Cross-Platform Universal Emulation?

[GregA]

xwindows and Linux compatibility...

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...

 

[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.

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.

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.