Yes, and Marklar is related is related to Star Trek in a sense: Star Trek, aliens, South Park aliens. . . Apple really should have called the project Death Star, though, because it is to bring death to our platform.
Yes, and Marklar is related is related to Star Trek in a sense: Star Trek, aliens, South Park aliens. . . Apple really should have called the project Death Star, though, because it is to bring death to our platform.
heh. well, here's someone still having personal issues with the transition god help us all though if we see a frickin' 1990s BIOS screen when starting up the first mactels....
btw, as it stands right now, AMD does very well on desktops and servers. for desktops, the value-for-money you get with single and dual core on socket939, even palermo/paris on socket754, is nothing short of spectacular. second-tier as we've discussed, is not quite a label you could put on AMD. in terms of mobile though, Intel's pentium M is unmatched, Turion64, SempronMobile and AthlonMobile are okay but not as good as pentium M.
so for apple, yeah, they need 1. one-stop-shop for platform, mobile and wireless :: bingo :: intel. 2. a pipeline with enough stuff that steve just couldn't refuse. unfortunately, the g5 is more than capable on the desktop line so even though this is AMD's core strength right now, not enticing enough for apple to go amd.
so anyway my two cents there.
edit: also with intel steve probably had a crack team of consultants(the useful kind, they're out there somewhere) look in depth at their manufacturing capabilities, ramping to meet demands, etc, etc and definitely saw something very promising there... no doubt he was informed of the 45nm* stuff as well that is just hitting the news now.
Remember the skunkworks project codenamed Star Trek where Apple engineers got System 7 to run on an Intel chip back in the early 90's? Scully and others then buried that project and continued touting the benefits of the PowerPC RISC chip over Intel's chips.
Right, but what's not clear to me is if they could have engineered a usable version of OS 9 running within OS X on Intel.
I have no doubt duel boot machines were doable, but duel boot isn't the elegant solution that OS X/Classic is/was.
Apple really should have called the project Death Star, though, because it is to bring death to our platform.
I have questions too about this move. There are some serious potential pit falls in moving to standard commodity mother boards and chips.
There are still some holes in the narrative. Jobs still has some secrets to this whole thing that he has yet to tell us. I think those secrets will relieve the concerns I'm having.
I have questions too about this move. There are some serious potential pit falls in moving to standard commodity mother boards and chips.
There are still some holes in the narrative. Jobs still has some secrets to this whole thing that he has yet to tell us. I think those secrets will relieve the concerns I'm having.
what are these concerns and how might Jobs address them? do share
Awesome find. Sad reminder of where we've been: the article laments that Apple's newest 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMacs (in late 2002) were a small step up from the 1 GHz G4 PowerMacs introduced in January 2002.
In four frikkin years Motorola/Freescale has rev'd the G4 a stunning 67% in clock speed. From 1 to 1.67 GHz in four years. And there are vaporware rumors that maybe, maybe, Freescale will introduce 1.8 GHz dual-core parts sometime next year. That horrific long-term performance is why Apple is switching to Intel. And why the switch is a very, very Good Thing.
I don't know why this is being treated as major news, since the death of the Mac was foreshadowed back in 2002. If you look back you'll find Rothenberg and Ciarelli's "Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit With Marklar" that confirmed the Marklar project, Apple's threats to Motorola of an Intel switch and the Power4 derivative that turned out to be the 970. It was all there, back in 2002 - admittedly I too missed the article and was shocked to see it foretell the future after I stumbled on it in the aftermath of WWDC '05. Oh the horror, the technological horror.
Right, but what's not clear to me is if they could have engineered a usable version of OS 9 running within OS X on Intel.
I have no doubt duel boot machines were doable, but duel boot isn't the elegant solution that OS X/Classic is/was.
Anyway, I guess we'll never know.
I'm pretty sure that they could have, if they wanted to.
This is just software. There isn't anything special that says it can't go on other platforms.
Don't forget that Classic doesn't run on PPC either. It runs through X, uses its services, and is almost totally isolated from the hardware. Real hardware abstraction!
That's why you can't use software that uses services from 9 that goes direct to hardware, such as DiskWarrior.
The same thing would be true for the Intel version. There would probably be a bit more work, but it wouldn't be daunting.
But, as I said before, this was the perfect excuse to get rid of it. Move everyone over, do or die.
Remember that Apple doesn't consider anyone who uses machines and software that Apple doesn't produce or sell anymore to be their customer. Someone who is on system 8 (you know who you are!) isn't buying anything from Apple, and likely not from 3rd parties either.
Classic within OS X is running as a virtual machine - it is the true OS 9 running on the PowerPC, albeit not directly but certainly not in emulation. Through clever engineering the OS is tricked into believing it is running directly on regular Mac hardware despite the abstraction layer of the OS X kernel. OS 9 on Intel was never feasible and remains so, unless you would have wanted OS 9 to run at the speed of Virtual PC. Dynamic recompilation did not exist in 2001, and even now Rosetta cannot run the Classic environment nor individual OS 9 applications (see Universal Binary.pdf). Besides, it remains to be seen just how well Mac (OS X) binaries will run on Apple's Intel PCs.
I guess now we know who promised Steve Jobs that the G5 would be at 3GHz by last summer.
Ouch!!!! That one still HERTZ to think about dont it? 8)
A) knowing now that IBM refused to give chips to a G5 powerbook project
I have to lower my purist power pc loving attitude and no longer say that the intel switch is a bad thing in any respect..... i`m a changed man.
Besides it has recently been brought out, that, in world war 2 "This is a fact" IBM Supplied machines "what was then the latest and greatest in technology" to the Nazis,these electronic punch card machines were used to track feeding clothing,shipments of and oh yes... executions of jews. and they (IBM) knew about it "but they went for the money" They helped the Nazis.
So YAY apple!!! the more they distance themselves from that kind of Karma
"Forgive me for being Metaphysical here" the more Prospering of a company they will be!!!
IBM Obviously hasnt changed their ways in their dealing with the likes of Micro$$$ as Micro$$$ are Nazis themselves in their own way.....
what concerns me is the velocity engines? what is going to happen to stuff like that in regards to Quartz extreme? us mac heads like our multiple Expose`d videos all playing at once and to move,windows around while seeing their full resolution, heck i can take a full 1900 x 1200 something picture and drag it off the web onto the desktop and see it as it goes with not even a studder and on my Ibook no less!!!
Pentiums dont have these special features along with HexPea, is apple going to have Intel Design special features such as this for these new mactel chips?
Or am I Continuing to be paranoid about the switch? will doctor jacob be able to sew jennys arm back on on the next episode of crappy hospital? hell...
Classic within OS X is running as a virtual machine - it is the true OS 9 running on the PowerPC, albeit not directly but certainly not in emulation. Through clever engineering the OS is tricked into believing it is running directly on regular Mac hardware despite the abstraction layer of the OS X kernel. OS 9 on Intel was never feasible and remains so, unless you would have wanted OS 9 to run at the speed of Virtual PC. Dynamic recompilation did not exist in 2001, and even now Rosetta cannot run the Classic environment nor individual OS 9 applications (see Universal Binary.pdf). Besides, it remains to be seen just how well Mac (OS X) binaries will run on Apple's Intel PCs.
what are these concerns and how might Jobs address them?
Keeping in mind that we still have sparse information about Apple?s transition to intel.
Apple has been such a rogue in the PC industry. Apple has done things so differently that in many ways it has not been a direct competator to the larger PC industry.
If Apple were to align itself closely with the general PC industry that would put the company on exact and equal footing with its much larger rivals.
The pressure is on Apple to be ingenious and creative. The larger dominating PC companies only have to be good enough and cheap.
In competing directly with the larger PC industry Apple has to be better, not only in practice but in perception.
On the x86 platform OS X has to outperform Vista. With both systems running on x86 there will be little room for semantic debate over which is better. If Vista is perceived as equal or better than OS X, that could stem the tide of potential switchers, and be a detriment to Apple?s small marketshare.
At this point Apple enjoys the luxury of selling the Macintosh line at a premium. If Macintel?s use the exact same commodity processors and motherboards that Dell and HP use one of two things is likely to happen. Apple will have to lower the price of its computers and accept a lower profit margin. Or sell fewer computers at a higher price and profit margin.
With the same processors and motherboards there will be no hardware configuration Apple could create for the Mac that Dell or HP could not put into their machines and sell for a lower price.
Some argue that people will buy a Mac at a higher price because of its design. Some people stubbornly will. Dell can show their computer spec for spec is the exact same as the Macintosh for a cheaper price most people will go for the cheaper price.
The other gamble Apple is taking on pirated copies of OS X running on home built systems. This isn?t a big concern but it has potential to become a problem. With x86 machines if Apple continues to sell at its current price level. Undoubtedly there will be a community hard at work to make OS X work on any x86 machine.
From what I understand Windows piracy is rampant all over the world. With Windows owning 90% of the market it is able to absorb the lost revenue from piracy. In many ways the piracy helps continue Windows market domination.
Apple being such a small company with a small marketshare is unable to handle the lost revenue of rampant piracy in the same way.
Unknown mysteries about this transition.
Jobs still hasn?t officially stated which intel chips Apple will use, what Macintosh will use which chip, or the time frame each computer will change to intel.
It?s unknown if intel will place some special features in its chips that only OS X will be able to support. This could help give OS X a performance or feature boost over Vista.
It?s unknown if Apple will use AMD64 or some new Intel 64 bit ISA. Intel itself as been very critical of AMD64 calling it a feature extension of x86 and not a revolutionary 64 bit architecture. Some argue Apple will have to use AMD64 but so far there is no clear evidence of that.
It?s unknown what hardware features or configurations Apple will deliver the new x86 Macintosh line.
It?s unknown if Apple will continue to design its own motherboards or use intel commodity boards.
It?s unknown what security features Apple will use to ensure OS X will run only on Macintosh. Will this security feature be rock solid or easily broken?
Star Trek? They were porting OS 9 to x86. But they scrapped the project in favor of the PowerPC, even though they had to go through a transition either way. Apparently the port was difficult and performance was not impressive enough to justify the project. If it had not been prudent to go to Intel with the classic OS then, it would almost certainly have been disastrous to attempt a double transition - to switch the platform to an entirely new OS (OS X) on an entirely different architecture (x86) six years later, since it would have meant OS 9 applications would run poorly in emulation and developers would be daunted by a new OS on unfamiliar architecture. The market calculus involved isn't difficult to do - the alternate scenario you envision would have been an unmitigated disaster. At least with this confirmed Intel switch, I can only say there's a strong possibly it will end poorly; I cannot assure impending disaster.
TenoBell articulates a number of the problematic issues associated with this transition. One of my biggest concerns is that the ability to dual-boot into Windows will seal Apple's fate as a box maker. As I wrote recently on MacNN, ease of dual-boot is the nightmare scenario. Even I, a platform zealot, would not be able to resist the temptation to run Windows at least part of the time. There's very little reason for third parties to invest resources in Mac development if Mac users can just as easily restart into Windows. Oh, and as TenoBell points out, OS X on commodity hardware just eliminates a HUGE chunk of Apple's revenue and profit margin. Guys, I want to trust Jobs, but I suspect he is milking the Mac for what it's worth and attempting to transition to the next big thing: entertainment. That's what this transition implies to me, and if true it's time to brace for a hard impact.
Since OS X is the son of the NeXT Step OS that ran on intel, Jobs wanted to switch to Intel years before comeing back to Apple.
For the sake of accuracy, NeXTStep did not run on Intel hardware. It ran on proprietary NeXT hardware powered by Motorola 68K (68030 and 68040) chips. Due to poor financials, NeXT killed it's own hardware and introduced OpenStep, which did indeed run on standard Intel PCs. Jobs may well be taking Apple on that very same path.
Star Trek? They were porting OS 9 to x86. But they scrapped the project in favor of the PowerPC, even though they had to go through a transition either way. Apparently the port was difficult and performance was not impressive enough to justify the project. If it had not been prudent to go to Intel with the classic OS then, it would almost certainly have been disastrous to attempt a double transition - to switch the platform to an entirely new OS (OS X) on an entirely different architecture (x86) six years later, since it would have meant OS 9 applications would run poorly in emulation and developers would be daunted by a new OS on unfamiliar architecture. The market calculus involved isn't difficult to do - the alternate scenario you envision would have been an unmitigated disaster. At least with this confirmed Intel switch, I can only say there's a strong possibly it will end poorly; I cannot assure impending disaster.
TenoBell articulates a number of the problematic issues associated with this transition. One of my biggest concerns is that the ability to dual-boot into Windows will seal Apple's fate as a box maker. As I wrote recently on MacNN, ease of dual-boot is the nightmare scenario. Even I, a platform zealot, would not be able to resist the temptation to run Windows at least part of the time. There's very little reason for third parties to invest resources in Mac development if Mac users can just as easily restart into Windows. Oh, and as TenoBell points out, OS X on commodity hardware just eliminates a HUGE chunk of Apple's revenue and profit margin. Guys, I want to trust Jobs, but I suspect he is milking the Mac for what it's worth and attempting to transition to the next big thing: entertainment. That's what this transition implies to me, and if true it's time to brace for a hard impact.
That's not what I was refering to. I was refering to Apple's dynamic interpreted 68xxx emulator used in the new PPC machines to enable them to run 68xxx code.
You don't know if apple was trying to trying to port to x86 back then. I don't remember anything of the sort. The 68xxx was a much better chip than the pre Pentium line chips, as well as being much more advanced. The PPC was supposed to set the entire industry on its ear as well. It could have, but MS cancelled NT on PPC shortly after the final beta. That was too bad, because I had a chance to use it, and it was much faster than running NT on x86.
It was a political issue though. That killed the PPC's chances for general adoption, and set us on the course we are on today.
So I very much doubt that Apple was working on an x86 port before Jobs came back.
The last paragraph I can agree with because I've been expressing the same concern myself. It's not a new one either. Industry people have stated many times both in the past, and now as well, that this remains one of Apple's biggest challanges; keeping developers writing OS X software.
It depends on who is buying the computers, and why.
I use VPC, and before that, SoftWindows. But the experience is so bad, that it would never tempt me to use it for anything other than the most basic or critical purposes.
We get many people on our Mac threads saying that dual booting is such a hassle that no one would do it. Bull! It's a very simple process. If Apple allows it.
We've been double booting from OS 9 into X for several years, until Apple removed the ability to boot into 9. Before X, I, and many others would keep System Folders on every single drive we had connected to our machines! We would select from the control panel, and restart from another folder. This was so common, it's hardly worth commenting upon, but for those too new to remember.
So, if we can do that, Windows might become viable. Linux too.
Remember Apple's new patent application for security? Look down the page until you get to Patent Point #20, and read.
For the sake of accuracy, NeXTStep did not run on Intel hardware. It ran on proprietary NeXT hardware powered by Motorola 68K (68030 and 68040) chips. Due to poor financials, NeXT killed it's own hardware and introduced OpenStep, which did indeed run on standard Intel PCs. Jobs may well be taking Apple on that very same path.
You are mis-informed.
NEXTSTEP (or NeXTStep or NextStep or NeXTstep, whichever you prefer) ran on the following hardware/chip platforms:
Motorola 68030/68040 - NeXT proprietary machines
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
Sun Microsystems SPARC
Intel x86 - I believe Dell and Canon machines were able to run it
(rumored) Motorola 88000 - NeXT (never released) proprietary machines
Furthermore, this was when NeXT introduced "fat binaries" (the less elegantly named ancestor to "universal binaries")...And "porting" our NEXTSTEP applications to any of the other platforms was, quite literally, a click of a button.
NEXTSTEP was probably the most portable OS around...maybe still is. I don't count just the Linux kernel. This was the whole ball of wax.
Finally, OpenStep was an API specification and development environment...essentially the predecessor to Cocoa. In fact this thread more closely related to OpenStep.
NEXTSTEP (or NeXTStep or NextStep or NeXTstep, whichever you prefer) ran on the following hardware/chip platforms:
Motorola 68030/68040 - NeXT proprietary machines
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
Sun Microsystems SPARC
Intel x86 - I believe Dell and Canon machines were able to run it
(rumored) Motorola 88000 - NeXT (never released) proprietary machines
Furthermore, this was when NeXT introduced "fat binaries" (the less elegantly named ancestor to "universal binaries")...And "porting" our NEXTSTEP applications to any of the other platforms was, quite literally, a click of a button.
NEXTSTEP was probably the most portable OS around...maybe still is. I don't count just the Linux kernel. This was the whole ball of wax.
Finally, OpenStep was an API specification and development environment...essentially the predecessor to Cocoa. In fact this thread more closely related to OpenStep.
You nailed that!
Also, Canon and Perot were big investors in the original NEXT.
[B]That's not what I was refering to. I was refering to Apple's dynamic interpreted 68xxx emulator used in the new PPC machines to enable them to run 68xxx code.
Yeah, Apple did devise that solution, but don't you remember how excruciatingly slow 68K binaries were on the first generation Power Macs? Don't you recall how slow certain parts of the OS were because they were going through many layers of emulation? They had to get a lot faster before it was tolerable, and by that time most programs were native thanks to Metrowerks. Everyone credits Metrowerks with saving Apple at that time, for if people had to rely on 68K binaries long term the situation would have been dire.
Quote:
You don't know if apple was trying to trying to port to x86 back then. I don't remember anything of the sort.
Star Trek
Quote:
The 68xxx was a much better chip than the pre Pentium line chips, as well as being much more advanced. The PPC was supposed to set the entire industry on its ear as well. It could have, but MS cancelled NT on PPC shortly after the final beta. That was too bad, because I had a chance to use it, and it was much faster than running NT on x86. It was a political issue though. That killed the PPC's chances for general adoption, and set us on the course we are on today.
The PPC version of NT was from the outset viewed as a non-starter by many - I knew M$ would never part ways with Intel and break the Wintel monopoly in favor of the PPC. I don't think that's what "killed the PPC's chances." Most people blame lost PPC market potential on the fact that Apple did not support PREP and dragged its feet on implementing CHRP. If there had been a common reference platform for PPC hardware as was originally intended, Apple could have had a much more vibrant and successful cloning initiative than what it ended up with. But that's neither here nor there.
Quote:
Remember Apple's new patent application for security? Look down the page until you get to Patent Point #20, and read.
Interesting (link is mangled but a copy and paste worked). I think Apple may be underestimating the will of the hacker community. Sony has a closed platform in the PSP but has failed. M$ has failed. A lot of money has been thrown at disabling hardware for additional profit, mostly in vain. It's interesting that the patent reveals dual-booting will be encouraged. Could Apple possibly not understand the destructive implications associated therewith?
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]You are mis-informed. NEXTSTEP (or NeXTStep or NextStep or NeXTstep, whichever you prefer) ran on the following hardware/chip platforms:
Motorola 68030/68040 - NeXT proprietary machines
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
Sun Microsystems SPARC
Intel x86 - I believe Dell and Canon machines were able to run it
(rumored) Motorola 88000 - NeXT (never released) proprietary machines
You are technically right; I was partially mistaken. NeXTStep did run on those other hardware platforms, but according to Wikipedia that was only when it became NEXTSTEP (version 3.3), released in 1995 - at the end of its life-cycle. And I should have accurately referred to OpenStep as the API frameworks that were the basis of the OPENSTEP OS, the forerunner to OS X. (Boy, NeXT may have had little more success on its own if not for Jobs' former obsession on differentiation through capitalization. Those distinctions are difficult to recall at times.) I became aware of Dharma yesterday (and posted my view on the rumor on MacNN). I was a big believer in the potential held by OpenStep/EOF/"Yellow Box" and was disappointed when it became obvious Apple no longer had intentions of deploying it. It would be great to see it out there, but it's just not going to offset the loss of third party developers if dual-booting becomes prevalent.
Comments
Yes, and Marklar is related is related to Star Trek in a sense: Star Trek, aliens, South Park aliens. . .
heh. well, here's someone still having personal issues with the transition
btw, as it stands right now, AMD does very well on desktops and servers. for desktops, the value-for-money you get with single and dual core on socket939, even palermo/paris on socket754, is nothing short of spectacular. second-tier as we've discussed, is not quite a label you could put on AMD. in terms of mobile though, Intel's pentium M is unmatched, Turion64, SempronMobile and AthlonMobile are okay but not as good as pentium M.
so for apple, yeah, they need 1. one-stop-shop for platform, mobile and wireless :: bingo :: intel. 2. a pipeline with enough stuff that steve just couldn't refuse. unfortunately, the g5 is more than capable on the desktop line so even though this is AMD's core strength right now, not enticing enough for apple to go amd.
so anyway my two cents there.
edit: also with intel steve probably had a crack team of consultants(the useful kind, they're out there somewhere) look in depth at their manufacturing capabilities, ramping to meet demands, etc, etc and definitely saw something very promising there... no doubt he was informed of the 45nm* stuff as well that is just hitting the news now.
*http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/dec/1216179.htm
Originally posted by rtamesis
Remember the skunkworks project codenamed Star Trek where Apple engineers got System 7 to run on an Intel chip back in the early 90's? Scully and others then buried that project and continued touting the benefits of the PowerPC RISC chip over Intel's chips.
Right, but what's not clear to me is if they could have engineered a usable version of OS 9 running within OS X on Intel.
I have no doubt duel boot machines were doable, but duel boot isn't the elegant solution that OS X/Classic is/was.
Anyway, I guess we'll never know.
Apple really should have called the project Death Star, though, because it is to bring death to our platform.
I have questions too about this move. There are some serious potential pit falls in moving to standard commodity mother boards and chips.
There are still some holes in the narrative. Jobs still has some secrets to this whole thing that he has yet to tell us. I think those secrets will relieve the concerns I'm having.
I have questions too about this move. There are some serious potential pit falls in moving to standard commodity mother boards and chips.
There are still some holes in the narrative. Jobs still has some secrets to this whole thing that he has yet to tell us. I think those secrets will relieve the concerns I'm having.
what are these concerns and how might Jobs address them? do share
Originally posted by Big Mac
Rothenberg and Ciarelli's "Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit With Marklar"
Awesome find. Sad reminder of where we've been: the article laments that Apple's newest 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMacs (in late 2002) were a small step up from the 1 GHz G4 PowerMacs introduced in January 2002.
In four frikkin years Motorola/Freescale has rev'd the G4 a stunning 67% in clock speed. From 1 to 1.67 GHz in four years. And there are vaporware rumors that maybe, maybe, Freescale will introduce 1.8 GHz dual-core parts sometime next year. That horrific long-term performance is why Apple is switching to Intel. And why the switch is a very, very Good Thing.
Originally posted by Big Mac
Apple really should have called the project Death Star, though, because it is to bring death to our platform.
The Mac platform has "died" and been reborn at least twice already (PowerPC, MacOS X). So the Mac is dead again... long live the Mac!
Originally posted by Big Mac
I don't know why this is being treated as major news, since the death of the Mac was foreshadowed back in 2002. If you look back you'll find Rothenberg and Ciarelli's "Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit With Marklar" that confirmed the Marklar project, Apple's threats to Motorola of an Intel switch and the Power4 derivative that turned out to be the 970. It was all there, back in 2002 - admittedly I too missed the article and was shocked to see it foretell the future after I stumbled on it in the aftermath of WWDC '05. Oh the horror, the technological horror.
Well, because it's fun, you know?
Originally posted by addabox
Right, but what's not clear to me is if they could have engineered a usable version of OS 9 running within OS X on Intel.
I have no doubt duel boot machines were doable, but duel boot isn't the elegant solution that OS X/Classic is/was.
Anyway, I guess we'll never know.
I'm pretty sure that they could have, if they wanted to.
This is just software. There isn't anything special that says it can't go on other platforms.
Don't forget that Classic doesn't run on PPC either. It runs through X, uses its services, and is almost totally isolated from the hardware. Real hardware abstraction!
That's why you can't use software that uses services from 9 that goes direct to hardware, such as DiskWarrior.
The same thing would be true for the Intel version. There would probably be a bit more work, but it wouldn't be daunting.
But, as I said before, this was the perfect excuse to get rid of it. Move everyone over, do or die.
Remember that Apple doesn't consider anyone who uses machines and software that Apple doesn't produce or sell anymore to be their customer. Someone who is on system 8 (you know who you are!) isn't buying anything from Apple, and likely not from 3rd parties either.
Cut them loose.
I guess now we know who promised Steve Jobs that the G5 would be at 3GHz by last summer.
Ouch!!!! That one still HERTZ to think about dont it? 8)
A) knowing now that IBM refused to give chips to a G5 powerbook project
I have to lower my purist power pc loving attitude and no longer say that the intel switch is a bad thing in any respect..... i`m a changed man.
Besides it has recently been brought out, that, in world war 2 "This is a fact" IBM Supplied machines "what was then the latest and greatest in technology" to the Nazis,these electronic punch card machines were used to track feeding clothing,shipments of and oh yes... executions of jews. and they (IBM) knew about it "but they went for the money" They helped the Nazis.
So YAY apple!!! the more they distance themselves from that kind of Karma
"Forgive me for being Metaphysical here" the more Prospering of a company they will be!!!
IBM Obviously hasnt changed their ways in their dealing with the likes of Micro$$$ as Micro$$$ are Nazis themselves in their own way.....
Pentiums dont have these special features along with HexPea, is apple going to have Intel Design special features such as this for these new mactel chips?
Or am I Continuing to be paranoid about the switch? will doctor jacob be able to sew jennys arm back on on the next episode of crappy hospital? hell...
C) End Rant
Originally posted by Big Mac
Classic within OS X is running as a virtual machine - it is the true OS 9 running on the PowerPC, albeit not directly but certainly not in emulation. Through clever engineering the OS is tricked into believing it is running directly on regular Mac hardware despite the abstraction layer of the OS X kernel. OS 9 on Intel was never feasible and remains so, unless you would have wanted OS 9 to run at the speed of Virtual PC. Dynamic recompilation did not exist in 2001, and even now Rosetta cannot run the Classic environment nor individual OS 9 applications (see Universal Binary.pdf). Besides, it remains to be seen just how well Mac (OS X) binaries will run on Apple's Intel PCs.
So what was Apple doing in 1994?
what are these concerns and how might Jobs address them?
Keeping in mind that we still have sparse information about Apple?s transition to intel.
Apple has been such a rogue in the PC industry. Apple has done things so differently that in many ways it has not been a direct competator to the larger PC industry.
If Apple were to align itself closely with the general PC industry that would put the company on exact and equal footing with its much larger rivals.
The pressure is on Apple to be ingenious and creative. The larger dominating PC companies only have to be good enough and cheap.
In competing directly with the larger PC industry Apple has to be better, not only in practice but in perception.
On the x86 platform OS X has to outperform Vista. With both systems running on x86 there will be little room for semantic debate over which is better. If Vista is perceived as equal or better than OS X, that could stem the tide of potential switchers, and be a detriment to Apple?s small marketshare.
At this point Apple enjoys the luxury of selling the Macintosh line at a premium. If Macintel?s use the exact same commodity processors and motherboards that Dell and HP use one of two things is likely to happen. Apple will have to lower the price of its computers and accept a lower profit margin. Or sell fewer computers at a higher price and profit margin.
With the same processors and motherboards there will be no hardware configuration Apple could create for the Mac that Dell or HP could not put into their machines and sell for a lower price.
Some argue that people will buy a Mac at a higher price because of its design. Some people stubbornly will. Dell can show their computer spec for spec is the exact same as the Macintosh for a cheaper price most people will go for the cheaper price.
The other gamble Apple is taking on pirated copies of OS X running on home built systems. This isn?t a big concern but it has potential to become a problem. With x86 machines if Apple continues to sell at its current price level. Undoubtedly there will be a community hard at work to make OS X work on any x86 machine.
From what I understand Windows piracy is rampant all over the world. With Windows owning 90% of the market it is able to absorb the lost revenue from piracy. In many ways the piracy helps continue Windows market domination.
Apple being such a small company with a small marketshare is unable to handle the lost revenue of rampant piracy in the same way.
Unknown mysteries about this transition.
Jobs still hasn?t officially stated which intel chips Apple will use, what Macintosh will use which chip, or the time frame each computer will change to intel.
It?s unknown if intel will place some special features in its chips that only OS X will be able to support. This could help give OS X a performance or feature boost over Vista.
It?s unknown if Apple will use AMD64 or some new Intel 64 bit ISA. Intel itself as been very critical of AMD64 calling it a feature extension of x86 and not a revolutionary 64 bit architecture. Some argue Apple will have to use AMD64 but so far there is no clear evidence of that.
It?s unknown what hardware features or configurations Apple will deliver the new x86 Macintosh line.
It?s unknown if Apple will continue to design its own motherboards or use intel commodity boards.
It?s unknown what security features Apple will use to ensure OS X will run only on Macintosh. Will this security feature be rock solid or easily broken?
Originally posted by melgross
So what was Apple doing in 1994?
Star Trek? They were porting OS 9 to x86. But they scrapped the project in favor of the PowerPC, even though they had to go through a transition either way. Apparently the port was difficult and performance was not impressive enough to justify the project. If it had not been prudent to go to Intel with the classic OS then, it would almost certainly have been disastrous to attempt a double transition - to switch the platform to an entirely new OS (OS X) on an entirely different architecture (x86) six years later, since it would have meant OS 9 applications would run poorly in emulation and developers would be daunted by a new OS on unfamiliar architecture. The market calculus involved isn't difficult to do - the alternate scenario you envision would have been an unmitigated disaster. At least with this confirmed Intel switch, I can only say there's a strong possibly it will end poorly; I cannot assure impending disaster.
TenoBell articulates a number of the problematic issues associated with this transition. One of my biggest concerns is that the ability to dual-boot into Windows will seal Apple's fate as a box maker. As I wrote recently on MacNN, ease of dual-boot is the nightmare scenario. Even I, a platform zealot, would not be able to resist the temptation to run Windows at least part of the time. There's very little reason for third parties to invest resources in Mac development if Mac users can just as easily restart into Windows. Oh, and as TenoBell points out, OS X on commodity hardware just eliminates a HUGE chunk of Apple's revenue and profit margin. Guys, I want to trust Jobs, but I suspect he is milking the Mac for what it's worth and attempting to transition to the next big thing: entertainment. That's what this transition implies to me, and if true it's time to brace for a hard impact.
Originally posted by AquaMac
Since OS X is the son of the NeXT Step OS that ran on intel, Jobs wanted to switch to Intel years before comeing back to Apple.
For the sake of accuracy, NeXTStep did not run on Intel hardware. It ran on proprietary NeXT hardware powered by Motorola 68K (68030 and 68040) chips. Due to poor financials, NeXT killed it's own hardware and introduced OpenStep, which did indeed run on standard Intel PCs. Jobs may well be taking Apple on that very same path.
Originally posted by Big Mac
Star Trek? They were porting OS 9 to x86. But they scrapped the project in favor of the PowerPC, even though they had to go through a transition either way. Apparently the port was difficult and performance was not impressive enough to justify the project. If it had not been prudent to go to Intel with the classic OS then, it would almost certainly have been disastrous to attempt a double transition - to switch the platform to an entirely new OS (OS X) on an entirely different architecture (x86) six years later, since it would have meant OS 9 applications would run poorly in emulation and developers would be daunted by a new OS on unfamiliar architecture. The market calculus involved isn't difficult to do - the alternate scenario you envision would have been an unmitigated disaster. At least with this confirmed Intel switch, I can only say there's a strong possibly it will end poorly; I cannot assure impending disaster.
TenoBell articulates a number of the problematic issues associated with this transition. One of my biggest concerns is that the ability to dual-boot into Windows will seal Apple's fate as a box maker. As I wrote recently on MacNN, ease of dual-boot is the nightmare scenario. Even I, a platform zealot, would not be able to resist the temptation to run Windows at least part of the time. There's very little reason for third parties to invest resources in Mac development if Mac users can just as easily restart into Windows. Oh, and as TenoBell points out, OS X on commodity hardware just eliminates a HUGE chunk of Apple's revenue and profit margin. Guys, I want to trust Jobs, but I suspect he is milking the Mac for what it's worth and attempting to transition to the next big thing: entertainment. That's what this transition implies to me, and if true it's time to brace for a hard impact.
That's not what I was refering to. I was refering to Apple's dynamic interpreted 68xxx emulator used in the new PPC machines to enable them to run 68xxx code.
You don't know if apple was trying to trying to port to x86 back then. I don't remember anything of the sort. The 68xxx was a much better chip than the pre Pentium line chips, as well as being much more advanced. The PPC was supposed to set the entire industry on its ear as well. It could have, but MS cancelled NT on PPC shortly after the final beta. That was too bad, because I had a chance to use it, and it was much faster than running NT on x86.
It was a political issue though. That killed the PPC's chances for general adoption, and set us on the course we are on today.
So I very much doubt that Apple was working on an x86 port before Jobs came back.
The last paragraph I can agree with because I've been expressing the same concern myself. It's not a new one either. Industry people have stated many times both in the past, and now as well, that this remains one of Apple's biggest challanges; keeping developers writing OS X software.
It depends on who is buying the computers, and why.
I use VPC, and before that, SoftWindows. But the experience is so bad, that it would never tempt me to use it for anything other than the most basic or critical purposes.
We get many people on our Mac threads saying that dual booting is such a hassle that no one would do it. Bull! It's a very simple process. If Apple allows it.
We've been double booting from OS 9 into X for several years, until Apple removed the ability to boot into 9. Before X, I, and many others would keep System Folders on every single drive we had connected to our machines! We would select from the control panel, and restart from another folder. This was so common, it's hardly worth commenting upon, but for those too new to remember.
So, if we can do that, Windows might become viable. Linux too.
Remember Apple's new patent application for security? Look down the page until you get to Patent Point #20, and read.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
Originally posted by Big Mac
For the sake of accuracy, NeXTStep did not run on Intel hardware. It ran on proprietary NeXT hardware powered by Motorola 68K (68030 and 68040) chips. Due to poor financials, NeXT killed it's own hardware and introduced OpenStep, which did indeed run on standard Intel PCs. Jobs may well be taking Apple on that very same path.
You are mis-informed.
NEXTSTEP (or NeXTStep or NextStep or NeXTstep, whichever you prefer) ran on the following hardware/chip platforms:
Motorola 68030/68040 - NeXT proprietary machines
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
Sun Microsystems SPARC
Intel x86 - I believe Dell and Canon machines were able to run it
(rumored) Motorola 88000 - NeXT (never released) proprietary machines
Furthermore, this was when NeXT introduced "fat binaries" (the less elegantly named ancestor to "universal binaries")...And "porting" our NEXTSTEP applications to any of the other platforms was, quite literally, a click of a button.
NEXTSTEP was probably the most portable OS around...maybe still is. I don't count just the Linux kernel. This was the whole ball of wax.
Finally, OpenStep was an API specification and development environment...essentially the predecessor to Cocoa. In fact this thread more closely related to OpenStep.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are mis-informed.
NEXTSTEP (or NeXTStep or NextStep or NeXTstep, whichever you prefer) ran on the following hardware/chip platforms:
Motorola 68030/68040 - NeXT proprietary machines
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
Sun Microsystems SPARC
Intel x86 - I believe Dell and Canon machines were able to run it
(rumored) Motorola 88000 - NeXT (never released) proprietary machines
Furthermore, this was when NeXT introduced "fat binaries" (the less elegantly named ancestor to "universal binaries")...And "porting" our NEXTSTEP applications to any of the other platforms was, quite literally, a click of a button.
NEXTSTEP was probably the most portable OS around...maybe still is. I don't count just the Linux kernel. This was the whole ball of wax.
Finally, OpenStep was an API specification and development environment...essentially the predecessor to Cocoa. In fact this thread more closely related to OpenStep.
You nailed that!
Also, Canon and Perot were big investors in the original NEXT.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]That's not what I was refering to. I was refering to Apple's dynamic interpreted 68xxx emulator used in the new PPC machines to enable them to run 68xxx code.
Yeah, Apple did devise that solution, but don't you remember how excruciatingly slow 68K binaries were on the first generation Power Macs? Don't you recall how slow certain parts of the OS were because they were going through many layers of emulation? They had to get a lot faster before it was tolerable, and by that time most programs were native thanks to Metrowerks. Everyone credits Metrowerks with saving Apple at that time, for if people had to rely on 68K binaries long term the situation would have been dire.
You don't know if apple was trying to trying to port to x86 back then. I don't remember anything of the sort.
Star Trek
The 68xxx was a much better chip than the pre Pentium line chips, as well as being much more advanced. The PPC was supposed to set the entire industry on its ear as well. It could have, but MS cancelled NT on PPC shortly after the final beta. That was too bad, because I had a chance to use it, and it was much faster than running NT on x86. It was a political issue though. That killed the PPC's chances for general adoption, and set us on the course we are on today.
The PPC version of NT was from the outset viewed as a non-starter by many - I knew M$ would never part ways with Intel and break the Wintel monopoly in favor of the PPC. I don't think that's what "killed the PPC's chances." Most people blame lost PPC market potential on the fact that Apple did not support PREP and dragged its feet on implementing CHRP. If there had been a common reference platform for PPC hardware as was originally intended, Apple could have had a much more vibrant and successful cloning initiative than what it ended up with. But that's neither here nor there.
Remember Apple's new patent application for security? Look down the page until you get to Patent Point #20, and read.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
Interesting (link is mangled but a copy and paste worked). I think Apple may be underestimating the will of the hacker community. Sony has a closed platform in the PSP but has failed. M$ has failed. A lot of money has been thrown at disabling hardware for additional profit, mostly in vain. It's interesting that the patent reveals dual-booting will be encouraged. Could Apple possibly not understand the destructive implications associated therewith?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]You are mis-informed. NEXTSTEP (or NeXTStep or NextStep or NeXTstep, whichever you prefer) ran on the following hardware/chip platforms:
Motorola 68030/68040 - NeXT proprietary machines
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
Sun Microsystems SPARC
Intel x86 - I believe Dell and Canon machines were able to run it
(rumored) Motorola 88000 - NeXT (never released) proprietary machines
You are technically right; I was partially mistaken. NeXTStep did run on those other hardware platforms, but according to Wikipedia that was only when it became NEXTSTEP (version 3.3), released in 1995 - at the end of its life-cycle. And I should have accurately referred to OpenStep as the API frameworks that were the basis of the OPENSTEP OS, the forerunner to OS X. (Boy, NeXT may have had little more success on its own if not for Jobs' former obsession on differentiation through capitalization. Those distinctions are difficult to recall at times.) I became aware of Dharma yesterday (and posted my view on the rumor on MacNN). I was a big believer in the potential held by OpenStep/EOF/"Yellow Box" and was disappointed when it became obvious Apple no longer had intentions of deploying it. It would be great to see it out there, but it's just not going to offset the loss of third party developers if dual-booting becomes prevalent.