Apple considering Marklar?

[MacRumors]

MacUser.co.uk posts (http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=36263) a story about Apple's secret Marklar (OS X on x86) project. According to their sources, they are also claiming that Apple is considering marketing Marklar -- as an independant product:

US sources close to the project indicated that the company was actively considering selling Marklar as a retail product, effectively allowing users to replace Windows with OS X. Apple is contemplating the move because it sees an opportunity to win market share from Windows when Microsoft introduces Palladium, a version of its operating system that implements digital rights management.

...or, alternatively, to be triggered for release if Microsoft and Apple relations sour.

Information on Marklar was first leaked by this eWeek article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020830181129.shtml) which describes it as an "fall-back plan" should the PowerPC fail to deliver.

Later unconfirmable information came in the form of this detailed article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021124221123.shtml) on Apple's Past and Future roadmap... which shares many similarities to this Macuser's report:

Contrary to circulating rumors, [Marklar] is not meant to be a Power PC exit strategy. Rather, it is intended to be offered to X86 users when Apple sees market conditions being fit for it. What it means by this is regarding Intel's Lagrande technology, and Microsoft's Palladium technology. Apple intends on releasing OS X on Intel, when consumer dissatisfaction falls to an all time low for Microsoft when users become restricted to what they can do on their PC's due to Lagrande and Palladium. Likely it will be released in the event that Microsoft chooses to stop developing for the Mac platform altogether.

If this information is indeed accurate, this also provides more validation to the RoadMap article which also detailed other products that are in the works.

[medea]

woah, if this would be the biggest move Apple has ever made if they go through with it, just imagine......but would pc users buy it, I mean if people arent willing to buy a macintosh would they purchase just the os....im thinking yes.

[Mudbug]

This honestly seems like the first valid possibility for Marklar to see the light of day that I've heard of. This should be interesting to watch.

[pgwalsh]

How much sofware would there be for Marklar on X86? 0

[bbyrdhouse]

Here we go again!

I just wonder if this rumor has enough life left in it to fill another thread...........

I'll just sit back relax and enjoy reading everyone "duking" it out..........again.:rolleyes:

[idkew]

i think that this would only be a good idea if people were truely sick and tired of microshaft and its practices.

if people are not ready to switch, the only people running marklar would be previous apple users who wanted a "faster" computer for less than an apple branded computer.

that would obviously hurt apple a ton since it would lose sales to dell...

not to mention, if apple sells os x for macs for $129, what would it cost for PC's? there is a ton more work required to get ALL those standard-less systems working correctly under os x. imagine the thousands of drivers that would need to be written...

[gbojim]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
How much sofware would there be for Marklar on X86? 0

Exactly. The only way I see this really working is if Apple sets up OEM deals where the hardware is sold with all the app software you need and is targeted at the home market. This would have to include the iApps and Appleworks. The hardware kit would have to be tightly controlled due to lack of drivers. I can't see this being sold as a stand alone product. I would certainly be ticked off if I bought it, installed it on my existing system, and found out most of my hardware did not work.

Even then, they would have to sell a huge volume to make up for the profits lost when the consumer hardware sales get cannibalized.

[bbyrdhouse]

Hey Mudbug,

I just noticed that you live in Shreveport, LA. I grew up in Bossier.
Small world huh.

___________________________________________________

I think it would be neat to have OSX on x86 but I dont think it makes sense for Apple.
I think Apple stands to gain more ground by having a faster processor in all their products and a little better price scale in place for when Microsoft and Intel introduce their new products.
By then the Linux distros will have a better shot at the PC market than Marklar.
Just my opinion!!

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by gbojim
The only way I see this really working is if Apple sets up OEM deals where the hardware is sold with all the app software you need and is targeted at the home market.

which could be very hard to do if apple goes looking for help from microsoft 'owned' OEMs


I wonder how developers would approach this... R&D for three platforms would be pretty expensive (e.g. photoshop windows, os X, os X x86...), so apple must have some plans for what to do there... it wouldn't make sense to make a launch and have basically zero software

[Durandal7]

I think that when Palladium is introduced Microsoft hating will be at an all time high. If MacOS X for x86 is introduced I believe that it will begin to make a serious dent in Windows 2004 (or Longhorn or whatever) sales.

Target Audiences:
-Some Linux users looking for a better interface
-People who enjoy tweaking hardware and would rather have Linux/OS X dual boot then Windows w/ Palladium
-All those people who like OS X but don't have the money for Apple hardware
-Graphics designers who prefer the Mac but need high powered Xeon workstations

[joed]

I reckon Apple could convince Sony to reinstall OSX x86 for all their computers. Sony is already going to install Sun's Office instead of Microsoft office for most computers sold in Europe and their PDA's use Palm instead of PocketPC.

I think they'd be happy to ditch Microsoft all together.

[dricci]

So when people are angry that their motherboard/processor include digital rights mismanagement, they'll install OS X on the same machine (which probably won't be allowed to boot due to it's lack of support for the drm).

It doesn't add up.

This rumor is so old now it's not even funny. The day Apple releases OS X for x86 is the day I stop using computers. Apple creates a total package solution that just works, where as a PC Apple would have to include every possible driver, something the latest versions of Windows aren't even able to do. It'd turn into a driver and support headache just like PCs. It wouldn't be fun anymore.

Not to mention that the MAJORITY OF APPLE'S PROFITS COME FROM HARDWARE SALES

[evolu]

what if marklar acted as virtual PC does?

first post y'all.

[BenderBot1138]

Let's call it the Rhapsody of StarTrek.

:cool:

[bbyrdhouse]

originally posted by dricci
Apple creates a total package solution that just works, where as a PC Apple would have to include every possible driver, something the latest versions of Windows aren't even able to do. It'd turn into a driver and support headache just like PCs.
___________________________________________________

I tend to agree with dricci on this one.

[Billicus]

Originally posted by dricci
So when people are angry that their motherboard/processor include digital rights mismanagement, they'll install OS X on the same machine (which probably won't be allowed to boot due to it's lack of support for the drm).

It doesn't add up.

This rumor is so old now it's not even funny. The day Apple releases OS X for x86 is the day I stop using computers. Apple creates a total package solution that just works, where as a PC Apple would have to include every possible driver, something the latest versions of Windows aren't even able to do. It'd turn into a driver and support headache just like PCs. It wouldn't be fun anymore.

Not to mention that the MAJORITY OF APPLE'S PROFITS COME FROM HARDWARE SALES

I agree with dricci - If this happened, it would have to be a last ditch effort - it would be an immense undertaking to get all the work Apple has put into their Macintosh Hardware to the Intel/Amd platform. Apple would have to be losing their hardware before this happened.

Consider this scenario: Oh they have OS X for the Pc now...so why should I but a Macintosh computer again?

[lmalave]

I think Apple is just keeping this on the back burner to use as negotiating leverage against Microsoft. The fact is, for now Apple needs Microsoft to keep supporting Office for the Mac. The fact is for the average consumer Office is THE must-have application - the Mac is basically dead without it. Maybe other companies can follow Sony's lead and chip away at Office's market share, forcing it to be more open. But for now Apple can't afford to do anything to seriously challenge Microsoft. Microsoft tolerates the "Switch" ads because it expects Apple to remain a niche player with under 10% market share for the foreseeable future.

Since Apple makes most of its money from hardware, there is no way they would undermine their core hardware market by offering Mac OS X for x86 unless they really were at death's door. Or unless they had the backing of one or more major, major parners (like Sony, as mentioned in a post above), and are willing to bet the whole farm on this radically new strategy...

[kansaigaijin]

M$ makes 85% margin on Windoze and Orifice.
how many Black (it is the dark side, PowerPC is white box) boxen of CDs do you need to replace the hardware sales?
why make hardware?

the hardware would become a super premium product running a high end chip etc and the designer consumer stuff.
Like that alien stuff.

[iMax]

As someone has already mentioned, there would be no programs out there that would run on OSX on an x86 based processor...

and perhps even more importantly, this would be the end of most Mac hardware sales. To the vast majority of people, the benefits of OSX on boxes that are half as cheap as apple's and are able to be home built... Apple's going to destroy most of their hardware sales.

The only places where they truly compete are in laptops. The iMac is a great design but with less than awesome hardware, and the powermac is truly lagging, especially in a price/performance ratio.

[bbyrdhouse]

originally posted by kansaigaijin
M$ makes 85% margin on Windoze and Orifice.how many Black (it is the dark side, PowerPC is white box) boxen of CDs do you need to replace the hardware sales? why make hardware
the hardware would become a super premium product running a high end chip etc and the designer consumer stuff.like that alien stuff


Huh!:confused:

[electric]

What if this rumor is true and what if Microsoft decided to make a version of Linux. What a mixed up world that would be.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by dricci
So when people are angry that their motherboard/processor include digital rights mismanagement, they'll install OS X on the same machine (which probably won't be allowed to boot due to it's lack of support for the drm).

It doesn't add up.

This rumor is so old now it's not even funny. The day Apple releases OS X for x86 is the day I stop using computers. Apple creates a total package solution that just works, where as a PC Apple would have to include every possible driver, something the latest versions of Windows aren't even able to do. It'd turn into a driver and support headache just like PCs. It wouldn't be fun anymore.

Not to mention that the MAJORITY OF APPLE'S PROFITS COME FROM HARDWARE SALES

But imagine, if you will, a partnership with someone like Sony. It's entirely possible that such a "co-opetition" arrangement, where Sony licenses OS X and then begins to compete head-to-head with Apple for hardware sales, could result in overall higher Apple hardware sales. Why? Because Apple has a pathetic 3.5% market share, and Sony has 10 times the marketing muscle. Let's say the overall Mac OS X market went up to 15% behind Sony's marketing, of which Apple sold a third and Sony two thirds. That means Apple's overall market share would go up to 5%, plus it would be making extra money off the OS X licensing deal. The fact is, the more people accept OS X as a viable alternative, the better off Apple is, since it will always be able to compete on hardware design, even against the likes of Sony (no slouch itself in the product design department).

Of course, I don't think such a scenario is going to happen with the 970 around the corner, but I'm just saying it's possible. It would of course still have to involve tight control over hardware, since that is key to Apple's strategy. And also Apple would have to resolve how developers could develop easily for both PPC and x86. There would have to be some kind of voodoo there. But let's not forget that since Steve Jobs came back, breathtaking surprise and bravado have been at the core of Apple's marketing and strategy: iMac, TiBook, iPod, iMac G4, and whatever big thing comes next :D

[arnette]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
Let's call it the Rhapsody of StarTrek.

:cool:

How many times are you going to post that same joke?;)

[etoiles]

Originally posted by lmalave


But imagine, if you will, a partnership with someone like Sony. It's entirely possible that such a "co-opetition" arrangement, where Sony licenses OS X and then begins to compete head-to-head with Apple for hardware sales, could result in overall higher Apple hardware sales.

oh no, its the attack of the clones...ehm...I mean the clones strike back...erhm...I think we have seen that already. Maybe people will watch it again, if it is some fancy 'collectors new and improved directors cut' ?

:D

[MrMacMan]

Well the idea of making a Mac OS for Intel (AMD, hehe) is feasible but will it work?
I mean just another OS for people to be fighting over...
This deffently opens doors but will it work? I donno...

This is a great Idea, but just like communism it might fail. -- To quote some great genius. :rolleyes: hehe.

[g4pismo]

Don’t get me wrong, I am all about Apple's closed hardware model, but to respond to all the posts about the driver war, I have had to install drivers for Mac hardware in the past. MacOS isn't all inclusive to all the hardware that is out there for our beloved Macs. I don’t think this would be such a pain as most think. I haven't really needed to look for a driver for any of my systems since w2k. Surely Apple could provide a similar level of service *IF* they decide to take a step into the valley of the dead. Options for alternative operating environments are very thin. If an end-user wants to get away from M$, the options are thin. All other x86 OS’s faces an issue with software as well as supported hardware. Apple at least has ties with the large software providers. I just hope Apple can get the hardware side of the house in line so this will never be a more that a rumor... Just my 2 cents..

[TheGreatWashu]

Booya. This is my first post. It seems to me that the facts that Apple would have to do a huge amount of work to get marklar peripherals working as well as Mac peripherals do on real Macs, and the fact that Apple makes most of their money off hardware sales would balance each other out to a degree. As in "sure you can buy a $700 intel machine and run OSX on it, but we make no promises about your old-as-hell serial printer working with it. if you want promises, you shell out and get a real mac." think about it; the target market in this case for "real mac" buyers would be pretty much the same as it is now; reasonably well-to-do folks who don't mind shelling out extra for a premium product. but apple would now also have a whole other market to flog.

i think man-made limitations should be placed on marklar to keep it from cannibalizing real mac sales too badly. one good limitation is simply a side-effect of OSX being run on X86; that is, you've lost Carbon and Classic. the openstep API Cocoa is based on was designed around X86 architecture and isn't this objective C stuff supposed to be super-portable, anyway? so it shouldn't be too hard to get cocoa apps running on x86. but if you want carbon or classic (read; photoshop, quark, director, y'know the lineup...) then you're getting a real mac (or windows! but we're assuming folks are addicted enough to OSX to make it worthwhile). another limitation might be to keep marklar from using more than 2 processors. that way when IBM's extremely SMP friendly 907 processor comes out, and apple starts to support more than two procs on "real" OSX, you'll be assured that Macs will be the fastest computers running OSX, if not the fastest PCs in general.

it's easy to see how such an easily administered operating system with relatively inexpensive licensing and dirt-cheap hardware might become quite popular in business sectors where you don't need adobe software or scalable SMP.

just my two cents!

[macmax]

apple would lose sales ...

apple would loose sales


This would be true.
If apple for one releases this osx for pc's
then Apple would die.
It is not a great move unless apple sells their machines as cheap as possible, because then people would not buy another mac.

I think Apple is doing well and i think it would be a great mergegreat merge or a great deal that apple could merge with sun microsystems:)

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by macmax

i think it would be a great mergegreat merge or a great deal that apple could merge with sun microsystems:) Where did this come from and could you clarify why you think this would be a great merger? Thanks!

[locovaca]

Originally posted by TheGreatWashu
Booya. This is my first post. It seems to me that the facts that Apple would have to do a huge amount of work to get marklar peripherals working as well as Mac peripherals do on real Macs, and the fact that Apple makes most of their money off hardware sales would balance each other out to a degree. As in "sure you can buy a $700 intel machine and run OSX on it, but we make no promises about your old-as-hell serial printer working with it. if you want promises, you shell out and get a real mac." think about it; the target market in this case for "real mac" buyers would be pretty much the same as it is now; reasonably well-to-do folks who don't mind shelling out extra for a premium product. but apple would now also have a whole other market to flog.

i think man-made limitations should be placed on marklar to keep it from cannibalizing real mac sales too badly. one good limitation is simply a side-effect of OSX being run on X86; that is, you've lost Carbon and Classic. the openstep API Cocoa is based on was designed around X86 architecture and isn't this objective C stuff supposed to be super-portable, anyway? so it shouldn't be too hard to get cocoa apps running on x86. but if you want carbon or classic (read; photoshop, quark, director, y'know the lineup...) then you're getting a real mac (or windows! but we're assuming folks are addicted enough to OSX to make it worthwhile). another limitation might be to keep marklar from using more than 2 processors. that way when IBM's extremely SMP friendly 907 processor comes out, and apple starts to support more than two procs on "real" OSX, you'll be assured that Macs will be the fastest computers running OSX, if not the fastest PCs in general.

it's easy to see how such an easily administered operating system with relatively inexpensive licensing and dirt-cheap hardware might become quite popular in business sectors where you don't need adobe software or scalable SMP.

just my two cents!


The driver issue is almost trivial. USB? Standard. Nvidia Video Cards? Standard. Onboard sound? Standard. In fact, you'd find two very conssit things:

1. High end PCs share much of their hardware with Macs
2. Low end PCs share much of the same hardware- integrated video, onboard sound, realtek nics, etc.

What does thi smean? Writing drivers will be a non-issue. A usb camera on a mac is the same as on a pc- all that apple will need to do is write new chipset drivers and- *GASP*- the already have partially completed ones because Marklar already runs on X86 hardware! A video card works the exact same way- the only thing different between Apple's Geforce 4 TI and one that comes in a Dell is the bios- the calls are pretty much the same.


Secondly, Apple has made it clear that they don't support old hardware with OS X, so why would they with a PC? So, how are you floppy drives doing? Your old printers and scanners? All that apple has to do is support a majority of the standard systems and they're fine. Secondly, most of this stuff already exists for linux, and all apple has to do is get permission to bundle CUPS with it. And on that note, I'm sure it wouldn't take much for NVidia or ATI to recompile their linux drivers.

That said, I don't think this will happen in the near future. I dont't hink it would be as difficult as some of you make it out to be or want to believe, but having it technically possible and having the market accept it are two different things. While you would have a small minority convert right away, most people would stick with Windows because of the entire familarity-interoperability-my dad uses it thing.

[blueBomber]

great, another explosion on the macrumors forums. oh well, here's my thoughts;

osX on x86? hmmm.... well, it could work... sorta, but I don't see Apple getting to this point anytime soon. Although, I must admit that the threat of DRM and Palladium are a very tough reality that the PC market must face at some point (rumors are already pointing to some form of implementation in early 2k3), the chances of this being successful would be slim. Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken, nor does running osX on your x86 make it a mac. It reminds me of people who use BMW z3 conversion kits on their Mazdas, it may look fast, but it's still the same econo-car underneath. But on the other hand, it's one more strike against the corporations that are trying to control what I'm able to see and hear in my own home. If Apple actually (and I'm still saying it's a BIG stretch) makes this, I stand behind them 100%, simply because it's a good step towards liberating the desktop.

closing argument;
I really don't have one.
If Apple were to make this happen, I'd buy it. Beats using Linux as a Windows replacement (no offense to you Linux guys, it's a good os, but it's just not for me)

[TheGreatWashu]

The driver issue is almost trivial. USB? Standard. Nvidia Video Cards? Standard. Onboard sound? Standard.

certainly. but apple could not make the "it just works!" kind of promises that they can for the mac (tho technically, they shouldn't even be making those promises on the mac side... but hey, job's RDF usually makes up for any false promises he makes). apple would have to set up a Supported Hardware list for marklar that, just like any open source unix distro, says "okay, we've tested our software on this hardware, that hardware and the other hardware. we know this hardware doesn't work and that one might but we make no promises." very un-mac-like, but better than nothing from the pissed-off windows refugee's perspective. if said refugee wants a computer that "just works" he's still gotta buy a mac. or buy very specific hardware for his intel-based OSX box. should marklar be released to a receptive market, apple would suddenly find new clout in dealing with 3rd party peripheral manufacturers. this would become a whole new kind of marketing leverage for apple. so you've just released an awesome new graphics card and you want apple to stick it on their web page and say "this is a good card to use with OSX/X86." no problem, on one condition; make it run on OSX/PPC, too.

once again i'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that marklar would be extremely well recieved by hoards of pissed off windows users. based on my experiences with windows users who've used OSX and their opinions of it, i think this assumption may have some solid grounding in reality. but then, one can never be sure, ne?

speculation is fun!

[blueBomber]

preach on! Seriously, you raise the right points. Most Windows users are fed up with it, I myself being one of them. It wasn't any switch ads that made me do it (although I love how Apple is taking the fight straight to MS), it was how scary the thought of DRM is. Almost all of the Windows users I know love osX, but the whole "yeah, but I can't get (enter obscure pc program) for it!" always comes up. This is one thing that probably won't change, at least right away.

[MacNTAdmin]

What if they ported OS/X to the 64 bit AMD x86 architecture? I would buy it in a minute ! !

As a NT Engineer with over a decade of experience with Microsoft Products and intimate experience with every x86 derivitive that has ever been introduced. . . I have to say that Palladium and the Intel DRM technology scares the #$%^ out of me. The core of this technology has the ability to make the Big Brother idea look like a warm, fuzzy, loveable, gentle house pet.

Enough so to make be get a TiBook, come to know and love OS X and to run frantically from M$ and Intel.

But I have to say that Apple and the Power PC platform have fallen waaayyy behind in the performance game with Intel and the x86 world.

I find the refinement and sleekness of OS X and the Apple hardware very appealing. The Darwin core is AWESOME since I'm a Unix/Linux head too. . .You can pry my TiBook from my cold dead hands, and I dare you to try ;) . With the cross platform integration/connectivity capabilities of OS X the platform is near unbeatable for the flexability to be able to do damn near anything, anywhere, on any network, in any domain/authentication structure.

But I can still do things that require raw processing power like video rendering and audio/video encoding, etc. orders of magnitude faster on my PC. Regardless if I compare Apple laptop or Desktop to PCs.

So fast forward to my point. . . .

Imagine a Glorious looking TiBook or G4 Desktop powered by 3-4+ Ghz 64 bit based x86 AMD processor(s). . .

Talk about a very fruitful and POWERFUL partnership. . . .

OMG I don't have enough napkins to wipe up all this drool . . . .


Yeah I know but I can dream can't I . . .

=)

[iJed]

I would be one of the first people in the queue to pick up my copy of this!

There are some problems and advantages Apple would get from making this release.

• Little software compatibility initially. Maybe they could fix this by doing a developer release six months early... Its basically just a recompile after all. Not counting assembler and byte order issues. These issues aren't major though.

• Lost hardware sales. Apple would certainly suffer some loss of hardware sales. I have no idea exactly what percentage it would be though. Maybe they could build stylish and cheep(ish) X86 hardware?

• They could launch a week before Longhorn and easily steal all its thunder. How interesting is a Micro$oft OS release anyway?

• Make more consumer electronic devices. If these were as high profile as iPod, and worked better on OS X, then this would almost certainly boost sales. They could even offer bundles. Mac OS X x86 + iPod or Mac OS X x86 + iPhone.

• They could try and get some PC OEMers to include X on their systems. Surely a lot of them are sick of Micro$oft and its heavy handed practices.

[blueBomber]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacNTAdmin
. . . I have to say that Palladium and the Intel DRM technology scares the #$%^ out of me. The core of this technology has the ability to make the Big Brother idea look like a warm, fuzzy, loveable, gentle house pet.

Enough so to make be get a TiBook, come to know and love OS X and to run frantically from M$ and Intel.


:D right on!

I'm sick of these companies trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my data. How are we supposed to have a right or wrong if your not allowed to do the wrong?!? It's not about stopping piracy, it's about stopping choice! Software theft is a choice, it may not be the right one, but it is a choice that you should be allowed to make! Now, I'm am in NO WAY saying that piracy is cool, but it is a mistake that you should be able to make if you choose too, and pay the consequences when you are caught. This is a loss of basic decision making ability.

I'm sorry I'm turning this into a way off topic post, but this DRM stuff is just wrong...

[vniow]

Why many PC users would buy Marklar (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

[blueBomber]

MacNTadmin is right about the performance gap though, it's there, nobody can deny it. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MAC IS SLOW THOUGH!!!! there, before i start a fight...

I heard that AMD can't get the speeds of the hammer chips up to par though. Wasn't the one they showed a comdex only 1800mhz? (listen to me, only:) ) I know that having a 64-bit bus would kinda make up for this, but try telling that to a world driven by more numbers means better.

[MacNTAdmin]

The key being blueBomber is that 1.8 (plus the 64 bit bus) will be the initial release speed. By the time AMD and Apple could get any anything going the processor speed would be in the high 2s early 3s. . .

And no Mac's aren't slow ! ! ! =)

[blueBomber]

thats what i thought, but i still think people will be a little, um, non-appreciative of a supposedly faster processor that looks like it runs slower. I understand, but will joe public?

[dricci]

Originally posted by MacNTAdmin
Imagine a Glorious looking TiBook or G4 Desktop powered by 3-4+ Ghz 64 bit based x86 AMD processor(s). . .

Yes, and all that great software that wouldn't work, and all those wonderful developers that would leave Mac OS behind in droves due to them (barely) just making the leap to OS X from Classic. "YOU WANT ME TO PORT IT AGAIN? **** YOU!"

And I'm sure companies would be first in line for these new machines! Who needs lame 3rd party software from Adobe and Macromedia when you have native apps like iPhoto and iCal running at 64bit blazing speeds!

Oh.. what's that? The finder is based on Carbon, not Cocoa? Oh well, it won't be easy to port, but people will be okay for a while without a way to navigate files, right?

Wow, this is exciting! I can hardly wait! :rolleyes:

Or, maybe we can be realistic and just wait a year for the 970.. Nah, why would we do that on a rumor site? It'd make too much sense! :eek:

[MacNTAdmin]

Yeah but look at it from an Apple hardware perspective. Going from 1.25 to 1.8 and double the bus. . . . . *drool*

[blueBomber]

please don't start the whole "amd doing mac" rumor again. It's been beaten to death.

Yes, the 970 seems the most likely, but who knows? Maybe apple will just start selling liquid nitrogen cooled dual G4s clocked at 3ghz and coated in gold. How's that for a rumor? heh

If Steve doesn't announce either one of these on-going rumors during his next keynote, neither one is ever going to happen, at least not for another 365 days. Wait and see...

[blueBomber]

your sarcasm is noted, dricci...

[MacNTAdmin]

Originally posted by dricci


Yes, and all that great software that wouldn't work, and all those wonderful developers that would leave Mac OS behind in droves due to them (barely) just making the leap to OS X from Classic. "YOU WANT ME TO PORT IT AGAIN? **** YOU!"



That's the beautiful part about AMDs 64bit x86 architecture. . . It's backwards compatible with all 32 bit x86 code.

So no, you wouldn't have to port it again. Not immediately. . . Or even offer 2 versions. . .32 bit or 64 bit. . .

So you can still sell your 32 bit port now with an option to upgrade to a 64 bit port down the road at the OS and App level. . . . That's just more revenue for everyone. . . And it gets Apple off the proven 'lag behind the performance curve' problem with the Power PC platform even with the 970.

*Edit:
Not to mention that most of those apps you mentioned have already been ported to a x86 platform and are being sold on another OS (Hint: M$ sells it). . . so basically a large majority of the work is already done. . . just porting the code over to compile under OS X correctly. The stretch isn't as large as it looks initially.


Will it ever happen. I doubt it but like I said in my original post. . .it's nice to dream.

[thedude]

hmm...
It sounds great to have osX on intel/amd hardware, but two things come to mind.

1. How can apple assure osX compatability on hardware that they do not control.

2. With apples hardware based revenue how would this impact their bottom line.


Besides, it would be weird to have osX running on my powermac AND my dell. :confused:

[arn]

Regarding the discussion about x86 OS X Apps...

Cocoa and probably Carbon apps would likely be a simple recompile to run on x86 architecture. NeXTStep was multiplatform for some time before it became Mac OS X. In fact, Apple had originally promised cross-platform development capability with Rhapsody (OS X). I'm not sure if Carbon apps might have more baggage... but overall, it seems like it would be doable.

OS 9 Classic would be dead.... but it would open up the possilibty of Windows "Classic". The old rumor of "Red box".

arn

[blueBomber]

Originally posted by MacNTAdmin


That's the beautiful part about AMDs 64bit x86 architecture. . . It's backwards compatible with all 32 bit x86 code.

So no, you wouldn't have to port it again. Not immediately. . . Or even offer 2 versions. . .32 bit or 64 bit. . .

So you can still sell your 32 bit port now with an option to upgrade to a 64 bit port down the road at the OS and App level. . . . That's just more revenue for everyone. . . And it gets Apple off the proven 'lag behind the performance curve' problem with the Power PC platform even with the 970.

Will it ever happen. I doubt it but like I said in my original post. . .it's nice to dream.

see, thats exactly what apple needs to avoid!!! They built their reputation as being as easy to use as possible to the consumer, what your talking about is starting to sound like more like the current PC market, which makes sense to us, but not to Apple's core customer base

[blueBomber]

whatever apple upgrades to needs to be as transparent as possbile to users, and easily adaptable to developers. As for the amd64 being backwards compatible; yes it is, but that doesn't make it ppc compatible. osX has deep roots in altivec, but running it on a G3 proves it's not required...EDIT *this was a thought that I didn't feel like elaborating on, it would only fuel more rumors*

porting any software to pieces of hardware that are as different as night and day is very possible, look at all the the console companies that do it with all of their games! For the record, the Nintendo Gamecube runs on a ppc, and the x86 based xbox games are ported to it rather easily.

[blueBomber]

as hard as I try to blow this whole rumor off, it's still far to interesting to let go of fully.:)

[MacNTAdmin]

Not sure I get your point blue. . but it will never happen regardless. . .


I'd just like Apple to be closer to the performance curve. I am an ex PC speed junkie. . it's a hard habit to kick. . . :-P

I love everything else about the platform though. Give me the option to be on the bleeding edge of performance and I won't crave anything else. . . Being a recent switcher I have to say that if Apple could offer that under the hood regardless of whatever processor is driving it. . . Well let's just say that I fully believe Apple would get a LOT more of the PC user base to move over.

[dricci]

Originally posted by arn
Cocoa and probably Carbon apps would likely be a simple recompile to run on x86 architecture.

Yeah, but what about programs that are hundreds of megabytes (or even gigabytes) that ship on 3 CDs. Do you think companies are just going to manufacutre "upgrades" and give them away to current customers for free? No way! You'll have to wait for the next version cycle for each app. And Carbon wouldn't be so easy, due to it's ties with Classic Mac OS and PowerPC

NeXTStep was multiplatform for some time before it became Mac OS X. In fact, Apple had originally promised cross-platform development capability with Rhapsody (OS X).
Yes, but these were all Cocoa apps, which are very easy to port (just recompile).. But Carbon apps are a whole different thing. Carbon was created to get developers to stick with the Mac, since they DID NOT (and still DO NOT) want to rewrite their entire code over to Cocoa. It'd cost way to much and take way too much effort.

OS 9 Classic would be dead.... but it would open up the possilibty of Windows "Classic".

Quark users would *LOVE* this :rolleyes:... and I don't think Microsoft would take too kindly to Apple emulating Windows on MS's home turf. They'd probably sue Apple under the DMCA for reverse engineering code to make windows OS/apps run.

[blueBomber]

as per usual, MacNTAdmin, I really don't have a point, I just think(type) out loud with little regard to cohesive sense being made:)

[blueBomber]

and I'm still a pc speed freak junkie, but when my mac turns on, that part turns off:D

[vniow]

Originally posted by dricci
They'd probably sue Apple under the DMCA for reverse engineering code to make windows OS/apps run.


I doubt it.

If they could, they'd have sued the WINE project (which essentially does the same thing) long ago.

[blueBomber]

i thought MS is suing the wine project:confused:

[vniow]

Originally posted by blueBomber
i thought MS is suing the wine project:confused:


Not as far as I know.

They sued Lindows which used to include WINE, but not WINE itself.

How could they?

There's no law preventing somebody from reverse engineering code.

[blueBomber]

Lindows! Yes, thats it! I was confused, sorry

[butlerca]

Apple could take the route of only catering to OEMs with their OS (like Lindows is doing) so they would not have to worry about hardware compadiblity....the OEMs (Compaq, Sony, Gateway) would sell configurations that were compadible with OS X(86) and pre-install OS X(86). Driver problems are solved.

[vniow]

If I were a product manager at Apple and this Marklar Project was being taken seriously as a seperate project that was actually going to be released as an alternative to Pallidium (Longhorn is the first step towards that, reports say that the final version will require new hardware, i.e. secured hardware) I would release it before Pallidium is to be a harsh reality.

I for one would like to see Pallidium fail before it's even released.

[arn]

Originally posted by dricci


Yeah, but what about programs that are hundreds of megabytes (or even gigabytes) that ship on 3 CDs. Do you think companies are just going to manufacutre "upgrades" and give them away to current customers for free? No way! You'll have to wait for the next version cycle for each app. And Carbon wouldn't be so easy, due to it's ties with Classic Mac OS and PowerPC


The actual code in software is usually very small. Most of the megs and megs of data is from just that - data... graphics, sound etc...

"FAT" Binaries can hold code for both platforms and share data.

arn

[Sedulous]

I'm unaware of what purpose Apple's Marklar development is designed to serve. However, wouldn't the soon to be tightened iron grip of M$ be enough to entice switchers in droves to OS X? Why make a whole new OS in that case? If things like Palladium (or whatever) is expected to bring love of M$ to an all time low, it would make more sense to encourage people to switch to Mac and spend $$$ on Mac hardware (Apple's "bread 'n butter).

[Switcher2001]

If you read the original post in this thread, and you follow each link, you will see that the MacUser.co.uk story (http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=36263) is merely a reiteration of the rumor posted here on MacRumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021124221123.shtml). Just because one person cosigns another person's b***s*** doesn't mean it's true.

[iJed]

Originally posted by dricci


Yeah, but what about programs that are hundreds of megabytes (or even gigabytes) that ship on 3 CDs. Do you think companies are just going to manufacutre "upgrades" and give them away to current customers for free? No way! You'll have to wait for the next version cycle for each app. And Carbon wouldn't be so easy, due to it's ties with Classic Mac OS and PowerPC

Usually executalbe code is only a few megabytes. You can't honestly believe that the code of an application would stretch over one CD let alone three. Most of the stuff is data.


Yes, but these were all Cocoa apps, which are very easy to port (just recompile).. But Carbon apps are a whole different thing. Carbon was created to get developers to stick with the Mac, since they DID NOT (and still DO NOT) want to rewrite their entire code over to Cocoa. It'd cost way to much and take way too much effort.

Carbon apps are a different thing? This is a stupid myth with no foundation whatsoever. Carbon is an API written in C. Its simply a rather large set of C functions that wrap to the lower level APIs on OS X. These are (unsurprisingly) exactly the same APIs that Cocoa wraps to!

Getting an app to run from PPC to X86 is nowhere near as big a task as Carbonizing it was. The time this would take would be measured in days or weeks depending on the level of assembler --not much-- or the amount of byte reversing that needs implemented (if any). Fortunately this stuff may be directly reusable from the Windows version.

[X-Baz]

as a developer I hate it enough having to test on windows - we have separate test suites for windows 2000, windows 98, windows xp and windows 95. every now and then the differences between the systems shows up in my code, and it's no use explaining to the customer that it's microsoft's fault - all they know is that MY software doesn't work. and that's WITHOUT a recompile.

so all those people saying that a recompile is simple are missing the whole picture (it takes two people five days to run our test suites, and we still miss platform specific bugs - and this is a reasonably small project compared to the photoshops of this world).

however, it would be sensible for apple to release Cocoa for windows (like OpenStep). At the moment, I'm learning Cocoa in my spare time, but it's really quite useless to me. All my customers use windows, so they don't want Mac apps. But if there was Cocoa for Windows, I could write in that, and then say "but it also works on a mac". yes I still have lots of cross-platform testing to do, but it's an easy solution for me, it gets apple more software titles and most importantly doesn't threaten hardware sales - in fact it should increase them (obviously, you would want to develop in projectbuilder on your 970, or 8-way G4, and test and deploy on Cocoa/Win).

developers are key - a platform lives or dies on its software. one of the things often mentioned about OS/2 was its ability to run Win3.1 apps. So developers said to themselves, why write two versions, when we can write a Win3.1 version and hedge our bets on the platform. If they play their cards right, Apple could repeat the exact same situation. However, now is the time to do it, before .NET becomes widespread (there is a lot of indecision about it) and windows developers get used to that OO toolkit.

B.

[TheCat]

Originally posted by idkew
i think that this would only be a good idea if people were truely sick and tired of microshaft and its practices.

if people are not ready to switch, the only people running marklar would be previous apple users who wanted a "faster" computer for less than an apple branded computer.

that would obviously hurt apple a ton since it would lose sales to dell...

this is exactly my thinking... also what current PC owner would want to spend more on Apple h/w when they could stick with their cheapo PC? Apple would loose money and sell no Mac h/w...??? Doesn't make sense 2me.
Another duff rumour?

Steve

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by Sedulous
I'm unaware of what purpose Apple's Marklar development is designed to serve.

I reckon Marklar is mainly there to ensure that Apple developers don't accidentally stick PPC-specific code into OSX. Unless you are INCREDIBLY vigilant, it's easy to drop platform specific code in, and, as good software engineering practice, you want to reduce your dependencies, as it gives you much greater flexibility in the future.

The fact that it could also be used as an X86 OS, and a testing ground for Cocoa/Win, as well as a big stick to threaten microsoft with, is probably an added bonus.

B.

[littlerich]

You are all going on about drivers for X86, but you seem to forget that OS X is backed by Darwin, doesn't this mean that most drivers would be supported anyway as unix is supposed to support everything or am I thinking stupidly?

[bbyrdhouse]

Jobs does not rule out Intel switch

Apple CEO Steve Jobs did not rule out switching the company's computers to chips made by Intel, rather than the Motorola and IBM Power PC processors currently employed.

Questioned by financial analysts about the possibility of making the switch, which would mean that Apple machines could match the megahertz speeds of rival PCs, Jobs replied that the company first had to complete the transition to OS X, 'Then,' he said, 'we'll have options, and we like to have options

Despite Apple's efforts to persuade computer buyers that megahertz is only one measure of a computer's performance, and not the best measure at that, Apple machines, which currently top out at 1.25GHz, are still widely perceived as slower than Intel-based PCs which exceed 2GHz.

Switching Macs to Intel or alternatively AMD processors would not necessarily mean that you would be able to run OS X on any Intel- or AMD-equipped machine. Apple could incorporate ROM chips in Macs without which OS X would not be able to run.

[iJed]

Originally posted by X-Baz
as a developer I hate it enough having to test on windows - we have separate test suites for windows 2000, windows 98, windows xp and windows 95. every now and then the differences between the systems shows up in my code, and it's no use explaining to the customer that it's microsoft's fault - all they know is that MY software doesn't work. and that's WITHOUT a recompile.

so all those people saying that a recompile is simple are missing the whole picture (it takes two people five days to run our test suites, and we still miss platform specific bugs - and this is a reasonably small project compared to the photoshops of this world).

Its far simpler recompiling for the same OS on two different CPUs than it is compiling for different operating systems such as Win95/98 and 2K/XP. I'm not a Win32 developer but I've been told that there are a large number of API calls in 2K that do not exist in 98. However it is quite amazing how easily the open-source people move apps across platforms in so little time.

I'm currently developing a support system (with a small team) that will have client and administrator apps on Win 32, PocketPC (which I've never even used), various unix flavours (including Linux) and Mac OS X. They will also be available in web based and command line form. The server will run on a Solaris or Linux and will use mysql or oracle for its data store. Initial development should give us a working Java based prototype client and server within a few weeks. By final release all interface calls will be native. This is what I would call porting overload and is far far more than would have to be done to bring the client between the same OS.

[robbieduncan]

Originally posted by littlerich
You are all going on about drivers for X86, but you seem to forget that OS X is backed by Darwin, doesn't this mean that most drivers would be supported anyway as unix is supposed to support everything or am I thinking stupidly?

There is no such thing as a Unix driver. There are countless different Unix versions, each with their own driver models and platform support. OSX needs mach drivers for low-level access to hardware (graphics cards, motherboards,networking and the like) and uses CUPS for printers. This means that you cannot simply use the drivers for Free BSD or Linux (which is a Unix like OS, not a Unix OS) in OSX, even if you are running on the same hardware.

[Fins160]

When no one can download music or movies from the net without encountering a hassle with DRM from Palladium, they would switch to OSX. That's just about the only way.

[Escher]

I love my iBook. But it's 2 lbs overweight!

Give me Marklar so I don't have to wait for an Apple subnotebook any longer!

I would gladly pay even inflated-MS-OS-prices to be able to run OS X on an Intel or Transmeta subnotebook.

Escher

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by bbyrdhouse
.... Apple could incorporate ROM chips in Macs without which OS X would not be able to run.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Apple abandoned the ToolBox ROM because of the expense in money and time. Each new hardware release required a revision of the ToolBox ROM. That takes time and money to debug. Each new software release had to be tested on every supported version of the ToolBox ROM. That cost a lot of money and time.

OpenSTEP ran on a subset of standard Intel-based PCs. Rhapsody runs on a subset of standard Intel-based PCs. For Apple to sell a MacOS X-exclusive ROM-enabled Intel-based Macintosh would mean that the company would have to develop a brand new computer that would not run neither existing Intel-based software nor PPC- or 68k-based Mac software. This computer would not have the economies of scale enjoyed by Dell, Gateway, or HP/Compaq. As such, the computer would be more expensive than any of those. It would be more expensive even than existing PPC-based Macintoshes.

Help! Somebody, please explain this business model!

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by iJed


Its far simpler recompiling for the same OS on two different CPUs than it is compiling for different operating systems such as Win95/98 and 2K/XP.
...snip...
I'm currently developing a support system (with a small team) that will have client and administrator apps on Win 32, PocketPC (which I've never even used), various unix flavours (including Linux) and Mac OS X.
...snip...
This is what I would call porting overload and is far far more than would have to be done to bring the client between the same OS.

All I am saying is that there is significantly more to do than simply hitting the recompile button - and commercial users who have paid thousands of pounds for the software will expect it to work with no glitches (unlike unsupported open source - but that's a different issue). If I was doing your project I'd scream - what are you using btw? Java and SWT sounds like it will fit the bill (but as I say, there's lots of testing to be done :-))

As for the API differences between the various versions of windows, I have to say that microsoft has done a good job here (the APIs are horrible, but the way the two OSs share them works very well). The only areas I've had problems are threading and, obviously, security - even linking against the security apis on windows98 seems to bring my app down!

[hobie]

To all those guys moaning about R&D effort for OS X x86:

Has anyone of you considered that NONE of the existing apps will run on Longhorn? And vice Versa?

So for developers it shouldn't really matter if they develop for X x86 or Longhorn. I presume though that development for X x86 would be much easier.

More points to consider:
Windows users seem to get more and more unhappy with their OS, and Palladium is the final trigger which could lead to huge alternative search. Apple would be dumb if they weren't there at that time to provide the alternative.

Os X x86 could be sold with a premium (but still cheaper than a windows copy), and iapps may be sold seperately. Thus, users could be forced indirectly to buy Macs with all in.

[hvfsl]

I would love to get a copy of Mac OS X for X86. It is easy to port Mac OS X PPC apps to Mac OS X x86, this happens all the time with PPC linux/Unix and x86 Linux/Unix. So it will not be long to stuf to appear on Mac OS X x86. Quake 3 for example, was ported from Linux x86 version to Mac OS X server in just one week.

But it would kill off a lot of the Linux/Unix x86 world. Apple's share would sky rocket and this move (if it happens) could turn out to be one of the most important events in computer history!

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by hobie

Has anyone of you considered that NONE of the existing apps will run on Longhorn?
Microsoft may be many things but they're not stupid. i can run 10 year old DOS apps on Win2k today. Longhorn may be totally different under the hood (like 2K is to DOS) but there will be translation layers to allow legacy apps to run. it would be commercial suicide otherwise.
I've heard that when writing Win95, microsoft even reproduced bugs present in Win3.1 to allow certain games to run.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

This rumor gains fuel from short-sighted geeky giddyness...

1) Maklar is an experiment, a stick, and a poison pill. An experiment in applying Mac OS X to other hardware platforms to keep maximum flexibility for the future. A stick to beat Motorola and IBM with. A poison pill to be swallowed if on the verge of utter financial collapse. NOT product development for PUBLIC RELEASE.

2) Closed architecture is a hallmark of Apple design and a major marketing perception as well. Apple is not about to sell an OS to anyone that could ever run on another company's machine. EVER.

3) While the wait has been entirely too long, Apple knows full well that IBM's coming 970 will be enough of a rescue to keep them technologically competitive in the near future. No need for desperate acts like the ones being proposed on yet another x86-OSX thread like this one.

4) Even using x86 chips with proprietary ROMS in their own machines creates huge problems with backwards compatability, and Apple is known for great backwards compatability.

5) Having Dell or Sony make x86-based OS X clones is completely idiotic. Yes it would increase marketshare for the platform, but both companies would sell "faster" systems for less than Apple-branded units. That would crush Apple hardware sales, which is their lifeblood.

6) I hate to have to keep saying this, but...

THERE IS NO FIRE!!

Apple is in no imminent danger whatsoever. They have an incredibly successful brand name and marketing perception. They are financially sound and have managed to avoid huge losses during the market downturn of the last few years.

While their high-end systems are expensive and not the absolute fastest on the market, people are still buying them. A stable OS, great interface, lower TOC with fewer headaches, and design flair beat horsepower 99% of the time. Apple refuses to enter the "computer-as-commodity" market with the rest, and that's why they can make such good margins on their machines.

To all the speed freak geeks out there--Apple will never be the "fastest" system again. They don't need to be or even want to be. Yes, they will stay NEAR the top, and for a few things edge above the competition, but overall user experience and productivity is a much more important barometer of success than clock speed or bandwidth.

The "AMD OS X" fantasy is one that just won't die. Just remember that AMD, for all their great chip technology, is HEMMORAGING MONEY right now.

In conclusion, when you come up with these ridiculous scenarios for Apple to "improve" their technology, remember that marketing is about 10-fold more important a consideration as to whether a company thrives or dies than raw technology is, even in the computer business. If you want a guess as to what Apple will do in the future, think along those lines, as Apple is the most marketing-savvy computer maker out there. If you do, you'll understand that in the long term profitability interest of Apple, their x86/OSX experiment will never see the light of day in ANY FORM.

Killing Microsoft is not a core value of Apple Computer. Making money is. Slaying the Windows giant doesn't even make the short list of goals. Being the computer of choice for graphic designers, video editors, musicians, scientists, and the average non-tech-geek home user IS the primary goal of the company. They are accomplishing this quite well without Intel or AMD, thank you.

[hobie]

Originally posted by X-Baz

Microsoft may be many things but they're not stupid. i can run 10 year old DOS apps on Win2k today. Longhorn may be totally different under the hood (like 2K is to DOS) but there will be translation layers to allow legacy apps to run. it would be commercial suicide otherwise.
I've heard that when writing Win95, microsoft even reproduced bugs present in Win3.1 to allow certain games to run.

Maybe, but Office XP definitely won't run in Longhorn, as well as Office 11 by all means won't run in Xp or 2000 or whatever!
Developers will have to pay for licenses that their apps will run on Longhorn (otherwise they would be treated as virii and simply switched off, no free/shareware anymore).
Users will get pi**ed that their homemade family-DVD's don't run, and their wma encoded CD-rip only runs after after MS has been asked for...

Many 98 Games didn't run on 2000, and even more apps (even DOS) don't run properly on either 2000 or XP.
2000 and XP drivers often are NOT compatible among the OS's, although it's only a small difference (NT5 vs. NT 5.1).

So as far as I can see now is that MS DOES commercial suicide.:D

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by hobie

So as far as I can see now is that MS DOES commercial suicide.:D

well, it will be nice if it happens!:)
however, with only the office and windows divisions of microsoft actually making money (even if they are making pots of it), i can't imagine them releasing palladium-windows knowing full well it will kill office: both their revenue streams will dry up immediately - and who will fund their "smart"phone development then?
what is more likely is Windows2005 Home edition will have (optional) DRM tied to hardware, where as Windows2005 CertifiedWithinAFirewall Edition will run everything. When Windows2010 Home Edition comes out, then Palladium will bite - but if we are still talking about this thread in 2010 then there isn't much hope!

[iJed]

Originally posted by X-Baz


All I am saying is that there is significantly more to do than simply hitting the recompile button - and commercial users who have paid thousands of pounds for the software will expect it to work with no glitches (unlike unsupported open source - but that's a different issue). If I was doing your project I'd scream - what are you using btw? Java and SWT sounds like it will fit the bill (but as I say, there's lots of testing to be done :-))

As for the API differences between the various versions of windows, I have to say that microsoft has done a good job here (the APIs are horrible, but the way the two OSs share them works very well). The only areas I've had problems are threading and, obviously, security - even linking against the security apis on windows98 seems to bring my app down!

Yes there is more to do than simply recompiling. However to get Mac OS X on x86 I would be more than happy to do anything it took! :-)

My system support system --stupid name-- project is initially having its client and server written in Java using sockets. However there will most likely be native (read C) front ends for the client app once it is at a reasonably complete stage in Java. I'm the person who is going to implement the server side stuff and the OS X native version of the client. It sounds much worse than it really is...

[kansaigaijin]

Next was a hardware company, became a software company, then reverse takeovered Apple.
Why shouldn't/wouldn't Steve do it again?

Marklar as a stick to use on Motorola/IBM? I don't think so, Apples business is small potatoes to both of them, they don't need the agro.



Apple could be the same kind of co. as M$, sell OSs and bundled iApps, designer high end gadgets with good markups like the iPod and Airport, and make sell some high end designer computers as well. But they would make the bulk of thier profits from selling the OS and Appleworks, just like MS.

MS makes huge margins on its core business, the OSs and Office. I think Steve sees that as the future.

[GPTurismo]

1) They can't do it right now because it would bastardize their sales of hardware
2) More people would probably hack MOSX for x86 before buying, taking even more sales from Apple
3) Maybe it will become an alternative for when apple makes their systems 64 bit? Maybe going PPC970? My big concern is that when they go 64 Bit their machines will be to expensive and they will follow a similar fate of sgi, with only die hard fans supporting the hardware
4)MS for Linux? Meta thinks so :)
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20021210S0006
5) Also it won't drive people to MOSX. It's what hardcore gamers can't grasp. Joe Blow doesn't care about what is better. and 99% of the time they keep using what ever is on their machine.

GPT

[locovaca]

Originally posted by hobie


Maybe, but Office XP definitely won't run in Longhorn, as well as Office 11 by all means won't run in Xp or 2000 or whatever!
Developers will have to pay for licenses that their apps will run on Longhorn (otherwise they would be treated as virii and simply switched off, no free/shareware anymore).
Users will get pi**ed that their homemade family-DVD's don't run, and their wma encoded CD-rip only runs after after MS has been asked for...

Many 98 Games didn't run on 2000, and even more apps (even DOS) don't run properly on either 2000 or XP.
2000 and XP drivers often are NOT compatible among the OS's, although it's only a small difference (NT5 vs. NT 5.1).

So as far as I can see now is that MS DOES commercial suicide.:D

Office 97 ran on NT 3.51 as it's lowest standard, even though it was a couple of years removed as a standard OS.
Office 2000 ran on Windows 95 as it's lowest standard, even though it was a couple of years removed as a standard OS.
Office XP runs on Windows 98 as it's lowest standard, even though it was 3 years removed as a standard OS when released.

Any office suite that MS has ever realeased has always suported the "current" lowest end OS that MS supports. That means that when the new office comes out, it'll support 2000. When the version after that comes out, trends show that it'll probably support XP. We both have no idea what 2 years will look like from now, but your claims are baseless; my claims have fact, if extrapolated, behind them.

Most people do not use Windows Media Player. Why? Because most places, including Dell, use Musicmatch as their media player, which rips to- get this- mp3. And, unless you make a home movie and for some reason give it a region 3, there's nothing that will stop DVDs from playing back. Once again, you don't use windows pcs, so you don't get this, but Microsoft- get this- does not have a DVD player for XP! It only uses the code for another software dvd player you have- PowerDVD, WinDVD, etc.- and plays that through Windows Media Player, if you elect to go that route. And guess what? Most people don't! The only DVD player Microsoft once used only worked if you had a hardware decoding card, which no PC comes with now.

And I"ll bite and ask to see some of these drivers that are incompatible between 2000 and XP. I'd like specific examples, because I don't have one driver that isn't compatible between both. And while you're frantically researching all this information at the last minute, take a look at some of the business osftware that doesn't run on 2000 but runs on 98. Gaming is a small portion of the computer world (and when 2000 came out, Quake, Half Life, Unreal Tournament, and all the other major games DID run on 2000. I know because I was a beta tester for Microsoft), and at that, only poorly written games were shat upon.


I'm not a defender of Microsoft, I'm just a person who dislikes people who throw out baseless information and FUD.

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin

Apple could be the same kind of co. as M$, sell OSs and bundled iApps, designer high end gadgets with good markups like the iPod and Airport, and make sell some high end designer computers as well. But they would make the bulk of thier profits from selling the OS and Appleworks, just like MS.

MS makes huge margins on its core business, the OSs and Office. I think Steve sees that as the future.

Microsoft's huge margins come from illegal abuse of their monopoly position.

what's more interesting to note is that microsoft seems to becoming a hardware company - there's X-Box, PocketPCs, Stinger phones (OK, I'm only kidding), Media PCs, Tablet PCs and so on. They are trying to control the hardware by licensing out reference designs to third parties. In effect trying to get the price competition that comes from the free-for-all pc market coupled with the strict control that comes from designing the hardware.

if it really is impossible to "protect digital intellectual property"(*) then this would appear to be microsoft's exit policy: sell hardware, and give away tailored software (sound familiar, apple and sun?)

(*) and i believe it is

[rmac]

Originally posted by dricci
they'll install OS X on the same machine (which probably won't be allowed to boot due to it's lack of support for the drm).


I went to a Microsoft talk at MIT about Palladium, and this is not how it works. Palladium can be loaded up at anytime. It's sort of like Classic, in a way: you load it only when you need it. Just like with Classic, you don't need it for a lot of what you'd be doing. Unlike Classic, if you close it down, you may have to restart the whole system before it can be loaded again. But the point is, there's nothing to keep OS X or Linux from booting.

You are right about the riskiness of this move to Apple's profits. It would be a gamble.

Of course Marklar could also be in the works so that Apple could use Lagrande and software similar to Palladium. Once OS X is loaded they could load there version of a Nexus for "trusted computing." I assume they don't want to go that direction, but if Sen. Hollings gets his way, they may have no choice.

[hobie]

Originally posted by locovaca

Office 97 ran on NT 3.51 as it's lowest standard, even though it was a couple of years removed as a standard OS.
Office 2000 ran on Windows 95 as it's lowest standard, even though it was a couple of years removed as a standard OS.
Office XP runs on Windows 98 as it's lowest standard, even though it was 3 years removed as a standard OS when released.

Any office suite that MS has ever realeased has always suported the "current" lowest end OS that MS supports. That means that when the new office comes out, it'll support 2000. When the version after that comes out, trends show that it'll probably support XP. We both have no idea what 2 years will look like from now, but your claims are baseless; my claims have fact, if extrapolated, behind them.



So where is your base? You're right that Office 11 will only run under 2000 and XP. But the next release (Office 12) won't anymore. Longhorn is the only option Office 12 users will get then. Just because MS plans to put a whole new core under the hood together with a new filesystem (I've heard something of Unix like :eek: )

[GPTurismo]

Originally posted by hobie


So where is your base? You're right that Office 11 will only run under 2000 and XP. But the next release (Office 12) won't anymore. Longhorn is the only option Office 12 users will get then. Just because MS plans to put a whole new core under the hood together with a new filesystem (I've heard something of Unix like :eek: )


A) Longhorn is still NT based
B) You really can't say anything of this matter until it gets closer to actual release.

[eric_n_dfw]

Let's not fall into the FUD throwing that mac-hating trolls are famous for. Just because (most of us) we hate Winblows here and we all agree that Paladium and it's related technologies are a REALLY bad idea, don't start making stuff up.

For instance, your DVD-R of uncle Joe's birthday is not going to stop working. That's just silly.

Shareware and non-Paladium-ized apps will work on it as well as can be expected. (Some tweeking will be needed for new/depricated API calls most likely.) From what I've read, they will run in an "unprotected" or "non-trusted" mode which will administerable on pro/corporate installs.

I'm not trying to defend Paladium, it gives me hives thinking about it and the abuses that it allows people to inflict on it's users. Let's not just make up stuff here - it's bad enough without embelishments.

[eric_n_dfw]

rmac posted a link in another thread here a while back: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

This should be manditory reading for anyone who doesn't know what Paladium and/or the TCPA push is all about.

Scary stuff.


Oh, and if you live in South Carolina and voted for Sen. Hollings - thanks a lot. :mad:

[Sedulous]

And I"ll bite and ask to see some of these drivers that are incompatible between 2000 and XP. I'd like specific examples, because I don't have one driver that isn't compatible between both.

Well, I have a Sony Vaio notebook... which I decided not to upgrade because there is a webpage full of drivers that need to be downloaded and installed. Besides, since I had my Powerbook already the Vaio could now serve as a very nice doorstop.

Marklar is probably just an experiment as has been suggested previously. I bet Apple is full of undisclosed experiments that we'll never see or know what their purpose was/is.

[hvfsl]

Your correct, Apple has some really great technology that they never realised that sometimes pops up on ebay. Examples I have seen in the last year are:

DDR Motherboard
Cable TV reciever
Video over ASDL box (In UK with BT)
Apple Newton (colour)
Apple Webpad
Apple Games Console Pipin (More power than PSX)

Some of these may be fake but I expect Apple has real versions of them.

[MacNTAdmin]

Originally posted by bbyrdhouse
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs does not rule out Intel switch

Apple CEO Steve Jobs did not rule out switching the company's computers to chips made by Intel, rather than the Motorola and IBM Power PC processors currently employed.

Questioned by financial analysts about the possibility of making the switch, which would mean that Apple machines could match the megahertz speeds of rival PCs, Jobs replied that the company first had to complete the transition to OS X, 'Then,' he said, 'we'll have options, and we like to have options

Despite Apple's efforts to persuade computer buyers that megahertz is only one measure of a computer's performance, and not the best measure at that, Apple machines, which currently top out at 1.25GHz, are still widely perceived as slower than Intel-based PCs which exceed 2GHz.

Switching Macs to Intel or alternatively AMD processors would not necessarily mean that you would be able to run OS X on any Intel- or AMD-equipped machine. Apple could incorporate ROM chips in Macs without which OS X would not be able to run.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This is exactly what I'm talking about. . . But I'm not talking about Mhz or Ghz. . . I'm talking about raw performance benchmark numbers. . . Which the Power PC processor base consistantly fall behind on. . . I'd like to see an Apple branded x86 system . . .and see it smoke everything on the Market on all avenues. . . ease of use, flexability, sleekness, style, refinement, and performance. . .

And watch M$ and Intel take Palladium (a.k.a. Longhorn) and DRM and shove it where the sun don't shine. . .

That's the true dream . . . .


If not x86 (which would be cheaper to do) maybe look at sparc procs (like Sun Microsystems). . .

or just open up a case of whoop a$$ on Power PC makers and make them get in the game. . .

[Sedulous]

Seems like there are three different camps in this thread. The "Dreamers" who have no convincing real evidence that OS X is heading to the x86 platform. The "Mac Nazis"... No OS X for you! And the more rational third camp, "Who keeps bringing up this stupid spurious topic?"

I'd rather wax about how Apple might implement a 64-bit version of OS X. Two flavors of OS X (32/64) might be confusing to some.

[rmac]

A few posts up I was trying to explain how Palladium works in terms of something most of us here understand: running Classic in OS X. I'm going to run with it some more.

Let's pretend that OS X is a bug ridden operating system and that OS 9 (Classic) is completely secure and trusted by the whole world. This is sort of what the situation is like with Palladium. Microsoft is admitting not only that there operating system has huge security holes in it, they are also essentially throwing up their hands, deciding there is never any hope of patching it up and making it secure.

OK, back to altered-OS X-world. You can run whatever programs you want: Photoshop, iTunes, etc, in OS X so long as the outside world doesn't need to trust you with what you are doing. But when you want to download a movie or song from an online provider, they want to make sure that they can "trust" you to use the media "legally." So for that you need to load up Classic which providers that needed trust. There would need to be a way for the provider to verify that they were sending the media to Classic, not OS X (Palladium allows for this). If you don't need to do things that require outside trust, you might never need Classic in this scenario.

OK, leaving altered reality. Palladium's Nexus is very much like running Classic on the side of OS X. The Nexus is like a separate OS that can run "trusted applications" much as Classic can run old Mac applications.

So you have this trusted Nexus running alongside whatever is the current version of the Windows OS. A couple of points here: the Nexus is programmed to distrust Windows (as it rightly should); the Nexus/Palladium scheme does nothing to break drivers or the rest of the OS; there is still the same Windows there. Just as Classic doesn't screw up OS X (or at least shouldn't), Palladium shouldn't mess up Windows. If Longhorn makes things incompatible, that is another thing.

Getting back to online media, the Nexus will be designed to follow rules attached to data (Digital Rights Management). So such-and-such a movie can be played only once without having to be payed for again, that song cannot be copied to any other computer or device, etc. The Nexus only lets applications it trusts and that it is itself running (like Classic running Classic Apps) see the data. Before sending data out to the unsafe Windows side of things, data is encrypted so that only the Nexus can use it again and Windows can't do things with it.

OK, now the part of this analogy that is just totally confusing is that in reality, Classic is obviously the older system, allowing for backwards compatability. For Palladium, the Nexus is the new system....the fresh start to security which runs alongside the older Windows system. The Windows system has the backward compatability.

Anyway, hope this is more helpful than confusing.

[MacNTAdmin]

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
This rumor gains fuel from short-sighted geeky giddyness...

.. Snip

To all the speed freak geeks out there--Apple will never be the "fastest" system again. They don't need to be or even want to be. Yes, they will stay NEAR the top, and for a few things edge above the competition, but overall user experience and productivity is a much more important barometer of success than clock speed or bandwidth.




That's the thing. . . They aren't Near the top. . Power Pc's Top procs against x86's Top procs aren't even in the Neighborhood. . . in some cases by orders of magnitude.

If Apple wants to truely be there and maximize on M$'s big Palladium blunder they HAVE to address this. . . the 970 does not do this for them. . .It's a quick and ugly band aid fix for a much larger problem.

[MacNTAdmin]

Originally posted by rmac

. . . Snip

Getting back to online media, the Nexus will be designed to follow rules attached to data (Digital Rights Management). So such-and-such a movie can be played only once without having to be payed for again, that song cannot be copied to any other computer or device, etc. The Nexus only lets applications it trusts and that it is itself running (like Classic running Classic Apps) see the data. Before sending data out to the unsafe Windows side of things, data is encrypted so that only the Nexus can use it again and Windows can't do things with it.

[/B]

Yes in essence giving M$ and other 3rd party vendors. . . secure channel access to your OS and Hardware, essentially giving them the right to upload what ever they want.

Registry Keys to totally disable your OS or ANY App on your machine. . .

Issue Shutdown commands. . .

Upload spyware. . .

The possibilities are limitless. . .

Giving them 'the ability' totally take over your computer. Yes it is possible with this technology. . . and the core components are there to make this a reality.


Now imagine (not if but when) Palladium is cracked ?

Then every hacker all around the world has access to an OS that already has a Trojan Horse built in ?

Uhh no thank you. . . . Microshaft can keep that. . .

But wait. . . Microshaft forces you to upgrade to it. . .

Then I throw my CDs in the trash and go get OS X and Linux.

[JeffHendr]

Marklar is a good idea to try to correct the mistakes that Apple made in the past when they lost the computer market to Microsoft by restricting the appearance of Apple clones. PC's are cheap because prices in any market are driven down when there are more consumers interested in buying a product. If Marklar was able to spark a large interest in the Mac OS, then the resulting increased interest in Apple hardware would allow Mac prices to drop significantly. Apple would have a shot at becoming the standard in the personal computing world because Microsoft has become cocky enough to believe that they can get away with putting out garbage code with zero competition.

If Apple truly wants to compete with a monopolist that controls the market simply because their product is compatible with the vast majority of computer users, Apple will have to find a way to have the same level of compatibility. Fighting a monopolist means accepting some major risks. You can either hold on to what you have, or you can put everything on the table in an attempt to take greater control of the market through careful planning.

I think it would be interesting to see Apple distribute OS X as freeware that would cleanly uninstall intself after a period of maybe 90 days. PC users are fed up with Windows to the degree that they would definitely be willing to install it and play around with it. After 90 days, most of them would probably be convinced to make a switch.

Of course for this to truly work, Apple would either have to lower their prices ahead of time based on a predicted number of users they expect to attract, or they would have to start heavily advertising the abilities of products like Virtual PC which would allow them to have the Mac OS while still having the option to run more obscure PC-only programs at the same time. Large numbers of people will not cross over unless they believe that they will still be compatible with the rest of the world.

Also, Apple would need to do a better job at advertising the difference between PowerPC MHz and Pentium IV MHz. The best way to do this would be to simply show the number of gigaflops that the latest PowerPC is capable of alongside the equivalent number of gigaflops for the closest equivalent Pentium IV. If you take the average PC owner off the street and show them the specs on a Mac, they're going to see the MHz of the Mac systems and laugh in your face when you ask them to shell out $2,000 to $3,000 for it. Apple has to actively explain to the public why their system performance is comparable or better than the PC world.

[rmac]

There's been a good deal of confusion about how Palladium relates to TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance):

www.trustedcomputing.org (http://www.trustedcomputing.org)

I've been studying TCPA for about a year now, and have an IBM system with the technology sitting right next to me, running Linux.

TCPA is comprised of about 200 comanies including IBM, HP, Intel, Motorolla <gasp>, and yes Microsoft too. After years of making the specs for this standard, hardware has arrived but not much actually uses the hardware at this point.

But Microsoft has decided that it doesn't do what it wants, so they're making they're own standard. And of course Intel is backing them up. Where does that leave TCPA? If I was someone at IBM, HP, who'd poured years of work into TCPA, I'd be pretty angry at Microsoft.

On a tangent, my cool boss let me get an eMac at work, so I do all my coding and testing in Project Builder on it and only ssh into the TCPA Linux box (no monitor attached) when I need to use the special hardware. A litle bit of hassle for the latter, but it's worth it. :)

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
How much sofware would there be for Marklar on X86? 0

Anyone want to speculate on WINE for OS X on x86?

Binky

[vniow]

Originally posted by DharvaBinky


Anyone want to speculate on WINE for OS X on x86?

Binky




Oh no, not the WINE on OSX speculation again.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gifhttp://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gifhttp://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gif

WINE isn't stable or complete enough to run Windows apps reliably even though they've done a great job of reverse-engineering he code.

So no WINE for you!

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by edvniow
WINE isn't stable or complete enough to run Windows apps reliably even though they've done a great job of reverse-engineering he code.
Excusez-moi. I'd like to say the contrary. I've been running WINE over the past few months and only recently did it get very good. I was able to run Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, a couple of Windows-only games. It definitely has gotten a lot better. But of course, there are several horribly written Win32 applications that refuse to be run under WINE. So, it's an YMMV experience.
Originally posted by hobie
So where is your base? You're right that Office 11 will only run under 2000 and XP. But the next release (Office 12) won't anymore. Longhorn is the only option Office 12 users will get then. Just because MS plans to put a whole new core under the hood together with a new filesystem (I've heard something of Unix like :eek: )
First off, the next release will be Office 11, dubbed by many Office .NET. Office XP is Office 10. There are quite a few Office 11 beta testers who are running it on Windows XP. And as far as using Longhorn, I've had no problems running current third party applications.

Second, the filesystem is no way Unix-like. It will be based on Microsoft's SQL Server .NET. And as others have said, Longhorn is still NT, versioned 6.0.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by Sedulous
And I"ll bite and ask to see some of these drivers that are incompatible between 2000 and XP. I'd like specific examples, because I don't have one driver that isn't compatible between both.

Well, I have a Sony Vaio notebook... which I decided not to upgrade because there is a webpage full of drivers that need to be downloaded and installed. Besides, since I had my Powerbook already the Vaio could now serve as a very nice doorstop.

Marklar is probably just an experiment as has been suggested previously. I bet Apple is full of undisclosed experiments that we'll never see or know what their purpose was/is.

So, since you have a company that actually supports their products by upgrading their drivers, you didn't upgrade? Have you even tried to install it? If not, then perhaps you're slightly naive- just looking at one sony notebook (the picturebook), almost 100% of those drivers come with standard windows versions, and sony has updated versions of the drivers to support their "proprietary" features. Considering that a memory stick drive and jog dial aren't exactly standard features, I wouldn't expect them to come with native drivers in XP since Microsoft doesn't write drivers for those, sony does.

What you see on the Sony support page is no different than Logitech not including the Mouseware software in either Windows or Mac OS, or, in the case of something like the video driver, OS X/XP providing basic CD authoring and burning support over something like Toast. It's Microsoft's job to provide functionality, it's sony's job to enable the features of their notebooks.

[vniow]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Excusez-moi. I'd like to say the contrary. I've been running WINE over the past few months and only recently did it get very good. I was able to run Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, a couple of Windows-only games. It definitely has gotten a lot better. But of course, there are several horribly written Win32 applications that refuse to be run under WINE. So, it's an YMMV experience.


I stand corrected then.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/grinning.gif

What version are you running?
WineX is supposed to be the best for games and a few apps, but as far along as it may be, WINE still isn't an option for many users since it isn't even close to flawless yet.

[cjerens]

Yeah right. Microsoft won't even support the "open" mpeg-4 standard. Why ever would they embrace a completely open AND free operating system like Linux? That's completely contrary to any of their past or current business practices.

But I'll admit, it surely would be funny!
Originally posted by electric
What if this rumor is true and what if Microsoft decided to make a version of Linux. What a mixed up world that would be.

[peteMG]

Originally posted by hobie

So where is your base?
It is belong to us. :mad:


Sorry, just had to get that in there

[Phil Of Mac]

If Palladium and such are going to piss off so many people, they just might buy Macs anyway. More money for Apple! As long as Senator Fritzler Hollings doesn't get involved, Palladium has no chance to survive, make your time. Unfortunately, it is just that that may cause Adolf Fritzler to get involved.

If enough people buy Macs, IBM just might be able to overtake Intel and AMD in processor speed because of all the money they'll make. Apple's market share will grow, MS/Intel will suffer and be forced to abandon Palladium, and everyone, except Microsoft and Intel for being idiots in the first place, will be in happy land. Unless, of course, Fritzler gets his way.

[arnette]

Originally posted by peteMG

It is belong to us. :mad:




Ah...humor! How I've missed you so from these boards.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If Palladium and such are going to piss off so many people, they just might buy Macs anyway. More money for Apple! As long as Senator Fritzler Hollings doesn't get involved, Palladium has no chance to survive, make your time. Unfortunately, it is just that that may cause Adolf Fritzler to get involved.



The problem with that is that not everybody knows about Pallidium and what it can and can't do.

[hypothetical...sorta]MS is most definately not going to advertise the restrictions that Pallidium places on it's users.
What they are going to advertise is things like 'new innovative media functionality' or 'increased stability/security' or 'more user freindly'[/hypothetical...sorta]

Most people aren't going to extensively research Pallidium like people here have, they're going to look at the features and the price when they go shopping for a new computer.

[hypothetical...sorta]Now those unsuspecting consumers buy that Pallidium machine and they download some unnapproved music files (let's make them legal, just not Pallidium approved for sake of argument) then they want to burn them onto a CD and play it in their car but when they go to do that, Pallidium warns them that those files are not approved and while it tells you that you may continue if you want, it will also warn you that all security features will be disabled if you continue. A window pops up that says 'It is not recommended you continue because security will be compromised if you do'
The consumer looks at the screen and says 'WTF?!? All I want to do is furn a CD and my computer's security will be compromised if I do??'

The consumer is now pissed and goes to his/her local computer store to ask some questions about it. He/she then sees an ad for 'The Multimedia OS' .
Interested, the consumer then walks over to the aisle where it is being sold, looks at the box and it says: 'OSX for PC, built from the ground up as a multimedia OS, just install this and you will be free to do with your digital media what you want!'
Consumer buys it, goes home and installls it. It saves all the media files from the previous OS. Consumer is now impressed that they have a gorgeous OS that does what they want it to do.

Problem solved.[/hypothetical...sorta]

Note: all of the above is purely hypothetical and possibly wrong based off of my understanding of how Pallidium works.

[Phil Of Mac]

Let's let that same event happen again, up to the point where he sees an ad for Mac OS X for x86. If he sees an ad for Mac advertising this, he knows that a Mac is what he wants, and he will try and RETURN his PC for a refund and get a Mac instead. If he can't, he'll just get a Mac next time. Quality is thus controlled by Apple.

And while MS may not advertise the restrictions Palladium will cause, what makes you think Apple won't?

"Windows won't let me burn CDs. It's kind of...a bummer."

[JeffHendr]

Apple needs to get smarter with their marketing if they ever expect a mass exodus of users from the Windows world. Simply showing a bunch of patronizing commercials about how easy Macs are to use isn't going to cut it. It almost makes it seem like Macs are only for computer illiterate people. I don't think there are really that many people anymore who don't know how to use a PC.

Apple needs to start showing a side by side comparison in gigaflops between Macs and PC's, inform consumers that products like Virtual PC will allow them to continue using their old PC programs, and emphasize the stability of OS X.

If a PC user only understands speed based on MHz, why should they shell out $2,000 to $3,000 for a new Mac that appears to be much slower than a PC? None of the Apple commercials ever offer any explanation for the slower frequency of the PowerPC.

If a PC user has been doing a significant portion of their work on a PC-only program, how quickly will they be willing to jump into an OS that they believe will not allow them to at least temporarily continue their work until they can find a comparable program for OS X? What will the PC user do if some time down the road their employer or a class that they're taking in school requires them to use a PC-only program to do a portion of their work? Apple doesn't advertise the ability of programs like Virtual PC to take care of all these problems and allow Windows XP to run on a stable virtual hard drive that can be restored anytime Windows screws it up.

The one thing that PC users all seem to understand is that Windows crashes ALOT. It may be fairly easy to use, and cheap to buy, but it's very unreliable and annoying. More Apple commercials emphasizing the stability of OS X would be wise.

These ideas might sway a large number of PC users over to the Mac side. Otherwise, only a test drive of the OS on a PC would probably convince large numbers of PC users to spend the extra money on a Mac that in their eyes is expensive, slow, and incompatible with most of the world. (not stating actual characteristics of Macs, only stating misperceptions held by many PC users)

[vniow]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Let's let that same event happen again, up to the point where he sees an ad for Mac OS X for x86. If he sees an ad for Mac advertising this, he knows that a Mac is what he wants, and he will try and RETURN his PC for a refund and get a Mac instead. If he can't, he'll just get a Mac next time. Quality is thus controlled by Apple.

Well what if Apple's are still more expensive and slower by then?
I for one would not like to trade my brand new computer which is well-built, speedy and reasonably priced for a more expensive one which uses similar parts and is a slower performer when I can just pay $129 and get the same experience on the computer I already own.

If Macs were priced/performed to PC's reasonably then there would be no problem, but I'm just saying if their hardware isn't up to speed by then.

And what happens if they can't get a refund?
They just spent say $1500 on a brand new computer and it sits there in the bedroom doing nothing because nothing you can do on it is Pallidium approved, no extra money to buy another computer since all of the savings were spent on that one, but just enough saved for a new OS.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And while MS may not advertise the restrictions Palladium will cause, what makes you think Apple won't?

"Windows won't let me burn CDs. It's kind of...a bummer."

I'm sure they will, but will it be enough is the question.

A lot of PCs that are sold are under the $1000 mark, some way below.
Apple only has two machines that are below that and only marginal at that.
Many people just can't afford a more expensive computer and if those people want a brand new computer, but they can't pay more than $800 for it, then Apple is out of the question unless they sell a seperate OS.

I'm skeptical about Marklar and it's alledged purpose as well, it's just fun to speculate.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif

[Phil Of Mac]

If you could buy Mac OS X for Intel, of course you wouldn't buy a Mac! But if you couldn't, you'd HAVE to buy a Mac, and you would.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you could buy Mac OS X for Intel, of course you wouldn't buy a Mac!


Why does OSX for x86 automatically make people not want to buy Macs?

A lot of people just like the looks of them, no PC maker has even come close to duplicating the iMac's looks and usability (hardware) alone have been major selling points of Apple products past present and future.

The iBook is currently one of the best deals you can get on a laptop right now, not because of software, but because it's one of the only sub $1400 slim notebooks with a good footprint, an internal DVD/CD-RW drive and 32MB of RAM all under 5 pounds, not to mention a great battery life.

The Tibook is no doubt a sexy machine, it practically sells itself, again not because of the software that's on it, but because people drool at the looks of a 1-inch thick laptop with a gorgous screen and partly made of titanium and an internal DVD-burner!!

How about the Powermac?
One of the single best case designs I have ever seen, just flip a latch and you can add or remove enything you want.


There are plenty of people that are willing to pay a premium to have an actual Apple machine on their desk, I'm one of them (or I would be if I could afford a new one) so I don't think Marklar would stop those people which seem to make up most of their sales.

[JeffHendr]

Just because you have the ability to play software designed for a different machine on your current computer, does not mean that you will be disuaded from purchasing the machine that it was designed to operate on.

There are plenty of Playstation emulators and Dreamcast emulators, etc available to the public, but they don't prevent people from buying the real thing. If anything, they encourage it.

If it's really that big of a deal, make the PC version of OS X unusable after a 90 day period or disable the ability to use printers and any other peripheral devices on the x86 version.

Sure, porting OS X for use on PC's is risky, but risk is part of any company's plan to broaden their market and their level of competition.

If people begin switching in droves to Mac's, Apple hardware prices will drop significantly, and the better designed Apple hardware will sell like hotcakes. What other computer hardware allows you to use multiple processors in parallel? What other computer hardware allows you to multi-task without significant slowdown? Marklar is an awesome opportunity for Apple to reach out to PC users, as long as Apple is careful about how they choose to go about releasing it.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by edvniow


Well what if Apple's are still more expensive and slower by then?
I for one would not like to trade my brand new computer which is well-built, speedy and reasonably priced for a more expensive one which uses similar parts and is a slower performer when I can just pay $129 and get the same experience on the computer I already own.

If Macs were priced/performed to PC's reasonably then there would be no problem, but I'm just saying if their hardware isn't up to speed by then.

And what happens if they can't get a refund?
They just spent say $1500 on a brand new computer and it sits there in the bedroom doing nothing because nothing you can do on it is Pallidium approved, no extra money to buy another computer since all of the savings were spent on that one, but just enough saved for a new OS.



I'm sure they will, but will it be enough is the question.

A lot of PCs that are sold are under the $1000 mark, some way below.
Apple only has two machines that are below that and only marginal at that.
Many people just can't afford a more expensive computer and if those people want a brand new computer, but they can't pay more than $800 for it, then Apple is out of the question unless they sell a seperate OS.

I'm skeptical about Marklar and it's alledged purpose as well, it's just fun to speculate.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif

I said that you wouldn't buy a Mac if you could buy OS X for Intel in response to this, and I assumed, in context to this. I was simply repeating what you said and added to it. But if you wanted to contradict yourself just for the sake of adding to the argument, I'll admit that you do have a point.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac


I said that you wouldn't buy a Mac if you could buy OS X for Intel in response to this, and I assumed, in context to this. I was simply repeating what you said and added to it. But if you wanted to contradict yourself just for the sake of adding to the argument, I'll admit that you do have a point.


Ummmmmm.....OK.

[Sedulous]

So, since you have a company that actually supports their products by upgrading their drivers, you didn't upgrade? Have you even tried to install it? If not, then perhaps you're slightly naive- just looking at one sony notebook (the picturebook), almost 100% of those drivers come with standard windows versions, and sony has updated versions of the drivers to support their "proprietary" features. Considering that a memory stick drive and jog dial aren't exactly standard features, I wouldn't expect them to come with native drivers in XP since Microsoft doesn't write drivers for those, sony does.

What you see on the Sony support page is no different than Logitech not including the Mouseware software in either Windows or Mac OS, or, in the case of something like the video driver, OS X/XP providing basic CD authoring and burning support over something like Toast. It's Microsoft's job to provide functionality, it's sony's job to enable the features of their notebooks.


My original comment was an answer to someone asking about driver incompatibility between Win2K and XP. It is good that Sony supports the upgrade but the process (if you look) is quite onerous. The computer is supposed to help me do work and save time, not me waste time to help it do work.

But thanks for reminding me and pointing out another reason why OS X for x86 is nonsense. PCs are all different and most have proprietary parts piled atop all kinds of different "guts". Getting an OS that will work with all of them is a challenge that Microsoft is still unable to master. Also, in reference to this example, the Sony notebook won't boot with non-Sony optical drives so upgrading is a painful experience. Likewise, common device drivers failed out of the box! These problems aren't Microsoft's fault but it exemplifies life in the world of Peecee. Part of the beauty of Apple is everything DOES work without tinkering. To upgrade to OS X all I had to do was slip in a CD.

[JeffHendr]

I don't quite understand all this talk about massive amounts of time invested in searching for compatible drivers for the unpredictable assortment of parts inside the average PC. PC's do not really vary all that much when looking at different machines from different manufacturers. You have the same basic motherboard setup, the same basic x86 chip, and the same basic assortment of optional PC cards. Even if you choose to purchase some obscure sound or video card, that for some reason is behind the times and does not yet have drivers for Windows XP, the generic windows sound and video drivers work quite well.

Usually each time Microsoft updates their operating system, it includes the majority of the latest hardware drivers. Just as you described for the Mac, all you have to do is insert the Windows update CD, and the installation application does the rest.

If the new OS update does not include a new driver for your scanner or printer, the scanner or printer website usually has a new driver only a couple of clicks away. Strangely enough, however, I've had to do more searching for more drivers on my Mac than I ever did with my PC. There are still alot of hardware vendors who may not even choose to provide drivers for OS X. Every time I make a hardware purchase, I have to do research to make sure that it will have drivers available for Mac.

As long as the x86 version of OS X were able to include generic drivers for the PC internals (as Windows does) and/or was able to automatically download the driver from the associated vendors webpage (maybe by scanning the existing PC configuration) I don't really see the problem. Finding the drivers you need is not that hard. Besides, it's the PC users who are familiar with this "jumble of hardware" to begin with.

[JeffHendr]

Windows unstable condition doesn't generally have anything to do with driver problems. It's tendency to crash is because it is written with outdated code that has trouble handling exception errors.

[Sedulous]

I don't quite understand all this talk about massive amounts of time invested in searching for compatible drivers for the unpredictable assortment of parts inside the average PC. PC's do not really vary all that much when looking at different machines from different manufacturers. You have the same basic motherboard setup, the same basic x86 chip, and the same basic assortment of optional PC cards.

Maybe I am lucky, but I am yet to have any trouble with Mac stuff (I have a cube, G4 tower, TiPB). However, my experience with PeeCee has been grim (various Dells and Sonys). A new Dell machine of mine wouldn't run Diablo II apparently because the Intel motherboard was incompatible. I've got dozens of examples where a PC program or device experiences what seems to be random conflicts or bizarre errors (like my Sony refuses to activate its ethernet card that came built-in). I know a lot of IT geeks and most of them are amazed that PeeCees work at all.

The only reason MOST people stick with Peecee is that they are afraid to leave it. Why offer a flimsy reason (Marklar) to stay with Peecee?

[JeffHendr]

I guess I have been fairly lucky with my PC's. I assembled most of them, so I made sure that I chose quality hardware. The only driver related problem I ever had concerned the game "Full Throttle". For some reason it would not allow me to use a game controller card that was seperate from my sound card. It turned out to be a problem with the way that the game was coded rather than an actual driver problem.

The only reason MOST people stick with Peecee is that they are afraid to leave it. Why offer a flimsy reason (Marklar) to stay with Peecee?

I understand the point that people are trying to make when they say this, especially since it's a possibility that a limited functionality version of Marklar could be reverse-engineered to make fully-functional versions. I still believe, however, that Marklar would do more to rid PC users of the fear of leaving the PC rather than reinforce that fear. The fear of leaving the PC is based on the compatiblity of the OS with the rest of the world, not because of any special love for the hardware itself. Apple is the only company that really attracts users with its hardware.

[Sedulous]

I don't quite understand all this talk about massive amounts of time invested in searching for compatible drivers for the unpredictable assortment of parts inside the average PC. PC's do not really vary all that much when looking at different machines from different manufacturers. You have the same basic motherboard setup, the same basic x86 chip, and the same basic assortment of optional PC cards.

Maybe I am lucky, but I am yet to have any trouble with Mac stuff (I have a cube, G4 tower, TiPB). However, my experience with PeeCee has been grim (various Dells and Sonys). A new Dell machine of mine wouldn't run Diablo II apparently because the Intel motherboard was incompatible. I've got dozens of examples where a PC program or device experiences what seems to be random conflicts or bizarre errors (like my Sony refuses to activate its ethernet card that came built-in). I know a lot of IT geeks and most of them are amazed that PeeCees work at all.

The only reason MOST people stick with Peecee is that they are afraid to leave it. Why offer a flimsy reason (Marklar) to stay with Peecee?

[JeffHendr]

Perhaps the driver issues could be used to Apple's advantage. Produce a version of Marklar that only includes a set of generic drivers. All advanced hardware features would only be available on the full version of OS X available only on Mac computers. Program in dialog boxes that remind the user when appropriate that they would have this extra functionality if they purchase a Mac which has hardware and software perfectly intertwined.

Apple could also refrain from including any support whatsoever for peripherals such as printers or scanners. This would allow PC users to experience the stability and elegance of OS X while at the same time forcing them to purchase the real thing in order to really do anything productive with it.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by edvniow
What version are you running?
WineX is supposed to be the best for games and a few apps, but as far along as it may be, WINE still isn't an option for many users since it isn't even close to flawless yet.
I always compile the latest CVS version. I've been using both WineX (CVS) [for games] and CrossOver [for Office-like applications].

True, it's now flawless. But with CrossOver successfully supporting Office 2000, IE, etc., users might pay more attention than before; especially with WineX's increased gaming support.

[vniow]

A half-assed version of x86 OSX with only generic drivers isn't a good idea at all!

People would buy it, install it on their PC, watch it not detect their scanner, sound card, digital camera, etc etc.
Result: Macs suck because I can't use all my periphials with it!!

Even if it was made clear that it was only a trial version, they still wouldn't have a good experience with it if it didn't detect any hardware.

If Apple is going to release Marklar, then it's either all or nothing.


Now for the driver question, I didn't have to install any drivers for any of my PCI cards or whatever with XP, the only drivers I did intall were updated versions which were the responsibility of the maker of that certain periphial, not Microsoft. Hell, I didn't have to install any drivers for Lindows which supports far less hardware so if it can be some by a much less smaller company, I'm sure Apple could take care of that problem, especially if it worked with the periphial makers.


Now would Marklar cut into hardware sales?

I say it would dent it, but not much since Apple hardware sells itself, ask anyone with a Tibook and you'll know what I'm talking about.
A lot of people buy a Mac not because of the OS, but because of the hardware design.
Like I said before, many of Apple's customers have gladly paid a slight premium just to have an actual Apple computer on their desk.


How much does Apple really make off of software?

Look for a thread I started in the 'General Mac' forums called 'Is Apple slowly becoming a software company?' for a link to a PDF of their third quarter earnings, split between hardware and software.
You will find that about 90% of their earnings come from hardware.

But does the rest of the software earnings include the copies of 10.2 installed on the computer?

Who knows.


Another thing to consider, if Marklar were to be released and plenty of people were to install it on their existing PC, wouldn't they be more likely to buy a full blown Mac next time they're in the market for a new computer?

[Talon1138]

If Apple releases Marklar it basically means it failed in attracting customers to buy into it's well-designed, tightly-ingtegrated computer model.

People would not want to plop down money for an OS if they sensed the company was desperate.



I say Just offer a free iPod with any mac purchase if you trade in your old PC. Switchers galore.

[JeffHendr]

I guess it wouldn't be a great Mac experience if PC users were shown a version of OS X which was unable to detect hardware properly, but something would either need to be done to an x86 version of OS X to make users want to buy a full blown Mac or something would need to be done to make PC owners understand the advantages of the Mac hardware (beyond just looks).

Perhaps the x86 version could detect and set-up all hardware, but then each time the user attempts to print, a dialog box would pop up that tells the user that printing is not available in the x86 version of OS X. Digital cameras and everything else would work fine, but only the actual act of printing would be disabled.

Or perhaps OS X could expire and cleanly remove itself from a PC after a set period of time.

I guess the more I think about it, though, the best bet to really attract PC users to the Mac platform with minimal risk to Apple's existence is to simply better educate them. Let them know what PowerPC MHz really means, let them know that Macs are able to multi-task with minimal slow-down, let them know that dual processors for Mac run much differently than dual processors on a PC, let them know that programs are available that will allow them to continue running their PC programs on a Mac (if they have to). These are probably the biggest barriers to switchers.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by JeffHendr
Let them know what PowerPC MHz really means...

...let them know that dual processors for Mac run much differently than dual processors on a PC...



Yeah, it means they're slower!

(sorry, I couldnt resist! :D )

[locovaca]

I have helped many people upgrade to Windows XP, and I have not run into any trouble with driver issues or incompatabilities EXCEPT for notebooks like Sony's where they have the stupid jog dial and you have to install special software for that. Otherwise, the base install on XP DOES indeed work on a majority of systems out there- HPs, Compaqs, Dells, etc. This proves that Apple too can do it. Here is the reasoning:

1. Taking out home baked boxes, if you step back and look at the PC market from, say, Best Buy, the major brands use Intel Processors on Intel Motherboards with integrated Intel Graphics and Intel Network Cards with standard integrated audio. The higher end ones use Intel Processors on Intel Motherboards with Nvidia or ATI Graphics and Intel Network Cards with either integrated audio, a CMedia based card, or a creative labs el cheapo or live/audigy.

2. Hard drives do not need drivers; dvd drives don't need drivers; and since CD Burners are generally pretty consistant between macs and pcs, the drivers are already there. Standard USB and PS/2 keyboard drivers are easy to write and USB drivers are basically done.

3. Apple does NOT need to provide enhanced drivers or anything like they're doing now on the PPC side. All they need to do is write a driver that has basic functionality- 2d and an open gl driver for video cards, standard front channel output on those 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1(!) sound cards. Not only will this relieve Apple of major driver duties, but it will also encourage users to contact the manufacturers and to get them to support OS X86.

4. I think that this stands to help PPC, not hinder it. Unless something radical happens, I don't think Marklar will succeed, and will probably suffer the same fate as BeOS (unless they get some huge support behind it). However, I think a number of people that normally would dismiss macs will be able to experience the OS and will switch because of it. And, if Marklar does sky rocket, since Macs and PCs will be at parity in regards to the OS, people will be comfortable with switching to a "mac" because, in their eyes, they're already using one. I can easily see laptop sales skyrocketing because of this, but maybe not as much in the desktop field. Apple definitely has the advantage with the TiBook and iBook in comparison to the Dells and HPs in terms of price and features, but desktops are a little more difficult (in my eyes).

[JeffHendr]

Yeah, it means they're slower!

From the processor comparissons that I've seen, the Power PC is running at nearly the same speed as the Pentium 4. Apple seems to claim that they run faster on their website, but maybe that has to do with the fact that Macs don't require communication between the processor and cards to go through a PCI bus. It seems that at the moment, Apple is pretty much tied with Intel for speed, but the average PC consumer doesn't know it.

That's only if you're doing one thing at a time, though, on a freshly installed version of Windows. The minute you start doing more than one thing at one time on the PC and the Mac, the speed of the PC takes a dive, while the Mac runs at near full-speed.

Also, one of the biggest things that has made me convert over from the dark side is that Windows seems to randomly throw files around on its hard drive, making a disorganized mess. It randomly adds worthless garbage to its OS directories, and begins getting bigger and bigger. Soon, your new state of the art PC is running like a slug, while the Mac under the same usage, once again, seems to run at near full speed.

Another cool thing about the newer Macs is the whole dual processor thing. PC's do processing in serial where everything bottlenecks. A dual processor PC only uses the second processor if the first one is all filled up. Macs, however, are able to use both processors at once to get things done twice as fast.

I know you're just joking around about the speed thing, especially since Apple has gotten ripped off by Motorola lately, but I don't think the situation is quite as bad yet as people think.

If Apple WERE able to find a way to make Marklar successful, they'd have enough control over the market to accelerate their technology at a much higher rate, while at the same time dropping prices.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by JeffHendr
Yeah, it means they're slower!

From the processor comparissons that I've seen, the Power PC is running at nearly the same speed as the Pentium 4. Apple seems to claim that they run faster on their website, but maybe that has to do with the fact that Macs don't require communication between the processor and cards to go through a PCI bus. It seems that at the moment, Apple is pretty much tied with Intel for speed, but the average PC consumer doesn't know it.

That's only if you're doing one thing at a time, though, on a freshly installed version of Windows. The minute you start doing more than one thing at one time on the PC and the Mac, the speed of the PC takes a dive, while the Mac runs at near full-speed.

Also, one of the biggest things that has made me convert over from the dark side is that Windows seems to randomly throw files around on its hard drive, making a disorganized mess. It randomly adds worthless garbage to its OS directories, and begins getting bigger and bigger. Soon, your new state of the art PC is running like a slug, while the Mac under the same usage, once again, seems to run at near full speed.

Another cool thing about the newer Macs is the whole dual processor thing. PC's do processing in serial where everything bottlenecks. A dual processor PC only uses the second processor if the first one is all filled up. Macs, however, are able to use both processors at once to get things done twice as fast.

I know you're just joking around about the speed thing, especially since Apple has gotten ripped off by Motorola lately, but I don't think the situation is quite as bad yet as people think.

If Apple WERE able to find a way to make Marklar successful, they'd have enough control over the market to accelerate their technology at a much higher rate, while at the same time dropping prices.

Dude, I don't know where you got all your info, but you are so disillusioned on how

1. SMP systems operate
2. How file systems work
3. How processors and chipsets work
4. PPC and Intel chips compare

but hey, I'll give you a benefit of the doubt. What comparisons have you seen? Maybe I have no idea how computers work! I'd like to read some of these articles!

[JeffHendr]

Dude, I don't know where you got all your info, but you are so disillusioned on how

1. SMP systems operate

My information may be outdated, but when I was building PC's before coming to the Air Force Academy, dual processor PC systems were pretty useless. The second processor only kicked in if you started running a second program or if the first processor was running at 100%.

I currently have a dual processor Dell workstation, and it doesn't really seem any faster now that I've added the second processor. Perhaps it's not the way the processors work on PC's under Windows XP, but instead is simply because the software may not be optimized to take advantage of the second chip.

2. How file systems work

Got this information after becoming interested following a discussinon on this board about the lack of the need to defragment Mac hard drives. From what I read on various articles on the internet, PC's are much more random when it comes to organized writing of files in order to gain a slight speed boost when writing to the drive. Macs, however, are supposed to take the extra time to write files in a manner that makes more sense.

PC's are notorious for jumbling up garbage information on your hard drive. Every so often you need to run a disk clean-up utility just to get rid of all the multiple copies of files or file fragments.

3. How processors and chipsets work

All the information I got about Macs being speedier by not having to go through a PCI bridge came straight off Apple's web site.

All the information I got about serial versus parallel processing (regarding multi-tasking) came straight off of Apple's web site. It is also information that was explained to me by a friend of mine who's a hardcore Mac user. At the time I hated Macs, but after listening to him explain the advantages of parallel processing under OS X, I began to do my own research and liked what I saw.

4. PPC and Intel chips compare

This is simply from most of the review/comparisons I read online. It's true that the Spec2000 ratings are nowhere close to each other between G4's and Pentium 4's, but Intel is supposed to design their chips to always exceed on this test. when doing side by side comparisons of actual systems, Mac's and PC's seem to be fairly comparable. Here's one article I just found on the net that falls into these lines: http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html I'm sorry I don't have time right now to find more.


If you'd like more support for my perception of Mac vs PC hardware, let me know, and I'll try to find the articles that I read after I'm done with my Econ 333 final this afternoon.

[bretm]

Look at how much of a software company Apple has become. They have started making such great software that people are buying macs just to use the software like iDVD, Final Cut Pro, and DVDStudio Pro. Lets not forget all the graphics and animation programs they just gobbled up that are way more expensive than the actual hardware boxes they run on. But it's not enough. From Apple's point of view, they still have a tiny market that is slowly growing if at all.

So for apple to put OSX out there for x86 boxes, they'd be able to increase their software sales significantly. And since it's their software, they are of course going to create the drivers and compile it for x86 (which isn't supposed to be such an issue from what I understand.)

Programs like DVD Studio Pro could be sold to every owner of Avid on the windows platform. Same with Final Cut Pro. Their market for software sales would increase by 95%. The diehards would probably stick with the Mac hardware, but when your software market all of the sudden includes _everyone_ instead of 3.5% of the people out there, who the hell cares about hardware?

With the switch campaign out there, it's obvious Apple wants converts and they want to tap into that other 95%. This is just another option they are keeping on hand.

[JeffHendr]

Originally posted by bretm
Look at how much of a software company Apple has become. They have started making such great software that people are buying macs just to use the software like iDVD, Final Cut Pro, and DVDStudio Pro. Lets not forget all the graphics and animation programs they just gobbled up that are way more expensive than the actual hardware boxes they run on. But it's not enough. From Apple's point of view, they still have a tiny market that is slowly growing if at all.

So for apple to put OSX out there for x86 boxes, they'd be able to increase their software sales significantly. And since it's their software, they are of course going to create the drivers and compile it for x86 (which isn't supposed to be such an issue from what I understand.)

Programs like DVD Studio Pro could be sold to every owner of Avid on the windows platform. Same with Final Cut Pro. Their market for software sales would increase by 95%. The diehards would probably stick with the Mac hardware, but when your software market all of the sudden includes _everyone_ instead of 3.5% of the people out there, who the hell cares about hardware?

With the switch campaign out there, it's obvious Apple wants converts and they want to tap into that other 95%. This is just another option they are keeping on hand.

That would make sense since software is generally sold as almost pure profit. Once you pay the developers, the only cost you really have is cd's and packaging.

Earlier in this thread, however, it was said that 90% of Apple's profit comes from hardware at the moment. The only reason Apple makes so much money off of its hardware, though, is because their prices are highly inflated in order to stay in business. If you have a small consumer base, prices have to be high in order to pay off all the employees and designer/researchers.

By expanding its software consumer base, Apple could drop its prices in on hardware, which at the same time, would attract more users to buy the more reasonably priced machines.

One thing I would not like to see, however, is for Apple to completely abandon the hardware business. Apple always comes up with new, innovative ideas that other companies never bother to invest in. Apple's played around with RISC technology, altivec, parallel processing (velocity engine), and is now probably going to take the lead with IBM's help in developing multi-processor utilization at lower frequencies for higher speeds. I like this kind of inovation, and I'd hate to see it go.

If Apple did decide to leave the hardware market, however, at least they'd save alot of money by no longer having to worry about paying for research to keep up with Intel.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by JeffHendr
Dude, I don't know where you got all your info, but you are so disillusioned on how

1. SMP systems operate

My information may be outdated, but when I was building PC's before coming to the Air Force Academy, dual processor PC systems were pretty useless. The second processor only kicked in if you started running a second program or if the first processor was running at 100%.

I currently have a dual processor Dell workstation, and it doesn't really seem any faster now that I've added the second processor. Perhaps it's not the way the processors work on PC's under Windows XP, but instead is simply because the software may not be optimized to take advantage of the second chip.


SMP works like this (on any platform): Programs run as threads. Some programs- usually ones optimized for SMP- run as multiple threads. A SMP system simply works on two threads at once, one on each processor. At any given time you can have hundreds of threads going at once. For refence, my XP system right now has 335 threads running. My linux server has 146 running. Just because a program such as Appleworks only has one thread running doesn't mean the second processor sits idle. The second cpu isn't an overflow processor.


2. How file systems work

Got this information after becoming interested following a discussinon on this board about the lack of the need to defragment Mac hard drives. From what I read on various articles on the internet, PC's are much more random when it comes to organized writing of files in order to gain a slight speed boost when writing to the drive. Macs, however, are supposed to take the extra time to write files in a manner that makes more sense.

PC's are notorious for jumbling up garbage information on your hard drive. Every so often you need to run a disk clean-up utility just to get rid of all the multiple copies of files or file fragments.



The FAT file system, just like many file systems, uses a tree style storage format. It uses a reference table to quickly find the correct node, which is called the File Allocation Table, where FAT got its name. Trees are organized in a systematic manner, not random. Nodes are written to the disk as clusters of data. File fragmentation, which occurs with every file system, occurs when a sequence of clusters cannot be written as one seuqence because there is not a large enough "gap" of blocks on the physical device, so it has to skip around. These problems are not exclusive to pcs; they are associated with PCs because the chkdsk/scandisk utility has been included with PCs for a long time, and Apple never included one until later revisions of Mac OS.


3. How processors and chipsets work

All the information I got about Macs being speedier by not having to go through a PCI bridge came straight off Apple's web site.

All the information I got about serial versus parallel processing (regarding multi-tasking) came straight off of Apple's web site. It is also information that was explained to me by a friend of mine who's a hardcore Mac user. At the time I hated Macs, but after listening to him explain the advantages of parallel processing under OS X, I began to do my own research and liked what I saw.



According to Microsoft's website, Windows is secure :rolleyes: PCI TRANSFERS GO THROUGH THE PCI BUS. Do you even know what a PCI bridge is? Do you understand that 98% of pcs do not have an extra one compared to macs, and the ones that do are high end servers that have 20 pci slots? All chipsets in consumer computers, pc and macs, have a root bridge off of the chipset, and support usually 3-6 devices. Any more than that require an extra bridge, which is a pci device that expands to more pci devices- like take a usb hub and pluging it into another usb hub.


Parallel processing, once again, is related to optimizing programs for multiple threads by forking off different calculations to be done at the same time. It is a characteristic of programming, not architectures. OS X does not handle threads any different than Windows. OS X does not magically make a program multi threaded. Windows does not magically make a program multi threaded.



4. PPC and Intel chips compare

This is simply from most of the review/comparisons I read online. It's true that the Spec2000 ratings are nowhere close to each other between G4's and Pentium 4's, but Intel is supposed to design their chips to always exceed on this test. when doing side by side comparisons of actual systems, Mac's and PC's seem to be fairly comparable. Here's one article I just found on the net that falls into these lines: http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html I'm sorry I don't have time right now to find more.


If you'd like more support for my perception of Mac vs PC hardware, let me know, and I'll try to find the articles that I read after I'm done with my Econ 333 final this afternoon.

I know that the DVE articles have been done a million times, but I stand by them because DVE is an independent website. I don't listen to benchmarks from PC websites anymore than I do from Mac websites.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

If you want to learn more about processors and why what Apple says isn't always the truth (and what Intel says isn't always the truth), I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558604286/qid=1039718486/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-6174602-6399949?v=glance&s=books&n=507846. I'd loan it to you, but I have to use it to study for my final in my CprE 305 class where we build a processor http://class.ee.iastate.edu/cpre305/cpre305.html

[JeffHendr]

Parallel processing, once again, is related to optimizing programs for multiple threads by forking off different calculations to be done at the same time. It is a characteristic of programming, not architectures. OS X does not handle threads any different than Windows. OS X does not magically make a program multi threaded. Windows does not magically make a program multi threaded.

So is all this stuff on Apple's website about the velocity engine a bunch of garbage?

Do Macs make as much of a mess of the hard drive as PC's do concerning multiple copies of files and file fragments? Does OS X grow infinitely bigger the way that Windows does? Does OS X significantly slow down the way Windows does after a couple of months of usage?

In any case, thanks for the info. I'm still learning alot about Macs. I just got my first Mac-Powerbook 1 GHz with Superdrive. I thought all the info on the Apple website about the G4 processor was pretty cool, but maybe it's all smoke and lights to keep Apple users happy while their company is in trouble.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by JeffHendr
Parallel processing, once again, is related to optimizing programs for multiple threads by forking off different calculations to be done at the same time. It is a characteristic of programming, not architectures. OS X does not handle threads any different than Windows. OS X does not magically make a program multi threaded. Windows does not magically make a program multi threaded.

So is all this stuff on Apple's website about the velocity engine a bunch of garbage?

Do Macs make as much of a mess of the hard drive as PC's do concerning multiple copies of files and file fragments? Does OS X grow infinitely bigger the way that Windows does? Does OS X significantly slow down the way Windows does after a couple of months of usage?

In any case, thanks for the info. I'm still learning alot about Macs. I just got my first Mac-Powerbook 1 GHz with Superdrive. I thought all the info on the Apple website about the G4 processor was pretty cool, but maybe it's all smoke and lights to keep Apple users happy while their company is in trouble.

I hate to break it to you, but there's this think called marketing. They tell lies by twisting the truth in a complicated way to make people believe things that aren't necessarily true.

When apple claims to have 266MBs of bandwidth for PCI devices, they dont' tell you that is only for 64 bit pci devices. Most PCI devices, save high end scsi cards, are 32 bits, meaning they go at the same 133MBs speed that they claim pcs can only do. Secondly, the integration of a north bridge and south bridge chips into the system controller does not give an advantage- it still does the same work of the two, it still has the same elements. Not only that, but the two bridges in PCs are connected by a very fast bus, 266 or 533 MBs, and it isn't a bottleneck like Apple claims. In the old days (97-98) this wasn't so, but it has been since around 2000. If you want proof, Intel calls it part of their hub archietcutre, Via calls it the V-Link, and AMD calls is hypertransport, and it's also called a backside bus.

The velocity engine uses the same concept as the entire CISC instruction set does- work on mutiple data sets in the same instruction. THat is why people hated the CSIC instructino set- they were too complicated! But, what Apple has said was a disadvantage in the past is now a benefit. That's marketing.

"Jaguar includes enhanced preemptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing and multithreading capabilities..."

Hello? These have been in the NT kernel since it's inception with NT 3.1. These are basic computing concepts that Apple has marketed because they are fancy names. There are not unique to Apple; Apple is the only one that advertises them because they sound good. That's marketing. Look at Microsoft's marketing- see those same buzz words? http://www.microsoft.com/ntworkstation/ProductInformation/ProductOverview/FeatureList/Windows95/techdiff.asp Of course you do, they're there to sell products, NOT be a technical comparison of two technologies.

I know this may be hard to believe, but a standard means that it's the same (supposedly) across different things. PCI bus is standard. Memory controllers operate on standards. The processing of 1's and 0's are standard. Just because they use a different instruction format does not mean that PowerPC and X86 are completely two different beasts. At the heart they still have the same ALU's, the same shift units, the same floating point units(even if different sizes). What is different is how they are implemented (using a carry & look ahead adder, putting in multiple decoders to have 3 different pipelines) and the physical electronics underneath. Apple can go and put on their website how their floating point conforms to IEEE standards, that does not make it unique.

[JeffHendr]

Ok. Well, I at least hope my new $2399 Powerbook is more stable than Windows XP and performs better than my Dell Precision 220 Workstation.

[ELYXR]

Hyper-Threading Technology, which was pioneered on Intel's advanced server processors, helps your PC work more efficiently by maximizing processor resources and enabling a single processor to run two separate threads of software simultaneously. The result is greater performance and system responsiveness when running multiple applications at once. So you can multitask like never before.

This sounds like a much more affordable and less power consuming technology than actual dual processing... imagine this technology in laptops.

Why doesn't Apple just build the best... most stunning x86 boxes. They would certainly have better margins than going with the IBM 970 ...which I imagine is a very expensive processor comparitively. Apple has some very clever engineers... they could devise a way to keep just anyone from installing Marklar on a Dell or some home-brew box. Maybe even buy slightly modified processors from Intel or AMD that have a unique identifier. Then embed code in ROM that makes Marklar only respond to the traits of those systems made by Apple. This way they won't cannibalise the hardware business... but move to a cutting edge platform that actually has an interest in being... well, cutting edge.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by ELYXR
Apple has some very clever engineers... they could devise a way to keep just anyone from installing Marklar on a Dell or some home-brew box.
There are also clever reverse engineers. :p

[JeffHendr]

With all the information that locovaca is giving me, it seems that everything I thought was cool about Apple hardware is either a lie or has already been implemented by PC's in the past few years. It also seems, that PC's are faster on a lot of the graphics functions that Macs are supposedly the best at handling.

If all this is true, and there really is no longer any hardware advantage from Apple other than the appearance, Apple might as well design their OS around x86 technology.

Perhaps they would simply use x86 technology inside Mac systems with ROM chips added to prevent standard PC's from being able to install the OS, or perhaps they would release it for use on all PC's in an attempt to take on Microsoft. Either way, at least they wouldn't have to worry about companies like Motorola anymore, they would no longer have to worry about catching up with Intel or AMD, and they would be able to concentrate on making great, stable software.

Afterall, it is OS X's stability that causes most PC users to think about switching. Windows is becoming junk, and is so unstable, that I sometimes spend more time handling errors than getting my work done. If you could have OS X stability on an affordable system, I think more people would switch.

[locovaca]

What makes a Mac such is really the software, not the hardware. Despite that, I would really wait on hoping for a switch to X86 until the 970 comes out. The 970 will really help bring parity initially between macs and pcs- what will be the back breaker is if they can keep the speed increases, through clock speed or architecure wise, and come close to pc speeds in things like rendering speed with PCs. The mac users will stay mac users regardless of speed, it's the rendering farms and low end servers that apple wants to get.

And I wasn't out to break your spirits or anything. I just wanted to point out that Apple does not have very many "exclusive" technologies. Just don't take Apple's marketing to be technical fact. Don't take anyone's marketing to be technical fact. According to Intel, hyperthreading can provide up to 968% increases (go here http://www.intel.com/home/desktop/pentium4/hyperthreading.htm?iid=Homepage+htland_ihcp4ht& and watch the demo), whereas, on the contrary, hyperthreading can hurt performance in some cases. That's why researching these technologies is important.

(PS: Here's a little stint about SMP and how it works: http://2cpu.com/FAQ/2cpusmpfaq.htm- it may help clear your confusion on what 2(+) cpus do for a system)

[imaginereno]

Although I would certainly like to run it on my PC, I don't believe this would be Apple's first choice in putting "Marklar" out into the market.

IF Apple moves to an x86 processor ( due to inability to get updated PPC chips ), then Apple would most likely continue to have a "closed" system, but would use a more widely available chip ( Intel, AMD, etc. ).

If Apple decided they wanted to take a HUGE gamble and have an x86 release of OSX, that was NOT on a closed system, they would probably work out deals with vendors to provide a "Certified for OSX" certification for systems that would have a "pre-installed" copy of OSX with all of the included applications that come with OSX for PPC.

If the preceeding was a success and demand was there for a "software only" release for OSX for x86, then they would sell it with a disclaimer ( like Lindows.com does for LindowsOS ), that says not all hardware is guaranteed to work with it, etc.

If they ARE actually considerting an "Open" release of OSX for x86, I would really like to see the business plan on that. The possibility for destroying their hardware sales is HUGE. This is one reason that Microsoft does not compete with it's Systems vendors. At this point, if Microsoft tried to go to a "closed" system, it would be as devastating as Apple going to an "open" system.

[ELYXR]

Although I agree with imaginereno, I think Apple owes their customers and their investors the "other benefits" of the x86 architecture. The problem with Moto and the PPC is that their market is stagnant... and has been for a long time. Moto will never commit enough resources to properly develop the PPC architecture... they are doing a half-ass job!

The x86 market has a history of competitive and marketable growth. Intel has a lot of competition, and a lot of reasons to produce innovative products... a lot like Apple in their respective market. I think if Apple and Intel collaborated... it would be very interesting. It's only a matter of time before Apple makes the transition. IBM is not the golden goose that everyone wants it to be... if the 970 fails to meet a wider audience than just Apple... IBM will put it to sleep. This is assuming that there hasn't already been a mass migration to the Opteron or Itanium by Q3 2003.

[Glial]

Originally posted by bbyrdhouse
Hey Mudbug,

I just noticed that you live in Shreveport, LA. I grew up in Bossier.
Small world huh.




Hey guys, from Shreveport also, now living in Ruston.

Small world indeed.