Apple considering Marklar?

[hobie]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hvfsl]

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

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

 

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by hobie

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

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

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERE IS NO FIRE!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hobie]

Originally posted by X-Baz

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

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

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

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

 

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by hobie

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

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

 

[iJed]

Re: Re: Re: Marklar or OpenStep?

Originally posted by X-Baz


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

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

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

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

 

[kansaigaijin]

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

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



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

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

 

[GPTurismo]

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

GPT

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by hobie


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin

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

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

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

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

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

(*) and i believe it is

 

[rmac]

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

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

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

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

 

[hobie]

Originally posted by locovaca

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

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

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

 

[GPTurismo]

Originally posted by hobie


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

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

 

[eric_n_dfw]

FUD

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

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

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

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

 

[eric_n_dfw]

TCPA

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

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

Scary stuff.


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

 

[Sedulous]

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

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

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

 

[hvfsl]

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

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

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

 

[MacNTAdmin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the true dream . . . .


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

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

 

[Sedulous]

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

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

 

[rmac]

An analogy for Palladium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, hope this is more helpful than confusing.

 

[MacNTAdmin]

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

.. Snip

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

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

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

 

[MacNTAdmin]

Re: An analogy for Palladium

Originally posted by rmac

. . . Snip

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

[/B]

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

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

Issue Shutdown commands. . .

Upload spyware. . .

The possibilities are limitless. . .

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[JeffHendr]

Risks are necessary to win the market

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rmac]

Microsoft and Standards

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

www.trustedcomputing.org

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

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

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

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