respective names tries to describe that. I simply tried to imply that the vast number of different offerings from MS is somewhat confusing to users, and i hope that Apple don't walk down the same road. It's okay with separate desktop and server versions of osX. I only hope that they can keep the code for both 32- and 64-bit versions of osX and server in the same package. Was that any clearer?
Making it appear to any and all senile republican senators that Microsoft really has competition, no really, Apple might really defeat Microsoft, if you don't believe me, read the article!
He's got his very own spiffy column in a mag, so it MUST be true.
Dvorak doesn't know what he's talking about, but I do think the 970 -- when at last it arrives -- will give Apple the option of offering an x86 version, for just the reasons dogboy described.
I think it'll take at least two years for this to pass, though. If ever.
It can't until:
- the 970 is in wide release, so Apple customers won't abandon in number their Macs for x86 machines
- Apple has their own version of Office finished, as MS Office won't release a version for OS X for Intel
- Apple offers developers a relatively easy way to develop OS X for Intel versions of their software (e.g., return of Yellow Box, w/ an an equiv. Carbon version)
- OS X is still at the point where it offers vivid, marketable advantages over XP, or XP's successor
- Apple has an *extremely* aggressive software strategy to make up for the abandonment of their current, generally successful (though niche-limiting) business model.
That's quite a lot... especially the last.
If Apple could swallow their pride and make a deal with a company like Dell, that would be something...
if you pay close attention to interviews he gave before returning to apple, he clearly states that it is difficult to build a box that is two times better than the competition. he has come to the realization that desktop hardware has been fully commoditized. the 970 will be a nice chip but again, the "dynamic range" is not 20 to 1.
the macintosh experience has always been largely about the os (with a few hardware sprinkles). steve thinks of apple as a software company now... i have this on good word. fat binaries are coming for x86 and ppc. software is going to drive apple into the future. hardware will support them till they get there...
apple is milking the hardware to become a dominant player in software (both os and apps). watch this unfold, it's going to be fun.
If apple did this it would be transparent at the os level. No recompiling. it would just work. A machine with OS X would be just that, a Machine with OS X. What's inside wouldn't matter.
Think bigger.
You are wrong. x86 and PPC require different binaries because they are different instruction sets. A PPC binary doesn't even contain any meaningful instructions for x86. So there are only two possibilities: Cocoa-style (to package multiple binaries for different platforms) and Java-style (the same code on a virtual machine). The first does need a recompile at the very least; the latter doesn't, but it is very slow compared to native binaries.
if you pay close attention to interviews he gave before returning to apple, he clearly states that it is difficult to build a box that is two times better than the competition. he has come to the realization that desktop hardware has been fully commoditized. the 970 will be a nice chip but again, the "dynamic range" is not 20 to 1.
The thing is, he has always been enamored with both cool software *and* hardware.
Read up about his obsessive micro-management of the first NeXT boxes if you don't believe me.
Whenever Apple's hardware is weak (as their desktops currently are), people begin to say "Apple really is a software company". Whenever their products are strong, with strong technology, but fall behind in software (as with the iMac), people begin,"Apple is, at its heart, a hardware company".
It's both. That's it's unique advantage and sometimes it's worst enemy.
Going the all-software route is definitely interesting, but I just don't see it happening any time soon. If we see it, we'll see them phase into it very cautiously, very slowly, and only at full blast with all the conditions I mentioned above.
Comments
Originally posted by FotNS
Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 - desktop or workstation OS, supports dual processors
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems - (Windows 2000 Datacenter supports 32 CPUs, I could not find how many the 64-bit version supports, but it will probably be similar.)
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems - (# of CPUs - I am not sure, probably 8 )
I think it is best that Microsoft differentiates the versions, otherwise a desktop user will be paying way too much or a server user might be paying far too little.
Afterall, OS X Server isn't on the same CD as the home version, is it?
I DO understand that MS needs to differentiate between it's operatingsystems. Each of them has different target groups, and their respective names tries to describe that. I simply tried to imply that the vast number of different offerings from MS is somewhat confusing to users, and i hope that Apple don't walk down the same road. It's okay with separate desktop and server versions of osX. I only hope that they can keep the code for both 32- and 64-bit versions of osX and server in the same package. Was that any clearer?
Dvorak's Nonsense
Ya know what his motivation might be?
Making it appear to any and all senile republican senators that Microsoft really has competition, no really, Apple might really defeat Microsoft, if you don't believe me, read the article!
He's got his very own spiffy column in a mag, so it MUST be true.
I think it'll take at least two years for this to pass, though. If ever.
It can't until:
- the 970 is in wide release, so Apple customers won't abandon in number their Macs for x86 machines
- Apple has their own version of Office finished, as MS Office won't release a version for OS X for Intel
- Apple offers developers a relatively easy way to develop OS X for Intel versions of their software (e.g., return of Yellow Box, w/ an an equiv. Carbon version)
- OS X is still at the point where it offers vivid, marketable advantages over XP, or XP's successor
- Apple has an *extremely* aggressive software strategy to make up for the abandonment of their current, generally successful (though niche-limiting) business model.
That's quite a lot... especially the last.
If Apple could swallow their pride and make a deal with a company like Dell, that would be something...
if you pay close attention to interviews he gave before returning to apple, he clearly states that it is difficult to build a box that is two times better than the competition. he has come to the realization that desktop hardware has been fully commoditized. the 970 will be a nice chip but again, the "dynamic range" is not 20 to 1.
the macintosh experience has always been largely about the os (with a few hardware sprinkles). steve thinks of apple as a software company now... i have this on good word. fat binaries are coming for x86 and ppc. software is going to drive apple into the future. hardware will support them till they get there...
apple is milking the hardware to become a dominant player in software (both os and apps). watch this unfold, it's going to be fun.
Originally posted by inkhead
You are all thinking wrong...
If apple did this it would be transparent at the os level. No recompiling. it would just work. A machine with OS X would be just that, a Machine with OS X. What's inside wouldn't matter.
Think bigger.
You are wrong. x86 and PPC require different binaries because they are different instruction sets. A PPC binary doesn't even contain any meaningful instructions for x86. So there are only two possibilities: Cocoa-style (to package multiple binaries for different platforms) and Java-style (the same code on a virtual machine). The first does need a recompile at the very least; the latter doesn't, but it is very slow compared to native binaries.
Originally posted by dogboy
steve has *always* been enamored with software.
if you pay close attention to interviews he gave before returning to apple, he clearly states that it is difficult to build a box that is two times better than the competition. he has come to the realization that desktop hardware has been fully commoditized. the 970 will be a nice chip but again, the "dynamic range" is not 20 to 1.
The thing is, he has always been enamored with both cool software *and* hardware.
Read up about his obsessive micro-management of the first NeXT boxes if you don't believe me.
Whenever Apple's hardware is weak (as their desktops currently are), people begin to say "Apple really is a software company". Whenever their products are strong, with strong technology, but fall behind in software (as with the iMac), people begin,"Apple is, at its heart, a hardware company".
It's both. That's it's unique advantage and sometimes it's worst enemy.
Going the all-software route is definitely interesting, but I just don't see it happening any time soon. If we see it, we'll see them phase into it very cautiously, very slowly, and only at full blast with all the conditions I mentioned above.