The key here to me is the term "adequately fast". OS/2's problem was that there was no real speed difference between its native OS/2 and emulated Windows environments, since they both ran natively on x86 hardware - so indeed there was no real advantage (at least superficially) for using native OS/2 software.
Emulating the x86 environment on the PPC will of necessity incur a performance penalty. If the 970 offers high enough performance that emulated x86 is as fast as current x86 hardware, the native PPC code will be substantially faster. I have a hard time believing that people would be content running emulated Windows programs, when they know an OS X native version would run significantly (20-50%) faster. I may put up with it for the current version of PhotoShop that I own, but for darn sure the next version would be the OS X version.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the point. The problem is that developers would halt OS X development, not that we'd halt use of OS X native apps. Developers can save a lot of money if OS X can suddenly run x86 out of the box. They will no longer need to worry about coding for OS X, for 3% of the market, when we'd be able to run their IA-32 coded software. Why would developers care about the performance of the software when run under emulation? I really, really doubt that they all would. Perhaps a few developers would continue on with OS X native out of good faith or because they just prefer the platform, but it would be in the developers' (not ours) best interest to halt OS X developement and concentrate fully on x86 development.
People would not be content using x86 under the performance hit that emulation would incur?not OS X users, and not potential switchers. Developers would be content to drop multiplatform development and put all efforts on a single track. The point lies with what the developers would do.
The most fundamental question is whether applications presently written for OS X could run on OSX/x86/Marklar without substantial effort by the software vendors. If a major effort were required, one would have to question whether the vendor would make the effort for a 3% market share company. The expense may not be justified.
Many people insist that Apple is a hardware company. It is simply a business, the purpose of which is supposed to be to earn a profit for the shareholders. One might even go so far as to ask whether Apple has the courage of their convictions about the desirability of their products. What distinguishes Apple is not the hardware, but the software. The hardware's purpose is simply to run the software without which the hardware has little utility other than as a decorative object or paper weight.
Borrowing the famous question, does Apple want to change the world or sell sugar water for the rest of its life?
This is a bit like the Beta-Max/VHS arguments about which one was superior. The answer soon became clear. VHS dominated. The rest was irrelevant. Scot McNealy says that Intel just stumbled into success with 32 bit processors and challenges their readiness to move to 64 bit processors (not to mention the lack of a 64 bit OS at this time). All that is probably true, but the fact remains that X86 dominates the desktop computing world. That is where the largest potential market is.
It would be interesting to see how much of the cost of designing a Mac is attributed to things such as the engineers Apple keeps who are supposedly doing the design work on the G4 that Motorola is not and various things that need not be done at all if Apple were to adopt a platform which were based upon standard equipment that is being developed by other people. Presumably Apple would then have to develop the OS and Firmware/BIOS and some drivers in cooperation with the vendors. It would seem that costs could be much lower.
All of this seems most unlikely to happen under present management unless they are forced into it with no other choice in order to survive.
At some point, it would seem that Apple needs to actually grow, not merely talk about growth, if it is to avoid becoming entirely irrelevant, like the Beta-Max.
1) Where are the apps? [...] The Mac applications on the market WILL NOT run on a Wintel box
</strong>
Wrong. I would bet Apple has taken pains to ensure their API's are platform (CPU) independent. NeXT was doing that over a decade ago, and running on Intel would require it (see your point above). Otherwise, even the Apple apps would be prone to breakage. Granted, a few API oversights probably exist, but overall Apple *needs* the API's to be CPU architecture independent for the contingency strategy you outline above.
IOW, the API's will largely support the current software with a recompile. Various apps may have problems introduced with the transition, but those should be vendor specific code --- which would need fixing before shipping app fat for both PPC and Intel OS X boxes. NeXT already did fat binaries as well, so that's a proven technology which Apple already has (they probably use it regularly to run apps on Marklar for testing, verification).
<hr></blockquote>
How can you say with any certainty that he is wrong? Have you been developing Markler? Not to say that Big Mac is certainly right, but who's to say that he is certainly wrong.
[quote]
<strong>
2) It would kill Apple?s hardware
</strong>
I suspect this is the issue at the forefront of Apple's current strategy. Yes, this is a key issue. I wonder what happens if Apple's hardware is so superior that this issue is moot, though. Then, what does Apple do?
...
Apple gains potentially huge numbers of customers, serious revenue from OS X Intel sales in large numbers, and (in long run) gains a large base of upgrade customers to Apple hardware.
OS X Intel could transform Apple almost overnight.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes they gain potential customers for the OS, but they won't be selling many of those people machines. You think the revenue from increased OS sales is what Apple wants to take on the other 97%? No, they want to customer to get the full Apple experience?and pay the full Apple price of a Mac. 3D artists, video producers/editors, professionals, etc, will buy the superior hardware, but not everyone will pay for higher price for superior hardware or even wants/needs it, so they won't pay. They'll stick with the $400 eMachine.
[quote]
<strong>
[/b] If you wish to ignore the first reason, and you believe OS X x86 could be a success, you have to ask yourself why Apple would do it.
</strong>
Whoops, already answered that. See above, i.e., to gain easy OS X revenue, convert large numbers of corporate users, and gain future hardware/software customers (not to mention grow their customer base to attract 3P software development).
<hr></blockquote>
Gain easy (?) OS X revenue? At what benefit to Apple? Are these corporate users really going to convert or just buy new PCs to run OS X? Why not just aim to get these people WITHOUT an x86 OS X, to run the Apple OS on the Apple hardware. THAT is a win for Apple.
[quote]
<strong>
3) It would panic the Mac community
</strong>
Can't follow that line of thought. I bet a huge number of prospective corporate customers would be relieved that Apple has a growth strategy. They would feel much more comfortable using existing hardware rather than betting the farm on all new hardware (at great expense). So, I see comfort going up, though it would be fun to read all the misperceptions in media until the reality set in (:-).
<hr></blockquote>
I really doubt the reality would be any form of acceptance. Not from those interested in Apple's success.
Apple has a growth strategy, you can rest assured of that. I hope that it involves beating the pants off PC hardware with the PPC970 and all the fix-ins that it can handle. x86 would be de-evolution (or whatever the word is, I don't feel like looking it up) and wouldn't make a success out of Apple.
[quote]
<strong>
Why Mac OS X + Integrated Win32 Box won?t come out
</strong>
You've given me a cool idea. What if Apple were to release a custom, headless Intel box which talked directly to Mac/OS X through firewire 800 (i.e., networking, for all graphics, h/d access, and keyboard/mouse) to provide a PC compatibility? The box could be cheap (cheaper even than Xbox since it would contain no hard drive), and could be speedy silent and compact. Apple could sell it as optional equipment. It could run Windows (for backwards compatibility). It wouldn't be great for games, but business could love it. Apple could tie it as tightly as they want to Mac OS X using Windows drivers, etc.. The Apple box would give it it's display, networking, keyboard/mouse, power (?), etc.. The Windows box would show up as a window (or variety of windows a la VirtualPC). That could be a nice optional piece of equipment that would solve the VPC void created by MS's recent purchase. The box would be relatively cheap and easy to upgrade, and Apple could equip it with all the Apple stuff Apple desires (e.g., FW800, Rendezvous, etc.). Hmm...
<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if I should laugh or if you are actually being serious. As if Apple is going to sell computer with Intel chips and a Microsoft operating system. They would be selling for their competition! Does this make sense to you? Plus, if Apple offered its buyers a PC to compliment the Mac, they would be telling their customers "The Mac won't do everything that you need it to do, but this PC, it will, so buy one". Apple suggest to it's consumers that a Mac isn't good enough by itself? Never. EVER.
Businesses would love the idea of a PC. Wait, they already do. They already use PCs, and that's why most of them don't use Macs. And they wouldn't adopt them with your 'cool idea'.
I could go on and one about how rediculous this idea is.
Since you think it's such a cool idea, just put it into action for yourself by buying a PC and a KVM swithcer. Or, to even further follow your idea, network them and run the PC in a window via VNC. You can do it, but Apple won't.
The hardware's purpose is simply to run the software without which the hardware has little utility other than as a decorative object or paper weight.
<hr></blockquote>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hardware has utility in that it makes money for Apple. That's why Apple will continue to sell hardware, and will continue to retain control of it.
I think you missed the point. The problem is that developers would halt OS X development, not that we'd halt use of OS X native apps. Developers can save a lot of money if OS X can suddenly run x86 out of the box. They will no longer need to worry about coding for OS X, for 3% of the market, when we'd be able to run their IA-32 coded software. Why would developers care about the performance of the software when run under emulation? I really, really doubt that they all would. Perhaps a few developers would continue on with OS X native out of good faith or because they just prefer the platform, but it would be in the developers' (not ours) best interest to halt OS X developement and concentrate fully on x86 development.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how long do you think developers would remain in business who ignore their customers' wishes? (can you say "Quark"? I knew you could! {RIP, Fred Rogers!}). If the demand is there, the developers will supply it. Do you think graphics professionals would accept an "adequate" version of PhotoShop knowing they could get a significant speed boost with an OS X native version? Look at how many have been abandoning the Mac for the improved speeds in the x86 world in the last couple of years. Teenagers would demand OS X native versions of their favorite games so they can brag about their framerates in Doom VIII or whatever. Raw speed is a major selling point in many markets - even when it is actually irrelevant. IMO, that is the point that you are missing.
Most people who use VPC do so because they have to have access to both OSes for their jobs, and can only carry around one computer. VPC is slow as a slug, but it works, so people put up with it. Given their druthers, they'd use native software on either a Mac or a PC if they could, purely because of the speed. Speed is the main drawback to widespread adoption of emulation.
If a Mac emulator existed for PCs that was as fast as the best Apple hardware, I'd use it - as would most Mac users, I expect; Apple hardware isn't that much nicer than generic PC stuff - I buy Apple computers to use the Mac OS. So I'd buy a cheap PC box and get my Mac OS, too. As it is, such an emulator doesn't exist so I buy a Mac to run the Mac OS. Now turn it around - if an x86 emulator existed for PPC that was as fast as my PC, I'd buy a Mac and run my Windows software on it instead - and get vastly improved speeds when I move to native OS X apps (don't forget the lure of 64 bits, too, as was pointed out). I'd much rather have one computer to mess with than two (well, the spoiled brat inside me would like about 20 just to brag about it, but the adult me would want just one ). Based on my own understanding of the personal computer market and the hows and whys of purchasing decisions, I remain adamant that fast (as fast as x86 hardware but not as fast as OS X native on a 970), reliable x86 emulation within OS X would be a boon to Apple. As always, YMMV.
How can you say with any certainty that he is wrong? Have you been developing Markler? Not to say that Big Mac is certainly right, but who's to say that he is certainly wrong.
</strong>
Three reasons.
1) The hard part is to solve the problem the first time. After that, it's simply maintenance. IOW, it's a freebie since NeXT already had done it.
2) Avi was head of NeXT engineering and is Apple head of engineering. The knowledge base and technical prowesse of Avi will continue to be brought to bear on Apple engineering as long as Avi is there. I.e., Avi would maintain the technical flexibility for the negligible cost.
3) Business necessity requires Apple to have a contingency plan for OS X. Business strategy requires them to be ready to take advantage of opportunities. Apple is not stupid.
Those three reasons combined with rumors confirming make me certain.
<strong>
You think the revenue from increased OS sales is what Apple wants to take on the other 97%?
</strong>
Selling 25c CD's for $130 is a great business. It got MS where it is today. So, yes, I do think Apple would delight in that business to increase their market share.
Combine that with the radical decrease in cost of entry to customers who have Intel but want OS X, and you can see that the strategy would be to sell them s/w now so you can prepare to sell them h/w later (at their upgrade time). That's also a desirable strategy.
<strong>
Apple has a growth strategy, you can rest assured of that. I hope that it involves beating the pants off PC hardware with the PPC970 and all the fix-ins that it can handle. x86 would be de-evolution (or whatever the word is, I don't feel like looking it up) and wouldn't make a success out of Apple.
</strong>
I agree crackerjack 970 performance is top priority. Agreed.
However, to get people to switch (e.g., corporations, real estate agents, mom-and-pop stores) who are dependent on Windows, you need to wean them off of Windows without cutting off their access completely. IOW, provide a safe way for them to transition. Many industries have custom software which is (for historical reasons) windows based. Apple can not change that overnight. Apple needs to provide a back-bridge while these people comfortably migrate forward. That's the value (to Apple) of backwards windows compatibility. It's a necessity to get the bulk of switchers.
<strong>
I'm not sure if I should laugh or if you are actually being serious. As if Apple is going to sell computer with Intel chips and a Microsoft operating system. They would be selling for their competition! Does this make sense to you?
</strong>
You make a good point. To be fair to me, the box could run Linux or any other Intel s/w as well (but that's not the main point). The windows compatibility on the cheap could be cool and useful (if VPC is not available). That's what I was thinking... errr... brainstorming.
<strong>
Plus, if Apple offered its buyers a PC to compliment the Mac, they would be telling their customers "The Mac won't do everything that you need it to do, but this PC, it will, so buy one". Apple suggest to it's consumers that a Mac isn't good enough by itself? Never. EVER.
</strong>
As a practical matter, Windows is a necessity for historical reasons. Apple can only benefit by lowering the barrier to switching. Providing decent backward compatibility for potential switchers is to Apple's advantage.
<strong>
Since you think it's such a cool idea, just put it into action for yourself by buying a PC and a KVM swithcer. Or, to even further follow your idea, network them and run the PC in a window via VNC. You can do it, but Apple won't.
</strong>
Just bought VPC6/W98 to ensure my backward compatibility, and so I can get rid of my Windows h/w. That's a good first step. Eventually, I'll find/develop/buy replacements for the Windows, and then I (and hopefully many others) will not need the backward compatbility. In the meantime, it's often a necessity regardless of the frustration it causes.
If Apple goes with the 970, they are all set for an indefinite amount of time. IBM will keep on advancing the 9xx family at a steady, competitive rate, and since the 970 is a low-end server processor, the roadmap is pretty solid and unclouded. If Apple does that. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. They are driving me insane! Why does Apple keep everything under the control of Men in Black that come to your door and try to cover up any leaks you might of seen? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Trying to rescue this thread from a disscussion on emulation... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
(Putting aside disscussion of heat and cost that we won't resolve any time soon )
[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>
Ok.
What I was trying to say is this:
The G4 when introduced had a (very brief) reign at the top. It hasn't been until this last year/year and a half that Mac people have really started hurting speedwise. (Ignoring _price_) Part of the reason it hasn't hurt so much as P4's Hz climbed like a rocket is Altivec - which is somewhat crippled in current G4/G4+ chips simply by the bus.
The 970 should _demolish_ the G4+. The bus improvements, extra FPU... That's what the Spec stats _show_.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup! If you want to argue... :cool: :cool:
Seriously, I have always hoped, from my current position as a win-thlon user and past Amigoid, that the PPC would rule enough for me to be a switcher. The G4 gave a lot of hope, particularly since it had a far superior SIMD to MMX. SSE and SSE2 have since eroded some of that superiority but I still think VMX/AltiVec rock. The 970 will give AltiVec a hugh boost! It still won't satisfy it even since its theoretical throughput at 1.8 GHz is in the order of 100MB/s (yep bytes)!
[quote]<strong>
You are right, those stats do not show the 970 crushing the P4....
But anything that demolishes the G4+ _that_ bad should be better off that 'competitve with x86'. Spec didn't show the G4 doing as well against the Pentiums as the photoshop tests/RC5/other altivecable tests showed either.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points. However, look at the highly SSE2 optimised Lightwave results for the P4. It usually does much better than a G4 to the point that it blows it away! So we really need to see a thourough bake-off review by some *PC* web site (to swing the bias the other way) that shows the 970 doing a trample-a-thon before we can jump for joy.
[quote]<strong>
At the very least, I'd say that a custom written demo utilizing the 970's features should be disturbing. The P4's version wouldn't have access to 64-bit calcs, which we'd be sure to use lots of, the P4's version couldn't keep all the computation units filled (since they can't all be used simultaneously), and AV with a lot more bus to play with....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, lets see a cool demo that an AltiVec guru and an SSE2 guru optimise for their respective platforms! :cool: Remember though that the P4's SSE2 can do double precision floating point precisely because it can't use it's FP unit(s) concurrently with SSE2.
It is too early to tell yet but we can still have hope.
I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.
Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution.
Apple, using IBM's PowerPC CPUs and OS X, offically becomes the the place to go for a Unix solution and multimedia solution.
For those wanting the Wintel solution, it will be mostly Dell. HP will more or less concentrate in the server area.
I think with IBM in bed with Linux very good things will happen to that OS once IBM really gets behind it fully.
This may not be as good an implimentation as what Connectix offered, but I certainly dont consider it to be "mature" yet either. Given some time (and help from Apple) it may be a viable option.
Given the speed of the 970, or dual 970s at 2.5 gig and Altivec advantage...this product could be an adequate 'Virtual PC'.
And let's face it. It can only improve.
Face it, M$, you can't buy out the Opensource movement. Apple are onto a winner. Is it any surprise they didn't even blink when M$ aquired VPC? M$ are missing the point.
With their Unix, Apple can just cherry pick an open source app/piece of code and wodge a bit of Aqua on top...and POW, 'Safari'. THUMP! OpenOffice becomes Appleworks 7... SMACK! They get their own Aquafied VPC.
When Freddy Anderson said: 'Software. Lots of.' Safari is the tip of the iceberg. Instead of making ten apps from the ground up, Apple can probably take what's out there and make 20 apps. 25% of Apple's revenue came from Software and services last quarter. Alot of people wax lyrical about 'Marklar' and it killing Apple hardware sales. Smell the coffee, folks. Apple's increasing software revenue all the time, right under our noses. If they keep releasing new software at the last couple of years rate of progress they'll be heading to 50% of revenue per quarter. Apple are reducing their dependence on hardware only revenue. A 'hardware' company that wakes up and finds out, 'Er...aren't we really a software company?'
Still, I don't see Apple giving up their box making in the next five years! Not unless they merged with Adobe!
Open Source and Linux is going to be like the Barbarian hordes chipping away at the Roman Empire.
<strong>I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.
Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're leaving out Sun, who are currently in a bind, but who are themselves looking at Linux at least for some work.
Also, Dell is in a curious position because Microsoft is getting into hardware. They already sell MS-branded PCs in some parts of the world, and then of course there's the XBox. Version 1 was a game station, but MS' ambitions for the platform are a lot bigger than that. Games are just the hook. I wouldn't be surprised if what we now recognize as the PC market becomes owned by white box makers and vertical solutions providers (Dell, HPaq, possibly IBM as well). The home market has always been an afterthought for most PC vendors, so once MS goes directly after it with their (non-commodity) XBox platform I can see them retreating quickly.
Conspiracy theorists, take heed: The IBM press release touting the 1.8-2.5GHz blades has vanished, according to a <a href="http://www.macgamer.com"; target="_blank">MacGamer</a> update.
<strong>If Apple goes with the 970, they are all set for an indefinite amount of time. IBM will keep on advancing the 9xx family at a steady, competitive rate, and since the 970 is a low-end server processor, the roadmap is pretty solid and unclouded. If Apple does that. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. They are driving me insane! Why does Apple keep everything under the control of Men in Black that come to your door and try to cover up any leaks you might of seen? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Apple really, really, really, likes to make money. Otherwise, there's this thing called going out of business. It's what happens when you don't make money. That's what happens when you pre-announce hardware that is 5x faster than what is currently offered. It's already bad enough. The people running Apple have these things called brains, and they don't want to make an already bad situation worse.
<strong>Conspiracy theorists, take heed: The IBM press release touting the 1.8-2.5GHz blades has vanished, according to a <a href="http://www.macgamer.com"; target="_blank">MacGamer</a> update.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's still a reference to the PPC 970 Blades here:
Thank you not only for the compliment but for defending some of my positions in my stead, FrostyMMB. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address many of occam's points. The one thing that's really worth mentioning though is the potential third party software support for OS X x86.
Occam contends that I am wrong when I state that there wouldn't be any third party support. Perhaps I should clarify my position. Yes, Apple does have experience with fat binaries from OpenStep, which ran on x86 as well as other platforms. Here's the rub, however. We know that Cocoa applications would easily recompile for OS X x86, since that's what they did in the past. But would the Carbon API be fully working? Carbon isn't as portable as Cocoa because it wasn't designed to be. Yet, let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that Carbon applications could be easily recompiled for x86 and that they would run pretty bug free. The point I was making in my previous post has nothing to do with software recompilation. I'm simply saying that if OS X x86 were launched tomorrow, there would be virtually no third party support simply because all of the binaries on the market today are PPC only. That's the point I was making.
I guess this thread may as well turn into an emulation/OS X x86 discussion afterall because the subject of our conversation disappeared, as Amorph noted. That's really scary indeed. One hopes that Apple simply requested the press release be pulled so it wouldn't steal the thunder. Otherwise, it would be terrible to get psyched for a 2.5GHz 970, only to be greeted by a top end of 1.8.
You don't suppose a certain Apple CEO bit some ears off over the phone at IBM? Geez, I love all this cloak-and-dagger stuff!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't believe that Steve has that much influence over IBM. It is very surprising that Apple was able to get IBM to remove this information. Especially since Apple has not announced it is even using this chip. To me this is even more evidence that Apple will be using it. IBM doesn't have anywhere near the concern that Apple does for preannouncing products. Only Apple would care that much to have the information removed.
[quote] And how long do you think developers would remain in business who ignore their customers' wishes? (can you say "Quark"? I knew you could! {RIP, Fred Rogers!}). <hr></blockquote>
The developers would remain in business for the simple fact they are still pleasing the %97 who aren't using OS X, and they will still be using their software as usual. If they halt OS X and Macs can emulate out of the box, the developers' software is still available to all, so what concern is it to the developers. So what? It's %3 of the market and they are still making the other %97 content. Quark is still around, but the Mac community is very angry with them. They seem pretty unconcerned overall with the way they've neglected (and bashed) OS X, and that's even WITHOUT making the software available (on OS X).
I know that the numbers aren't exactly a %3 to %97 ratio between Mac and PC for specific software titles or developers, but what I'm saying is that the relationship is very small->big.
[quote] If the demand is there, the developers will supply it. Do you think graphics professionals would accept an "adequate" version of PhotoShop knowing they could get a significant speed boost with an OS X native version? <hr></blockquote>
No, graphics (or video, or 3D) proffesionals most certainly would not. But the developers can save money and satisfy the large majority of Windows users. The Mac marketshare is so small that it wouldn't make a huge impact on the success of the developer. Again, they are still making the large majority happy. Plus they can justify themselves with compatibility under emulation, no matter what the difference in performance. Macs are already trailing in performance and it wouldn't be much different.
As it stands, OS X already gets the shaft with many programs. Everyone optimizes for Windows and Intel and such and there are plenty of times when the OS X version doesn't match up. If this happens, we have little choice but to accept it (grind your teeth) or leave it (move to Windows).
[quote] Look at how many have been abandoning the Mac for the improved speeds in the x86 world in the last couple of years. Teenagers would demand OS X native versions of their favorite games so they can brag about their framerates in Doom VIII or whatever. Raw speed is a major selling point in many markets - even when it is actually irrelevant. IMO, that is the point that you are missing. <hr></blockquote>
I think hardcore gamers who aren't completely attached to Windows would switch for the performance, if the games were there. But I'm not so sure that they will be. Remember we still only have %3.
I don't think it's fair to say that the people who have moved to Windows moved simply because of performance. And I don't think its fair to say that everyone would suddenly switch when Apple's machines are the ones doing the ass kicking. Yes some people would, because they rely on high performance to get their work done to make the money to put the food on the table, and I'm not denying it. But plenty of people use computers for every day things and will be content with slower and cheaper PCs.
Comments
<strong>
The key here to me is the term "adequately fast". OS/2's problem was that there was no real speed difference between its native OS/2 and emulated Windows environments, since they both ran natively on x86 hardware - so indeed there was no real advantage (at least superficially) for using native OS/2 software.
Emulating the x86 environment on the PPC will of necessity incur a performance penalty. If the 970 offers high enough performance that emulated x86 is as fast as current x86 hardware, the native PPC code will be substantially faster. I have a hard time believing that people would be content running emulated Windows programs, when they know an OS X native version would run significantly (20-50%) faster. I may put up with it for the current version of PhotoShop that I own, but for darn sure the next version would be the OS X version.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the point. The problem is that developers would halt OS X development, not that we'd halt use of OS X native apps. Developers can save a lot of money if OS X can suddenly run x86 out of the box. They will no longer need to worry about coding for OS X, for 3% of the market, when we'd be able to run their IA-32 coded software. Why would developers care about the performance of the software when run under emulation? I really, really doubt that they all would. Perhaps a few developers would continue on with OS X native out of good faith or because they just prefer the platform, but it would be in the developers' (not ours) best interest to halt OS X developement and concentrate fully on x86 development.
People would not be content using x86 under the performance hit that emulation would incur?not OS X users, and not potential switchers. Developers would be content to drop multiplatform development and put all efforts on a single track. The point lies with what the developers would do.
The most fundamental question is whether applications presently written for OS X could run on OSX/x86/Marklar without substantial effort by the software vendors. If a major effort were required, one would have to question whether the vendor would make the effort for a 3% market share company. The expense may not be justified.
Many people insist that Apple is a hardware company. It is simply a business, the purpose of which is supposed to be to earn a profit for the shareholders. One might even go so far as to ask whether Apple has the courage of their convictions about the desirability of their products. What distinguishes Apple is not the hardware, but the software. The hardware's purpose is simply to run the software without which the hardware has little utility other than as a decorative object or paper weight.
Borrowing the famous question, does Apple want to change the world or sell sugar water for the rest of its life?
This is a bit like the Beta-Max/VHS arguments about which one was superior. The answer soon became clear. VHS dominated. The rest was irrelevant. Scot McNealy says that Intel just stumbled into success with 32 bit processors and challenges their readiness to move to 64 bit processors (not to mention the lack of a 64 bit OS at this time). All that is probably true, but the fact remains that X86 dominates the desktop computing world. That is where the largest potential market is.
It would be interesting to see how much of the cost of designing a Mac is attributed to things such as the engineers Apple keeps who are supposedly doing the design work on the G4 that Motorola is not and various things that need not be done at all if Apple were to adopt a platform which were based upon standard equipment that is being developed by other people. Presumably Apple would then have to develop the OS and Firmware/BIOS and some drivers in cooperation with the vendors. It would seem that costs could be much lower.
All of this seems most unlikely to happen under present management unless they are forced into it with no other choice in order to survive.
At some point, it would seem that Apple needs to actually grow, not merely talk about growth, if it is to avoid becoming entirely irrelevant, like the Beta-Max.
<strong>
1) Where are the apps? [...] The Mac applications on the market WILL NOT run on a Wintel box
</strong>
Wrong. I would bet Apple has taken pains to ensure their API's are platform (CPU) independent. NeXT was doing that over a decade ago, and running on Intel would require it (see your point above). Otherwise, even the Apple apps would be prone to breakage. Granted, a few API oversights probably exist, but overall Apple *needs* the API's to be CPU architecture independent for the contingency strategy you outline above.
IOW, the API's will largely support the current software with a recompile. Various apps may have problems introduced with the transition, but those should be vendor specific code --- which would need fixing before shipping app fat for both PPC and Intel OS X boxes. NeXT already did fat binaries as well, so that's a proven technology which Apple already has (they probably use it regularly to run apps on Marklar for testing, verification).
<hr></blockquote>
How can you say with any certainty that he is wrong? Have you been developing Markler? Not to say that Big Mac is certainly right, but who's to say that he is certainly wrong.
[quote]
<strong>
2) It would kill Apple?s hardware
</strong>
I suspect this is the issue at the forefront of Apple's current strategy. Yes, this is a key issue. I wonder what happens if Apple's hardware is so superior that this issue is moot, though. Then, what does Apple do?
...
Apple gains potentially huge numbers of customers, serious revenue from OS X Intel sales in large numbers, and (in long run) gains a large base of upgrade customers to Apple hardware.
OS X Intel could transform Apple almost overnight.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes they gain potential customers for the OS, but they won't be selling many of those people machines. You think the revenue from increased OS sales is what Apple wants to take on the other 97%? No, they want to customer to get the full Apple experience?and pay the full Apple price of a Mac. 3D artists, video producers/editors, professionals, etc, will buy the superior hardware, but not everyone will pay for higher price for superior hardware or even wants/needs it, so they won't pay. They'll stick with the $400 eMachine.
[quote]
<strong>
[/b] If you wish to ignore the first reason, and you believe OS X x86 could be a success, you have to ask yourself why Apple would do it.
</strong>
Whoops, already answered that. See above, i.e., to gain easy OS X revenue, convert large numbers of corporate users, and gain future hardware/software customers (not to mention grow their customer base to attract 3P software development).
<hr></blockquote>
Gain easy (?) OS X revenue? At what benefit to Apple? Are these corporate users really going to convert or just buy new PCs to run OS X? Why not just aim to get these people WITHOUT an x86 OS X, to run the Apple OS on the Apple hardware. THAT is a win for Apple.
[quote]
<strong>
3) It would panic the Mac community
</strong>
Can't follow that line of thought. I bet a huge number of prospective corporate customers would be relieved that Apple has a growth strategy. They would feel much more comfortable using existing hardware rather than betting the farm on all new hardware (at great expense). So, I see comfort going up, though it would be fun to read all the misperceptions in media until the reality set in (:-).
<hr></blockquote>
I really doubt the reality would be any form of acceptance. Not from those interested in Apple's success.
Apple has a growth strategy, you can rest assured of that. I hope that it involves beating the pants off PC hardware with the PPC970 and all the fix-ins that it can handle. x86 would be de-evolution (or whatever the word is, I don't feel like looking it up) and wouldn't make a success out of Apple.
[quote]
<strong>
Why Mac OS X + Integrated Win32 Box won?t come out
</strong>
You've given me a cool idea. What if Apple were to release a custom, headless Intel box which talked directly to Mac/OS X through firewire 800 (i.e., networking, for all graphics, h/d access, and keyboard/mouse) to provide a PC compatibility? The box could be cheap (cheaper even than Xbox since it would contain no hard drive), and could be speedy silent and compact. Apple could sell it as optional equipment. It could run Windows (for backwards compatibility). It wouldn't be great for games, but business could love it. Apple could tie it as tightly as they want to Mac OS X using Windows drivers, etc.. The Apple box would give it it's display, networking, keyboard/mouse, power (?), etc.. The Windows box would show up as a window (or variety of windows a la VirtualPC). That could be a nice optional piece of equipment that would solve the VPC void created by MS's recent purchase. The box would be relatively cheap and easy to upgrade, and Apple could equip it with all the Apple stuff Apple desires (e.g., FW800, Rendezvous, etc.). Hmm...
<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if I should laugh or if you are actually being serious. As if Apple is going to sell computer with Intel chips and a Microsoft operating system. They would be selling for their competition! Does this make sense to you? Plus, if Apple offered its buyers a PC to compliment the Mac, they would be telling their customers "The Mac won't do everything that you need it to do, but this PC, it will, so buy one". Apple suggest to it's consumers that a Mac isn't good enough by itself? Never. EVER.
Businesses would love the idea of a PC. Wait, they already do. They already use PCs, and that's why most of them don't use Macs. And they wouldn't adopt them with your 'cool idea'.
I could go on and one about how rediculous this idea is.
Since you think it's such a cool idea, just put it into action for yourself by buying a PC and a KVM swithcer. Or, to even further follow your idea, network them and run the PC in a window via VNC. You can do it, but Apple won't.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
The hardware's purpose is simply to run the software without which the hardware has little utility other than as a decorative object or paper weight.
<hr></blockquote>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hardware has utility in that it makes money for Apple. That's why Apple will continue to sell hardware, and will continue to retain control of it.
If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, let?s not waste time on a moot issue.
What's to stop M$ from making a kick-a$$ program to emulate Windoze on a mac. Apples opened up the flood gates with recent software releases.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>
<strong>
I think you missed the point. The problem is that developers would halt OS X development, not that we'd halt use of OS X native apps. Developers can save a lot of money if OS X can suddenly run x86 out of the box. They will no longer need to worry about coding for OS X, for 3% of the market, when we'd be able to run their IA-32 coded software. Why would developers care about the performance of the software when run under emulation? I really, really doubt that they all would. Perhaps a few developers would continue on with OS X native out of good faith or because they just prefer the platform, but it would be in the developers' (not ours) best interest to halt OS X developement and concentrate fully on x86 development.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how long do you think developers would remain in business who ignore their customers' wishes? (can you say "Quark"? I knew you could! {RIP, Fred Rogers!}). If the demand is there, the developers will supply it. Do you think graphics professionals would accept an "adequate" version of PhotoShop knowing they could get a significant speed boost with an OS X native version? Look at how many have been abandoning the Mac for the improved speeds in the x86 world in the last couple of years. Teenagers would demand OS X native versions of their favorite games so they can brag about their framerates in Doom VIII or whatever. Raw speed is a major selling point in many markets - even when it is actually irrelevant. IMO, that is the point that you are missing.
Most people who use VPC do so because they have to have access to both OSes for their jobs, and can only carry around one computer. VPC is slow as a slug, but it works, so people put up with it. Given their druthers, they'd use native software on either a Mac or a PC if they could, purely because of the speed. Speed is the main drawback to widespread adoption of emulation.
If a Mac emulator existed for PCs that was as fast as the best Apple hardware, I'd use it - as would most Mac users, I expect; Apple hardware isn't that much nicer than generic PC stuff - I buy Apple computers to use the Mac OS. So I'd buy a cheap PC box and get my Mac OS, too. As it is, such an emulator doesn't exist so I buy a Mac to run the Mac OS. Now turn it around - if an x86 emulator existed for PPC that was as fast as my PC, I'd buy a Mac and run my Windows software on it instead - and get vastly improved speeds when I move to native OS X apps (don't forget the lure of 64 bits, too, as was pointed out). I'd much rather have one computer to mess with than two (well, the spoiled brat inside me would like about 20 just to brag about it, but the adult me would want just one
edit: quoted wrong paragraph <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>]Originally posted by Big Mac:
If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, let?s not waste time on a moot issue.
What's to stop M$ from making a kick-a$$ program to emulate Windoze on a mac. Apples opened up the flood gates with recent software releases.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Bigc ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple probably wont sell it at their stores if they see it as a threat. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
MM
<strong>
How can you say with any certainty that he is wrong? Have you been developing Markler? Not to say that Big Mac is certainly right, but who's to say that he is certainly wrong.
</strong>
Three reasons.
1) The hard part is to solve the problem the first time. After that, it's simply maintenance. IOW, it's a freebie since NeXT already had done it.
2) Avi was head of NeXT engineering and is Apple head of engineering. The knowledge base and technical prowesse of Avi will continue to be brought to bear on Apple engineering as long as Avi is there. I.e., Avi would maintain the technical flexibility for the negligible cost.
3) Business necessity requires Apple to have a contingency plan for OS X. Business strategy requires them to be ready to take advantage of opportunities. Apple is not stupid.
Those three reasons combined with rumors confirming make me certain.
<strong>
You think the revenue from increased OS sales is what Apple wants to take on the other 97%?
</strong>
Selling 25c CD's for $130 is a great business. It got MS where it is today. So, yes, I do think Apple would delight in that business to increase their market share.
Combine that with the radical decrease in cost of entry to customers who have Intel but want OS X, and you can see that the strategy would be to sell them s/w now so you can prepare to sell them h/w later (at their upgrade time). That's also a desirable strategy.
<strong>
Apple has a growth strategy, you can rest assured of that. I hope that it involves beating the pants off PC hardware with the PPC970 and all the fix-ins that it can handle. x86 would be de-evolution (or whatever the word is, I don't feel like looking it up) and wouldn't make a success out of Apple.
</strong>
I agree crackerjack 970 performance is top priority. Agreed.
However, to get people to switch (e.g., corporations, real estate agents, mom-and-pop stores) who are dependent on Windows, you need to wean them off of Windows without cutting off their access completely. IOW, provide a safe way for them to transition. Many industries have custom software which is (for historical reasons) windows based. Apple can not change that overnight. Apple needs to provide a back-bridge while these people comfortably migrate forward. That's the value (to Apple) of backwards windows compatibility. It's a necessity to get the bulk of switchers.
<strong>
I'm not sure if I should laugh or if you are actually being serious. As if Apple is going to sell computer with Intel chips and a Microsoft operating system. They would be selling for their competition! Does this make sense to you?
</strong>
You make a good point. To be fair to me, the box could run Linux or any other Intel s/w as well (but that's not the main point). The windows compatibility on the cheap could be cool and useful (if VPC is not available). That's what I was thinking... errr... brainstorming.
<strong>
Plus, if Apple offered its buyers a PC to compliment the Mac, they would be telling their customers "The Mac won't do everything that you need it to do, but this PC, it will, so buy one". Apple suggest to it's consumers that a Mac isn't good enough by itself? Never. EVER.
</strong>
As a practical matter, Windows is a necessity for historical reasons. Apple can only benefit by lowering the barrier to switching. Providing decent backward compatibility for potential switchers is to Apple's advantage.
<strong>
Since you think it's such a cool idea, just put it into action for yourself by buying a PC and a KVM swithcer. Or, to even further follow your idea, network them and run the PC in a window via VNC. You can do it, but Apple won't.
</strong>
Just bought VPC6/W98 to ensure my backward compatibility, and so I can get rid of my Windows h/w. That's a good first step. Eventually, I'll find/develop/buy replacements for the Windows, and then I (and hopefully many others) will not need the backward compatbility. In the meantime, it's often a necessity regardless of the frustration it causes.
(Putting aside disscussion of heat and cost that we won't resolve any time soon
[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>
Ok.
What I was trying to say is this:
The G4 when introduced had a (very brief) reign at the top. It hasn't been until this last year/year and a half that Mac people have really started hurting speedwise. (Ignoring _price_) Part of the reason it hasn't hurt so much as P4's Hz climbed like a rocket is Altivec - which is somewhat crippled in current G4/G4+ chips simply by the bus.
The 970 should _demolish_ the G4+. The bus improvements, extra FPU... That's what the Spec stats _show_.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup! If you want to argue... :cool: :cool:
Seriously, I have always hoped, from my current position as a win-thlon user and past Amigoid, that the PPC would rule enough for me to be a switcher. The G4 gave a lot of hope, particularly since it had a far superior SIMD to MMX. SSE and SSE2 have since eroded some of that superiority but I still think VMX/AltiVec rock. The 970 will give AltiVec a hugh boost!
[quote]<strong>
You are right, those stats do not show the 970 crushing the P4....
But anything that demolishes the G4+ _that_ bad should be better off that 'competitve with x86'. Spec didn't show the G4 doing as well against the Pentiums as the photoshop tests/RC5/other altivecable tests showed either.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points. However, look at the highly SSE2 optimised Lightwave results for the P4. It usually does much better than a G4 to the point that it blows it away! So we really need to see a thourough bake-off review by some *PC* web site (to swing the bias the other way) that shows the 970 doing a trample-a-thon before we can jump for joy.
[quote]<strong>
At the very least, I'd say that a custom written demo utilizing the 970's features should be disturbing. The P4's version wouldn't have access to 64-bit calcs, which we'd be sure to use lots of, the P4's version couldn't keep all the computation units filled (since they can't all be used simultaneously), and AV with a lot more bus to play with....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, lets see a cool demo that an AltiVec guru and an SSE2 guru optimise for their respective platforms! :cool: Remember though that the P4's SSE2 can do double precision floating point precisely because it can't use it's FP unit(s) concurrently with SSE2.
It is too early to tell yet but we can still have hope.
MM
Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution.
Apple, using IBM's PowerPC CPUs and OS X, offically becomes the the place to go for a Unix solution and multimedia solution.
For those wanting the Wintel solution, it will be mostly Dell. HP will more or less concentrate in the server area.
I think with IBM in bed with Linux very good things will happen to that OS once IBM really gets behind it fully.
could be an interesting future. thoughts?
Although it is a given that Bochs isnt currently up to speed, it looks like thats being worked on.
"WinTel 1.0.0 include increased performance -- more than 200 percent faster than previous WinTel releases,"
It also looks like they are addressing instalation ease of use issues as well.
<a href="http://openosx.com/wintel/"; target="_blank">OpenOSX Wintel 1.0.0</a>
This may not be as good an implimentation as what Connectix offered, but I certainly dont consider it to be "mature" yet either. Given some time (and help from Apple) it may be a viable option.
Most basic software should be 'useable'.
Given the speed of the 970, or dual 970s at 2.5 gig and Altivec advantage...this product could be an adequate 'Virtual PC'.
And let's face it. It can only improve.
Face it, M$, you can't buy out the Opensource movement. Apple are onto a winner. Is it any surprise they didn't even blink when M$ aquired VPC? M$ are missing the point.
With their Unix, Apple can just cherry pick an open source app/piece of code and wodge a bit of Aqua on top...and POW, 'Safari'. THUMP! OpenOffice becomes Appleworks 7... SMACK! They get their own Aquafied VPC.
When Freddy Anderson said: 'Software. Lots of.' Safari is the tip of the iceberg. Instead of making ten apps from the ground up, Apple can probably take what's out there and make 20 apps. 25% of Apple's revenue came from Software and services last quarter. Alot of people wax lyrical about 'Marklar' and it killing Apple hardware sales. Smell the coffee, folks. Apple's increasing software revenue all the time, right under our noses. If they keep releasing new software at the last couple of years rate of progress they'll be heading to 50% of revenue per quarter. Apple are reducing their dependence on hardware only revenue. A 'hardware' company that wakes up and finds out, 'Er...aren't we really a software company?'
Still, I don't see Apple giving up their box making in the next five years!
Open Source and Linux is going to be like the Barbarian hordes chipping away at the Roman Empire.
Sooner or later...
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.
Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're leaving out Sun, who are currently in a bind, but who are themselves looking at Linux at least for some work.
Also, Dell is in a curious position because Microsoft is getting into hardware. They already sell MS-branded PCs in some parts of the world, and then of course there's the XBox. Version 1 was a game station, but MS' ambitions for the platform are a lot bigger than that. Games are just the hook. I wouldn't be surprised if what we now recognize as the PC market becomes owned by white box makers and vertical solutions providers (Dell, HPaq, possibly IBM as well). The home market has always been an afterthought for most PC vendors, so once MS goes directly after it with their (non-commodity) XBox platform I can see them retreating quickly.
<strong>If Apple goes with the 970, they are all set for an indefinite amount of time. IBM will keep on advancing the 9xx family at a steady, competitive rate, and since the 970 is a low-end server processor, the roadmap is pretty solid and unclouded. If Apple does that. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If.
Because Apple really, really, really, likes to make money. Otherwise, there's this thing called going out of business. It's what happens when you don't make money. That's what happens when you pre-announce hardware that is 5x faster than what is currently offered. It's already bad enough. The people running Apple have these things called brains, and they don't want to make an already bad situation worse.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
<strong>Conspiracy theorists, take heed: The IBM press release touting the 1.8-2.5GHz blades has vanished, according to a <a href="http://www.macgamer.com"; target="_blank">MacGamer</a> update.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's still a reference to the PPC 970 Blades here:
<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/highlights/index.html"; target="_blank">IBM CBit Highlights</a>, and the picture of the prototype 970 Blade is still here:<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/photos/innovations/innovations.html"; target="_blank">Photos</a>, but the rest of the info indeed seems to have disappeared! :eek:
You don't suppose a certain Apple CEO bit some ears off over the phone at IBM? Geez, I love all this cloak-and-dagger stuff!
Occam contends that I am wrong when I state that there wouldn't be any third party support. Perhaps I should clarify my position. Yes, Apple does have experience with fat binaries from OpenStep, which ran on x86 as well as other platforms. Here's the rub, however. We know that Cocoa applications would easily recompile for OS X x86, since that's what they did in the past. But would the Carbon API be fully working? Carbon isn't as portable as Cocoa because it wasn't designed to be. Yet, let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that Carbon applications could be easily recompiled for x86 and that they would run pretty bug free. The point I was making in my previous post has nothing to do with software recompilation. I'm simply saying that if OS X x86 were launched tomorrow, there would be virtually no third party support simply because all of the binaries on the market today are PPC only. That's the point I was making.
I guess this thread may as well turn into an emulation/OS X x86 discussion afterall because the subject of our conversation disappeared, as Amorph noted. That's really scary indeed. One hopes that Apple simply requested the press release be pulled so it wouldn't steal the thunder. Otherwise, it would be terrible to get psyched for a 2.5GHz 970, only to be greeted by a top end of 1.8.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
<strong>
There's still a reference to the PPC 970 Blades here:
<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/highlights/index.html"; target="_blank">IBM CBit Highlights</a>, and the picture of the prototype 970 Blade is still here:<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/photos/innovations/innovations.html"; target="_blank">Photos</a>, but the rest of the info indeed seems to have disappeared! :eek:
You don't suppose a certain Apple CEO bit some ears off over the phone at IBM? Geez, I love all this cloak-and-dagger stuff!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't believe that Steve has that much influence over IBM. It is very surprising that Apple was able to get IBM to remove this information. Especially since Apple has not announced it is even using this chip. To me this is even more evidence that Apple will be using it. IBM doesn't have anywhere near the concern that Apple does for preannouncing products. Only Apple would care that much to have the information removed.
The developers would remain in business for the simple fact they are still pleasing the %97 who aren't using OS X, and they will still be using their software as usual. If they halt OS X and Macs can emulate out of the box, the developers' software is still available to all, so what concern is it to the developers. So what? It's %3 of the market and they are still making the other %97 content. Quark is still around, but the Mac community is very angry with them. They seem pretty unconcerned overall with the way they've neglected (and bashed) OS X, and that's even WITHOUT making the software available (on OS X).
I know that the numbers aren't exactly a %3 to %97 ratio between Mac and PC for specific software titles or developers, but what I'm saying is that the relationship is very small->big.
[quote] If the demand is there, the developers will supply it. Do you think graphics professionals would accept an "adequate" version of PhotoShop knowing they could get a significant speed boost with an OS X native version? <hr></blockquote>
No, graphics (or video, or 3D) proffesionals most certainly would not. But the developers can save money and satisfy the large majority of Windows users. The Mac marketshare is so small that it wouldn't make a huge impact on the success of the developer. Again, they are still making the large majority happy. Plus they can justify themselves with compatibility under emulation, no matter what the difference in performance. Macs are already trailing in performance and it wouldn't be much different.
As it stands, OS X already gets the shaft with many programs. Everyone optimizes for Windows and Intel and such and there are plenty of times when the OS X version doesn't match up. If this happens, we have little choice but to accept it (grind your teeth) or leave it (move to Windows).
[quote] Look at how many have been abandoning the Mac for the improved speeds in the x86 world in the last couple of years. Teenagers would demand OS X native versions of their favorite games so they can brag about their framerates in Doom VIII or whatever. Raw speed is a major selling point in many markets - even when it is actually irrelevant. IMO, that is the point that you are missing. <hr></blockquote>
I think hardcore gamers who aren't completely attached to Windows would switch for the performance, if the games were there. But I'm not so sure that they will be. Remember we still only have %3.
I don't think it's fair to say that the people who have moved to Windows moved simply because of performance. And I don't think its fair to say that everyone would suddenly switch when Apple's machines are the ones doing the ass kicking. Yes some people would, because they rely on high performance to get their work done to make the money to put the food on the table, and I'm not denying it. But plenty of people use computers for every day things and will be content with slower and cheaper PCs.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>