Cross-Platform Universal Emulation?

[MacRumors]

A story published by Wired News (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64914,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2) reports Transitive Corp. (http://www.transitive.com/) of Los Gatos, California has developed a product called QuickTransit, offering the possibility of emulation at near-native speed. It fully supports accelerated 3-D graphics and 80 percent computational performance on the main processor according to Wired. This means Macs could run Windows-native or Linux-native software with no recompiling necessary, with no noticeable loss in performance. This software version of a rosetta stone has reportedly been aquired by six different PC manufacturers with public announcements to come later this year. Transitive launched the software on Monday with versions for Itanium, Opteron, x86 and Power/PowerPC chips.

Transitive is attempting to move away from the term 'emulator' to describe their software, embracing instead 'hardware virtualization.' Their keen to keep away from emulator, since up until now that term has suggested "things that are very slow" according to Transitive's President & CEO Bob Wiederhold.

[AmigoMac]

I don't know what to say ... Cool, of course but it will shake the market... maybe not... I want to see it first working, until then.. Wow!

[mgargan1]

so lets hope this take some marketshare away from microsoft... good luck...

[eroyce]

Finally I can start using OS X on my Dull I got from work! :)

[sushi]

A story published by Wired News (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64914,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2) reports Transitive Corp. (http://www.transitive.com/) of Los Gatos, California has developed a product called QuickTransit, offering the possibility of emulation at near-native speed. It fully supports accelerated 3-D graphics and 80 percent computational performance on the main processor according to Wired. This means Macs could run Windows-native or Linux-native software with no recompiling necessary, with no noticeable loss in performance. This software version of a rosetta stone has reportedly been aquired by six different PC manufacturers with public announcements to come later this year. Transitive launched the software on Monday with versions for Itanium, Opteron, x86 and Power/PowerPC chips.

Transitive is attempting to move away from the term 'emulator' to describe their software, embracing instead 'hardware virtualization.' Their keen to keep away from emulator, since up until now that term has suggested "things that are very slow" according to Transitive's President & CEO Bob Wiederhold.
Nice if true.

Time will tell.

Sushi

[dizastor]

Are we sure this isn't an Early/Late April fool's joke? The CEO's name is Weinerhold after all...

[AmigoMac]

Finally I can start using OS X on my Dull I got from work! :)

You may not install Mac OS X in a non-apple computer .. it will be piracy :eeK: Maybe you care, may be not ;)

[spinko]

at last ??

[Grimace]

What an awesome gift to us all!!

[swissmann]

Seems too good to be true. Would Apple allow their OS to run on someone else's hardware or if you buy the OS do they have no more say in the matter?

[the_mole1314]

*vaporware*cough*vaporware*

[fuzzwud]

sounds like great news, but I don't care anymore. what was that last company that claimed have great emulator but ended up admitting the news was fabricated?

[AmigoMac]

Let's start the poll: Would you install Mac OS X in a non apple computer? :rolleyes: (According to the last news/rumor)

It looks very impressive, maybe will be the end of VPC and we won't wee VPC 8 ... if it's true, apple should license/buy that and take advantage of it...

[arnette]

Something to follow up on. I just finished fooling around with Virtual PC 6 last week. Man, that program is S-L-O-W. ANY emulator would be welcome but one that drastically improves the standard speed right now would be fantastic.

[allroy]

I can run Windows XP on my G5!

[Abstract]

Forget vapourware.

I've been here for a couple of years now, and I remember an earlier news report claiming something very similar. It could be the same product, I guess, or it may be another attempt by someone else. But if it is, then what happened to the earlier announcement? It was a long time ago, but maybe that was vapourware.

And the easiest way for Apple to prevent people from using OSX on a WinPC is by making Mac OSX expensive has hell to buy separately without a system, say $700. That way, it makes sense to pay for the hardware as well, which will be a ripoff, of course.

[mum4d]

Finally I can start using OS X on my Dull I got from work! :)

I think this means you can run PC software on a Mac or Mac software on a PC.

Not run Mac OS on a PC or WindowsOS on a MAC

[AirUncleP]

It was just a matter of time. I'm all for it.

[varmit]

and how much will this cost.

[Abstract]

Oh okay. Well, that's not as exciting, but exciting nonetheless. Now you really CAN run Doom 3 on a Mac with 80% performance. :)

[nagromme]

It's nice that it exists for PowerPC too. I hope the hype is genuine.

I suspect Apple's interested "just in case," whether they ever ship a product with it or not. And MS shouldn't care too much either... if someone wants to buy a copy of Windows for their Mac, MS won't mind taking the money. (Sales of VPC might suffer, but MS still sells you the OS.)

Get ready for people to scream "Apple is dead!" because people will buy cheap PC clones and buy the "emulator" and buy OS X instead of buying a Mac.

No. Sure, some people will, but it may or may not run and will not be ideal. Think of all the Mac-specific hardware the OS has to support... just emulating the CPU/GPU isn't the end of it. And people will blame the emulator not the OS, so this is a way for people to try OS X on their box and if it DOES work at all they may just get a Mac next time. Another Switcher gateway--in other words, it would increase Mac hardware sales, not to mention lots of OS sales.

I DO NOT think Apple should sell OS X for x86--not even with an "emulator" or whatever. It would be a support nightmare and kill the integrated OS+Mac experience.

But if someone ELSE sells a way to get OS X on x86, and Apple warns against it, they have their cake and eat it too. They support only Mac, but people will still unofficialy buy OS X for other hardware... and then feel the need for REAL hardware to go with it!

EDIT: this will emulate parts of Mac OS maybe, NOT allow Mac OS as a whole to run. See my post below.

[wingman8472]

Finally I can start using OS X on my Dull I got from work! :)

I dont thank it works like that. Its not for running OSX on and X86 computer but rather for running x86 programs on a ppc platform (windows programs on OSX) or (OSX programs on Windows or Linux) Kind of like X11

Sounds very cool. :D

[kerb]

id be so happy if it meant you could run OSX on a regular Pentium/Athlon machine!

after using my PowerBook for a few months I clean installed windows xp on my laptop and put Mandrake Linux on another PC and they feel so stupidly complicated. I reinstalled XP SP1 and I had 200megs of updates to install to make my computer "secure"!!!! I then installed SP2 and apparently my soundcard was a security risk, so it disabled it! Then it wouldnt let me access the internet as I didnt have a virus scanner installed so that was a security breach.

Then Mandrake is a bit better as you can do alot more "under the hood stuff" but only if you are VERY computer literate. OSX does powerful if you want and useability if you are a regular user. If it could run stabley and fast on a regular machine it would be fantastic. I wouldn't even bother dual booting.

[morkintosh]

Are we sure this isn't an Early/Late April fool's joke? The CEO's name is Weinerhold after all...

I'm going to have to agree with this suggestion until I see something working, or at least a link that doesn't return an empty document ...

[DWKlink]

Anyone else having trouble getting to Trasitive's website? Maybe they're overloaded since this news just hit.

Seems like this is a bit of marketing hype, but if it were to be true, would be pretty awesome.

[jbembe]

Would this eliminate the problem PC users have of not having essential ProgramX on the Mac platform, freeing them from having to purchase windoze stuff? :confused:

[QuiteSure]

I think the Wired story makes VERY clear that QuickTransit affects applications, not the OS, so OSX will not be suddenly able to run on Intel machines.

Presuming that this is correct, this result can only help Apple. Now, the inability to run any given application or game will not be a reason to spurn the Mac, which has the superior form and (I think) superior OS.

[2GMario]

the question also stands, what kind of software will it run ?

people miss the fact that, the reason we have intel, amd, ibm (g5), etc... is because the chips do different things.

its 1 thing to write a java applet or what have you and have it work across multiple systems because the applet still needs the java virtual runtime installed, which itself is compiled specifically for the os / processor required.

if it was as easy as installing a piece of software and calling it a day, thats fine

and it may be that way for a calculator or word processor. but for something like photoshop, 3dsmax, etc... anything requiring specific functions of a specific processor / video card, your going to have problems.

i didnt read the hold article cause it doesnt hold interest to me, but unless they work out how photoshop will have access to excessive amounts of ram, etc... its vapor ware to me

its 1 thing to emulate (vpc 6, 2004, vmware, etc...) but with no drop in speed is very hard to swallow.

-Mario

[squatch]

I've been debating about whether to purchase VirtualPC, or hold out to see if Apple was developing their own type of "Darwine" project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) as has been rumored by several sites. I see the breaking of a new dawn in cross platform compatibility finally! :)

[varmit]

they got /.ed

[jimthorn]

Anyone else having trouble getting to Trasitive's website? Maybe they're overloaded since this news just hit.

That's what happens when Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) picks up a story.

[jdechko]

I tend to agree with mum4d and wingman8472, et. al. I dont think that this will allow anyone to install OS X on an intel/amd chip, but rather that programs will be able to be run "cross-platform" ... im all for HL/HL2/CS on PPC

[ajbrehm]

so lets hope this take some marketshare away from microsoft... good luck...

How?

This is processor emulation, it doesn't replace Windows. It might make Wine run on Mac OS X, but Microsoft already offer a more compatible solution (and there is no reason to believe that this new emulator will be faster than VPC 6 or 7).

As for the ability to run PowerPC GNU/Linux binaries on x86 and vice versa, this would be helpful if most GNU/Linux programs weren't open source anyway.

I'm not excited.

[nagromme]

Yes, the site's dog-slow for me too. But I finally got here:
http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm

"an operating system mapper translates operating system calls from the source system to the target system in situations where the source and target operating systems are different"

My understanding: you are running an app by "emulating" (pick another term if they don't like it) the hardware AND the OS. So running Mac apps on Windows would require writing the OS emulator of sorts... or more technically, the "operating system mapper."

Functions of Mac OS would be emulated to make Mac apps run (IF anyone makes such a mapper), but the OS as a whole would not be present.

I'm skeptical that you could get reliable "universal" functionality by running Mac apps on a Frankenstein re-mapped OS and hardware.

[zwida]

I can't imagine what Apple could do if it could safely tell Microsoft to go stuff itself. Up til now, they've needed the Macintosh BU (mostly, just Office) to keep people from worrying about compatability. If switchers can be promised that ANY app will just run on a Mac, then we can move further away from those sorts of worries and closer to selling a heck of a lot of really cool, high-margin hardware.

If you can switch without really having to change how you do things, it'll give you time to get used to easier, better systems. For someone like my 65 year old mom, even a easier new system seems harder than clunkier old one.

So, with all of that going for us, this'll probably turn out to be all smoke and no fire... :(

[jimthorn]

I've been debating about whether to purchase VirtualPC, or hold out to see if Apple was developing their own type of "Darwine" project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) as has been rumored by several sites. I see the breaking of a new dawn in cross platform compatibility finally! :)

I have a hard time believing that Apple would develop anything that encouraged the use of Win32 apps on Mac, especially if they ran at a better speed than Virtual PC. It would mean that 3rd party software makers could potentially stop developing for the Mac platform.

[blueBomber]

The hype on this reminds me of when Java was first announced, cross platform development that will run on any machine. I just don't see this panning out in a way that will really change anything. Besides, I wouldn't want to try running FCP on an emulation layer... using it on the real deal suits me just fine.

[elskeptico]

The article says:

This means Macs could run Windows-native or Linux-native software

And then it says:

This software version of a rosetta stone has reportedly been aquired by six different PC manufacturers

If this software will enable MACs to run Windows apps, why would PC makers want it? It sounds like it's software for MAC hardware, but then says PC hardware makers are buying it. :confused:

[wdlove]

At this point I think that if you want to run Mac software why not just get a Mac. If it would work successfully then it could encourage more to switch. At least Apple would benefit.

I'm also sure that Apple could develop a program to run on the Mac that would emulate the PC better than VPC.

[squatch]

I have a hard time believing that Apple would develop anything that encouraged the use of Win32 apps on Mac, especially if they ran at a better speed than Virtual PC. It would mean that 3rd party software makers could potentially stop developing for the Mac platform.

I disagree, I see many 3rd party companies (mostly your larger ones) who write for both platforms falling further and further behind in keeping the Mac version equal in feature parity with their Windows counterpart. I'm sure Apple is taking note of this. While Apple makes awesome software apps for their OS, many other companies are just not putting the resources into keeping their software on par cross-platform wise.

[IJ Reilly]

Apple should buy this company before Microsoft does.

[Rower_CPU]

If this software will enable MACs to run Windows apps, why would PC makers want it? It sounds like it's software for MAC hardware, but then says PC hardware makers are buying it. :confused:

It's not just for Macs - it allows you to run just about anything on just about anything else.

QuickTransit software allows applications to run "transparently" on multiple hardware platforms, including Macs, PCs, and numerous servers and mainframes.

[ioinc]

Presuming that this is correct, this result can only help Apple. Now, the inability to run any given application or game will not be a reason to spurn the Mac, which has the superior form and (I think) superior OS.


I am not sure this is correct.
You spend most of your time working within applications, not working with the OS.

If you could now run OSX apps on a windows machine, why pay the higher premium for mac hardware.

Windows may suck, but double clicking on an application to launch it is the same in both operating systems..

[idkew]

I think this means you can run PC software on a Mac or Mac software on a PC.

Not run Mac OS on a PC or WindowsOS on a MAC

you do realize that an OS is just software anyway, right?

[2GMario]

a os is just software yes. the problem is, a os contains low level assembly that access's the processor directly

and aside from the fact the the G4 nor the G5 are even close structuraly to a intel like chip

this is the reason for pearpc, the os x emulator for windows ? sure it works, sure they had to remap a ton of registers intel processor dont have and g4 / g5 processors do, but look how slow it is. think it took them 5+ hours just to install the os ?

running software that access's a os's underlying apis is 1 thing. running a os that access's the processors registers directly is a totally different situation.

i still think its impossible to emulate even windows with no speed loss at all, but wel just have to wait and see

-Mario

[michaelirelan]

maybe i missed it but i searched all over their site and did not see any prices. is this available to the end user or only to the manufacturers like apple, dell, etc??

[IBSNOWEDIN]

Go here http://www.transitive.com/news_quicktransit.htm


"Availability and Pricing Model
Transitive’s QuickTransit products are currently available and shipping to major OEM customers. Pricing for QuickTransit products is based on a one-time technology license fee and a usage fee model that depends on the customer’s deployment strategy."

tons of info on how it works! i guess this is for real..

WOOT!!!

the site is slow but all the info is there

[jwhitnah]

at last ??
I will believe it when I see it work.

[pentajigga]

great !! now PC viruses will work on my ibook!!!!

[csubear]

This is not an impossible thing. Infact... I had this idea myself and it is quite possilbe to do this, but as a student working full time i don't quite have the resources to pour into this thing.

For the any OS, and CPU thing to really work, one key point must be observed.

Any program that you want to work this way must not directly interact with hardware.

Most programs written for windows 2000+, or OS X satsify this condition. They interact with the hardware though an OS abstaction of the hardware. (ie. to open a file you don't call interupt what ever, request a DMA channel blah, blah blah, you just call open file (or whatever).

After that condition is satsified all that needs to be done is

-before the program is run, translate all user code to target machine code (ie .. x86->ppc), observing all long jumps to system libaries.
-take all long jumps to system libaries and replace them with jumps and point them to a libary that translates API arguments from user OS to target OS.
-make some changes to the exe to conform to the target system exe format. (win32 exe->Mach-O)
-make sure that any dylibs that the translated program calls are the translator API, and make sure that the translarot API calls the proper system lib.

done.

Not impossible, Just hard.

[sinisterdesign]

FINALLY!! i can run Word and Powerpoint on my Mac!

(sorry, just tired of PC users here in the office acting all surprised when i open Word or Excel..."YOU have Word?? i thought this was a Mac?? isn't that computer from like an alternate reality where only obscure designer programs function?")

hmm, should be interesting to see how this pans out. only a 20% performance hit for SOFTWARE handling program and OS "mapping"? (it's emulation, face facts bob)

[AMP]

The software is designed to re-map system calls from applications to the appropriate machine code for different processor types. According to the site there will be a version that will run MIPS, PPC, and Mainframe (assuming IBM z series) on Itanium; MIPS, MF, and x86 on PPC, and MIPS, Itanium, and PPC on x86. The catch is that both OSs must be Unix/Linux-like. In other words it will help users migrate from x86 Linux to Itanium or PPC (IBM p series) or any other combination.

This is targeted at enterprise customers looking to move large applications to either cheaper (MF -> anything else) or more capable (x86 -> PPC) platforms. This isn't a competitor to VirtualPC and you aren't likely to ever see it at the Apple store.

[Rower_CPU]

i still think its impossible to emulate even windows with no speed loss at all, but wel just have to wait and see

They're not claiming "no speed loss".


How QuickTransit Works
...
QuickTransit products let software applications run on the target platform exactly as they run on the source platform, with 100% functionality. Graphics and interactive performance are transparent, and computational performance is 80% of what could be achieved with a native port, which is often higher performance than is available on the original platform.

[bryanzak]

No way, I don't believe this story at all.

[gekko513]

"an operating system mapper translates operating system calls from the source system to the target system in situations where the source and target operating systems are different"
...
I'm skeptical that you could get reliable "universal" functionality by running Mac apps on a Frankenstein re-mapped OS and hardware.
Me, too ... Have these people implemented mappers for the whole Windows API, the whole Cocoa, CoreImage, Quicktime, Carbon ++ and the whole GTK-whatever that is used in Gnome?? That doesn't seem feasible.

I'm guessing it's severely limited when it comes to GUI applications. The Quake example from linux to Mac was probably just possible because it only uses glu/glut which exists on both platforms anyway.

If this makes it possible to run iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD on Windows XP, I'll be very, very surprised.

[tny]

Anybody else concerned that one of the apps they chose to test on was the Gimp on Windows, when there already is a Windows Gimp?

[robotrenegade]

The ppl that made this are the ppl that made VW. They sold VW to M$ then took the money and made a better product.(I'm guessing of course.) Like other ppl have said, "I'll believe it when I see it."

[GetSome681]

This is targeted at enterprise customers looking to move large applications to either cheaper (MF -> anything else) or more capable (x86 -> PPC) platforms. This isn't a competitor to VirtualPC and you aren't likely to ever see it at the Apple store.

Sure....and that's why they supposedly demo'd it with QUAKE 3 and GIMP...two ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS.

[mixgrafix]

I think that this maybe a pardigim shift in computing. It was bound to happen, just like clear metal will happen someday (Beam Me Up Scotty!). This would be the first step towards my goal of elimination of binary code as we know it, and change it to a whole new form of natural computing. Out with the ones and zeros, and in with the new waterproof language that is not based on electricity, but based on chemical charges between axons and dendrites of the grown processor. Maybe I should lay off the drugs.

:D

[x86isslow]

Apple should buy this company before Microsoft does.

my thoughts exactly. microsoft wouldnt let this company make it to market, since they would be ! competition ! :rolleyes:

[asphalt-proof]

I have a hard time believing that Apple would develop anything that encouraged the use of Win32 apps on Mac, especially if they ran at a better speed than Virtual PC. It would mean that 3rd party software makers could potentially stop developing for the Mac platform.

They wouldn't have to develop only for the Mac. They could conceiveably write only one version of the program and it would run on all platforms. As mentioned before, this eliminates the "lack of software for the Mac" argument heard from PC oriented store clerks. This could only benefit Apple IF it only runs applications and not the OS itself. If it could run the OS I would expect that Maklar would be revived and optimized X86 machines be offered. (But probably not). By the way, the bad stuff (spyware, malware, virii etc.) that comes with Windows will probably also work on all platforms.
Pete

[kerb]

QuickTransit for x86. Allows application binaries compiled for a MIPS®, POWER™, PowerPC™ or mainframe processor to run on an x86-based computer. Application binaries compiled for other processors will be supported soon. Operating system call mapping from any Unix/Linux-like operating system or any mainframe operating system to any Unix/Linux-like operating system is supported.


OSX is a Unix OS. Looks like it could then run on a PC.

[AngusB]

Of course you have to wonder about anything touted by Rob "Death to Mac" Enderle...

[gekko513]

OK, calm down, everyone :D

I've been reading up on this a bit (on slashdot, not sure if it counts). :p


This product is not able to "emulate" everything. It's mostly a product aimed at software houses and large customers who want to port a product from one platform to others, let's say from their old PA-RISC box to their new Power5 box.

The product will automatically map between a number of similar system calls. Obviously the number of similar system calls will be larger between UNIX/Linux variants. If no such similar system call exists, then the customer must define the map herself to make a successful port of the application.

Obviously there are few maps defined for complex libraries like Cocoa and Win32, so the customer will not be able to port apps like iMovie and iPhoto just like that.

[t^3]

It'd be funny if running the PC version of games would now actually be faster than running the native Mac version because of this.

[Jakuta]

It was bound to happen, just like clear metal will happen someday (Beam Me Up Scotty!).

Transparent Aluminum Is Here (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/23/1141217&tid=14)

[MacFan26]

Interesting. Another emulator "all your problems are over" sounding thing. I guess we'll see if this ever manages to take off, but I'm skeptical.

[MM2270]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this product is, but if this will allow folks to run different OSes on their hardware, regardless of what they have, this may be bad for Apple. Think about it. Apple makes most of their money off hardware sales. Currently the only way you can actually run the Mac OS is to buy or own a Mac. If every PC user out there will suddenly be able to run Mac OS X, and Apple doesn't (currently) use serial numbers for the OS, then imagine all the pirated copies of Mac OS X that will start making the rounds. All those cheap ass PC buyers will be able to avoid buying the typically more expensive Apple hardware and still take advantage of OS X. Not good for Apple. Will this cause them to start serializing their OS? I kind of hope not.

Additionally, this may also be bad for MS. Many disgruntled PC users can switch to Mac OS and not pay the MS tax going forward.

It may change the entire computer industry to start shipping computers with no OS on them, if requested by the buyer. You can then put whatever OS you want on there.

It will be interesting to see more about what this product will mean for the industry.

[macridah]

This sounds pretty cool. Only I don't know if there are any Microsoft or Linux products I would rather use on my mac that's already there. This might be good for new switchers and gamers.

[bousozoku]

In the early 1980s, there were the processors which would run LISP and Sweet-16 instructions natively. In the 1990s, there were experiments for Java processors.

Have these people done something the earlier groups could not? I'm not holding my breath.

[johnpg]

As others have pointed out, this appears to be mapping system calls along with the emulation. What that means is, it's going to be nearly impossible to run Office 2003 (for windows) on a Mac or iPhoto on Windows, etc. But things like Linux apps compiled for x86 could probably be moved to Mac OS without much fanfare. I doubt the same could be said for Cocoa or Carbon apps running on Linux though. The thing that makes this interesting is Wine. If they could incorporate this technology with Darwine, then we just might have a way to run Windows apps natively.

However, anyone who has actually used Wine will tell you, that this is hardly the stuff of average end users. Apple, or a third party, could probably develop something along the lines of Crossover Office and allow a subset of apps to run well. But having a universal way to run Windows apps on OS X, in a reliable and simply fashion, is probably not going to happen. The good news is though, that if this tech is available, it would make a lot of things possible that before now just weren't worth it. For instance, if it was a standard part of the OS, it would be realistic for 3rd parties to write their apps and test on this so they could have a cross platform app that works. Only time will tell.

Cheers,
John

[stoid]

I can't wait to read Jack's musings on this from the AtAT compound later today. I sure hope he does a show on it! :D

[GFLPraxis]

You may not install Mac OS X in a non-apple computer .. it will be piracy :eeK: Maybe you care, may be not ;)

License agreement says, "any non apple labelled computer". Stick an Apple sticker on the PC...

[GeeYouEye]

Let me be the third to point out that this means suddenly the Mac platform is going to be able to run viruses and worms.

[the future]

I'll believe it when I see it.

If it works as advertised, the choice of a certain OS will become less important for the user, as all software runs on all OSs. Software developers will stop developing native Mac applications/ports. The edge OS X has over Windows will be less relevant. The majority of users will pick the OS X apps they like (iLife) and run them on cheap x86 hardware. As Apple makes most of its profit with hardware, Apple will be in deep trouble.

If it works as advertised, the choice of OS will be much more open for users. Their investment in software will not be lost when trying out a new OS, as all software runs on all OSs. The majority of users will try the OS X apps they like (iLife), fall in love with Apples trademark simplicity and elegance and switch to OS X running on affordable new headless minitowers Apple introduces to make switching easier still. As Microsoft makes most of its profit with the now largely abandoned Windows OSs, Microsoft will be in deep trouble.

If it works as advertised, Linux will own the corporate desktop market.

[chromos]

This sounds pretty cool. Only I don't know if there are any Microsoft or Linux products I would rather use on my mac that's already there. This might be good for new switchers and gamers.

I'd take a crack at Quicken for Windows, and ditch the Mac version.

[Rower_CPU]

Let me be the third to point out that this means suddenly the Mac platform is going to be able to run viruses and worms.

From a propagation standpoint, this is bad - from a local damage standpoint, the viruses may or may not be written to access the OS X system properly (e.g. a virus trying to write to c:\ won't have any effect on a Mac).

[Gelfin]

I'm also rather skeptical of this, if only because it's been promised so often in the past. The PowerPC consortium and Transmeta promised dynamically reconfigurable processor architecture, and dealing with hardware put them in a much better position to actually accomplish it.

By now (actually, by ten years ago) we weren't supposed to care which platform a piece of software was written for, because they would all run on the same chip with veritably native speed. But of course we never saw anything significant come of it.

I've come to suspect it's a pipe dream, which is why, like so many others here, I'm skeptical about any claim that a piece of software can accomplish this in a way that's faster than VPC-style emulation. It seems unlikely.

Put me in the "believe it when I see it" corner.

[sinisterdesign]

[voice of grisled old gold miner] "I SEEN with my own eyes i tells'ya! Mac software running on Linux boxes, PC software on Macs, it was the Lost City of Code!! i drew me a schematic to where the encrypted treasure lies. it's two leagues due south of Null Set Gulch, lying under the shadow of Vaporware Peak..."

[egor]

I don't see how its physically possible, especially x86 hardware emulating PPC... does anyone have any idea how they have proposed their software actually does its stuff? Loada bollocks if you ask me...

[&RU]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Apple is one of the 6 companies in line. My prediction is that they will incorperate it into OS X, so that they never have to worry about Microsoft's commitment to the platform ever again -- I bet the boys over at the MacBU are soiling themselves at this very moment.

If this "hardware virtualisation" software is all its's cracked up to be, and they use it in Tiger, it would be the ultimate switch incentive to beleagered businesses who feel they are too heavily invested in software for an insecure windows environment. Of course other *nixes would benefit as well.

My copy of VPC is about to get KNOCKED THE #@!% OUT!

[applekid]

A bit surprised this news is traveling everywhere so quickly.

But, I won't believe it till I see it. And I doubt I'll ever see it. I remember similar attempts like this where nothing ever got done.

However, the difference among the other tries and this one is, Transitive claims it has a product and a product that computer manufacturers will use! :eek: I'm inclined to believe it. 80% computational performance is surprising.

Question is, how well will it do? I see one of two things happening if this is real: A) Apple can say good-bye. Buy a Wintel machine and run anything and everything. B) Apple can say hello. Buy a Mac machine and run anything and everything in a safe OS, but for a price.

Considering most PC users I know of are afraid of change, I think Apple will be the one to say good-bye. I only know of one person that's a hardcore gamer, but willing to switch if Macs could run all of the games well. However, this isn't a gaming rig issue. It may be more about price and quality than anything.

If this really exists, it will change the computer as we know it. I'm afraid. :(

[Mord]

if this includes directx support i'm over the moon.

if it costs more than £100 i'm going to get it via other channels.

[Ja Di ksw]

I think that this maybe a pardigim shift in computing. It was bound to happen, just like clear metal will happen someday (Beam Me Up Scotty!).

Transparent Aluminum Is Here (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/23/1141217&tid=14)

Ah, so this emulator IS true! Along with, apparently, teleportation.

[&RU]

Hey egor,

I took a quick look at their site and this is my take on it.

For comparison we can look at VPC. It is slow as molasses in January. Why? Because the App you want to run (ie: MS Project) is running on Windows which in turn is running on another App (VPC), which in turn is running on another OS (OS 9 or X).

App>OS>App>OS>Hardware = SLOW.

What it seems like they have done is code to the standard set of APIs on the application side. On the Hardware side they coded right down to the PowerPC (or whatever given platform).

App>Hardware Virtualisation?OS>Hardware = NOT SO SLOW.

They have removed software layers added video support and moved the App as close to the hardware as they can. I can see a substantial increase there, but 80% is probably a theoretical max you would probably average around 60%.

Does anyone else have a different take on this?

[egor]

Hey egor,

I took a quick look at their site and this is my take on it.

For comparison we can look at VPC. It is slow as molasses in January. Why? Because the App you want to run (ie: MS Project) is running on Windows which in turn is running on another App (VPC), which in turn is running on another OS (OS 9 or X).

App>OS>App>OS>Hardware = SLOW.

What it seems like they have done is code to the standard set of APIs on the application side. On the Hardware side they coded right down to the PowerPC (or whatever given platform).

App>Hardware Virtualisation?OS>Hardware = NOT SO SLOW.

They have removed software layers added video support and moved the App as close to the hardware as they can. I can see a substantial increase there, but 80% is probably a theoretical max you would probably average around 60%.

Does anyone else have a different take on this?

Ahh, that makes sense... just one thing, wouldn't they need the windows/whatever source to create the APIs? Or am I being completely daft?

[shamino]

It appears to be a JIT (just-in time) compiler that translates a supported platform's machine language to the host's machine language. This isn't the first emulator to use this approach (Java has done this for years, and I think MacOS's 68K emulator also does this), but this does appear to be the first that tries to combine multiple platforms and operating systems into one package.

Translating x86 to PPC (or whatever other translations it may support) isn't the big deal. The big deal is recognizing each operating system's system-call format so that OS API calls can be mapped and translated correctly. Tricky, but not impossible.

Supporting apps that use DLLs (shared libraries, dylibs, etc.) can be a particularly interesting challenge, because you have to dynamically load-and-translate new code while the app is running.

File system issues can be particularly nasty - MacOS and Linux have no concept of drive letters, for example.

If an app launches another process, it can really become fun. What happens if my Mac is running a Linux desktop utility that can launch Windows apps and Mac apps? And how do these processes inherit each others' file/network handles?

Another interesting question is one of the GUI - how do you define what is "correct". If I launch a Windows app on my Mac, should it have Windows-like window controls or Mac-like controls? Some users will complain either way.

I will be particularly interested if/when this becomes a real product and not just a demo and press release. If done well, it will give VPC a run for its money.

It will also be interesting to see if Microsoft and/or Apple sue them. You probably need to reverse engineer at least some of each system's APIs in order for the translator to recognize and replace the calls. This, at the very least, violates the shrink-wrap licenses (which are binding in MD and VA) and may violate some other intellectual property laws. If you don't, then you have to emulate the hardware and actually run the OS - what VPC does - which is a more difficult challenge.

[shamino]

Ahh, that makes sense... just one thing, wouldn't they need the windows/whatever source to create the APIs? Or am I being completely daft?
To emulate the published APIs, all they need are the reference manuals. If their emulator can detect calls to each and every API and map them through to native code, then any well-written application should work fine.

Poorly-written apps that make use of undocumented API calls (which Microsoft's apps all do, even though they explicitly tell other developers not to) will be more difficult. They'll have to figure out what these APIs are in order to intercept and emulate them - some they can get from the internet, but some will require manual reverse-engineering. And MS can change them at any time, making matters worse (they don't have to worry about breaking Office, because they can simply include an Office patch with the system update or bundle the system update with an Office update.)

Apps written for specific device drivers (like those games that use nVidia- or ATI-proprietary interfaces) will be more difficult. But these apps usually include alternate code paths to handle customers that haven't purchased the matching hardware, so this kind of emulation is not strictly necessary.

[solafide]

If this is true, I welcome it with open arms - I would love to turf my Dell laptop for a PowerBook. I am still skeptical.

As well, it may not fix the problem. One of the critical applications for most software development going on these days is the browser. Many applications will check "is this a Windows machine, running IE", instead of "does this browser support a certain functionality. I am not sure what would happen if you were running the Windows version of IE on the Mac - it might work, if the sniffer thinks it is on a Windows platform. Long term, MS is protecting themselves anyway by absorbing the browser into Longhorn. They can be proprietary as they want, and developers that use the proprietary tools will still lock out any non-Longhorn user.

It is a wonderful idea (and I, for one, will use it), but it may be too late, unless it really works as well as they say, and Apple can obtain significant market share before Longhorn arrives. I would love to see it, but it is probably a pipedream. MS holds the developer community, by and large, and most IS departments in the palm of their hand. It is sad, but true.

[&RU]

The APIs are openly available to developers... or anyone for that matter. That is how Apps interact with the OS. So you look at those, and try and pass their reqests to the hardware.

By the looks of it, they will be selling platform specific versions of their software.

http://www.transitive.com/products.htm

If they made a product that ran Win Apps on the x86 platform without Windows -- they would probably get sued into the ground. But since they are making a product that runs on POWER/PowerPC for example and happens to run x86 Apps along with MIPS etc. It is not the same product. I am not saying someone won't sue them, but I will say it is a hard case which has gone sour in the past. Look at Sony vs. Connectix over the Virtual GameStation emulator, in the end Sony lost and ended up just buying it from Connectix for some astronomical amount of money.

[shamino]

They demonstrated Linux-Quake running on a Mac and Linux-GIMP running on Windows.

That's great and wonderful. But how about running Microsoft Office apps (either the Windows or the MacOS version - I don't care which) on Linux?

Call me crazy, but it seems that this test is striking in its absence. If I was developing this product, I wouldn't want to issue any press releases until I could demonstrate MS Office running on a foreign platform, if for no reason other than publicity.

[shamino]

If they made a product that ran Win Apps on the x86 platform without Windows -- they would probably get sued into the ground.
There's only grounds for a suit if they violated Microsoft's intellectual property. Building code to comply with MS's published APIs doesn't count.

But I wonder if supporting the published API is enough. I'm pretty sure MS Office uses undocumented APIs.

It is worth noting that (so far), the WINE project (http://www.winehq.com/) has not been sued into the ground.
Look at Sony vs. Connectix over the Virtual GameStation emulator, in the end Sony lost and ended up just buying it from Connectix for some astronomical amount of money.
Which would be a win for Transitive, but a loss for the rest of us.

[squatch]

I'd take a crack at Quicken for Windows, and ditch the Mac version.

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Screw the version for Mac, the one for Windows puts it to shame.

[KingOfPain]

My take on it...

First of all this QuickTransit isn't a full emulator, because apart from the CPU nothing is emulated. This of course means that no operating systems can be run, just applications for other operating systems.
QuickTransit has an API-mapper, which basically translates API calls from foreign applications to system calls of the native operating system.

This also means that Windows applications will NOT run:
"QuickTransit supports operating system mapping between any two Unix/Linux-like operating systems, as well as mapping between mainframe and any Unix/Linux-like operating systems."
http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm

Yes, it would be possible to do the same for the Windows API, because it's already been done in WINE. But it remains to be seen if a firm actually wants to go that way, since it's not too good to deal with partly documented API and probably even get in the way of Microsoft.

Now some comments on the Wired News article...

"In demonstrations to press and analysts, the company has shown a graphically demanding game -- a Linux version of Quake III -- running on an Apple PowerBook."
Erm, it would be really interesting which Linux Q3 was compiled for and what operating system the Powerbook ran, because running a Linux/PPC version of Q3 on Linux/PPC would be hardly impressive...

"QuickTransit fully supports accelerated 3-D graphics"
Well, probably everything in OpenGL, because translating Direct3D to OpenGL would be quite a feat...

"and about 80 percent computational performance on the main processor."
Somehow I doubt that. Even if you manage to have an almost 1:1 ratio for computation instructions, memory accesses will kill that ratio big time. That's the reason why dynamic recompilers aren't not as fast as they might be.

"One of the key breakthroughs is an "intermediate representation," a kind of lingua franca that gives the software the flexibility to translate from one platform to another."
I'd be really interested in that one, because I once analysed basically dozens of processor architecture trying to come up with just such a thing. After several months I dropped the idea, because it's just not practical. Even some of the most basic stuff (eg. integer division) is so diverse that you either have to include every possible implementation or have it represented in very simple steps.
In the first case the intermediate representation becomes a real monster that no one is willing to write a backend for another architecture, and in the second case the code quality will be really bad.

"Unlike most other emulators, QuickTransit translates blocks of code rather than a line at a time. In addition, it identifies and stores the most commonly executed code."
Oh, maybe they should tell that to Eric Traut, who did the dynamic recompiler in Apple's 68K emulator, the one in Virtual PC, and in Virtual Gamestation for Mac and PC...

Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it.
API mapping isn't new, it has been done in lxrun and WINE. The new thing here is the dynamic binary translator that according to them is using a general intermediate representation. And with the little experience I have I'd guess the 80% performance aren't achievable, especially not with that approach.
It would be a nice surprise to be proven wrong, we'll see...

[GFLPraxis]

Let me be the third to point out that this means suddenly the Mac platform is going to be able to run viruses and worms.

Not really. The viruses and worms will be able to execute, but they won't have a windows directory to infect, windows system files, or anything.

And even if it does (say, they have to add the core windows files to run windows programs), it'll still only mean that they can ONLY affect the Windows side of things.

[whw5]

So this whole thing is going to be free right?

[chazmox]

Are we sure this isn't an Early/Late April fool's joke? The CEO's name is Weinerhold after all...

Actually I used to work for Bob Wiederhold at Tality/Cadence - he's a pretty good guy if I remember correctly.

[asphalt-proof]

A couple of thoughts after the initial rush. I have seen this posted EVERYWHERE on the net. It seems everyone is picking this story up. Its almost like hype to boost stock prices.

IF, however, its legitimate, I think that this could potentially be a very good thing. As someone noted, hardware and to some extent, OS becomes irrelevant. Its simply a user preference that can run anything that any other computer can run. I know that computer OSes are a preference now but you are limited by the software you can run. We all complain about the software offerings of the Mac. Apple could now offer a superior package of tight OS/hardware configuration with the unlimited software selection of the PC side. We no longer have to worry about developers jumping ship or only prducing progrs for the PC side. Software costs could conceivably go down. Apple could then highlight its strengths (very tight hardware/software integration, ease of use, reliability and stability.)

My other thought is that this doesn't sound like a program you go out and buy but is built deep into the system by the system integrators. Installing it would probably be a pretty intensive affair. I hope that Apple is one of the big 6 mentioned in the article.

Someone mentioned about how the program would appear on screen. (would it have a an aqua interface or Windows-like etc.) I imagine if its a windows-based program it would have the windows interface (X-button, nasy looking icons etc.) and vice-versa if an aqua prog.

[smorr]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this product is, but if this will allow folks to run different OSes on their hardware, regardless of what they have, this may be bad for Apple. Think about it. Apple makes most of their money off hardware sales. Currently the only way you can actually run the Mac OS is to buy or own a Mac. If every PC user out there will suddenly be able to run Mac OS X, and Apple doesn't (currently) use serial numbers for the OS, then imagine all the pirated copies of Mac OS X that will start making the rounds. All those cheap ass PC buyers will be able to avoid buying the typically more expensive Apple hardware and still take advantage of OS X. Not good for Apple. Will this cause them to start serializing their OS? I kind of hope not.


If you read the info on the Transitive web site carefully you would see that it will run applications for a unix/linux-like OS compiled for one chip (say x 86) on a unix/linx-like OS based on another chip (say PPC)

This does not mean that Mac OSX will run on X86 -- or that Windows will run on Mac, or that Windows apps will run on Mac or vice versa -- it means that linux/unix apps for x86 will run on darwin and darwin app will run on x86 -- note that it does not even address things such as carbon/cocoa apps running on linux-x86.

So what it means, for example, is that highly specialized scientific analysis software originally coded and compiled for an x86 box running linux will run on darwin-ppc without porting -- This will be very very good for apple because it means that the investments into software that certain markets have (H-Ed, research, enterprise) do not have to toss out their software investment by migrating to Macs or invest more time to port -- It will ease platform transition in these markets -- and believe me, platform transition is happening in a specific direction :D . In the bigger picture it will make macs more attractive to some key markets.

[FYA]

[GregA]

They demonstrated Linux-Quake running on a Mac and Linux-GIMP running on Windows.

That's great and wonderful. But how about running Microsoft Office apps (either the Windows or the MacOS version - I don't care which) on Linux?

Call me crazy, but it seems that this test is striking in its absence. If I was developing this product, I wouldn't want to issue any press releases until I could demonstrate MS Office running on a foreign platform, if for no reason other than publicity.Yes. Notice also they don't say which processor the Linux binaries are made for.

Are they saying for example
Quake for Linux-PPC running on a Mac-PPC? (ie NO processor emulation)
... or
Quake for Linux-Intel running on a Mac-PPC?

Same goes for
GIMP for Linux-Intel running on Windows-Intel (ie NO processor emulation)
... or
GIMP for Linux-PPC running on Windows-Intel

Not much of a feat for an emulator if they're not emulating any chip. But for multiple PC companies to be interested, maybe they've done more...

....in fact, their website implies some of that. It could be quite a good thing to allow Linux-Intel binaries (which normally run on a Linux-Intel OS) to instead run directly on a Linux-PPC OS. Then there's no OS or GUI overhead to emulate, just the application code itself. This seems a far more achievable goal than the Windows stuff.

If the Mac improved it's Linux compatibility AND added this, the Mac could start running Linux-Intel binaries directly (and where possible run Linux-PPC recompiled versions).

Naturally... Windows programs are entirely another issue!

[locovaca]

So, after you realize that impossibility of this, you start to wonder how that good old video card developer Bit Boys is doing nowadays... All of you guys buying into this must know about them and their wild success in overthrowing Nvidia, 3dfx, Ati, S3, Kyro, etc. because they proposed the same vein of impossible notions as this company.

Listen, this would be awesome, but this just is not real. Let's look at the possible ways of doing this:

1. Emulating APIs/ OS System Calls (ala Wine on X86)- as it already has been mentioned, APIs aren't documented 100%, some OS's don't have matching API's or even things similiar enough to emulate the calls (and this IS emulation, no matter what they call it)- take a look at the Wine project. For as long as they have been working at it you still cannot run a great deal of applications under wine other than basic, no frills stuff. Or take a look at Cygwin on Windows- there's tons of software that can never be ported because the NT Kernel does not have the system calls *nix does and nothing anywhere close to even attempt to emulate them. Yes, bsd can emulate Linux for many things, but those two are very similiar OS's. If this is what they are proposing (*nix to *nix), big whoop- it's been done already.

2. Emulating processors/architectures- This is the option that seems most likely. However, you still have huge performance problems (especially with risc style -> x86, as pearpc has shown), and there are too many levels of abstraction to run an os on an os (again, as pearpc or VPC shows) at any kind of performance level they are claiming. And this seems to be even worse than the PPC/VPC, based on their claims. You get:

Virtual Host
--------------------
Transitive commands <--This layer does not exist with PPC/VPC
--------------------
Host Operating System


See that extra layer of abstraction? To do what they're saying (Hardware graphics acceleration, etc.) that's universal to any platform they would need to define a sort of intermediate language (similiar to how Java/.Net has their byte code) to convert from any processor to any processor. Despite the fact that they are selling this on a per host-platform basis, to save on development costs you don't start from scratch for each platform, but rather define a common format and reuse that code, and create only the interpreter for each host.

Plus, this brings up another point- what OS's does this run on? Or, is it its own OS, or does it take over BIOS/Firmware code completely? OS adds overhead, own OS makes installation more "permanent" (overwriting existing install), and BIOS/Firmware will most definitely cause many people to avoid it completely.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[solafide]

[QUOTE=KingOfPain]
This also means that Windows applications will NOT run:
"QuickTransit supports operating system mapping between any two Unix/Linux-like operating systems, as well as mapping between mainframe and any Unix/Linux-like operating systems."
QUOTE]

You're right - with all the excitement, I missed this. They never say that this will allow the use of Windows apps on PPC hardware - only between Unix/Linux-like operating systems.

[GregA]

This is not an impossible thing. Infact... I had this idea myself and it is quite possilbe to do this, but as a student working full time i don't quite have the resources to pour into this thing.

For the any OS, and CPU thing to really work, one key point must be observed.

Any program that you want to work this way must not directly interact with hardware.

Most programs written for windows 2000+, or OS X satsify this condition. They interact with the hardware though an OS abstaction of the hardware. (ie. to open a file you don't call interupt what ever, request a DMA channel blah, blah blah, you just call open file (or whatever).<snip>The thing is, they'd need to map all the Win32 calls to OSX calls. Wine has worked on this (for Linux) for a LONG time and may never get all the Win32 calls. There's a LOT of work to do that!!!!

I'd be surprised if this kind of thing isn't part of Microsofts plan for VirtualPC for Mac. They'd still have an entire virtual PC, but could rewrite certain parts of the OS to speak directly to the Mac OS - for example reading and writing files might use Mac filesystem calls directly (instead of a virtual filesystem). MS could also use fat binaries to speed up different parts of Windows XP. Time will tell...

[space2go]

Anybody else concerned that one of the apps they chose to test on was the Gimp on Windows, when there already is a Windows Gimp?

That caught me too.

And in the other example the say they ran the Linux version of Quake III on a Powerbook. They did not say on OSX.

So both things can be true without their software actually working...

[Doctor Q]

My take on it....Excellent explanation, KingOfPain. Thank you. Comments like yours are very helpful when announcements send us off speculating past what's really been announced.

[jaromski]

i just wanted to chime in and say i think "universal emulation" has an analog in cortez's city of gold or de leon's fountain of youth. nice little fairy tales told at varying intervals to inspire faith in something that is complete *************.

writing an emulator is quite difficult. writing a good emulator is nearly impossible. an emulator is a compiler. a compiler, in simplest terms, maps one computer langauge to another. this could be C => x86 asm, perl => c, or even x86 asm => ppc asm. i have written a compiler, a "simple" compiler for a "c" language => sparc assembly (well a subset of c) and it was the most difficult program i have grappled with ...ever. now through a few more "requirements" (other than running w/o crapping out)... say speed for one. well speed isn't a primary objective. speed is an optimization. optimizations have _HUGE_ costs programatically. and they usually don't pay off in terms of performance for the amount of effort put into "speed up" things. i mean it would be incredibly, nearly impossible, to generalize some algorithm that maps x86 into the optimal ppc assembly, every time, and in every context-- especially since there isn't an exact one-to-one map. there are "function equivalents" which immediately pre-suppose a one-size-fits-all to your solution space. one-size-fits-all usually means crap in the optimization realm. optimization is about finding those special cases and tweaking the **** out of them. now honestly is this "universal emulator" going to take every case into consideration and know how to tweak it up for a mere 20% performance hit? possible? maybe. probable? not by a long shot.

i don't know if i am making any sense, i just want to reiterate that i am highly skeptical of this software alchemy they have conjured up. emulators aren't exactly a new discipline in computing; they have been around for a long time. and the quality of your average programmer hasn't dramatically increased recently, i mean we have more tools and more abstractions, but for something as low level as emulation/compilers i think the rapid dev tools aren't making the dramatic inroads that these guys are suggesting.


my take, and i could be wrong.

jaromski

[BWhaler]

I really don't understand this, so I hope someone can help me out.

People claim it does not allow OSX run on PC's, for example, but rather let's programs run on any operating system.

SO then how is it a hardware emulator? Don't programs make calls to the operating system, not the hardware layer? (I know there are exceptions, but generally speaking.

I guess I am just plum confused as to what this is. Any help would be appreciated.

As for more my general reaction, if this let's me run any Windows app on OSX with similar speeds, but does not let OSX run on WinTel, I think this would be a HUGE boost for Apple. Fingers crossed...

[BWhaler]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Apple is one of the 6 companies in line. My prediction is that they will incorperate it into OS X, so that they never have to worry about Microsoft's commitment to the platform ever again -- I bet the boys over at the MacBU are soiling themselves at this very moment.

If this "hardware virtualisation" software is all its's cracked up to be, and they use it in Tiger, it would be the ultimate switch incentive to beleagered businesses who feel they are too heavily invested in software for an insecure windows environment. Of course other *nixes would benefit as well.

My copy of VPC is about to get KNOCKED THE #@!% OUT!

I hope you are right. Nothing would be sweeter than for 10.4 to be able to run Windows apps at a decent speed. That would be great for us as customers, and beyond fantastic for Apple.

[GregA]

I really don't understand this, so I hope someone can help me out.

People claim it does not allow OSX run on PC's, for example, but rather let's programs run on any operating system.

SO then how is it a hardware emulator? Don't programs make calls to the operating system, not the hardware layer? (I know there are exceptions, but generally speaking.When you compile a program, you compile it for the operating system AND the hardware it runs on. So you might have a program compiled for Linux-on-Intel. When your program puts commands directly to the chip, it gets all the speed increases the Intel chip (in this case) can give. It's also using specific Intel functionality, and is optimised to how the Intel chips handle their instructions.

Virtual PC works by emulating a whole Intel machine (a virtual Intel PC). You could then install Linux on this emulated Intel machine (the Linux would not realise it was emulated, it'd see it as an Intel machine).
..... With this setup - you could run a Linux-Intel application, installed on your Linux on the virtual PC. All the stuff your Linux-Intel application ran would be converted by the emulator - which slows it down a bit of course. ALSO, when your Linux program had a command to open a file or whatever, the Linux-Intel operating system would do it's stuff, slowing it down even more as it's also converted by the emulator.

This new system seems to leave the operating system alone as much as it can, and just converts the hardware specific stuff. So it doesn't emulate a machine, rather it translates chip specific instructions. This means, for instance, we might see yellow-dog Linux (for PPC) selling their Linux with the ability to run any and all Linux (for Intel) binaries.

Also, if Transitive went to IBM, they could help IBM run their mainframe stuff on PPC. It'd have to be a partnership - get the mainframe's APIs (or whole OS) running on the PPC, and use Transitive's hardware translation to handle the hardware specific parts. Any PC manufacturer supporting more than 1 architecture could do the same (IBM, HP, Sun, MS(Xbox)... ) or anyone on a different architecture wanting Linux-Intel compatibility (Apple?). I'm sure some of these companies are already developing this functionality themselves!
I guess I am just plum confused as to what this is. Any help would be appreciated.

As for more my general reaction, if this let's me run any Windows app on OSX with similar speeds, but does not let OSX run on WinTel, I think this would be a HUGE boost for Apple. Fingers crossed...Yeah, well I don't think this will do that, they don't have access to Windows source code. They do have access to Linux source code naturally, so I'd guess they're using that to get the Linux APIs running on Windows.

Hope that helps... and someone will correct (or improve) my explanation I'm sure. It's great how the multiple viewpoints on here lead us to a better understanding!

[iMan]

Hmm... this sounds really too good to be true, but if... it will shake the world as we know it...

Interesting part is that this is obviously not something you buy and then run on your computer - like a virtual PC thing... it is already built into the system from the manufacturer... they say two major manufacturers have already plans to release something late 2004 or early 2005... Would anyone believe Apple is one and this to be coincidal with the release of Tiger...? How about that for a MWSF killer! What a boost it would be for Mac users to utilize every windows app ever written just like that... the final argument of the windroids (you know that game thing...) finally falling flat to the ground...

yeah... :D

[Hubertus]

- this is a shipping product

- if this product really does emulate all the software, we would not discuss about this on a rumor site anymore. it would be in all newspapers, screenshots everywhere and this product would be advertised very different on the companys web page.

right?

and in my opinion this company would not exist anymore. money does a lot.

and they speaker about the server business as the target market. this means alot, no??

bye,

hubertus

[locovaca]

They do have access to Linux source code naturally, so I'd guess they're using that to get the Linux APIs running on Windows.

But this has already been done, so what would the big deal be? http://www.cygwin.com

(And there are limitations of Windows that keep from ANY program being run on Cygwin, which is why you do not see KDE/Gnome/Etc. running on Windows)

[Sol]

The only commercial emulator software that delivered on its promises was Virtual Game Station and that was retired early due to the politics of a little Mac developer undermining SONY. Imagine what Apple's reaction would be if anyone could run the iLife applications on x86 hardware. Imagine what Microsoft would have to say in court about people loading Windows software on G5 Macs, without buying Windows XP.

Not that anything like that is going to happen. This smells like vapourware timed to coincide with the arrival of Virtual PC 7.

[~kilroy~]

From a propagation standpoint, this is bad - from a local damage standpoint, the viruses may or may not be written to access the OS X system properly (e.g. a virus trying to write to c:\ won't have any effect on a Mac).

Macs are not imune to viruses today. The only reason there are so few viruses for the mac has been because of market share.
Don't let that make you complacent though. I fully expect Macs to start getting thier fair share of viruses within the next year to 18 months.

[wPod]

sounds too good to be true

[sushi]

Transparent Aluminum Is Here (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/23/1141217&tid=14)
Not really, at least by Star Trek IV definition.

Sushi

[encro]

Hmmm... this remind's me of TAO Group's (http://tao-group.com/) Intent (http://withintent.biz/).

It is a very similar idea in hardware abstraction but geared towards multimedia content.

[shamino]

"One of the key breakthroughs is an "intermediate representation," a kind of lingua franca that gives the software the flexibility to translate from one platform to another."
I'd be really interested in that one, because I once analysed basically dozens of processor architecture trying to come up with just such a thing. After several months I dropped the idea, because it's just not practical. Even some of the most basic stuff (eg. integer division) is so diverse that you either have to include every possible implementation or have it represented in very simple steps.
In the first case the intermediate representation becomes a real monster that no one is willing to write a backend for another architecture, and in the second case the code quality will be really bad.
The only production example of this concept (an intermediate assembly language) that I'm aware of is the GNU assembler (part of their binutils (http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/) package). It's my understanding that the gcc compiler works by generating an intermediate meta-assembly language, which is then assembled into native code using this assembler.

I suppose you could apply similar techniques to compile one processor's assembly language into another. Some instructions (those without analogues) would be painful, requiring whole subroutines as emulation, but I suspect that the most common instructions (including everything generated by typical compilers) may be portable enough for this approach to bear useful results.

Of course, WRT Transitive's product, I'm still going to remain in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp. Theoretical discussions are one thing - a product good enough to be useful as a general-purpose tool is quite another.

[MadMan]

According to this, they claim it can run OS X on x86?!?!

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1645408,00.asp

[må¥å]

Doesn't Mac OS check the onboard flash memory for the firmware to register if it is indeed Apple HW....that is the reason why Mac OS X own't run on the clones.

PC don't have this pre-check HW system.


So I am guesing that you can install and run WinOS and x86 application on a Mac and have it run faster than emulation.

I don't believe you can install any Mac OS and Apple Application on a PC even with this solution. Since the Mac OS will pre-check for a code, and I am pretty sure this thing cannot obtain that code unless Apple allows it, which it won't.


Anyhow reading this article all I can say is that Windows OS and applciations can run close to native on a Mac system that will stop those people who keep holding on to they PC boxes for M$ Access for work purposes.

This is Bad news for M$ however great for Apple, unless M$ buys this out then we are back to the start :-)

[EvilMole]

Alright, some people are getting totally the wrong end of the stick about this. First of all, it helps if you read the description of the product and the press release:

"Availability and Pricing Model
Transitive’s QuickTransit products are currently available and shipping to major OEM customers. Pricing for QuickTransit products is based on a one-time technology license fee and a usage fee model that depends on the customer’s deployment strategy. "

In other words, this is not an end-user product. So what is it? It's a solution for ISV's, OEMs, and large corporations who want to get their product running on a different platform without porting.

Say you're a large corporation which uses some ancient mainframe code. However, replacing this ancient mainframe code is impossible: there's too much data locked up in it, too much investment in time and money, and as a system, it just works. Now, you can deploy QuickTransit and get this thing running on a nice new POWER or Opteron (or Itanium for the masochistic) system, at a fraction of the cost of porting or simply abandoning your old mainframe code.

Of course, if a company was dependent on one processor platform - like, say, a certain Apple Computer Inc - QuickTransit would be of great interest to them, as it would allow them to transition their OS to another processor platform much more easily... most importantly of all, while retaining full backwards compatibility with PowerPC applications. Interesting idea, eh?

[iChan]

That's what happens when Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) picks up a story.

why?

[40167]

Finally I can start using OS X on my Dull I got from work! :)

Uhm that technoology already exists dude... www.pearpc.net

Edit: Forgot to note one thing... I use that for my main operating system, (obviously windows is behind it though) so its pretty spiffy; even moved the pc to a g3 case (even though its emulating a g4 system)

And for apple.. since the lisence says "apple branded computer required" well.. I got an apple case... so the system is apple branded, lol.

[Dr. Dastardly]

Alright, some people are getting totally the wrong end of the stick about this. First of all, it helps if you read the description of the product and the press release:

"Availability and Pricing Model
Transitive’s QuickTransit products are currently available and shipping to major OEM customers. Pricing for QuickTransit products is based on a one-time technology license fee and a usage fee model that depends on the customer’s deployment strategy. "

In other words, this is not an end-user product. So what is it? It's a solution for ISV's, OEMs, and large corporations who want to get their product running on a different platform without porting.

Say you're a large corporation which uses some ancient mainframe code. However, replacing this ancient mainframe code is impossible: there's too much data locked up in it, too much investment in time and money, and as a system, it just works. Now, you can deploy QuickTransit and get this thing running on a nice new POWER or Opteron (or Itanium for the masochistic) system, at a fraction of the cost of porting or simply abandoning your old mainframe code.

Of course, if a company was dependent on one processor platform - like, say, a certain Apple Computer Inc - QuickTransit would be of great interest to them, as it would allow them to transition their OS to another processor platform much more easily... most importantly of all, while retaining full backwards compatibility with PowerPC applications. Interesting idea, eh?
If i'm reading this correctly then this would be much more plausible and still a huge boon for PPC computers. You would see more and more applications coming out for BOTH windows and OSX. This is even better IMHO.

[osprey76]

Read about this a year or two ago. I'm glad to see this heading to market!

[adamjay]

Uhm that technoology already exists dude... www.pearpc.net

Edit: Forgot to note one thing... I use that for my main operating system, (obviously windows is behind it though) so its pretty spiffy; even moved the pc to a g3 case (even though its emulating a g4 system)


you must have more patience than a basset hound, since Pear PC is excrutiatingly slow.
Wired spoke with the Developers of PearPC: "Biallas and Weyergraf warn PearPC is only a version 0.1 release and is still very experimental. By their admission, it is incomplete, unstable and painfully slow -- running about 500 times slower than the host system."

and

Despite the sluggish performance (one user estimated PearPC would need a 150-GHz PC to run OS X in real time) and a painfully convoluted installation procedure, the system is being enthusiastically embraced by curious geeks.

So, are you The Curious Geek? or The Incesant Liar?

[må¥å]

So all this does is emulate old code for various systems in a bubble to work on different system HW.


Why could they not say effective multi-platform emulation?.......confusions with the word and stigma in regards to emulation that its slow.........big deal so lets make up something else still makes it an emulator in a new package with a new name :rolleyes:


All this hype for nothing, one would belive you can run cross platform application without installing an OS and then opening an emulated OS with an emulated application.



anyhow Great for OEM's I guess.

[40167]

you must have more patience than a basset hound, since Pear PC is excrutiatingly slow.
Wired spoke with the Developers of PearPC: "Biallas and Weyergraf warn PearPC is only a version 0.1 release and is still very experimental. By their admission, it is incomplete, unstable and painfully slow -- running about 500 times slower than the host system."

and

Despite the sluggish performance (one user estimated PearPC would need a 150-GHz PC to run OS X in real time) and a painfully convoluted installation procedure, the system is being enthusiastically embraced by curious geeks.

So, are you The Curious Geek? or The Incesant Liar?

No... because im running 0.4, 0.1 is older than dirt and yeah 0.1 is slower than dirt too... 0.4 is very improved, most the developers run it constantly... darkf0x for example if you stop by the irc chat room on freenode.

Sofar what the origional developers are saying is being proven wrong by the newest builds. ~ You may want to try the stuff before you think that I'm full of ****; I've been with the pear developers since the day 0.1 came out.

[adamjay]

No... because im running 0.4, 0.1 is older than dirt and yeah 0.1 is slower than dirt too... 0.4 is very improved, most the developers run it constantly... darkf0x for example if you stop by the irc chat room on freenode.

Sofar what the origional developers are saying is being proven wrong by the newest builds. ~ You may want to try the stuff before you think that I'm full of ****; I've been with the pear developers since the day 0.1 came out.

how fast would you say the emulation is in 0.4 ?

[thatwendigo]

Read the article: (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1645408,00.asp)

Los Gatos, Calif.-based Transitive is pitching the technology as one that can bring new applications written on legacy hardware onto up-to-date platforms, such as IRS software that was written in the 1970s, according to Bob Wiederhold, the company's chief executive and president.

and

On all four architectures, the QuickTransit technology can virtualize any mainframe OS, the company said. In addition, the Itanium, Opteron and X86 back-ends will virtualize the MIPS architecture. Both the Opteron and X86 products will also allow a virtualized POWER or PowerPC architecture to be run on it; likewise, a PowerPC chip can also run an X86-designed OS, such as Windows, on top of it.

and especially

On average, translating the various instructions will result in about 80 percent of the computational performance of a native compilation, said Frank Weidel, lead solutions engineer at Transitive. The QuickTransit kernel also requires a memory penalty of about 25 percent per applications, Weidel said. The amount of memory an application uses for data is not affected. However, the multiple instances of the technology will run side-by-side; for example, the company has been unable to break the QuickTransit application running 200 instances of the technology alongside one another, he said.

Say that you run two programs. That's a 20% performance hit on each one, plus a 25% memory hit. You're not going to be using this thing to run a whole operating system because that would mean hundreds of instances of emulated programs.

Sorry to burst bubles, but this doesn't mean Windows on PowerPC or OS X on x86. It does mean API compatibility the way that Wine/Darwine are trying to manage things, and I seriously doubt the claims of high performance in anything that isn't already a UNIX-derived application.

[drift]

Are we sure this isn't an Early/Late April fool's joke? The CEO's name is Weinerhold after all...

the wired article calls him Wiederhold

[theBeatles]

Why don't Apple Computer sell Mac OS X for PCs at a premium and/or ship hardware with x86 inside, using this QuickTransit to run all the old PPC-based apps?

[Spock]

Why don't Apple Computer sell Mac OS X for PCs at a premium and/or ship hardware with x86 inside, using this QuickTransit to run all the old PPC-based apps?

That would not be logical, It is my understanding that this software is alot like Classic. Only instead of Mac OS 9 its's windows.

[theBeatles]

That would not be logical, It is my understanding that this software is alot like Classic. Only instead of Mac OS 9 its's windows.

Seems logical to me.

We all "know" (=suspect) that Apple Computer have Mac OS X running on x86 hardware deep in the Cupertino labs. What they need is a way of making everyones apps still work transparently. Come to think of it -- just like they did in the 68K to ppc switch days.

[Spock]

Seems logical to me.

We all "know" (=suspect) that Apple Computer have Mac OS X running on x86 hardware deep in the Cupertino labs. What they need is a way of making everyones apps still work transparently. Come to think of it -- just like they did in the 68K to ppc switch days.

I DONT WANT A INTEL INSIDE STICKER ON MY MACINTOSH!!!

[KingOfPain]

People claim it does not allow OSX run on PC's, for example, but rather let's programs run on any operating system.
SO then how is it a hardware emulator? Don't programs make calls to the operating system, not the hardware layer? (I know there are exceptions, but generally speaking.

Well, the only part of the hardware that is actually emulated is the processor, everything else is done by mapping system calls to the native API, thus QuickTransit can only run applications but no operating systems.

As for more my general reaction, if this let's me run any Windows app on OSX with similar speeds, but does not let OSX run on WinTel, I think this would be a HUGE boost for Apple. Fingers crossed...

Currently this seems to be for Unix/Linux type operating systems, most likely due to their familiar API. This means no Windows applications will run, because there is no API mapper for it.

The only production example of this concept (an intermediate assembly language) that I'm aware of is the GNU assembler (part of their binutils (http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/) package). It's my understanding that the gcc compiler works by generating an intermediate meta-assembly language, which is then assembled into native code using this assembler.

Well, there is also the virtual processor (VP2) used by the TAO Group to dynamically generate code even on hybrid multi-processors, which the post preceding yours mentions. I almost mentioned it myself, when I noticed a subtle, but important difference: With VP2 and binutils the source is a high-level language, while in this case the source is machine code.

I suppose you could apply similar techniques to compile one processor's assembly language into another.

Not really. Even if you take very basic operations you'll find subtle but problematic differences between various instruction sets.
Some processors have all arithmetic operations generate condition flags, others do it optionally (eg. SPARC, PowerPC, ARM), and some don't have any condition flags (eg. MIPS, Alpha).
Extended subtraction with carry is handled in two ways either as carry or as borrow (even the mnemonic for x86 is SBB).
Some RISC architectures have no rotation at all (eg. MIPS, Alpha), at least one has no separate shift and rotation instructions but does it combination with another instruction (ARM).
I already mentioned that division is particularly diverse:
Alpha and ARM have no integer division instruction at all;
MIPS and SuperH perform that calculation in a special unit and have to fetch the result and the remainder from HI/LO registers;
PowerPC doesn't calculate the remainder and also has no special remainder instruction but has to calculate the remainder wih a multiplication and subtraction following the division;
PA-RISC and SuperH calculate division in steps, ie. they have to use an instruction for each bit of the result (IIRC).
And last but not least of these few examples, PA-RISC and x86 are the only current architectures I'm aware of having BCD capabilities.

As I wrote before, there are two extremes to handle that:
Either you add every feature to the intermediate representation, thus making it so bloated that it'll be a nightmare to retarget the native code generator to another architecture, because you have to support all those features in the backend.
Or you make the intermediate representation so basic that a lot of simple source instructions end up as big sqeuences in the intermediate step, thereby making optimization a real nightmare.
Of course there might be the possibility of a compromise, but frankly, I haven't found a decent compromise after analysing over a dozen architectures in search for one. Well, maybe those guys are a whole lot brighter than I am, who knows?

I'm not saying it's impossible to do retargetable dynamic binary translation, but I don't think they are able to do it AND achieve 80% of the native performance as well.

According to this, they claim it can run OS X on x86?!?!

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1645408,00.asp

Either the claim "Company executives said the technology could be used to run the Apple Macintosh OS on top of an X86 processor." is plain wrong, or the author of the article didn't understand them correctly.

Taken from the official website:
"First, an integration “FUSE” allows QuickTransit to be easily integrated into the target system. Second, a dynamic binary translator tackles the challenge of moving from one instruction set architecture to another. Third, an operating system mapper translates operating system calls from the source system to the target system in situations where the source and target operating systems are different."
http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm

If this information is correct, it means that they cannot run MacOS with QuickTransit, because you have to emulate more than just the CPU to run a full operating system.
Of course they COULD run MacOS applications, IF they had API mappers for Cocoa, Carbon, and QuickTime, which I doubt. Which leaves Darwin applications, and those can run on a x86 processor anyway...

BTW, the article also mentions that "likewise, a PowerPC chip can also run an X86-designed OS, such as Windows, on top of it".
But it CANNOT, because according to the Transitive technology page "QuickTransit supports operating system mapping between any two Unix/Linux-like operating systems, as well as mapping between mainframe and any Unix/Linux-like operating systems." Since Windows doesn't belong to that group of operating systems, no chance.
Of course they COULD run Windows applications on a PowerPC machine, IF they had mappers for the Windows API, but similar to MacOS that's a big "if".

[GregA]

Why don't Apple Computer sell Mac OS X for PCs at a premium and/or ship hardware with x86 inside, using this QuickTransit to run all the old PPC-based apps?The question is why would Apple be interested in Intel? Or rather, why now when they weren't before?

I think any movement towards Intel would have to be part of an overall strategy - whether that is to switch platforms, license OS X, or some "cross platform" strategy. The Transitive compatibility would be a tool that could assist any of those strategies.

In terms of switching - maybe Intel hardware would be cheaper for Apple to produce at the same speed? A virtual PC would certainly be much faster (if MS released the product). But I think Apple is quite happy with IBM right now.

Licensing OS X? Maybe. Apple burned a lot of computer makers last time though. I guess if Apple licensed MacOS X for Intel the PC makers wouldn't have to take a risk as they could always switch back to Windows. Still, unless Apple switched to Intel too this would be a cross platform strategy.

So - what about cross platform? Releasing mac OS X for all Intel hardware is too difficult. So something less risky - just their own machines, OR working with HP/Compaq? or IBM? or just AMD/HyperTransport machines? I guess I just don't see Apple making enough money from doing it. However... iLife for Windows (sold or bundled on Compaqs)?, maybe a new Appleworks?, Safari, iChat, iCal, .Mac (all Windows versions... and/or Linux?) - they seem far easier, and more likely to make some money. And they don't need Transitive (or Mac OS X on Intel). And Apple doesn't seem interested in them either.

Cocoa + Transitive??
If Apple really wanted to be able to run Mac software on Intel without recompiling - a combination of Transitive's stuff and Cocoa running on Windows and Linux could allow developers to write one app for all 3 platforms. That MIGHT get developers interested. But Apple has had Cocoa for a while and restricted it to Mac OS X (though the technology is there to write a program in Cocoa, compile for Mac, Unix, and Windows) - has their goal changed? Cocoa allows fat binaries for multiple platforms too, so Transitive isn't needed (though if Apple wanted cross platform stuff, the transitive technology might be a good interim step so that existing cocoa apps run straight away on Windows and Linux.... but again, how useful is that?). It comes back to what does Apple want....

Apple on Intel - an interesting question with lots of possibilities, bogged down by Apple's lack of interest.

[shamino]

Not really. Even if you take very basic operations you'll find subtle but problematic differences between various instruction sets. ...
I'm not saying it's impossible to do retargetable dynamic binary translation, but I don't think they are able to do it AND achieve 80% of the native performance as well.
You're assuming that you convert the machine language opcode-for-opcode.

Suppose you treat a source machine language as a high-level language.

For example, turn each source opcode into a sequence of statements in a C program. Then take the resulting (huge and probably impossible-to-understand) program and compile it into your native code with a good off-the-shelf optimizing C compiler.

Obviously, this off-the-cuff idea isn't completely thought through, but I think such an implementation would not be impossibly-complex as your descriptions seem to imply. The front-end would be entirely portable code and the back-end would be a generic C compiler. If it has a good optimizer, and the C code you generate is of a form that's easy to optimize, I think you could get performance good enough to be useful.

I don't think a machine-language-to-machine-language compiler should be substantially more complex than a Java just-in-time compiler - of which there are many commercial implementations. You'd need a separate front-end for each source language, but all the other components have already been invented.

[Doctor Q]

Your idea is perfectly sensible, shamino. I've never understood how one could map machine instructions directly since even minor differences between architectures can prevent instructions from having identical semantics (behavior with all possible arguments). But the method you describe is still basically an emulator, with potentially many instructions for each original mapped instruction. Getting 80% of the original performance that way seems to me to be a tough goal to meet.

[40167]

how fast would you say the emulation is in 0.4 ?

I have a 600mhz ibook (only 128mb ram though)... programs load at about the same speed, but the video is still lagging on pear where its kinda irritating sometimes.... The host pc is 2.4ghz with 512mb ram.

Once the nvidia stuff is finished ill be glad... then video shouldnt lag :) ~ Currently it just runs for a couple minutes and takes a dump... so yeah.

Edit: Figured id say that osx 10.3 recodnises it as a 1ghz G4 with 512mb ram... but the timing is still off, so its running about half that... 500mhz with 512mb ram. (which explains why its running like my 600mhz ibook with 128mb ram)

And check below for one of my screenshots; (this is 0.3 actualy, when it was just bearable as the main system, lol) I dont take all that many since well my desktop isnt all that interesting... (bunch more on pearpc.net showing different speeds, and programs running)[and no incase your wondering, vpc does not start the guest system... that was just to see if it could do anything at all]

http://pearpc.net/images/screenshots/sotw_33-2004.jpg

[thatwendigo]

In terms of switching - maybe Intel hardware would be cheaper for Apple to produce at the same speed? A virtual PC would certainly be much faster (if MS released the product). But I think Apple is quite happy with IBM right now.

Apple wouldn't be producing "Intel hardware." Most likely, they'd be buying third-party parts, which is what would provide any savings in cost. That being said, it would become a support nightmare when people try to put off-the-shelf parts in and they don't work. One reason that Windows is so horrible is that they have to support an infinitude of vendors that may or may not code to standards, meet specs, or have a user-friendly policy.

If you want that, just buy a PC. It's not what the mac is about.

Licensing OS X? Maybe. Apple burned a lot of computer makers last time though. I guess if Apple licensed MacOS X for Intel the PC makers wouldn't have to take a risk as they could always switch back to Windows. Still, unless Apple switched to Intel too this would be a cross platform strategy.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Apple "burned" the clone manufacturers because they lied about their intentions. The original intent was for Apple to surrender the low end to people who could - potentially - build in that market more effectively, allowing people who couldn't otherwise afford macs to buy into the platform. What actually happened is that they started to take bigger and bigger bites out of the Apple market without growing the overall share, which meant that Apple started to positively hemorrhage money by the time Jobs axed the project on his return. Figures show that they were losing as much as 32-35% of their quarterly profits to clones, while not gaining in market share any more than they did on their own.

Since Apple makes most of their money on hardware and not on software, that was a horrible, losing propositon and they did what was best for the platform and the company. There's a good reason that this hasn't been tried again since then, and why the OS X EULA specifically states that only Apple-branded hardware may be used.

So - what about cross platform? Releasing mac OS X for all Intel hardware is too difficult. So something less risky - just their own machines, OR working with HP/Compaq? or IBM? or just AMD/HyperTransport machines? I guess I just don't see Apple making enough money from doing it.

OS X for Intel, or a truly effective emulator for PowerPC, would basically kill the mac experience as we know and love it. For one, there's next to no reason or incentive for distributors to recreate their products for yet another set of APIs and system instrcuctions, so a native OS X on x86 would just see programmers say "Sorry, but you just need to dual boot." Likewise, a fully functional emulator on the current hardware would give an easy out to mostly-PC oriented companies, who could tell you just to buy their Windows product rather than building a native mac version.

Maybe the Transitive technology could be applied to alleviate some of the performance issues, but the simple fact is that native code is going to be faster. This doesn't even begin to take into account things like UI and interoperability with existing software.

However... iLife for Windows (sold or bundled on Compaqs)?, maybe a new Appleworks?, Safari, iChat, iCal, .Mac (all Windows versions... and/or Linux?) - they seem far easier, and more likely to make some money. And they don't need Transitive (or Mac OS X on Intel). And Apple doesn't seem interested in them either.

In a word, no.

The iLife suite is one of Apple's big reasons to switch. If they give it away, or even sell it, on the x86 platform, they lose even more impetus when it comes to getting people to move away from Windows. The iPod is bait, iLife the lure, and the rest is just reeling in the bites that you get.

Cocoa + Transitive??
If Apple really wanted to be able to run Mac software on Intel without recompiling - a combination of Transitive's stuff and Cocoa running on Windows and Linux could allow developers to write one app for all 3 platforms.

See above. OS X becomes Windows Lite.

Apple on Intel - an interesting question with lots of possibilities, bogged down by Apple's lack of interest.

Let me sum up most of the realistic possibilities:
Apple goes out of business or becomes the next Amiga, whereupon all the amazing stuff stops happening.

[iMeowbot]

Ohhhhh, I just realized how they're doing this. No wonder no one else has done it, there would be actual work involved in writing it.

[sergio29]

If you read more carefully the corresponding announcement of Transitive Corp about Quick Transit, you may read that this product if only for UNIX to UNIX translation !!!

Too bad :rolleyes:

Still only the M$oft solution (VPC) :mad:

[KingOfPain]

You're assuming that you convert the machine language opcode-for-opcode.

Actually I'm not. When it comes to dynamic binary translation I'm thinking of so-called basic blocks, which is a term normally used in compiler optimization.
I'm just mentioning instructions to make clear that it isn't so simple to create a general intermediate representation.
BTW, I'm not against intermediate representations, I still think that such an additional step is needed to produce a high-quality translation. But after my own experience trying to come up with a general solution I'm now more for a predecoded intermediate code, ie. the intermediate form still represents the original code, but in a predecoded way to make peephole optimization etc. easier, but also make it possible to use the advantage to translate the source code to the target machine more or less directly.

Suppose you treat a source machine language as a high-level language.
For example, turn each source opcode into a sequence of statements in a C program.

You are assuming that all applications are written in 100% high-level language, which simply isn't the case!
There is no easy way to represent rotations in a high-level language (I guess Occam might be an exception, but I'm not sure), and there are some other issues as well.
If there is hand-optimized MMX, SSE, or AltiVec, your idea runs in circles, because representation of SIMD opertions isn't really what most high-level languages have been designed for.
Yes, there are so-called "decompilers", but they often produce horrible code, and often they cheat by knowing that certain compilers use specific "covers" (ie. code sequences) for certain expressions. As soon as you have code generated by a different compiler or even by hand, those tools have real problems.

Then take the resulting (huge and probably impossible-to-understand) program and compile it into your native code with a good off-the-shelf optimizing C compiler.

One thing you are forgetting is that apart from producing relatively good code the main task of a dynamic binary translator is to do it as fast as possible, not to say that doing a translation fast is more important than producing an efficient one. Sure, people will always like the result of the translation to run faster, but if it's more like stop and go, because the translator doesn't work fast enough they'll certainly complain.
Remember, dynamic binary translation means that this process happens during runtime of the application that is translated, and the approach you propose probably doesn't work too well in that case.

Obviously, this off-the-cuff idea isn't completely thought through, but I think such an implementation would not be impossibly-complex as your descriptions seem to imply. The front-end would be entirely portable code and the back-end would be a generic C compiler. If it has a good optimizer, and the C code you generate is of a form that's easy to optimize, I think you could get performance good enough to be useful.

I don't think it makes much sense to bring flat code into a structured form, just to make it flat again. Also compilers sometimes care a lot about how the structures are built, every programmer who knows a little bit about compilers will confirm that.
To take an example from a different field: In some cases changing the ways the parens are set in an SQL statement made a difference between a few minutes and a few hours. Of course SQL operates on a lot of data, so the results of bad structuring are much more severe, but this should give you an idea that choosing the right structure isn't always that simple.

I don't think a machine-language-to-machine-language compiler should be substantially more complex than a Java just-in-time compiler

Like I said before, there is a big difference if you have to deal with synthetic code and real machine code, the possibility of side-effects (especially when instructions set condition flags implicitly) being just one.

- of which there are many commercial implementations.

I probably could speak volumes about why the JVM has a very bad design for dynamic translation, but I'll mention just a few things:

* Making the JVM a stack machine when basically all current processors are universal register machines (with the exception of IA-32, which still feels like an extended accumulator) is just a bad idea, especially since that way the rather costly register allocation algorithm isn't done during compile time (ie. from Java to byte-code) but rather during runtime (in the JIT from byte-code to machine code).
Since decent register allocation is so costly there are few JVM implementations that do it right, and this is also the reason why JVMs run faster on x86, because that architecture has been optimized to run fast with few registers, unlike RISC architectures that rely on registers being used effectively.

* I mentioned basic blocks in the beginning and that these are important for compiler optimization. The problem is the Java compiler knows the location of the basic blocks, because it generates the byte-code for them. But it doesn't mark these blocks in the byte-code, which means that the JIT-compiler has to find the basic blocks again during runtime, to be able to optimize the code. Sun's HotSpot technology to a large part is just about trying to reduce the error they made in this case.

You'd need a separate front-end for each source language, but all the other components have already been invented.

Well, try it and prove me wrong. Until then I won't believe that this method is fast enough to run transparent to the user (ie. without slow-downs during runtime) and that it also works on real-life code and not just toy applications generated by one well-analysed compiler.

[octarine]

Me, too ... Have these people implemented mappers for the whole Windows API, the whole Cocoa, CoreImage, Quicktime, Carbon ++ and the whole GTK-whatever that is used in Gnome?? That doesn't seem feasible.

I'm guessing it's severely limited when it comes to GUI applications. The Quake example from linux to Mac was probably just possible because it only uses glu/glut which exists on both platforms anyway.

If this makes it possible to run iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD on Windows XP, I'll be very, very surprised.


It makes it possible to run Safari on Win XP.

[GregA]

Hello thatwendigo,
I'm not sure if you're responding to me or what... but maybe you missed me saying "I think Apple is quite happy with IBM right now". I also wasn't arguing why Apple ended their clone deals, just that they did, which would affect ever getting involved again (I was responding to theBeatles's comment, maybe you were too).

I also agree that Transitive translation code would still not be fast enough for a big change. If Apple ever decided to do OSX on Intel (or similar) it'll be as part of some large strategic move, Transitive would be at most an interesting tool to help.

However... iLife for Windows (sold or bundled on Compaqs)?, maybe a new Appleworks?, Safari, iChat, iCal, .Mac (all Windows versions... and/or Linux?) - they seem far easier, and more likely to make some money. And they don't need Transitive (or Mac OS X on Intel). And Apple doesn't seem interested in them either.
The iLife suite is one of Apple's big reasons to switch. If they give it away, or even sell it, on the x86 platform, they lose even more impetus when it comes to getting people to move away from Windows. The iPod is bait, iLife the lure, and the rest is just reeling in the bites that you get.That is one argument. I still think IF Apple decided to make more money from Intel, they're better off using the existing Intel OSes than releasing OSX for Intel. You may disagree of course.

Cocoa + Transitive??
If Apple really wanted to be able to run Mac software on Intel without recompiling - a combination of Transitive's stuff and Cocoa running on Windows and Linux could allow developers to write one app for all 3 platforms.
See above. OS X becomes Windows Lite.Can't see how Apple releasing a quality programming environment allowing a developer to compile for Mac, Linux, & Windows would turn OSX into Windows Lite. It may make many OSX programs become available for Windows and Linux with little effort - whether that brings new developers to Xcode, or means people just buy Windows to run a Cocoa app is hard to say. It think it's more in Apple's favour, and I would love to see Cocoa for Windows and Linux.

[thatwendigo]

Hello thatwendigo,
I'm not sure if you're responding to me or what... but maybe you missed me saying "I think Apple is quite happy with IBM right now". I also wasn't arguing why Apple ended their clone deals, just that they did, which would affect ever getting involved again (I was responding to theBeatles's comment, maybe you were too).

I quoted you, so I was responding to you. Even if you said that you thought Apple was happy with IBM, you said a number of things I consider to be remarkably short-sighted or to lack a grasp of Apple's strengths and weaknesses.

The reason that OS X is as amazing as it is has a huge amount to do with the fact that Apple controls the hardware platform to the largest extent possible while still allowing some choice. Many of the things we take for granted are precisely because of their tight integration, something that you just can't do without a lot of specialized coding (or at all, more likely) on the Windows side of things. Cloning (and the issues that bring) cheapened the Apple brand in a bad way, brougtht in the headache of third party drivers, cut Apple's margins and profits, and otherwise hurt the company. If you want to see what happens when you go down that road, look at eMachines and Dell.

That is one argument. I still think IF Apple decided to make more money from Intel, they're better off using the existing Intel OSes than releasing OSX for Intel. You may disagree of course.

:confused:

I never advocated Apple even developing applications for Windows, I hope you realize. I think that having iTunes on PCs is a mistake. I think that iLife on Windows would be an even bigger one, since it would gouge another of the flashy things that catch the punter's attention. When you're an underdog like Apple and competing against a technologically inferior product like Windows, sometimes image and entrenched acceptance does more than the value of your system.

Macs have far fewer security issues, lower TCO, and tend to hold their value longer. They run most software a home user could ever really need, do it fast enough that people won't really be hindered, and generally break most of the complaints that used to apply.

There is less reason to cross from mac to PC now than there has been in a decade.

Can't see how Apple releasing a quality programming environment allowing a developer to compile for Mac, Linux, & Windows would turn OSX into Windows Lite. It may make many OSX programs become available for Windows and Linux with little effort - whether that brings new developers to Xcode, or means people just buy Windows to run a Cocoa app is hard to say. It think it's more in Apple's favour, and I would love to see Cocoa for Windows and Linux.

Then you're not thinking at all about what this will mean for the UI and other concerns of software design. What reason would a programmer have to stick to the Apple strictures when he can just do what he knows, slam out a Windows-style interface, and call it a day? It's the same problem with a truly effective cross-platform emulator. If the mac can run Windows software, there is next to no reason for a developer to code a separate version that would be native and behave properly.

Is it clear now?

[Lanbrown]

*vaporware*cough*vaporware*

In Solaris 10, Sun is touting its ability to run linsux applications natively at near native speeds.

Transitive also says that one OEM will be releasing a product in 2004 and more in 2005. Solaris 10 will be out fourth quarter 2004. I think Sun is that OEM.

[GregA]

thatwendigo,
Your opinion is clear, mine is just different. True perhaps one of us is short sighted, whatever. While I agree that SOME of Apple's quality comes from it's control over hardware and software, I believe that Apple should partner and work more often with others, to Apple's benefit (and ours). Opinion only - and boring for other readers so I'll leave it there.

[GregA]

Another thought.
Apple's already added Xwindows to OSX in 10.3. If Apple brings out 100% (or 99.99%) Linux compatibility as rumoured, and adds some of Transitive's Intel compatibility, then any program written for Redhat or TurboLinux might run without modification on the Mac, no recompilation or testing.

Now that would screw up the Mac GUI look and feel! If Apple is going to enable Linux stuff easily on OSX, is it worth trying to make a difference in Linux app (especially GUI) development?

[shamino]

Apple's already added Xwindows to OSX in 10.3. If Apple brings out 100% (or 99.99%) Linux compatibility as rumoured, and adds some of Transitive's Intel compatibility, then any program written for Redhat or TurboLinux might run without modification on the Mac, no recompilation or testing.
I think Apple's X server would have to be optimized somewhat before this could be a complete replacement of a standalone Linux box. For instance, the OpenGL extensions to X (the Mesa project for XFree86) would have to be optimized to efficiently pipe everything through to the native OpenGL layer, in order to take advantage of modern video cards.

But you're right that this should work, in concept.
Now that would screw up the Mac GUI look and feel! If Apple is going to enable Linux stuff easily on OSX, is it worth trying to make a difference in Linux app (especially GUI) development?
Not necessarily.

A lot of modern Linux apps are built around the KDE or GNOME libraries. These are both fully skinnable. Apple could bundle these libraries pre-configured with Aqua skins, causing all of those apps to look very much like native apps. Even getting a KDE/GNOME app to use the system menubar instead of its own per-window menubar should be possible, by simply using different implementations of the standard class.

Of course, there are plenty of apps (especially older ones) that don't use the KDE/GNOME libraries. Apple could customize other popular widget sets (like Xaw (Athena) and Xt) but there are still many apps that ignore all of these libraries and draw their own widgets. There really is no way to give these an Aqua skin without rewriting them.

[Peer]

No... because im running 0.4, 0.1 is older than dirt and yeah 0.1 is slower than dirt too... 0.4 is very improved, most the developers run it constantly... darkf0x for example if you stop by the irc chat room on freenode.


Where did you download 0.4. I can only find 0.3.1 ?
Thanks!!

off-topic, sorry... :p

[asphalt-proof]

Macs have far fewer security issues, lower TCO, and tend to hold their value longer. They run most software a home user could ever really need, do it fast enough that people won't really be hindered, and generally break most of the complaints that used to apply.

Of the three reasons you just mentioned, only one is really valid. The Mac has fewer security issues in part because of obscurity. They tend to hopl their value longer because they are more expensive and updates come less frequently then the PC side. This really gets me when people quote this as a reason macs are better. The hardware is the SAME basically. Apple's motherboards have the same failure rate as other manufactures (re:the ibook) batteries are not that much better (we made a big deal about the exploding Dell but mac had the fire-starting powerbook.) These components are not handcrafted by swiss master craftsmen. These are stamped out like the pc side. Hard drives are interchangealbe, CD drives, ram, vid cards (if you zap it) etc. As far as the driver issue. I really don't think that is the main reason for not going with X86 either. All they have to do is recommend Mac-approved hardware (they do it already) and if someone comes with a complaint they can just say "That's something you are going to have to take up with the hardware manufacturer." Again, something they do already. Just because it comes in a pretty pkg, doesn't mean the stuff inside is significantly different. Macs only hold their value longer because they are more expensive and they have longer update cycles. Neither one of those reasons are endemic to the manufacturing of the computer. However, I do, wholeheartly agree that TCO is much less then the PC side. My opinion is that Apple will never cross platform the OS because they want to keep it premium product (plus they don't want to go head-to-head with MS without at least a 75% chance of beating them). They basically want to be the BMW of computers.

[thatwendigo]

Of the three reasons you just mentioned, only one is really valid.

Too bad I named more than three reasons, and you only address one (poorly, I might add).

The Mac has fewer security issues in part because of obscurity.

Does OpenBSD have their amazing record because of "obscurity," too? It's not nearly as popular as windows, but the real reason is that there's a better security model for the operating system. Rather than running on all cylinders with the doors wide open (user as root, services on by default) as Windows does, you'' find that OSX, other BSDs, UNIXes, and Linux distributions all tend to keeping things turned off and requiring a user to okay something first. Yes, a trojan can still infiltrate and the human factor is still the weakest.

In philosophy, though, OS X is vastly more secure than Windows and that won't change. People can point out how they have X, Y, and Z settings or programs on their Windows box that makes it so secure. Guess what? I didn't even have to do that (I did, but I didn't have to, and that's the point).


They tend to hopl their value longer because they are more expensive and updates come less frequently then the PC side. This really gets me when people quote this as a reason macs are better.

Holy hell! Something more expensive holds its value better than something cheaper, especially in a market where there's a smaller number? I never said that there was anything amazingly magical about the cost of macs remaining fairly high over time.

The implication was that macs were useful for longer, without any reference to money whatsoever. A mac is usable as a professional machine for years and years, as many of the posters here prove. Look how many graphics and audio people we have around that are on Sawtooth G4s and tell me that a PC from the same era would even run XP well, let alone continue to be functionally decent.

The hardware is the SAME basically.

Some parts are equivalent, it's true. However...

Apple's motherboards have the same failure rate as other manufactures (re:the ibook)

Apple's failure rate is lower than Dell's. My evidence is only anecdotal at this point, but I ran the math on iBook sales versus the production for that model. It was still less than one percent of the machines sold, and Apple replaced them.

Dell, on the other hand, has people I know constantly cursing them for the way that their laptops are DOA, dead pixeled, or otherwise unusable within a year of purchase. I'm not talking just consumers, either, but IT guys that I know from various companies around here.

batteries are not that much better (we made a big deal about the exploding Dell but mac had the fire-starting powerbook.)

Apple's battery problem with the 5300c was, what, 1994-5?

Yeah, that's about right. So you're going to point out a hardware failure from a decade ago as an excuse to bash macs now?

Hard drives are interchangealbe, CD drives, ram, vid cards (if you zap it) etc. As far as the driver issue.

Video cards are a little more complex than just flashing the firmware, and there are multiple models that don't have any mac drivers at all. Of course, mentioning that would make you concede that the interface is actually different and that things aren't just plug and play from the x86 world to the PowerPC one.

Don't believe me?

Read here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=68163)

I did the comparison back when the G5 first came out, and it's probably due for a refresh. Hell, I'll do it now!

Pegasos II/PPC
Nexus Vivid Blue case w/ 330W psu (Screwless design for easy future modifications)
Pegasos II Mainboard and Motorola G4 Processor @ 1Ghz (133mhz FSB)
ATI Radeon 9200 8x 128MB Graphics card
40GB Hard Disk Drive
256MB (DDR400) PC3200 RAM
Standard Keyboard and Mouse
Standard CDRW drive

Cost: $1,495

The Pegasos II mainboard
# MicroATX mainboard (236 mm x 172 mm), compatible with all ATX-compliant cases.
# Open Firmware .
# MV64361 Discovery II System Controller from Marvell.
# PC2100 RAM , two sockets for DDR-266 with up to 8 gigabytes total.
# AGP slot .
# PCI subsystem with three 32bit, 33MHz slots, optional Riser Card.
# IEEE1394/Firewire providing 100, 200 or 400 megabits of data bandwidth.
# Gigabit ethernet provided by the Marvell Discovery II MV64361
# 10/100 megabit ethernet using a VIA Rhine controller.
# USB subsystem giving two external connectors and one internal connector, provided by the VIA 8231 chipset.
# SPDIF digital audio connector.
# AC97 sound subsystem with microphone input, line in/out and headset connector, provided by the Sigmatel STAC 9766 codec.
# IRDA for infra-red remote control.
# ATA100-compatible IDE support with two channels for up to four ATA devices, provided by the VIA 8231 chipset.
# Two PS/2 connectors for use with standard PS/2 mice and keyboards.
# Serial (RS232) port.
# Parallel (Centronics) port.
# Gameport for PC-compatible joysticks.
# Floppy drive connector.
# Two operating systems included: MorphOS , Debian GNU/Linux with Mac-on-Linux .

Apple iMac G5
IBM PowerPC 970 1.6ghz (533mhz FSB)
nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB
512MB PC3200 RAM
80GB 7200RPM SATA HD
BlueTooth
Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
Apple Wireless Keyboard and Mouse

Cost: $1,523

The price difference has gone down, in Apple's favor. You get more memory, a wireless keyboard and mouse, a better optical drive, a better processor (even the slower bus won't make the G5 lose to a 1ghz, previous generation G4).

I really don't think that is the main reason for not going with X86 either. All they have to do is recommend Mac-approved hardware (they do it already) and if someone comes with a complaint they can just say "That's something you are going to have to take up with the hardware manufacturer."

Maybe you never owned any of the clones, or you've forgotten what it was like, but I was a factor behind the purchase of some six or seven mac clones. What I found out is that I was paying for the lower priced hardware in terms of support and headaches with third party drivers that they cloners offered because the Mac OS didn't support their parts. I've got a mac that's older than any of my clones that works perfectly, but each and every one of the cheaper machines needs parts before I could even donate them in good conscience.

Just because it comes in a pretty pkg, doesn't mean the stuff inside is significantly different.

If the only thing you see in Apple's industrial design is "pretty package," then this is a pointless conversation. Their technical work is far above the average and shows that they sell whole systems, not piecemeal crap.

[slughead]

Does OpenBSD have their amazing record because of "obscurity," too? It's not nearly as popular as windows, but the real reason is that there's a better security model for the operating system. Rather than running on all cylinders with the doors wide open (user as root, services on by default) as Windows does, you'' find that OSX, other BSDs, UNIXes, and Linux distributions all tend to keeping things turned off and requiring a user to okay something first. Yes, a trojan can still infiltrate and the human factor is still the weakest.

In philosophy, though, OS X is vastly more secure than Windows and that won't change. People can point out how they have X, Y, and Z settings or programs on their Windows box that makes it so secure. Guess what? I didn't even have to do that (I did, but I didn't have to, and that's the point).

A better example would be Apache web server--most of the world market and yet M$' solutions have 10x as many security problems




Holy hell! Something more expensive holds its value better than something cheaper, especially in a market where there's a smaller number? I never said that there was anything amazingly magical about the cost of macs remaining fairly high over time.

The implication was that macs were useful for longer, without any reference to money whatsoever. A mac is usable as a professional machine for years and years, as many of the posters here prove. Look how many graphics and audio people we have around that are on Sawtooth G4s and tell me that a PC from the same era would even run XP well, let alone continue to be functionally decent.

Actually PCs can last just as long as macs with the same price tag. The other guy was right on this: Macs are updated so rarely that they hold their value longer, and moreover, it's a bad thing.

It's like if the only car you could buy was a Honda Civic, and they were only updated once every 5 years, then a used '95 civic would have a higher value than it would in a normal market.

You may get a higher resale value on your mac, but you're going to need it because there are fewer upgrades available at a reasonable price.


Some parts are equivalent, it's true. However...

Apple's failure rate is lower than Dell's. My evidence is only anecdotal at this point, but I ran the math on iBook sales versus the production for that model. It was still less than one percent of the machines sold, and Apple replaced them.

Dell, on the other hand, has people I know constantly cursing them for the way that their laptops are DOA, dead pixeled, or otherwise unusable within a year of purchase. I'm not talking just consumers, either, but IT guys that I know from various companies around here.

RAM, hard drives, CD-ROM drives are identical. Video cards have to be custom made for the mac, as well as mobo's and processors, which lead to proprietary cases. Apple does not necessarily use better parts either. Apple ->Has used<- Quantum and maxtor Hard drives in their computers (Probably the most unreliable brands).

Also, where are you getting these failure rates from? I'd assume since Dell only uses proven technology, they'd have lower failure rates. I've yet to see any evidence (apart from worthless anecdotal evidence) to suggest otherwise.

I've worked with 4 or 5 customers with Dell computers and they had no problems. OMG THEY MUST BE FLAWLESS. ugh.

Yeah, that's about right. So you're going to point out a hardware failure from a decade ago as an excuse to bash macs now?

My friend's G3 iMac had failures in the hard drive and CD ROM drive, as well as being constantly unstable. I've had several Hard drive crashes on macs (ALL of which were due to Maxtor and Quantum hard drives that they stuck in there), and my sister's G4 iMac has a dead Pixel

The price difference has gone down, in Apple's favor. You get more memory, a wireless keyboard and mouse, a better optical drive, a better processor (even the slower bus won't make the G5 lose to a 1ghz, previous generation G4).

Maybe Vs other PPC processors, Vs homebuilt PCs Macs are almost as expensive as they've ever been. And by the way, before you say it HOMEBUILT/WHITEBOX PCS HAVE THE HIGHEST MARKETSHARE OF ALL PCS ESPECIALLY MACS SO THEY ARE COMPETING.

Maybe you never owned any of the clones, or you've forgotten what it was like, but I was a factor behind the purchase of some six or seven mac clones. What I found out is that I was paying for the lower priced hardware in terms of support and headaches with third party drivers that they cloners offered because the Mac OS didn't support their parts. I've got a mac that's older than any of my clones that works perfectly, but each and every one of the cheaper machines needs parts before I could even donate them in good conscience.

yep the clones sucked


If the only thing you see in Apple's industrial design is "pretty package," then this is a pointless conversation. Their technical work is far above the average and shows that they sell whole systems, not piecemeal crap.

Like I said before, I'd take another inch on the iMac G5 for an ATI 9600.

BTW I could stick a pentium 3 in a 5"x5" box, doesn't mean it's innovative. You have to have the specs if you're going to do something new. Instead, Apple put a crappy video card and a mid-range processor in a thick display and put it on a stand. Personally, if I cared that much I'd just duct tape a slot-loading DVD-R to an-ultra thin LCD and hide PC behind my desk. It's so thin, it must be innovative!

Fewer cables on my desk as well, along with a smaller price tag and better specs. Not to mention the fact that the iMac G5 has a sub-par contrast ratio, so you must use it in a room with fewer windows.

This whole iMac G5 thing is total phallus factor--there's no real point in having a computer on your desk as opposed to having a small box under your desk. A monitor with a DVD-R, and a firewire/USB hub built in could do the exact same thing. Maybe Apple could integrate the hard-reset combination and power button into the keyboard again so you really could just have the computer hidden.. I missed that!

But then it wouldn't be an all-in one, and for some reason that's apparently an unspeakable blasphemy for a PC according to Apple.

However, I could understand people wanting the G5 iMac simply because it's the only mac you can get in that price range with the most acceptable specs. I am just really unimpressed with it.

[asphalt-proof]

Maybe you never owned any of the clones, or you've forgotten what it was like, but I was a factor behind the purchase of some six or seven mac clones. What I found out is that I was paying for the lower priced hardware in terms of support and headaches with third party drivers that they cloners offered because the Mac OS didn't support their parts. I've got a mac that's older than any of my clones that works perfectly, but each and every one of the cheaper machines needs parts before I could even donate them in good conscience.

Ok you just slammed me for using an example from 8-10 years ago then bring up the matter of clones, again, an example from 6-8 years ago. My point is that Apple DOESN"T have to support the clones. Its not their product. All they have to do is determine if its a software vs. hardware problem. A monkey can do that. Not even a well trained or well fed one at that. :D

I said in part about 'security by obscurity'. I agree that BSD is much more secure because it doesn't leave so many ports open. I agree with you a 100% on that note. In fact I was on the phone last night trying to convince my architect that Mac were much more secure. Then told him if he must use a PC use Mozilla but don't use IE. BUT, that doesn't mean that it can't, won't be broken by a virus writer. Virii writers tend to write for the biggest bang. At 3%+1, mac doesn't rate for the majority of te writers.

Your quote about macs being useful longer than PC's is merely anecdotal and less than useful in the discussion. I'm sure there are some on this site that may have a useful 486 machine that runs fine. Runs XP? No, but a '92 mac is not going to run OSX either.

Look, its kind of a pointless argument. More of a: who would win; '72 Lakers or 1998 Bulls. Pure fantasy. I'm pretty sure that Hell will freeze over before Steve will go over to the X86 side. All I'm saying is that the premium that we pay is primarily software and incidently hardware. We don't get 'Special" ram, super duper hard drives, etc. We can put pretty much any ram, hardrive, cd drive we want. I would say if there is a big hardware cost difference, it would be the cost of the motherbaord and CPU but that is still related to the supply issue. They get if from one supplier... a supplier that seems to have difficulty meeting demand. Multiple suppliers.. less difficulty meeting that demand. But its a wash. I will pay the extra $200-300 for the stability of OSX. But I won't say that its because of superior hardware.

[shamino]

My point is that Apple DOESN"T have to support the clones. Its not their product.
One of the reasons MS systems crash so much is that nobody can possibly test every combination of third-party hardware out there. And when the system crashes, people blame Microsoft as much as they blame the computer maker.

If Apple wants to avoid getting slammed for other people's problems, then they have to support the clones.
All they have to do is determine if its a software vs. hardware problem. A monkey can do that.
You've obviously never worked in software QA. Determining if a bug is software or hardware is not always an easy job. Especially when the software bug is buried deep inside device drivers and the hardware is built-in to a motherboard's chipset.
...BUT, that doesn't mean that it can't, won't be broken by a virus writer. Virii writers tend to write for the biggest bang. At 3%+1, mac doesn't rate for the majority of te writers.
Nobody (at least nobody being reasonable) is saying that a Mac can't be infected. We're saying that, so far, nobody has written a Mac OS X virus.

It's not an excuse to throw all your security precautions out the window, but it also isn't an insignificant point.

Some recent Windows virusses actually require the user to decrypt a zip file, extract the executable, and then manually run it - and there have been plenty of people dumb enough to do this simply because a random e-mail message told them to. Given this fact, it is reasonable to assume that someone could easily write a Mac virus that asks the user for an admin password, and there would be many users dumb enough to provide it.

But apart from these social-engineering virusses, MacOS's BSD roots do provide real security. For example, Windows system services typically have to run at administrator levels - so a virus that breaks in through one can take over the system. On a typical Unix box, daemons typically run from unprivileged dummy accounts, so a virus that breaks in through one is seriously limited in the amount of damage it can cause.
All I'm saying is that the premium that we pay is primarily software and incidently hardware. We don't get 'Special" ram, super duper hard drives, etc. We can put pretty much any ram, hardrive, cd drive we want. I would say if there is a big hardware cost difference, it would be the cost of the motherbaord and CPU but that is still related to the supply issue. They get if from one supplier... a supplier that seems to have difficulty meeting demand. Multiple suppliers.. less difficulty meeting that demand. But its a wash.
And I would argue that the perceived higher cost of Macs is an illusion.

Yes, you can't buy a dirt cheap Mac for $400, the way you can a PC. But that's because Apple has explicitly chosen to avoid that market. As soon as you go up even slightly to the next level ($800 eMac vs. $800 PC) you find that the Mac gives you more computer for your money. And this difference becomes greater as you move up to the bigger systems.

Go ahead, try to build a PC equivalent to a G5 tower (any model) for $3000 (the base price of the high-end G5). The instant you look for a dual-processor PC system (with any speed processor) you're instantly thrown into the high-end server market where prices start at $5000 and usually cost a lot more. And this will not include a good video card or surround sound (since nobody needs those in servers.)

On the system software front, it's the same thing. Mac OS X costs $130 with a 5-license family pack for $200. Windows XP Home costs $200 and XP Pro costs $300 with no consumer-level multi-license kit. (And note that all of the cheap PC's come with the home edition - which everybody agrees should be upgraded to Pro - which will cost more.)

On the application front, prices are about the same, when you can find equivalent products to compare. For instance, MS Office for Mac OS costs the same as for Windows.

And I haven't said a word about support costs, because you'll say that those are all subjective and open to debate.
I will pay the extra $200-300 for the stability of OSX. But I won't say that its because of superior hardware.
If you comapre that Mac against an equivalent PC, instead of the cheapest thing sold by the PC vendor, you'll find that you're not paying $200-300 more. You're usually paying less. And once you upgrade that PC from WinXP Home to Pro, you're definitely going to be paying less.

[asphalt-proof]

"One of the reasons MS systems crash so much is that nobody can possibly test every combination of third-party hardware out there. And when the system crashes, people blame Microsoft as much as they blame the computer maker."

This is the same reason macs crash. Was it the Panther update that crashed the firewire externals? I can't really remember. The only difference would be that Mac would have to support a much wider selection of motherboards, vid cards and chipsets. I'm not saying it would be easy but that the raise in market share MIGHT make it worthwhile.

There was an article just released stating that XP computers fail about 8% of the time. I don't know if this is MS-funded research, independent, or just guessing. You bring up a point I haven't really thought through though. Perception is really key for Apple.

"Nobody (at least nobody being reasonable) is saying that a Mac can't be infected. We're saying that, so far, nobody has written a Mac OS X virus.


I think I already said that BSD is more secure fundamentally. So I think we are in agreement. :)


"And I would argue that the perceived higher cost of Macs is an illusion.

You bring up an excellent point about value-added software added to the mix. Its kind of easy for me to forget that comes with the pkg.

"And I haven't said a word about support costs, because you'll say that those are all subjective and open to debate."

I have never had to pay for support on either platform so I really have no frame of reference. No argument there.

I have to say that I agree with you on all your points or have to humbly claim ignorance. But if hardware costs are essentially the same it comes back to my argument that what Apple fundamentally offers us is a secure, well-integrated software pkg. The hardware is incidental. MS has its share of bashers because of poor hardware/software integration but it still managed to become King of the Hill. Apple has a much better pkg. The cracks are beginning to show in MS's marketshare. Linux is make big inroads on the X86 side. Why not Apple? Is a much slicker interface, better name recognition, and 'cool' factor. I think its kind of silly for Apple not to compete in that arena. A couple of caveats:
The X86 is starting to show its age, but then all platforms are having difficulty making the 90nm die size. Maybe Steve is waiting for the next platform to emerge for the windows side. That's kind of an interesting thought. I really don't know a lot about the internals of a computer so maybe this is just fantasy.
The other caveat: Apple is content to stay the BMW of computers. My problem with this is that consumers tend not to think of their computers in terms of 'luxury vs. subcompact'. And, again, its all about perception.

[asphalt-proof]

By the way, this news about Transitive seems to have tailed off since the news release. Has anyone read any additional news from otherr sources?

[thatwendigo]

The hardware is incidental.

...

I really don't know a lot about the internals of a computer so maybe this is just fantasy.

Uh.

Shamino covered most of what I was planning on saying in return, so I'll let his excellent reply speak for itself. However, I'm wondering just how you think that youre qualified to issue statements to the effect that "the hardware is incidental" if you "don't know a lot about the internals." It's not like you need to be some motherboard guru to take part in a discussion, but doesn't it behoove you to know at least something about the topic before pontificating?

I've built PCs, and I've priced parts pretty regularly to see what the competition can do if you eliminate most of the things that cost Apple bigtime in the end. There's one place Apple loses, in general, and that's low-end, build-it-yourself computing, but there's no way in hell for them to turn a profit and attack that market. The companies that sell budget $400 computers only do so because they rip profit from elsewhere (servers for HP/Compaq, electronics for Sony, etc.) to cover their nonexistant margins. Dell is the only other large OEM to turn a profit and they do it by offering cheap crapboxes.

To build a PC and stock it with software even roughly equivalent to the mac experience is to spend just about as much money. It's not just the software, but that's a big part of it.

[shamino]

"And I haven't said a word about support costs, because you'll say that those are all subjective and open to debate."

I have never had to pay for support on either platform so I really have no frame of reference. No argument there.
I'm actually referring to less obvious costs - like the number of tech support staff a corporate IT department has to hire to maintain all of the company's computers. A system that needs more maintenance (whether routine or repair) or where the maintenance can't be automated ends up requiring more people, because a single support person can only work on one machine at a time.

The cost of hiring extra support staff is rarely (if ever) factored into the cost of a computer and its operating system, but it is a significant cost to anyone using computers in a corporate environment. (It's a significant cost to home users as well, but that usually just costs time, not money, so its far less tangible.)
The hardware is incidental. MS has its share of bashers because of poor hardware/software integration but it still managed to become King of the Hill. Apple has a much better pkg. The cracks are beginning to show in MS's marketshare. Linux is make big inroads on the X86 side. Why not Apple?
Many many many corporations have tried to displace Microsoft as the X86 operating system. Most with far better tech and packaging and everything else. They all failed. When was the last time you saw anyone using OS/2 or BeOS or Solaris/x86?

If Apple would give up the hardware and become a software-only company, they would be dead in under a year.

Customers would say "I'm not going to use it if I can't run all my PC apps". If Apple bundles in Windows support, customers will say "I'm only using it to run Windows apps, so why shouldn't I just run Windows."

This system would not be able to run PPC-based Mac apps, so developers will have to port all their apps. Most won't do it. They'll tell their customers to run the Windows version if they have PC hardware. They'll likely drop all support for their PPC-Mac apps as well.

If it starts to gain momentum, Microsoft will begin an all-out attack against it. Magazine pundits (paid off by MS) will say "don't use Mac OS - there aren't any applications for it".

This isn't idle speculation. This is exactly what happened to OS/2. Microsoft and IBM were jointly developing and shipping this system, and it was gaining popularity. Then Microsoft decided to drop it and IBM took over sole control. Microsoft canceled all their OS/2 application development (were you aware that they actually shipped Word and Excel for OS/2?) and started telling customers that it's useless because it can't run Windows office applications. When IBM shipped it with Windows compatibility, Microsoft quickly changed the Windows spec (and their own Windows apps) to break this compatibility mode - and convinced the media to report on this as if it was an IBM failure.

If Apple decides to go head-to-head with Microsoft for the PC OS market, I guarantee you that they'll get the exact same treatment.

Plus, they'll have hordes of disgruntled PPC users/developers that will decided to drop the platform altogether in disgust.

While it would be nice for Mac OS to be the One True System, it's never going to happen. The realities of the marketplace are such that the entire platform would die a switft death if Apple would ever try it. The marketplace is littered with the remains of others who tried and failed. The only reason Linux isn't dead is that there's no single corporation that can be put out of business to kill it.

[asphalt-proof]

Shamino you make some excellent points about the OS2. I vaguely remember Warp (wasn't that what is was called?) from way back.

As far as magazine pundits saying "stay away from the mac", it seems that most say that already though there are more and more articles coming out in support of the mac.

To bring this discussion back to the thread topic: Wouldn't technology that Transitive is purporting to make, marginalize the platform the software is originally create for? If MS only made Office for the X86, but with the use of the Transitive emulator, able to run on the PPC, why would their be a need for native PPC version of Office? I realize the performance slow down and like could be a big factor so (especially in advertizing: MS Office runs 20% faster on Intel!!) maybe the technology would have no real effect and Apple would go down regardless. Just an interesting "what if" I guess.

[asphalt-proof]

"However, I'm wondering just how you think that youre qualified to issue statements to the effect that "the hardware is incidental" if you "don't know a lot about the internals." It's not like you need to be some motherboard guru to take part in a discussion, but doesn't it behoove you to know at least something about the topic before pontificating?"

As I said, I don't know a lot about internals... not that I don't know anything. So, yeah, I will present my opinions. My comment about "hardware is incidental" stems from the idea that hardware basically costs the same no matter what platform is used. The difference being that bigger companies (HP, Dell, etc.) may get the components cheaper because they buy in such large volumes.

I think you missed the point of the above discussion. I would agree with you 100% that Apple couldn't compete at that price point and survive long. I wasn't implying that Apple compete in the $400 dollar range of computers but to licence their software pkg. across platforms. Shamno has already offered some excellent reasons why that might no be feasible though.

[GregA]

To bring this discussion back to the thread topic: Wouldn't technology that Transitive is purporting to make, marginalize the platform the software is originally create for? If MS only made Office for the X86, but with the use of the Transitive emulator, able to run on the PPC, why would their be a need for native PPC version of Office?I'm not sure MS would need Transitive to do this. They have access to their own Win32 API (naturally), they have Intel hardware emulation (Virtual PC), and experience with having APIs native while applications are emulated (NT on Alpha). If they wanted to release a Win32 for OSX "red box", with emulation of Intel binaries, Transitive is not their missing link!

But to your question - would this technology marginalise the Mac (in this case)? If it worked well it would increase applications running on OSX (via Win32), while I think reducing development using Cocoa and Carbon. Not forgetting notwhendigo's comments about Apple maintaining GUI standards and quality, which this would take firmly out of their control.

[Maxx Power]

I'm not sure MS would need Transitive to do this. They have access to their own Win32 API (naturally), they have Intel hardware emulation (Virtual PC), and experience with having APIs native while applications are emulated (NT on Alpha). If they wanted to release a Win32 for OSX "red box", with emulation of Intel binaries, Transitive is not their missing link!

But to your question - would this technology marginalise the Mac (in this case)? If it worked well it would increase applications running on OSX (via Win32), while I think reducing development using Cocoa and Carbon. Not forgetting notwhendigo's comments about Apple maintaining GUI standards and quality, which this would take firmly out of their control.

MS had Risc versions of WinNT in the days of the Alpha, which in my opinion is a far better chip than G(whatever). Today's CPU's however, have so much in common underneath, that the classical classifications of RISC vs. CISC doesn't apply anymore. How can you call a PowerPC chip with vector instructions and square root instructions a RISC chip ? As well, CISC incorporates as well the more efficient parts of a RISC chip and natively translates a lot of x86 instructions to internal short instructions en route. IN the case of the p4, this is not even done anymore, they use a trace cache instead...

Porting things to RISC from CISC is mostly blundered by market politics, the difference has since the birth of both architectures gone the way of the dodo, many people are just catching on the what these things are because of marketing mumbo jumbo, that they think these things are new or futuristic or superior or whatever, something that is 10 to 20 years old isn't gonna stay the same over a few decades and still remain the top dog, we have faster computers now that we can use to design better chips, make efficient use of the instructions, add or remove instructions and functions (64 bit, vector, branch prediction, OOOE, register renaming) to improve upon the old standards, when you change the old standards a sufficient amount, they nolonger resemble their theory papers written perhaps 10 years back.

[shamino]

Shamino you make some excellent points about the OS2. I vaguely remember Warp (wasn't that what is was called?) from way back.
Warp was IBM's code-name for OS/2 version 3, which ended up as the actual product name (much like how Apple put Jaguar and Panther on the box for their OS X distributions). OS/2 version 4 was code-named Merlin, but was sold as "OS/2 Warp 4".

But marketing departments never made much sense to me :)
As far as magazine pundits saying "stay away from the mac", it seems that most say that already though there are more and more articles coming out in support of the mac.
But they don't currently have Microsoft applying pressure to write anti-Mac articles. That's one of the reasons OS/2 got so much bad press. Microsoft threatened to pull large amounts of full-page ads out of major magazines that continued to give OS/2 good writeups. Many magazines (including just about everything published by Ziff-Davis) gave in to the pressure.

William Zachman (former columnist for PC Week) was actually pressured out of his job because he refused to stop writing pro-OS/2 columns.

The last thing Apple needs is for MS to target them with this kind of campaign.
To bring this discussion back to the thread topic: Wouldn't technology that Transitive is purporting to make, marginalize the platform the software is originally create for? If MS only made Office for the X86, but with the use of the Transitive emulator, able to run on the PPC, why would their be a need for native PPC version of Office? I realize the performance slow down and like could be a big factor so (especially in advertizing: MS Office runs 20% faster on Intel!!) maybe the technology would have no real effect and Apple would go down regardless. Just an interesting "what if" I guess.
The big problem here is that emulating the x86 processor and Windows API may get the app to run, but it won't run as a Mac app. It will still have the Windows look and feel. Meaning per-window menubars, Windows-like UI controls, etc. The app would not fit in nicely with the rest of the Mac desktop experience.

Now, you can hack up your Windows API libraries to affect the look (as long as the UI controls remain the same size - which isn't always possible). This is the whole idea behind skinning Windows systems - which usually works. But changing the behavior is much more difficult. For example, Windows apps are supposed to quit when the last document window is closed, but OS X apps don't - you have to explicitly quit them from the menu bar.

What Transitive is doing right now - offering their services to allow critical legacy apps to be ported - is the right move. These customers know that there will never be a port of these apps to a modern OS, and their legacy hardware platform is becoming more and more expensive to maintain. They will put up with UI discrepancies, because the alternative (ditch the app altogether) is simply not possible.

Brought to the realm of consumer and mainstream-business apps, however, the formula changes. The need for one specific app is very rarely critical, and if it is, the app's native platform (typically Windows PCs) is cheap and abundant.