PDA

View Full Version : Intel CEO Craig Barrett on MacOSX on Intel, amongst other th...


MacBytes
Oct 23, 2003, 10:55 PM
Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Intel CEO Craig Barrett on MacOSX on Intel, amongst other things. (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5094798.html)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

mac15
Oct 24, 2003, 12:01 AM
Good article, it seems he'd like to work with Apple but Steve don't want none of it

Phil Of Mac
Oct 24, 2003, 12:17 AM
He talks trash, but on the inside, he's shaking out of fear of IBM!

Bakey
Oct 24, 2003, 02:03 AM
I still find it highly ironic that IBM has become the new "saviour" of Apple.

Forget the AIM appliance - I'm talking about "right here, right now"!

Ironic that it was IBM's blue prints that devised the old PC XT and then the AT, which in turn brought to light huge amounts of success for both Intel and Microsoft through the use and uptake of both processors and operating systems [obviously!].

And right here in 2003 some twenty+ years later we see IBM devising the next generation of processors that has raised the bar once again but this time for Apple... completely t'other side o'fence!! [Hey, it's not a bad thing of course!!]

If only I'd taken that "second look" at Apple when I was going to college, I could now be a veteran Mac user spanning 14 years... oh well, live and learn!! :(

As I sit here typing this on my P4 2.4Gig HT Win-XP Pro based Shuttle... it's nice but it's no Mac I can tell thee...

Anyway, back to my predicament... do I go for a 14" iBook G4 or a 15" Powerbook 1.25gig?????

:D

Phil Of Mac
Oct 24, 2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Bakey
Anyway, back to my predicament... do I go for a 14" iBook G4 or a 15" Powerbook 1.25gig?????

If you're considering the PowerBook, then go ahead and go for it. You deserve it!

And I remember when Apple was declaring war on IBM.

Blaaze
Oct 24, 2003, 06:27 AM
I read something in New Scientist about Intel having plans to to create a chip that would be able to support Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. Don't know why they would need one for Linux though, because it runs virtually on anything. I think what you have to look at here, is Intel trying to put their fingers in all the pies, including Apple pie.

They way they planned to do it, is with virtual something or other, or something with emulation. I'm sorry I don't remember the details.

I don't necessarily think this would be a good thing for Apple computers. If Intel were to make PPC chips for them, I think it would be grand, but having them run on the chips that everything else runs on doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I think as of now, they have a pretty good future with IBM.

bwintx
Oct 24, 2003, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And I remember when Apple was declaring war on IBM.

Was that before or after the Apple newspaper ad headlined:

"Welcome, IBM. Seriously."

...when IBM intro'd its original PeeCee? :confused:

psurrena
Oct 24, 2003, 07:52 AM
Remember CHRP? Sounds great but a little thing called an ego prevents such progress.

kristianm
Oct 24, 2003, 07:58 AM
All other arguments aside, choice is always a good thing. IBM will probably fail sometime in the future. The AMD/Intel competition should ensure that one of them crash and burns or some fast CPUs.

crenz
Oct 24, 2003, 08:08 AM
Frankly speaking, I doubt whether this will be really relevant for end-users. It would be nice to do a "fast-os-switching", but I doubt many people need it. In fact, I wouldn't want it myself, although I use multiple OSes all the time.

And if a market really develops for these things, competition will spring up, too. AFAIK, IBM's AS/400 has been able to run multiple virtual computers at the same time for a few years now.* There are people out there who run a dozen linux "servers" on one IBM box. Combine this with the upcoming multi-core processors at IBM, and they should have something really nice to offer -- if it is really needed.

*So it is actually typically Intel to sell it as something new ;-)

lolajl
Oct 24, 2003, 08:41 AM
Well, when users are faced with having to use a vital software that is only available on a certain OS (I'm sure you can figure out which OS I'm talking about), this technology will be fantastic for them.

AmigoMac
Oct 24, 2003, 08:49 AM
It could be the end...

... of the ONE-BUTTON Mouse... :D

cubist
Oct 24, 2003, 08:53 AM
Vanderpool is FUD, you know. He's only shooting the breeze.

xtekdiver
Oct 24, 2003, 09:20 AM
Consider this: Longhorn is about two years away. A lot can happen in two years. I predict that the iTunes Store will be a huge success and drive more interest in Apple's other apps. One of my contentions has been that Apple could make a lot of money selling their iApps to the Wintel world -- iTunes is my case in point. Apple has been forced to port iTunes in order to not become a marginal player in this new business model. For a while I thought Apple would be forced to go x86, but IBM seems to have a very competitive chip that will carry Apple far into the future, but I have been thinking this will eventually become a mute point. There is no reason that future chip designs could support multiple instruction sets at the same time! And this interview with Intel proves it:

"It will certainly give users a lot of flexibility to have different profiles on the same machine. If people use it for multiple OSes, running in sync on the same processor, it opens up a lot of different use models, and perhaps competitive models in the marketplace. If you are able to say, have two OSes running simultaneously, you won't have to rely on a single OS for everything. So you could have Mac OS and Longhorn on the same system, using Longhorn for business stuff and Mac OS for personal stuff. But first you'd need to convince Steve Jobs that it's a great idea. Even more important will be Vanderpool for fault-tolerance. Lots of aspects of that. "

So, once Intel does this (and they will do it) IBM will be forced to do it. IBM supports Windows and Linux, and I am sure they would love to sell their G5 (G6 G7?) chip to Windows users too.

The future is about choice and integration. Technology is about to make the Apple on Intel debate a mute point.

Edit: He obviously doesn't understand that Apple is not just a "home user" OS anymore. Quite the contrary, OS X will be a major IT contender in the server space, and this new kind of chip design will open the possibility of putting it in the client space in your office.

manu chao
Oct 24, 2003, 09:30 AM
I have a question: there are versions of Linux running on PPC (YellowDog?). Do most Linux applications run on these versions of Linux? I don't mean command line tools, but 'big' applications like e.g. Mozilla.

jcshas
Oct 24, 2003, 09:47 AM
Will Intel ever be able to crack Apple?

"We keep trying, but frankly it gets less and less interesting each year..."

-Fellings are mutual Mr. Barrett!

DeusOmnis
Oct 24, 2003, 09:58 AM
I hope apple stays away from that.

Si
Oct 24, 2003, 10:11 AM
Wouldn't this actually be a GOOD thing?
Apple would be able to sell more copies of OS X.
People would see the benefits of OS X
We would all be able to use those software packages that we have to use on Windows on the one machine without the need for virtual PC, and also run PC games.
Think about it, work in OS X and then play in Windows.
Get the best of both worlds!

kristianm
Oct 24, 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by manu chao
I have a question: there are versions of Linux running on PPC (YellowDog?). Do most Linux applications run on these versions of Linux? I don't mean command line tools, but 'big' applications like e.g. Mozilla.

Yes.

killmoms
Oct 24, 2003, 10:29 AM
I'll be surprised if a virtual-machine oriented chip is ever able to run G4/G5 Altivec optimized code at full speed. Especially if it's from Intel. I was hoping the G5 would put an end to the monthly (sometimes weekly) MacOS X on Intel rumors. Guess that hope was unfounded.

--Cless

Docrjm
Oct 24, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Si
Wouldn't this actually be a GOOD thing?
Apple would be able to sell more copies of OS X.
People would see the benefits of OS X
We would all be able to use those software packages that we have to use on Windows on the one machine without the need for virtual PC, and also run PC games.
Think about it, work in OS X and then play in Windows.
Get the best of both worlds!
Unfortunately it would be a bad thing. Apple is aHardware vendor. If multiple os on intel was a reality, most people blinde by the stupidity of PC world best buy and futureshop will only purchase pc, they will never have the benefits of Apple explained to them. Apple will therefore slowly lose marketshare to the point of non viability. At that point the duopoly will revert to normal practice. One os on one chip.

Looking at the Mossberg article recently: and to paraphrase.

:D An Apple a day keeps the viruses away. :D

jouster
Oct 24, 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by bwintx
Was that before or after the Apple newspaper ad headlined:

"Welcome, IBM. Seriously."

...when IBM intro'd its original PeeCee? :confused:

Well, there was a certain amount of ironic humor in that headline that kinda backfired on Apple. I don't think Apple ever imagined that IBM/MS/Intel would grab so much of the market. Otherwise, why would you welcome the opportunity to lose sales?

I think that when they wrote that, if you'd told Jobs that 20 years later his company would have 3% market share he'd have laughed in your face.

Apple, after all, has never lacked self confidence.....

I'll be surprised if a virtual-machine oriented chip is ever able to run G4/G5 Altivec optimized code at full speed. Especially if it's from Intel. I was hoping the G5 would put an end to the monthly (sometimes weekly) MacOS X on Intel rumors. Guess that hope was unfounded.

No, of course it couldn't run at full native speed - nothing that involves an emulation layer ever could. But that isn't so important: what is is whether it could run such code quickly enough to be usable.

BOOMBA
Oct 24, 2003, 10:45 AM
So, does this mean you could crash Wndows XP while also crashing Windows 2000, all at the same time and on the same chip?

WOW!

omnivector
Oct 24, 2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Si
Wouldn't this actually be a GOOD thing?
Apple would be able to sell more copies of OS X.
People would see the benefits of OS X
We would all be able to use those software packages that we have to use on Windows on the one machine without the need for virtual PC, and also run PC games.
Think about it, work in OS X and then play in Windows.
Get the best of both worlds!

for some people this has to be explained until the cows come home. apple is a hardware company. not a software company. os x, and all the software they write, serves as gravy profit. the majority of their income comes from hardware sales. you won't see os x run on anything that apple doesn't directly produce for a long time (perhaps when steve dies).

themacolyte
Oct 24, 2003, 11:07 AM
This seems to be a step back, the wrong path to take and typical Intel. Complicate everything by allowing the use of multiple systems on one system easily.

Imagine that this were available today... Now you've got Windows on your machine to play games, Mac OS to run creative apps or use iLife, Linux to learn how computers really work. You bought a larger hard drive to hold everything, an extra GB of RAM to allow it all to run at one time. You have an intimate knowledge of how to use things on each system, each one being different. That would be wonderful.

No.

More money on the hardware to do it, more money on the software (going to keep all those OSes up to date?), more wasted time learning multiple ways to get around and get things done, more confusion for tech support:

Tech Person: "Are you using OS X or Windows or Mandrake or Suse right now?"

Customer: "Well, I'm not sure. I installed it in Windows, but I think I'm in Suse right now... It's hard to tell because I have an OS X theme on everything."


This is a good technology for some server situations but it is definitely not intelligent from a general engineering standpoint.

Here's an amazing idea that MS and Intel are having trouble with... Standardization. If standards are used, it doesn't matter what operating system you're using. You wouldn't need to run multiple systems. It's easier for developers to create applications so that all systems have them if standards are used.

Instead, MS uses the closed Direct X and all ported Mac games seem slow because they had to be ported from Direct X to the OPEN OpenGL. Just one example.

greenstork
Oct 24, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Cless
I'll be surprised if a virtual-machine oriented chip is ever able to run G4/G5 Altivec optimized code at full speed. Especially if it's from Intel. I was hoping the G5 would put an end to the monthly (sometimes weekly) MacOS X on Intel rumors. Guess that hope was unfounded.

--Cless

This will be a major hurdle if apple is to convince people that OS X is a worthy OS. I think speed is a huge issue.

Take a page from recent headlines as an example. Many PC users who are downloading iTunes are finding it to be very slow. My friend who can rip CDs on Musicmatch at 4.5x is only getting speeds of 320 kb (I think it's kb/s) on iTunes. It's driving him mad. Take into account the fact that it uses 90% of the processor just to resize the window and a 30 MB memory usage and it's frustrating many Windows users, and legitimately so. This is just one application. Imagine OS X running like VPC, it's not a usable OS, it only really serves the purpose of testing.

Pehaps when chips, memory and bus speed start to far outpace the operating systems that are on them, then we can talk about a virtual machine OS X. Until that time, I think it would set a terrible example for the usability and functionality that is OS X.

dongmin
Oct 24, 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by xtekdiver
Consider this: Longhorn is about two years away. A lot can happen in two years. I predict that the iTunes Store will be a huge success and drive more interest in Apple's other apps. One of my contentions has been that Apple could make a lot of money selling their iApps to the Wintel world -- iTunes is my case in point. well the primary reason Apple ported iTunes to Windows is that it's heavily tied to a piece of hardware, the iPod. I heard somewhere that PC users make up half the iPod market. So it makes sense for Apple to support that market also with software.

Apple will only go into the PC world if it means selling more hardware. Now maybe personal computers will be obsolete in 5 years and all our computing needs will be fulfilled by an iPod-like device, in which case Apple may become 100% cross platform. But until that happens, Apple won't be porting any of their other iApps to Windows. The iApps (along with FCP, Logic, etc.) are one of the major incentives to buy Mac hardware.

Santiago
Oct 24, 2003, 11:59 AM
So you could have Mac OS and Longhorn on the same system, using Longhorn for business stuff and Mac OS for personal stuff.

Hate to break it to Intel, but that should be Mac OS for getting any actual work done, and Windows for playing games, because that's the only thing it's good for... :D

andyduncan
Oct 24, 2003, 12:12 PM
I think calling this a virtual machine is a little misleading, and the diagram in New Scientist is especially bad (shame on them). From what the interview says it would appear that Vanderpool has the ability to run multiple, simultaneous native kernels. A virtual machine would imply some sort of chip-level emulation (transmeta anyone?) as opposed to 'simple' segmentation.

As is stated in the article, Apple would have to release a version of OSX that would run on x86 before this is feasible.

Craig Barrett saying you will be able to run Windows and OSX on the same chip is a marketing troll. Unfortunately it looks like it worked.

sethypoo
Oct 24, 2003, 12:24 PM
Coming from an investor's point of view, Mr. Barret had a few good points.....Apple needs to get out of the 2% market share. I personally think Jobs, while a great CEO (and orator) needs to realize that more of the market=more profits=more Apple revenue=more happy Apple customers/stock holders. Yes, I know, that was generalized, but 2% really is pitiful, let's get that up to at least 12%.....

I know that this would take a lot of time and energy for Apple, but it would be worth it in the end. :) :) :) :) :)

hmmfe
Oct 24, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by omnivector
for some people this has to be explained until the cows come home. apple is a hardware company. not a software company. os x, and all the software they write, serves as gravy profit. the majority of their income comes from hardware sales. you won't see os x run on anything that apple doesn't directly produce for a long time (perhaps when steve dies).

You might have to keep explaining it because I just don't agree with what you are saying. Apple is a systems company - just like Sun. They are not a hardware company that, oh btw, has an OS that runs on their hardware. If anything, OS X has been driving their hardware sales in recent years.

The dichotomy you present that apple is either a hardware company or a software company is just not valid. Apple makes integrated software and hardware - in other words a system.

xtekdiver
Oct 24, 2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by dongmin
well the primary reason Apple ported iTunes to Windows is that it's heavily tied to a piece of hardware, the iPod. I heard somewhere that PC users make up half the iPod market. So it makes sense for Apple to support that market also with software.

Apple will only go into the PC world if it means selling more hardware. Now maybe personal computers will be obsolete in 5 years and all our computing needs will be fulfilled by an iPod-like device, in which case Apple may become 100% cross platform. But until that happens, Apple won't be porting any of their other iApps to Windows. The iApps (along with FCP, Logic, etc.) are one of the major incentives to buy Mac hardware.

This is an excellent point and I should have added that to my statement. I agree that iTunes is not what is making Apple money, but the iPod; and without iTunes, it would only be a matter of time before PC devices cut into iPod sales. However, one of the strengths of iTunes is its simplicity and elegance. It could very well create interest in Apple's other software. I think we all agree that it would be great if it caused people to consider buying Apple computers, but only time will tell on that.

Yet, there is a lot of money to be made selling software too. This may not be what Apple has been known for in the past, but they are definitely moving more and more in that direction. But, somehow I think Apple will always remain a separate platform from Windows and the other iApps will probably not be ported, but if Intel produced a chip that allowed you to run OS X natively, without any modification to the software, then this whole Intel vs. Apple issue is mute; it would then be up to the consumer as what platform they run and what hardware they buy. I think it is going to be the chip makers that will solve this issue, because in order for them to remain competitive, supporting multiple instruction sets will become an inevitable necessity.

Rower_CPU
Oct 24, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
...
And I remember when Apple was declaring war on IBM.

You sure about that?

http://www.apple-history.com/noframes/body.php?page=history&section=h2

hmmfe
Oct 24, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by omnivector
for some people this has to be explained until the cows come home. apple is a hardware company. not a software company. os x, and all the software they write, serves as gravy profit. the majority of their income comes from hardware sales. you won't see os x run on anything that apple doesn't directly produce for a long time (perhaps when steve dies).

You might have to keep explaining it because I just don't agree with what you are saying. Apple is a systems company - just like Sun. They are not a hardware company that, oh btw, has an OS that runs on their hardware. If anything, OS X has been driving their hardware sales in recent years.

The dichotomy you present that apple is either a hardware company or a software company is just not valid. Apple makes integrated software and hardware - in other words a system.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 24, 2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by bwintx
Was that before or after the Apple newspaper ad headlined:

"Welcome, IBM. Seriously."

...when IBM intro'd its original PeeCee? :confused:

Before. The Apple personal computer was a declaration of war against IBM, and the first shot in the battle to bring computing to the masses.

greenstork
Oct 24, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
Coming from an investor's point of view, Mr. Barret had a few good points.....Apple needs to get out of the 2% market share. I personally think Jobs, while a great CEO (and orator) needs to realize that more of the market=more profits=more Apple revenue=more happy Apple customers/stock holders. Yes, I know, that was generalized, but 2% really is pitiful, let's get that up to at least 12%.....

I know that this would take a lot of time and energy for Apple, but it would be worth it in the end. :) :) :) :) :)

Why, who cares if more people use Macs, really? I'm not implying that this is your reason but do people really feel that insecure with their computer purchase that they need to be validated by others switching to a Mac too? Honestly, all I care about is that Mac OS X plays well with windows and runs all of the applications that I need and is a viable company over the long term. Maintaining a profit and not taking huge risks is far more important to me than gaining market share. If Apple can do this and play nice with Windows, I could care less about that 2% market share.

Do I want people to switch to a Mac? Only in as much as I love my Mac and think everyone should own one. Do I care if they switch? Not really, it's no skin off my back as long as Apple is cranking out good products and remains a profitable company. I'd much rather have a small innovative company than a corporate behemouth that puts out plastic toys.

It's more important for Apple to do what's best for Apple than it is for them to do what best for your average consumer. In my experience, I benefit most from this approach. Those Dell toting fools can bark up a tree for all I care.

greenstork
Oct 24, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by hmmfe
You might have to keep explaining it because I just don't agree with what you are saying. Apple is a systems company - just like Sun. They are not a hardware company that, oh btw, has an OS that runs on their hardware. If anything, OS X has been driving their hardware sales in recent years.

The dichotomy you present that apple is either a hardware company or a software company is just not valid. Apple makes integrated software and hardware - in other words a system.

Newbie, Apple doesn't make a dime on software okay. They sell hardware to make money. Greg Joswiak said point blank that the only reason they are porting iTunes to Windows was to sell iPods and to entice people to buy Macintosh computers. When you're selling so few units of sofware and investing millions in R&D for that software it is a big money loser. However, they are known to have some of the highest profit margins in the industry on hardware. It's where their money comes from. So yes, they are a systems company only insofar as their software allows them to profit on their hardware. I think the dichotomoy that you are so quick to dismiss is a valid distinction although it's possible we're just arguing semantics.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 24, 2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
Newbie, Apple doesn't make a dime on software okay.

Thanks for the info. Glad to know that Panther doesn't cost $130.

greenstork
Oct 24, 2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Thanks for the info. Glad to know that Panther doesn't cost $130.

And how much do you think the development, maintenance, and marketing costs are on that Panther copy you are buying? Funny thing about profits is that they include expenses too.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 24, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
And how much do you think the development, maintenance, and marketing costs are on that Panther copy you are buying? Funny thing about profits is that they include expenses too.

Funny thing about that is that Apple makes a lot of revenue on Mac OS X too. Expensive as it is to get good programmers and to work them day and night, I suspect Apple still makes some profit :D

jcdenton
Oct 24, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
And how much do you think the development, maintenance, and marketing costs are on that Panther copy you are buying? Funny thing about profits is that they include expenses too.

Ditto with hardware.

Incidentally, do you know how the numbers compare between hardware and software sales? (This is an honest question -- I really don't know.)

greenstork
Oct 24, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Funny thing about that is that Apple makes a lot of revenue on Mac OS X too. Expensive as it is to get good programmers and to work them day and night, I suspect Apple still makes some profit :D

I think you're wrong. It's not like M$ who *sells* millions of OEM copies to the Dells and HPs of the world. Apple just adds it to their new computers free of charge. That means that the only people that actually buy this software are people that upgrade from a previous operating system. Development costs for Jaguar last year amounted to $13 million. If you figure the same for Panther and add to that the ongoing maintenance (for at least 1-2 years), marketing, WWDC promotion/expenses, etc. I don't see how you could expect Apple to turn a profit on an upgrade product.

On top of that, Jaguar is a damn good OS so many folks probably won't see the value of upgrading.

hmmfe
Oct 24, 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
Newbie, Apple doesn't make a dime on software okay. They sell hardware to make money. Greg Joswiak said point blank that the only reason they are porting iTunes to Windows was to sell iPods and to entice people to buy Macintosh computers. When you're selling so few units of sofware and investing millions in R&D for that software it is a big money loser. However, they are known to have some of the highest profit margins in the industry on hardware. It's where their money comes from. So yes, they are a systems company only insofar as their software allows them to profit on their hardware. I think the dichotomoy that you are so quick to dismiss is a valid distinction although it's possible we're just arguing semantics.

Funny, Tiger Woods made more money doing Buick commercials this year than he did on the course. Would you say that Tiger is an actor who does commercials or a golfer?

See, what is most profitable is not the only factor in determining what/who a company is.

-Noob

Phil Of Mac
Oct 24, 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
Development costs for Jaguar last year amounted to $13 million. If you figure the same for Panther and add to that the ongoing maintenance (for at least 1-2 years), marketing, WWDC promotion/expenses, etc. I don't see how you could expect Apple to turn a profit on an upgrade product.

$13 million, eh? At $130 a pop, they'd only need to sell 100,000 copies to make a profit. They did that the first weekend Jaguar was released. Any sales after that were pure profit. (Yes, I know the packaging costs too, but that's negligible.)

awulf
Oct 25, 2003, 11:04 AM
There is one thing stopping Mac OS running on anything other than a Mac, and that is the ROM, without it Mac OS won't run.

Like how Mac OS doesn't run on any other PPC computers. And that's why there aren't any Mac Clones, when Mac clones were available, Apple allowed them to use the Mac ROM.
___________________
There are many PPC Linux distributions e.g.: SuSE, Yellow Dog, Mandrake (up to 8), PPC Linux, MK Linux, Debian and the BSD UNIX's.

All programs on the Intel version of Linux will work on the PPC or any other chip providing the Source Code is compiled on that chip.
__________________
Apple does make profits on some of their software even though they spend money on R&D, Marketing and Packaging. Same as how Apple spends R&D, packaging and marketing on Hardware.