Before everyone starts screaming vaporware, a final thought.... If this stuff is real and Apple does not embrace it, what are the implications for Apple's future?
Before everyone starts screaming vaporware, a final thought.... If this stuff is real and Apple does not embrace it, what are the implications for Apple's future?
But it's not real. We may as well discuss perpetual motion machines.
Ok, then buy a $300 Dell that does include Windows. If you need to run Windows apps, then Mac and OS X perhaps are not the right solution. The key to Mac prosperity is to offer something that PCs/Windows does not.
Apple will never bundle anything with the OS that allows you to run Windows apps-this would be ceding the battle to Windows once and for all.
Personally, I've had it with crappy java-based ports, crappy web-based interfaces, and crappy emulation. For end-user applications, you are not going to get any better performance and stability than a native program or Carbon (or Cocoa) port.
For those users who can't switch without custom software only available for Windows, we've got virtual PC already. Those who run only Windows software, should get Windows. Especially PC gamers!
Use the right tool for the right job. That's what got me into the Mac in the first place!
Apple will never bundle anything with the OS that allows you to run Windows apps-this would be ceding the battle to Windows once and for all.
This is a no-brainer that people seem to ignore.
Quote:
Personally, I've had it with crappy java-based ports, crappy web-based interfaces, and crappy emulation. For end-user applications, you are not going to get any better performance and stability than a native program or Carbon (or Cocoa) port.
The key to Mac prosperity is to offer something that PCs/Windows does not.
That's exactly what I have been arguing. I'd like to know though what do you think the apps that make the Mac special are? Is your Mac version of Photoshop that much better than the Windows version? Dreamweaver? Anything by any major software vendor? MS Office may be better in a few small ways, but that's pushing it and it is lacking in other areas. I'm betting that the things you like that Windows does not offer are made by none other than Apple, and perhaps a few smaller companies or our great shareware community. Face it: the major applications vendors offer versions for both platforms, and we are always bitching about how they screw us over because we are the minority. So I'm suggesting that the over consolidation of the industry and the domination by a few players has us in a rut. Apple is pushing toward new types of software design. Where does it go from here is the real question. Apple will offer even more that will differentiate the Mac, and it will allow new creative developers to do so also.
This all reminds me of a thread several years ago. I was arguing that the threat of copy protected CD's and Microsoft's desire to control the market would push Apple into offering a way of selling music for the iPod and iTunes. They had to. I got lots of replies about how it could not be done. One guy told me that he was in the music business and I just did not understand how difficult the licensing issues would be. Apple had to do it. And they did. Look how the tables have turned. Copy protected CD's could soon use Fairplay. Microsoft is looking a lot like Bill Gates at prom time.
I don't know if Transitive's tech really works, but I do know you shouldn't rule out anything based on past assumptions? especially when your talking about Steve Jobs and Apple. There are plenty of ways to consider the possibility besides "emulators blow goats" and "no one will write for the Mac". How do you know Adobe isn't already planning to kill Mac support? What would Apple do then? What if QuickTransit really works and some of our Mac apps could run on the Dark Side? What then? What if the G6, eCLipz or whatever the hell else they have up their sleeves, leaps enough ahead that games for other platforms could actually be playable on the Mac. Would it be worth using the technology just to build a "game layer"? Could there possibly be markets where the ability to run legacy Windows and Linux apps would help Apple? Could Apple use it to allow easier porting of apps to the Mac as part of some Cocoa toolkit or framework? Who else in Transitive's list of 6 PC makers could integrate it into a OS besides Apple? What would those companies want the technology for? Make up your own wild ass idea. Try to think different. Try to think like Steve Jobs.
I'm not asking you to believe me (quite frankly, I know nothing), or Rothenberg's rumor, or even the Wired story. I'm just asking you to think about it. Are a few new features added to Photoshop every 18 months all you see for the future of computing? I see a new breed of apps that interact with the OS and their fellow apps and even the hardware in new ways. That's where the Mac's prosperity lies. As the future unfolds, if you could run almost any old app that hasn't been made obsolete yet, that might be a good thing. Think of it as being like the transition period when you needed Classic. If it doesn't happen by the time 10.9, no make that XI, ships I will be happy to admit I'm wrong.
Maybe everyone has this back to front... What if instead of running a windows application, this translation software, just translates the application once. Once you translate something , like a book , you do not need to tranlate the book every time you want to read it. So, as is reported it's a translator , then , once you have office for windows and you go out and buy a Mac, just run ofice through the translator, and no new software needed. Now this would make switching very easy and painless.
Anyway what would I know ? I just thought about the thing being called a translator.
Maybe everyone has this back to front... What if instead of running a windows application, this translation software, just translates the application once.....
Sounds similar to FX!32 which ran on DEC Alphas and was bundled with Windows NT4 Alpha edition. This was a code translator layer which translated x86 Windows programs into Alpha based commands on the fly. The more you used the x86 prog the more it got translated to native Alpha until no translation more was needed and you had a virtually native Alpha app as a result. How well this worked in practice is another question, as I could not afford one of those workstations at the time. Alphas had 64 bit processors running at 533MHz at the time that Intel could do no better than Pentium Pros at 200MHz. Sad to see them go.
Why is this a bad idea? Look at OS/2. It ran Windows 3.1 programs natively and advertised itself as running DOS programs better than DOS. So what was the incentive for programmers to port to native OS/2? Lack of native apps proved the downfall for OS/2 in the end. Ditto BeOS. This is why I never cheer when I hear that Apple has introduced yet another title to its software range, which will likely lead another 3rd party developer to stop producing for OS X.
Sounds similar to FX!32...running at 533MHz at the time that Intel could do no better than Pentium Pros at 200MHz.
FX!32 worked very well, often running code faster than you could run it on a PC ( thanks to the much faster Alpha cpu ). It had some issues with really tricky code, but was pretty smooth. The key thing about FX!32 is that it was just a translator, and still required a OS to support it. Thus, you could run Windows NT apps on Alpha NT, because Alpha NT provided all the calls that the app needed. From what I read this new technology works pretty much the same. You would still need a PowerPC version of windows to host the emulated app. Perhaps it would work with WINE.
Quote:
Why is this a bad idea? Look at OS/2. It ran Windows 3.1 programs natively and advertised itself as running DOS programs better than DOS. So what was the incentive for programmers to port to native OS/2? Lack of native apps proved the downfall for OS/2 in the end. Ditto BeOS.
I disagree. OS/2 Warp failed because it was lead by one man, who pushed amazingly hard to get it through IBM. ISTR that he made some mistake, and was 'promoted' to another division right at the height of the OS/2 war with Windows. Without his personal drive the OS/2 division basically gave up. Real shame.
BeOS also suffered from a failure at the helm ( but competing with MS is hard, so I understand the mistakes ). As they say, it is always darkest before the dawn. I honestly believe that in both OS/2 and BeOS examples it would not have required much more commitment to break through. In both cases it was about leadership, not software.
FX!32 worked very well, often running code faster than you could run it on a PC ( thanks to the much faster Alpha cpu ). It had some issues with really tricky code, but was pretty smooth. The key thing about FX!32 is that it was just a translator, and still required a OS to support it. Thus, you could run Windows NT apps on Alpha NT, because Alpha NT provided all the calls that the app needed. From what I read this new technology works pretty much the same. You would still need a PowerPC version of windows to host the emulated app. Perhaps it would work with WINE.
OTOH, you could create a bootloader with this technology, and have it translate the whole freaking OS on the fly... wouldn't allow for running Windows apps inside MacOS X, unless you also provided some sort of abstraction layer, like, oh, say... Classic? Apple's already done this once.
MacOS X -> Wintel.app -> translator -> Windows OS -> Windows app
It'd be like Virtual PC, but presumably with caching of the translated code, and with the opportunity for greater integration, ala Classic.
Uh...PCs with less powerful processors? Are you going by the Apple site benchmarks or something?
Um, in general the G5 is a faster chip than even the latest incantations of the P4. The speed issue has more to do with the compiler, in this case. It may also have something to do with the bad porting jobs on the video games with which you make your opinion.
Um, in general the G5 is a faster chip than even the latest incantations of the P4. The speed issue has more to do with the compiler, in this case. It may also have something to do with the bad porting jobs on the video games with which you make your opinion.
Oooh...I think I just got serrrrrved.
It just seems that although a G5 can beat a P4 with ease, it has one whole extra processor at its disposal.
Comments
Originally posted by murk
Before everyone starts screaming vaporware, a final thought.... If this stuff is real and Apple does not embrace it, what are the implications for Apple's future?
But it's not real. We may as well discuss perpetual motion machines.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
But it's not real. We may as well discuss perpetual motion machines.
OK, you call Enderle and straighten him out about what he saw. I'll move on...
What will be the implications of a perpetual motion machine on Bush foreign policy?
Originally posted by murk
....
What will be the implications of a perpetual motion machine on Bush foreign policy?
Don't get me started on that one!
Originally posted by Mr. Me
But it's not real. We may as well discuss perpetual motion machines.
Ah, but we know that PMMs are impossible. This isn't. Unless you have proof, of course...
Originally posted by tonton
Uh... a $300 whitebox PC doesn't include Windows.
Ok, then buy a $300 Dell that does include Windows. If you need to run Windows apps, then Mac and OS X perhaps are not the right solution. The key to Mac prosperity is to offer something that PCs/Windows does not.
Personally, I've had it with crappy java-based ports, crappy web-based interfaces, and crappy emulation. For end-user applications, you are not going to get any better performance and stability than a native program or Carbon (or Cocoa) port.
For those users who can't switch without custom software only available for Windows, we've got virtual PC already. Those who run only Windows software, should get Windows. Especially PC gamers!
Use the right tool for the right job. That's what got me into the Mac in the first place!
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Apple will never bundle anything with the OS that allows you to run Windows apps-this would be ceding the battle to Windows once and for all.
This is a no-brainer that people seem to ignore.
Personally, I've had it with crappy java-based ports, crappy web-based interfaces, and crappy emulation. For end-user applications, you are not going to get any better performance and stability than a native program or Carbon (or Cocoa) port.
Who hasn't? Emulation sucks.
Over Bill Gates' dead body...
Originally posted by a_greer
Tiger to run Windows apps?
Over Bill Gates' dead body...
That can be arranged.
Remember we are dealing with Steve here.
Originally posted by mikef
The key to Mac prosperity is to offer something that PCs/Windows does not.
That's exactly what I have been arguing. I'd like to know though what do you think the apps that make the Mac special are? Is your Mac version of Photoshop that much better than the Windows version? Dreamweaver? Anything by any major software vendor? MS Office may be better in a few small ways, but that's pushing it and it is lacking in other areas. I'm betting that the things you like that Windows does not offer are made by none other than Apple, and perhaps a few smaller companies or our great shareware community. Face it: the major applications vendors offer versions for both platforms, and we are always bitching about how they screw us over because we are the minority. So I'm suggesting that the over consolidation of the industry and the domination by a few players has us in a rut. Apple is pushing toward new types of software design. Where does it go from here is the real question. Apple will offer even more that will differentiate the Mac, and it will allow new creative developers to do so also.
This all reminds me of a thread several years ago. I was arguing that the threat of copy protected CD's and Microsoft's desire to control the market would push Apple into offering a way of selling music for the iPod and iTunes. They had to. I got lots of replies about how it could not be done. One guy told me that he was in the music business and I just did not understand how difficult the licensing issues would be. Apple had to do it. And they did. Look how the tables have turned. Copy protected CD's could soon use Fairplay. Microsoft is looking a lot like Bill Gates at prom time.
I don't know if Transitive's tech really works, but I do know you shouldn't rule out anything based on past assumptions? especially when your talking about Steve Jobs and Apple. There are plenty of ways to consider the possibility besides "emulators blow goats" and "no one will write for the Mac". How do you know Adobe isn't already planning to kill Mac support? What would Apple do then? What if QuickTransit really works and some of our Mac apps could run on the Dark Side? What then? What if the G6, eCLipz or whatever the hell else they have up their sleeves, leaps enough ahead that games for other platforms could actually be playable on the Mac. Would it be worth using the technology just to build a "game layer"? Could there possibly be markets where the ability to run legacy Windows and Linux apps would help Apple? Could Apple use it to allow easier porting of apps to the Mac as part of some Cocoa toolkit or framework? Who else in Transitive's list of 6 PC makers could integrate it into a OS besides Apple? What would those companies want the technology for? Make up your own wild ass idea. Try to think different. Try to think like Steve Jobs.
I'm not asking you to believe me (quite frankly, I know nothing), or Rothenberg's rumor, or even the Wired story. I'm just asking you to think about it. Are a few new features added to Photoshop every 18 months all you see for the future of computing? I see a new breed of apps that interact with the OS and their fellow apps and even the hardware in new ways. That's where the Mac's prosperity lies. As the future unfolds, if you could run almost any old app that hasn't been made obsolete yet, that might be a good thing. Think of it as being like the transition period when you needed Classic. If it doesn't happen by the time 10.9, no make that XI, ships I will be happy to admit I'm wrong.
Anyway what would I know ? I just thought about the thing being called a translator.
Originally posted by valmad
Maybe everyone has this back to front... What if instead of running a windows application, this translation software, just translates the application once.....
Sounds similar to FX!32 which ran on DEC Alphas and was bundled with Windows NT4 Alpha edition. This was a code translator layer which translated x86 Windows programs into Alpha based commands on the fly. The more you used the x86 prog the more it got translated to native Alpha until no translation more was needed and you had a virtually native Alpha app as a result. How well this worked in practice is another question, as I could not afford one of those workstations at the time. Alphas had 64 bit processors running at 533MHz at the time that Intel could do no better than Pentium Pros at 200MHz. Sad to see them go.
Why is this a bad idea? Look at OS/2. It ran Windows 3.1 programs natively and advertised itself as running DOS programs better than DOS. So what was the incentive for programmers to port to native OS/2? Lack of native apps proved the downfall for OS/2 in the end. Ditto BeOS. This is why I never cheer when I hear that Apple has introduced yet another title to its software range, which will likely lead another 3rd party developer to stop producing for OS X.
Originally posted by versu
Sounds similar to FX!32...running at 533MHz at the time that Intel could do no better than Pentium Pros at 200MHz.
FX!32 worked very well, often running code faster than you could run it on a PC ( thanks to the much faster Alpha cpu ). It had some issues with really tricky code, but was pretty smooth. The key thing about FX!32 is that it was just a translator, and still required a OS to support it. Thus, you could run Windows NT apps on Alpha NT, because Alpha NT provided all the calls that the app needed. From what I read this new technology works pretty much the same. You would still need a PowerPC version of windows to host the emulated app. Perhaps it would work with WINE.
Why is this a bad idea? Look at OS/2. It ran Windows 3.1 programs natively and advertised itself as running DOS programs better than DOS. So what was the incentive for programmers to port to native OS/2? Lack of native apps proved the downfall for OS/2 in the end. Ditto BeOS.
I disagree. OS/2 Warp failed because it was lead by one man, who pushed amazingly hard to get it through IBM. ISTR that he made some mistake, and was 'promoted' to another division right at the height of the OS/2 war with Windows. Without his personal drive the OS/2 division basically gave up. Real shame.
BeOS also suffered from a failure at the helm ( but competing with MS is hard, so I understand the mistakes ). As they say, it is always darkest before the dawn. I honestly believe that in both OS/2 and BeOS examples it would not have required much more commitment to break through. In both cases it was about leadership, not software.
Originally posted by mmmpie
FX!32 worked very well, often running code faster than you could run it on a PC ( thanks to the much faster Alpha cpu ). It had some issues with really tricky code, but was pretty smooth. The key thing about FX!32 is that it was just a translator, and still required a OS to support it. Thus, you could run Windows NT apps on Alpha NT, because Alpha NT provided all the calls that the app needed. From what I read this new technology works pretty much the same. You would still need a PowerPC version of windows to host the emulated app. Perhaps it would work with WINE.
OTOH, you could create a bootloader with this technology, and have it translate the whole freaking OS on the fly... wouldn't allow for running Windows apps inside MacOS X, unless you also provided some sort of abstraction layer, like, oh, say... Classic? Apple's already done this once.
MacOS X -> Wintel.app -> translator -> Windows OS -> Windows app
It'd be like Virtual PC, but presumably with caching of the translated code, and with the opportunity for greater integration, ala Classic.
Originally posted by Placebo
Uh...PCs with less powerful processors? Are you going by the Apple site benchmarks or something?
Um, in general the G5 is a faster chip than even the latest incantations of the P4. The speed issue has more to do with the compiler, in this case. It may also have something to do with the bad porting jobs on the video games with which you make your opinion.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Um, in general the G5 is a faster chip than even the latest incantations of the P4. The speed issue has more to do with the compiler, in this case. It may also have something to do with the bad porting jobs on the video games with which you make your opinion.
Oooh...I think I just got serrrrrved.
It just seems that although a G5 can beat a P4 with ease, it has one whole extra processor at its disposal.
Originally posted by murk
What about this? http://www.cherryos.com/
From the sight...Server Error in '/' Application.
That must be a typeo... They probaply meant
Server Error in '/.' Application.