Freescale CEO on Apple, Intel and IBM

[sushi]

Hopefully it's not that blasted Steve RDF coming into play again...

And that Kool-Aid tastes so very good too!

 

[shamino]

What if Apple was working on more than just the PowerPC and x86 platforms?

There's been no evidence (and in the case, not even rumors), but anything's possible.

There are a few other processor architectures that haven't been used in Macs yet (like SPARC and MIPS), but I doubt Apple would ever use them, because they're pretty much proprietary and controlled by one specific vendor that wants to use them for their own products.

All this being said, it would not surprise me in the least if Apple decides to keep a working non-Intel version of Mac OS (PPC?) long after the official product line becomes Intel-only, in order to be prepared to switch again, if circumstances should force that option.

Such a policy also forces developers to keep platform-portability in mind at all times, greatly easing the transition if another switch should become necessary, even if that switch isn't to the same chipset as the internal prototype build.

 

[Hattig]

There are a few other processor architectures that haven't been used in Macs yet (like SPARC and MIPS), but I doubt Apple would ever use them, because they're pretty much proprietary and controlled by one specific vendor that wants to use them for their own products.

SPARC isn't proprietary, it's an open specification. Fujitsu designs and makes their own fast SPARC64 processors for their systems.

Sun's Niagara 2 processor (2007) may be a very nice processor for a (multithreaded applications) desktop system. 64 threads across 8 cores. Per thread performance won't be great, but per processor performance will be stellar (again, for multithreaded tasks). Per processor integer performance on the current 32-thread Niagara processor is already amazing, but FP isn't really a feature. And there are a lot of FP tasks that can be extensively multithreaded...

MIPS does have some patented features however, hence China's dragon chip doesn't implement those parts.

 

[AidenShaw]

triumph of marketing over reality

SPARC isn't proprietary, it's an open specification.

SPARC isn't proprietary...that's rich.

 

[mdavey]

SPARC isn't proprietary...that's rich.

* The SPARC instruction set is published as IEEE Standard 1754-1994.
* SPARC specifications are available for licensing by any person or company, giving customers flexibility and freedom to design their own solution.
* Control of the SPARC architecture is in the hands of an independent, non-profit organization, SPARC International, whose membership is open to everyone.
* All technical information about the architecture is available for free and without royalties from SPARC International's public website. Anyone is welcome to download the SPARC specifications, which provide all of the technical requirements needed to design processors and other products based on the open SPARC standard.

As Hattig pointed out, Fujitsu and Sun Microsystems provide architectures (as well as the European Space and Technology Centre). The architectures are used by various vendors including Fujitsu, Sun Microsystems, Tadpole and Toshiba Corporation.

 

[Flynnstone]

There's been no evidence (and in the case, not even rumors), but anything's possible.

There are a few other processor architectures that haven't been used in Macs yet (like SPARC and MIPS), but I doubt Apple would ever use them, because they're pretty much proprietary and controlled by one specific vendor that wants to use them for their own products.

I don't know of rumors around x86. There was speculation But I agree anything is possible.
Intel is proprietary. Apple has chosen them.

 

[rayz]

Anything that everyone uses is mediocre...

Ok, hang on a sec.

A few years ago, I thought that the PPC was a chip that was used pretty much exclusively by Apple. As it turns out, the revenue that Apple generates for IBM through using the PPC was pretty insignificant compared to the embedded devices, licensees and server installations.

Apple certainly wasn't a big enough customer to warrant IBM continuing development of what was effectively a custom chip ... for free. That would only serve to annoy much larger customers who understand custom designs need to be paid for.

Between MS, Sony and Nintendo I imagine that IBM will shift a much larger number of 'paid for' custom chips than the relatively small number of 'freebies' that they have to furnish Apple with. So, no great loss for IBM. A little bit of crowing from the Mac community is nothing they won't get over.

But what I think you're missing is the reason why IBM aren't interested in desktop chips in the first place. PCs are a commodity, and as such it will become increasingly difficult to make money building them.

Dell knows it (that's why they spend millions in R&D trying to scrape every dollar off the cost of building a machine),

MS knows it (that's why they dumped Intel and went hell for leather into the console market; they were even prepared to dump a problem console on the market, making a loss on each unit, just to get a leg up on the competition).

Sony has always known it ...

And most importantly, IBM knows it (which is why sold their PC division to Lenevo).

Basically, Apple had nowhere else to go but Intel; economies of scale means they can get chips at a better price than they can get from AMD (even though most folk seem to think that Intel chips cost more than PPC chips), and it certainly isn't worth building custom bits, for a commodity item like a PC.
Do you think that Apple would sell more machines with a custom processor, even if it was faster? I don't think so; folk are not that bothered about the odd Mhz here and there anymore.

They could have gone with another PPC outfit like PA Semi; but that company (and their chip) is still very much unproven.

Sparc? Dunno. Don't know much about Sparc.

So although they will now same chips and components as everyone else, at least they'll be going for the cheapest option.
Now I notice a few members of the Mac community believe that Intel will be providing special treatment for Apple; providing them with new components before anyone else, or building special technology exclusively for Apple.

I don't think this will be the case fo a number of reasons.

1/. It's the whole 'custom chip' argument all over again. If IBM won't customize for free fo a customer who represents tiny proportion of their revenue, then Intel certanly won't for a company that represents an even smaller proportion of their revenue. This would put Apple in the same position they were in with IBM, and in a few years time, Apple would have to move again.

2/. Er ... Intel have already stated that Apple will get no special treatment and they will get the chipsets at the same time as everyone else ...
However, just because other manufacturers get the same tech at the same time, doesn't mean that they will release at the same time. They have more configurations to test and a lot more OS options to worry about.
If I were Dell, I'd let Apple release first! Then once Apple has taken the 'early adoper hit, release their own new machines. Being second won't make that much difference.

So I really don't see any advantage of going the custom chip route for a desktop PC ... a console or PVR maybe, but for a commodity PC. I just don't think it would make a difference to sales.

What might make a big difference though, is the ability to run Windows apps on Macs at native speeds. Now that would be a big seller all round, and would not be possible if they stayed with the PPC.

Windows users would not lose their favourite apps by moving to the Mac; Microsoft would shift a few more Windows licenses and so I don't see them blocking such a move. In fact, since it may lead to the larger software houses telling Mac users to 'just run the Windows version', then I reckon MS would be over the moon by such a move (something that may or may not cause a problem for Apple depending on their future plans).

If you know how to make the 'custom chip' idea fly, I'd love to hear it.

I think in this instance, you may find that 'mediocre' is the way forward ...

 

[mdavey]

If you know how to make the 'custom chip' idea fly, I'd love to hear it.

They alreay have a custom chip in most deisgns: The I/O chip (variously known as Intrepid, KeyLargo, K2 and others - depending on architecture). I'd expect this to continue, with Apple adding video codecs including H.264 into the mix (it already supports various audio codecs).

 

[rayz]

They alreay have a custom chip in most deisgns: The I/O chip (variously known as Intrepid, KeyLargo, K2 and others - depending on architecture). I'd expect this to continue, with Apple adding video codecs including H.264 into the mix (it already supports various audio codecs).

Yep; and how has having them helped increase their market share or lower their prices?

 

[shamino]

Yep; and how has having them helped increase their market share or lower their prices?

So you believe what? That Apple should abandon any and all custom chips? And then what? Sell generic PC motherboards in fancy cases?

Mac customers are not interested in buying PC's in fancy cases. If they wanted that, they could buy from Sony.

 

[shamino]

Between MS, Sony and Nintendo I imagine that IBM will shift a much larger number of 'paid for' custom chips than the relatively small number of 'freebies' that they have to furnish Apple with. So, no great loss for IBM.

Also the fact that game consoles don't get upgraded every three months. IBM may be willing to design those chips for free, since they will be stamping them out for 3-5 years without any design changes.

You don't get that economy of scale from desktop computer chips, because the products get upgraded too quickly.

But what I think you're missing is the reason why IBM aren't interested in desktop chips in the first place. PCs are a commodity, and as such it will become increasingly difficult to make money building them.

This is a reason why companies got out of the PC business. It says nothing about chipmakers.

Using your logic, AMD and Intel should sell their x86 products to third world countries. But it isn't going to happen. Because the pricing crunch you talk about affects the system-builders, not the chipmakers.

MS knows it (that's why they dumped Intel and went hell for leather into the console market; they were even prepared to dump a problem console on the market, making a loss on each unit, just to get a leg up on the competition).

Maybe. Or maybe wishful thinking.

MS also was getting pissed off about people installing Linux on their XBox. Moving to an incompatible chipset was as much an effort to shake off the hackers (at least briefly) as it was due to chipset pricing.

As for taking losses, every game console is sold at a loss. This has nothing to do with the chip inside.

What might make a big difference though, is the ability to run Windows apps on Macs at native speeds. Now that would be a big seller all round, and would not be possible if they stayed with the PPC.

Maybe in the short term. In the long term, it would destroy the Mac market. Which is why I don't believe Apple will ever bundle Windows emulation software.

Windows users would not lose their favourite apps by moving to the Mac; Microsoft would shift a few more Windows licenses and so I don't see them blocking such a move. In fact, since it may lead to the larger software houses telling Mac users to 'just run the Windows version', then I reckon MS would be over the moon by such a move (something that may or may not cause a problem for Apple depending on their future plans).

This is one of the things that seriously crippled the OS/2 software market. It was good enough at running Windows apps that many vendors refused to develop native apps. They told customers "run the Windows version". And when Windows evolved to an architecture incompatible with OS/2, they just said "get bent".

And MS took advantage of this by telling the world that OS/2 has no native apps. A complete lie, but people believed it because few native apps were made by the most popular Windows-app vendors.

You bundle good Windows emulation with Mac OS, and I guarantee you the same thing will happen. The big players (like Adobe) will abandon all Mac development and tell people to just buy the Windows version. The public will see this and decide "if I'm just running Windows apps, then I'll be better off buying a Windows PC".

I think in this instance, you may find that 'mediocre' is the way forward ...

If you want Apple to end up selling mediocre products.

Do you seriously think OS X is so great that people would choose to buy "mediocre" computers in order to run it? Somehow I don't think so.

 

[rayz]

So you believe what? That Apple should abandon any and all custom chips? And then what? Sell generic PC motherboards in fancy cases?

Mac customers are not interested in buying PC's in fancy cases. If they wanted that, they could buy from Sony.

Well according to Jobs, the most important thing is the operating system, not the hardware, so yes, I really think that you won't see much hardware differentiation from now on (apart from any custom hardware to prevent the operating system running on generic PCs).

A few clever bods seem to have already got MacOSX Intel running on machines other than the Apple devkit (which is pretty much a generic PC anyway)

One other thing though. While its fine to blame IBM for the performance of Apple machines, bear in mind that the rest of the unit is designed by Apple; this includes buses that are out of dat compared with the rest of the industry and low amounts of memory fitted as standard.
Now that they are building the same machines as everyone else, Apple won't be able to get away with it; since comparisons are much easier to make. This will be a real win for Mac customers.

 

[rayz]

Also the fact that game consoles don't get upgraded every three months. IBM may be willing to design those chips for free, since they will be stamping them out for 3-5 years without any design changes.

Apparently, Microsoft has paid for the custom design work on the chip. They could have licensed the reference designs and done it themselves, but I guess this is IBM's area.
If IBM had done carried out the work for free then they believe that MS will sell enough of these things to make it worthwhile; something they obviously didn't believe with Apple.

This is a reason why companies got out of the PC business. It says nothing about chipmakers.

It points to a general feeling at IBM that there is no money to be made in the desktop.

Maybe. Or maybe wishful thinking.

Who knows? Can't say if they are right or wrong until the figures are in.

MS also was getting pissed off about people installing Linux on their XBox.
Moving to an incompatible chipset was as much an effort to shake off the hackers (at least briefly) as it was due to chipset pricing.

If that was the case then they could easily solved that with a custom chip ...
Besides which, there are a number of Linux installations that run on the PPC, so that's not really going to help.

Maybe in the short term. In the long term, it would destroy the Mac market. Which is why I don't believe Apple will ever bundle Windows emulation software.

That depends on how Apple sees its future market. And of course, they don't have to develop the emulation; Microsoft will. And if Intel's Virtualization technology flies then it should be fairly seamless.

This is one of the things that seriously crippled the OS/2 software market. It was good enough at running Windows apps that many vendors refused to develop native apps. They told customers "run the Windows version". And when Windows evolved to an architecture incompatible with OS/2, they just said "get bent".

True.

You bundle good Windows emulation with Mac OS, and I guarantee you the same thing will happen. The big players (like Adobe) will abandon all Mac development and tell people to just buy the Windows version.

I'm pretty sure that Adobe would LOVE to do that. They're having to make a major upgrade to their whole software line AGAIN. Still, since they're going to charge for it, I guess that'll sweeten the blow somewhat. With any luck they can share a lot more of the code between the platforms.

The public will see this and decide "if I'm just running Windows apps, then I'll be better off buying a Windows PC".

This may happen anyway, whether Apple wants it to or not. What they need is another good reason to keep people running Macs, rather than placing artificial blocks to prevent them from running Windows at a decent speed.

If you want Apple to end up selling mediocre products.

Do you seriously think OS X is so great that people would choose to buy "mediocre" computers in order to run it? Somehow I don't think so.

Apple certainly thinks so; though its possible that the desktop computer line will not be their main focus in the future, in which case, it probably won't matter that much.


So what kind of custom chip do you think will make the difference?

 

[shamino]

Apparently, Microsoft has paid for the custom design work on the chip. They could have licensed the reference designs and done it themselves, but I guess this is IBM's area.

Since when did Microsoft gain any kind of chipmaking expertise? Do you seriously think a bunch of second-rate software people could design a processor? Even with a reference design? The entire concept is hysterical.

It points to a general feeling at IBM that there is no money to be made in the desktop.

It points to a general feeling that there is no money to be made selling Windows PC's. PC's are not the entirity of the desktop. Today, IBM sells quite a lot of UNIX workstations - which are desktop systems, not servers - based on POWER.

That depends on how Apple sees its future market. And of course, they don't have to develop the emulation; Microsoft will. And if Intel's Virtualization technology flies then it should be fairly seamless.

You put quite a lot of faith in Microsoft's ability to write efficient code. I don't. They've sold VPC for Windows for quite a while, it's far from seamless and entails quite a performance hit.

This may happen anyway, whether Apple wants it to or not. What they need is another good reason to keep people running Macs, rather than placing artificial blocks to prevent them from running Windows at a decent speed.

Shipping the exact same hardware that everybody else is shipping is not a way to convince customers to remain.

I can just imagine the ad campaign: Buy our stuff, it's now exactly the same as everybody else's!

So what kind of custom chip do you think will make the difference?

It's not the presence/absence of a custom chip that matters. Designing and selling superior hardware is what matters. And this can't be done by selling what amounts to Dell/Compaq/whatever junk in a pretty case.

 

[Randall]

CNet provides an interview with Michel Mayer, CEO of Freescale Semiconductor. Freescale is the Motorola spin-off which provides Apple with the PowerPC G4 processor used in the Mac Mini and current Mac Laptops. Apple has a contract with Freescale to fulfill G4 processor orders until as late as Dec 31, 2008 if required. (Apple is under no obligation to continue purchasing them through that time, however.)

The interview provides some confirmation of Apple's earlier consideration to move to Intel.



This information was previously revealed in an internal IBM newsletter about Apple's potential switch to Intel at that time. Instead, Apple went forward with the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Meanwhile, Mayer goes on to say that IBM's focus has shifted to consoles:

I told you IBM didn't know how to make a portable version of G5. Apple had no choice but to bail on PPC. Oh well, I really didn't need another space heater anyway. Let's go x86!!!

 

[Randall]

Well according to Jobs, the most important thing is the operating system, not the hardware, so yes, I really think that you won't see much hardware differentiation from now on (apart from any custom hardware to prevent the operating system running on generic PCs).

It is now officially impossible to stop OS X from running on generic x86 based PCs. Mearly the fact that hardware drivers are not availabe for the ample amount of x86 hardware out there is the only thing standing in the way.

 

[shamino]

It is now officially impossible to stop OS X from running on generic x86 based PCs. Mearly the fact that hardware drivers are not availabe for the ample amount of x86 hardware out there is the only thing standing in the way.

Why? Because one stranger on a blog site says so?

 

[rayz]

Since when did Microsoft gain any kind of chipmaking expertise? Do you seriously think a bunch of second-rate software people could design a processor? Even with a reference design? The entire concept is hysterical.

Well, that was just an example of one possible route they could have taken. Besides which, they could have done what they always do when faced with a similar situation; buy the expertise in. Still, with IBM providing the facilities, there was no need.

It points to a general feeling that there is no money to be made selling Windows PC's. PC's are not the entirity of the desktop. Today, IBM sells quite a lot of UNIX workstations - which are desktop systems, not servers - based on POWER.

Hardly what I would call a commodity desktop unit, unless you happen to have one in your house. .. :-/

You put quite a lot of faith in Microsoft's ability to write efficient code. I don't. They've sold VPC for Windows for quite a while, it's far from seamless and entails quite a performance hit.

Well, I have an XP development box here running two web servers, three different JDKs, a couple of games, a number of IDEs with a few devices plugged in for good measure. I've yet to crash it after on year of intense use.

Meanwhile, my MacOSX installation was being crashed by visiting certain web pages with Safari. Although the problem was corrected with an upgrade, I had to ask, what has gone wrong with the design of an OS when it can be crashed by a web browser? A web browser built by the same company that built the OS.

So while I have no reason to trust that MS knows how to secure an OS, I don't have a problem with them building efficient code, and with the Macs running Intel chips, then it'll only make their job easier. A few yars down the line, we may just have one Office for all ....

Shipping the exact same hardware that everybody else is shipping is not a way to convince customers to remain.

But it's the obvious way to bring new customers in who don't want to leave their applications behind. You've already bought your Mac, so you're pretty much off the sales radar anyway. And the great thing about the Mac community from Apple's point of view, is that they will pretty much follow the company line. If Jobs gets up on stage and explains the advantages of having the ability to run Windows apps, then who's going to argue the point with him?
Besides, I imagine a 3rd party will handle that side of things, but Apple will sell the software on their site.

I can just imagine the ad campaign: Buy our stuff, it's now exactly the same as everybody else's!

Or

Buy our stuff, and bring your stuff with you.

It's not the presence/absence of a custom chip that matters. Designing and selling superior hardware is what matters. And this can't be done by selling what amounts to Dell/Compaq/whatever junk in a pretty case.

Apple is building a PC, using Intel bits. The dev kit is a PC, folk are running MacOSX Intel on Sony laptops. Exactly what is Apple going to do to differentiate their machines?

 

[shamino]

Hardly what I would call a commodity desktop unit, unless you happen to have one in your house. .. :-/

So now you redefine your terms. "Desktop" now means "commodity desktop". Why don't you just define it to mean "$400 Dell system" while you're at it - this way you can say that everybody else has "abandoned" it.

Well, I have an XP development box here running two web servers, three different JDKs, a couple of games, a number of IDEs with a few devices plugged in for good measure. I've yet to crash it after on year of intense use.

Meanwhile, my MacOSX installation was being crashed by visiting certain web pages with Safari. Although the problem was corrected with an upgrade, I had to ask, what has gone wrong with the design of an OS when it can be crashed by a web browser? A web browser built by the same company that built the OS.

And I can cite you plenty of users with the exact opposite experience (myself included) where OS X has never crashed even once, but Windows bluescreens when visiting some web sites with IE.

My opinion of MS's programmes has nothing to do with this, however. It comes from the fact that MS has never developed an original application, even once. All their main products are acquisitions from other companies, and after acquisition, those products got bigger and slower, bogged down with broken, useless features.

And WinXP is no exception. They got a good kernel (NT) by hiring a mess of former DEC engineers, and then they killed it by adding on dozens of layers of code that bog down the system in abstractions and eye candy, in the name of "portability", even though they've abandoned every attempt to port their code to non-x86 platforms.

So while I have no reason to trust that MS knows how to secure an OS, I don't have a problem with them building efficient code, and with the Macs running Intel chips, then it'll only make their job easier. A few yars down the line, we may just have one Office for all ....

Inability to write secure code is a serious problem that reflects on an overall attitude problem. They don't think it matters. They don't care about their customers. The only reason they're trying to hack security in now is because large customers were threatening legal action.

As for "one Office", think again. The OS differences between Mac OS and Windows are tremendous. Using the same chip isn't going to make porting one bit easier.

But it's the obvious way to bring new customers in who don't want to leave their applications behind. You've already bought your Mac, so you're pretty much off the sales radar anyway. And the great thing about the Mac community from Apple's point of view, is that they will pretty much follow the company line. If Jobs gets up on stage and explains the advantages of having the ability to run Windows apps, then who's going to argue the point with him?

I'm glad you have no problem expressing such contempt for everybody else here.

Besides, I imagine a 3rd party will handle that side of things, but Apple will sell the software on their site.

Like happens right now. But if you think Apple is going to start promoting Macs as a Windows application platform, you're deluding yourself.

Apple is building a PC, using Intel bits. The dev kit is a PC, folk are running MacOSX Intel on Sony laptops. Exactly what is Apple going to do to differentiate their machines?

You seem to be under the impression that the shipping systems will be identical to the dev kits.

They have stated many times that developers should not make that assumption. But I suppose you know better, right?

 

[rayz]

So now you redefine your terms. "Desktop" now means "commodity desktop". Why don't you just define it to mean "$400 Dell system" while you're at it - this way you can say that everybody else has "abandoned" it.

You misunderstand. No-one is abandoning the desktop; its just that companies such as IBM and Dell are finding it increasingl difficult to make money building them. This is why IBM is now focussing on high end machines, cinsoles and embedded devices.

And I can cite you plenty of users with the exact opposite experience (myself included) where OS X has never crashed even once, but Windows bluescreens when visiting some web sites with IE.

I'm sure you can ....
But I don't have to run their systems; I have to run mine. The Safari problem was well documented on MacIntouch a while back, which is where I found out what was going on. As I said I was little shocked; I haven't seen a site crash a whole operating system since Windows98. I'm told the reason is that the webkit is a pretty low-level component, which is what seems to make the OS vulnerable to these kind of crashes.

My opinion of MS's programmes has nothing to do with this, however. It comes from the fact that MS has never developed an original application, even once.

That's funny. I think they developed Office themselves from Day 1. ...

All their main products are acquisitions from other companies, and after acquisition, those products got bigger and slower, bogged down with broken, useless features.

As I said, Office is a home grown product, but even so, Apple is not much better.
MacOSX acquired from NeXT
Final Cut aqcuired from Macromedia
Can't remember where they bought iTunes from. Casady &Green if memory serves. I think I had it on my machine when it was called SoundJam

And WinXP is no exception. They got a good kernel (NT) by hiring a mess of former DEC engineers, and then they killed it by adding on dozens of layers of code that bog down the system in abstractions and eye candy, in the name of "portability", even though they've abandoned every attempt to port their code to non-x86 platforms.

Sounds a lot like MacOSX actually.
Acquired from NeXT. Loads of extra layers added (such as BSD, which again, Apple did not write), then shipped on machines with not enough memory to run the eye-candy routines.
And the MacOSX interface is a real mess at the moment. Why can't they settle on one look and feel across the applications?
Eye-candy aside, XP gets big points in my book by allowing you to roll back the OS installation with a simple click, if you mess it up somehow. Really wish Apple would build that one into MacOSX (actually, they may have done, but I might not have found it yet).
And why doesn't Apple give you a basic backup/restore program? What's that about? It's a basic OS requirement if you ask me.
Still, MacOSX obviously wins out on the portablility, but with Intel dominating the desk chips, that's probably not such

Inability to write secure code is a serious problem that reflects on an overall attitude problem.

And let's not forget the first release of Dashboard that allowed potentially dangerous widgets to be installed on systems without so much as a 'hello, I'm a widget!'. Unforgivable, especially when happened to Microsoft's 'ActiveX on the Web' plans when they made the same mistake. Because of their attitude, ActiveX will never flourish on the web (thank God); it was surpising to see Apple carelessly make the same mistake.

MS attitude to security is not the problem; their codebase is. The original code was never designed for the kind of security that the internet demands, and ceaselessly patching it has made the situation worse IMO. Vista is the clean sweep they should have made years ago.
Still, with a correctly configured Firewall and a good Av program, XP is as secure as houses.

They don't think it matters. They don't care about their customers. The only reason they're trying to hack security in now is because large customers were threatening legal action.

... rather like Apple only sorting out problems with the iPods when folk take them to court ... .
Apple would have left the glaring holes in Dashboard if folk hadn't taken them to task about them. But tha's corporations all over I'm afraid; do the least and try to get the most in return.
The more I talk to you, the more I realise that only thing really separating the two companies is current mindshare (Apple) and current marketshare(Microsoft)

As for "one Office", think again. The OS differences between Mac OS and Windows are tremendous. Using the same chip isn't going to make porting one bit easier.

You're missing the point. No-one will have to port anything. The next generation of Intel chips will b able to run multiple Os at the same time, using virtualization. I don't think it will be too difficult for MS to leverage this in future versions of Virtual PC, to allow Windows to run on th Mac at native speeds (can't imagine what kind of memory requirements something like that will have though).

I'm glad you have no problem expressing such contempt for everybody else here.

Oh, stop being such a drama queen... :-D
And before you start, that's just a figure of speech.

Like happens right now. But if you think Apple is going to start promoting Macs as a Windows application platform, you're deluding yourself.
You seem to be under the impression that the shipping systems will be identical to the dev kits.

They're not promoting it as a Windows platform; they're promoting it as a universal platform.

Going back to the OS/2 argument though. It ran Windows in a much safer environment, but I don't think the developers saiying 'just run the windows version' was the main problem; an app is an app is an app. IBM's promotion was astonshingly poor (they wouldn't even bundle it with their own systems). MS had greater mindshare and they could just pull the plug at any time, without worrying about legal action.
I don't think this situation applies to Apple. They don't need anyone else to distribute their OS, they enjoy a high level of public visibility thanks to the iPod, and I'm not sure that MS would feel the need to break Wndows support on the Mac.

I think that Apple knows that there is an advantage in increasing the user base. The biggest single barrier to that is applications. If folk can move without fear of losing their favourite Windows application, or of being incompatible with the rest of their workmates, then I believe that the platform can start to make some real inroads. Build the market and developers will follow.
One thing that impresses me about the Mac as a development platform (although I don' use it as one myself), is the quality of the apps that are on it. I believe that many Mac developers have a passion for the platform that shows in their work.
Now at the end of the day, the applications are what counts. Your attachment to your OS is very touching, but what is keeping folk on Windows is the stuff they can run, not the OS they can run it on. Apple needs to able to match and surpass this experience, or they may as well just do what a lot of folk think they're going to do, leave thye desktop to MS and just concentrate on being a content/device provider.

They have stated many times that developers should not make that assumption. But I suppose you know better, right?

I think what you're afraid of is that now that Apple is facing MS on its own turf, they will get crushed. Artificial limitations to keep Windows at arm's length may be one way forward, but if that's all they've got, then they're going to be in real trouble. Now we're going to learn if Apple does genuinely provide a better experience at a better price, without the PPC barrier to hide behind.

I think they are at least going to try to offer something unique, other than just hiding behind a DRM chip (which what you seem to think they will do). They have no choice.

And you still haven't said what unique piece of hardware is going to make Apple's Intel box, better than any other Intel box. Bear in mind that Intel will be supplying the same components to everybody.

 

[shamino]

That's funny. I think they developed Office themselves from Day 1. ...

MS Word (for DOS) was based on Bravo, a Xerox PARC product. Charles Simonyi (Bravo's creator) left PARC to join Microsoft in 1981, bringing his code with him. Word was released in 1983. Word for the Mac was based on Word for DOS. Word for Windows was based on the Word for the Mac.

Excel was original, developed after Multiplan failed to compete against Lotus 1-2-3.

PowerPoint was developed by Bob Gaskins, for a company called Forethought. They were acquired by Microsoft.

So, no Office (the bundle) was definitely not developed in-house "from Day 1".

Still, with a correctly configured Firewall and a good Av program, XP is as secure as houses.

Sure. And if you weld armor plating onto your Yugo, it will survive a collision with an SUV. Doesn't make a Yugo a safe vehicle.

You're missing the point. No-one will have to port anything. The next generation of Intel chips will b able to run multiple Os at the same time, using virtualization.

Intel promised the same thing when the 386 was introduced. Never happened. The much-touted virtual-x86 mode was used to let OS/2 and Windows run multiple DOS boxes, but it never went beyond that.

Will the next generation of this concept do any better? Maybe, but I won't believe it until after I see it actually being used by a shipping product. Until then, it's just marketing hype.

They're not promoting it as a Windows platform; they're promoting it as a universal platform.

Oh really? Please show me where Apple is promoting their hardware as a platform for non-Apple operating systems. Their statement that they won't take explicit action to block third-party systems is hardly promotion.

I think that Apple knows that there is an advantage in increasing the user base.

You still seem to think Apple will increase their user base by lowering themselves to selling the same commodities that everybody else sells. This concept makes absolutely no sense.

The biggest single barrier to that is applications. If folk can move without fear of losing their favourite Windows application, or of being incompatible with the rest of their workmates, then I believe that the platform can start to make some real inroads. Build the market and developers will follow.

And if people find that the new system works exactly the same as their old system, they'll decide that there's no advantage to switching.

One thing that impresses me about the Mac as a development platform (although I don' use it as one myself), is the quality of the apps that are on it. I believe that many Mac developers have a passion for the platform that shows in their work.

Which doesn't amount to anything if you convince your customer base to run nothing but their pre-existing Windows apps.

but what is keeping folk on Windows is the stuff they can run, not the OS they can run it on.

What is keeping folks on Windows is inertia, plain and simple. People don't want to buy what they don't understand, even if they hate what they're currently using. This includes both corporate IT types (who are supposedly paid to know better) and end-users.

I think what you're afraid of is that now that Apple is facing MS on its own turf, they will get crushed.

And the industry is littered with the burnt-charred remains of everybody who tried.

And you still haven't said what unique piece of hardware is going to make Apple's Intel box, better than any other Intel box. Bear in mind that Intel will be supplying the same components to everybody.

I never said that they require unique hardware. I said they won't be shipping stock third-party motherboards. This solution may or may not include custom chips.

You seem to think that this is an all-or-nothing deal - either everything is custom and proprietary or everything is re-labeled Dell parts. There are an infinite number of possibilities in between these two extremes.

The only thing we do know is that the developer test boxes are not examples of the final product. We've been explicitly told that several aspects of it will be different.

 

[rayz]

MS Word (for DOS) was based on Bravo, a Xerox PARC product. Charles Simonyi (Bravo's creator) left PARC to join Microsoft in 1981, bringing his code with him. Word was released in 1983. Word for the Mac was based on Word for DOS. Word for Windows was based on the Word for the Mac.

I'd be surprised if any of the orginal codebase from DOS is still there! Word is acompletely different beast (and a lrg one at that!)

Excel was original, developed after Multiplan failed to compete against Lotus 1-2-3.

Mmm. Oddly enough, I though Excel was bought in.

PowerPoint was developed by Bob Gaskins, for a company called Forethought. They were acquired by Microsoft.

Never knew that!

So, no Office (the bundle) was definitely not developed in-house "from Day 1".

I'd be surpised if you'd find any original code left in Office from those days, but it is a fair point.

But you haven't answered the question about Apple' own stable MacOSX? iTunes? Final Cut? WebObjects? Motion? None of these are originals either.

Sure. And if you weld armor plating onto your Yugo, it will survive a collision with an SUV. Doesn't make a Yugo a safe vehicle.

Kind of helps though doesn't it? ... :-/

Intel promised the same thing when the 386 was introduced. Never happened. The much-touted virtual-x86 mode was used to let OS/2 and Windows run multiple DOS boxes, but it never went beyond that.

Oh, but it did work didn't it?

You still seem to think Apple will increase their user base by lowering themselves to selling the same commodities that everybody else sells. This concept makes absolutely no sense.

And you don't seem to realise that they already have! May I refer you once again to Jobs' statement at the WWDC. The OS is the differentiator, not the hardware. That's what the man said. No real point disputing it.

What is keeping folks on Windows is inertia, plain and simple. People don't want to buy what they don't understand, even if they hate what they're currently using. This includes both corporate IT types (who are supposedly paid to know better) and end-users.

Then Apple may as well pack up the whole computing match and just focus on devices and content then.

never said that they require unique hardware.

Then what are you saying?

I said they won't be shipping stock third-party motherboards. This solution may or may not include custom chips.

Then what is the point of doing your own motherboards unless they're unique? The only thing that has been really unique about Apple motherboards is their size and the fact that aren't as up to date.

You have yet to come up with this differentiator that will make Apple machines unique in the future.

You seem to think that this is an all-or-nothing deal - either everything is custom and proprietary or everything is re-labeled Dell parts. There are an infinite number of possibilities in between these two extremes.

All I'm saying is that aside from the OS, the machine will basically be a PC that will run Windows. I just don't see what Apple has to gain by doing their own motherboards. There motherboards were never superior to the ones on the Intel side anyway.

We've been explicitly told that several aspects of it will be different.

Got a link for that? Only thing we know so far is that Apple will include a custom chip that will prevent OSX from running on anything but an Apple machine. Is that the great hardware innovation you are referring to?

 

[shamino]

I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you on a point-by-point basis, because we're getting absolutely nowhere repeating ourselves, but I will post my source for my claim that the DTK boxes are not going to be like the commercial units, since you seem to believe I'm making this up out of whole cloth.

Got a link for that? Only thing we know so far is that Apple will include a custom chip that will prevent OSX from running on anything but an Apple machine. Is that the great hardware innovation you are referring to?

The following FAQ entry quotes the same source that I and everybody else read several months ago:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#17

Dean Reece of Apple had this to say on the topic:

We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.

The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:

1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Hang in there...
- Dean

To repeat: Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
​

If you still think they're going to be shipping off-the-shelf PC motherboards, go right ahead and believe that, but the one (and only) source from within Apple that has said anything on the subject says that this is an unwarranted assumption, citing two key features that are likely to be different.

 

[rayz]

If you still think they're going to be shipping off-the-shelf PC motherboards, go right ahead and believe that, but the one (and only) source from within Apple that has said anything on the subject says that this is an unwarranted assumption, citing two key features that are likely to be different.

Mmm .. don't think I said that Apple would ship the devlopment boxes as the final product. What I did say was that Apple will be making generic PCs that can run Windows.

I was going to add that Apple obviously won't sell you copy of Windows to go with your Mac, then someone pointed out that they
already do

Yes, Apple has said all along that the development machines will not be the same machines that will be shipped (one would hope they get a nicer case at least!).

Apple will ship machines based on some future Intel technology, fair enough.

What you fail to grasp is that the same technology will be available to all PC manufacturerers, at the same time. Whether they choose to use it or not is a different matter, but the fact remains that it will be available to them.

To suggest that Intel will only make EFI availabe to Apple and not Dell (wow!) is just .. well ... odd.

So again, I fail to see what bit of custom technology Apple is going to use to separate them from the rest of the Intel world. And by the way, just having your own motherboard doesn't separate you from the crowd, unless there's something about it that no-one else can do. Any bit of non-generic technology (aside from a custom DRM chip!) will do. I just don't think it'll have anything like that at all.

Maybe Apple is working on some optical chips in the bowels of Cupertino, but somehow I doubt it.

You link is just a pointer to another piece of generic Intel technology that Apple may or may not use, but will be available to everybody, which is what I've been saying all along.

So unless you can come up with some bit of tech that Apple will use, that is not available to other PC OEMs, then I agree; we're all done.

 

[IamBob]

Custom Chip design is something you pay for

A custom chip design, sure. However, we're not talking "custom chip design" in the traditional sense - more like an optimized version of existing designs which should've been in the works from the beginning.

IBM screwed up. They should've had the foresight - they sell boxes with G5s in them(w/ higher margins than Apple's, IIRC). IBM's customers don't want improved power efficiency and/or more computational power per-rack? I find that hard to believe.

Never-mind the 3Ghz miss.