Yup, was called Redbox during the NeXT OS fusing with System 9 phase, where everything was Rhapsody, prior to being released as OS X during the second coming of Steve Jobs. (Yellow Box is the GUI which became Aqua.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Enthusiasts Raise Concerns Over Upgrade Limitations of Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am not sure what is so hard for people to understand, that no matter what they do internally, they will never support both systems moving forward. It would send the absolutely wrong message. “We do not think our systems are good enough. If you want real power, you need to buy Intel.” It is just not going to happen. It would be bad for the company and terrible for the platform.
Even less likely would be for them to build a new system based on an AMD architecture with which they have never worked. It would be a two - three year project to build a system using a new architecture, and they is no way they started that three years ago.
I would add that having a build running internally in a lab is very very different from supporting millions of users.
So yeah, Apple is not doing it.
Not even Microsoft is willing to do it with Windows for different processor architecture.
(Looks at Windows ARM and Windows X86-64) - Pls explain this comment?
The way I look at it, the fact that MS only allows Windows ARM via OEMs says that they think supporting Windows ARMs users directly is not worth it.
You can download it, but it's on a gray area. Using a Windows x86 license should activate your product, and Microsoft has been allowing that so far. That's how you get virtualized ARM Windows on Apple Silicon.
What if Gurman just an moron that bit an fake bait from apple?
I'm very confident to see at the next wwdc an quad m2-max Mac pro with upgradeable ram , lots of PCIe slots even powerful discreet accelerator cards all in an bit smaller cheesegrater case.
You can get it with the Surface X, or you can download it. But that's a moved goalpost. The comment I replied to said:
[Context: Supporting (some number) of users running the different architectures)]
...and clearly that's not right. MS supports and is continually developing for both X86_64 and ARM.
Given that it's Microsoft that sells the Surface Pro X with the ARM chip running ARM Windows, your comment doesn't make sense. Microsoft clearly (directly) supports ARM Windows - for 100% of the Surface Pro X customer base.
Do they support it on hardware they do not control (real question, I have no idea as I do not really use it)? The problem for supporting it for OEMs is that one needs to support many changing drivers and configurations and that is much harder. Supporting a single laptop/tablet of their own is much easier than lots of configurations.
However, none of this has anything to do with Apple.
Apple is the hardware vendor and has a limited number of SKUs. It would not make sense for them to be selling against themselves in that way.MS does not.Do they support it on hardware they do not control (real question, I have no idea as I do not really use it)? The problem for supporting it for OEMs is that one needs to support many changing drivers and configurations and that is much harder. Supporting a single laptop/tablet of their own is much easier than lots of configurations.
However, none of this has anything to do with Apple.
For Apple, it does not.
I was/am speaking directly about Pro 3D "as their only occupation" users. While VFX and Post-Production as a linked term is somewhat vague historically that's meant editing, title graphics, MoGraph related to video integration and video editing. If I was wrong I apologize.
That's very different than 3D for games, movies, architecture, engineering etc. where Macs are a rare sightings in most work places because Apple has always overlooked those users. Unreal 5 doesn't even run basically well on MacOS and is missing key features on Apple Silicon as of some months ago.
Last edited:
I don't know if architecture as a profession is even needed anymore in the times of xxx-(add your favorite here)-GPT and so on. But I have believed Steve J. was impressed of some classic Mac developed architectural tools, at least sometime in the past he was: Graphisoft Story. I do apreciate the new tools there is to it, though. Just wouldn't want to be replaced by an AI. At least not entirely, please.
Now it (architecture) seems to be in at diminishing returns sector. Because you could pretty soon enjoy the goggles and metaverses instead. And at prices much more affordable than a freaking house.
That said it seems my concerns are not about Apple anymore, not only.
Now it (architecture) seems to be in at diminishing returns sector. Because you could pretty soon enjoy the goggles and metaverses instead. And at prices much more affordable than a freaking house.
That said it seems my concerns are not about Apple anymore, not only.
Always claiming that the Mac Clone development in the past failed so no other partnerships in the future are possible is a depressingly circular and obtuse argument that only cuts off paths of growth rather than opening paths.
Sony was trying to make Windows computers Mac like and it didn't work...for obvious reasons. This would be different on so many levels.
Nvidia was a primary OEM vendor for Apple for a SHORT period of time. AMD was a GPU vendor for Apple going all the way back to the PowerPC days and after Nvidia. Nvidia probably wasn't willing to just build the GPU on the motherboard and not get any credit like AMD did for YEARS. I suspect Nvidia kept wanting Apple to seed basic OS functionality tasks to the GPU exclusively and make Apple more dependent on them, but frankly with the way MacOS is built Apple could have had it both ways where those operations only worked from 3D apps, but it still would have allowed actual customers to have Macs that weren't obsoleted in functionality months after release.
Sony just wouldn't be nearly as territorial and would focus on satisfying the customer, blending what needed to be blended because that's the only way they would sell computers to a specific group of niches and half of the support would be coming from Apple.
Last edited:
If Apple was going to enter into a new "licensing agreement" it would be to sell Apple M* Pro/Max SoC packages to server OEMs to build with. Apple can charge through the nose if they're selling both the CPUs and the OS (or even just the CPUs). It isn't a market Apple has any interest in joining, but why not make a killing selling to it?
Now that would be neat, but it isn't going to happen.
Apple can charge through the nose if they're selling both the CPUs and the OS (or even just the CPUs). It isn't a market Apple has any interest in joining, but why not make a killing selling to it?Now that would be neat, but it isn't going to happen.
well for an few things apple may need to change NO DFU mode (or that very least build DFU MODE info the ipmi)If Apple was going to enter into a new "licensing agreement" it would be to sell Apple M* Pro/Max SoC packages to server OEMs to build with.
Now that would be neat, but it isn't going to happen.
Hot swap storage / have an min an raid 1 system for the built in storage.
I guess that Digital Domain, ILM, MPC, R&H, The Mill and Weta do not really mater as they all do Visual Effects and Post Production, but not only “Pro 3D” as “their only occupation“. Got it.
The games industry and auto design heavily use 3D Studio Max which does not run on a Mac, never has and is unlikely to ever do so in the future (lots of architectural reasons, none of them good).
I can say that there are lots of Macs in most film/tv Visual Effects houses. They also have lots of Linux systems and Windows machine.
Again, about the same percentage as Macs in the wild (7%-15%, depending on the year and country).
If by engineering, you mean M-CAD/E-CAD, again, really hard to get traction where some of the largest vendors (Pro Engineer as an example) do not support MacOS.
This has nothing to do with “Apple overlooking these users” and everything to do with software availability. Some software is not ported because it would be prohibitively expensive (3D Studio Max is one such example), and some because the companies markets are small enough that they have no interest. Paid for ports (where the port is paid for by a platform company) of commercial software have rarely been successful (I cannot think of an example where one was, but there might be one), therefore if the software companies do not see a benefit themselves, it really is hard to make it happen. Corporate support of open source projects (especially when the platform company‘s own engineers do the work), has had better results, so Apple can insure good versions of Blender and Natron if the wish.
What a surprise, the company suing Apple has not really done a good job keeping its software running on Apple’s platforms.
The best way for Apple to get other companies to port to their platforms is to build systems that are compelling and different than simple x86_64 machines. If they are simply x86_64 boxes, companies argue they can support the customer with virtualization.
That may be true, but you would have a better case if you actually responded with evidence of why things would be different this time, not just asserting that it would be (mostly because either you thought of it, or you wish it to be so).
No. Sony failed in the workstation space building Unix workstations at a time when there were many other successful workstation companies. Sony failed in the Windows PC space because they built more expensive systems that looked nice but did not work that well. What do they bring to the table? They have no corporate workstation sales organization, they have no track record of success in the computer market at any level. What would make this different? They never built high end X86_64 systems, just expensive machines that looked nice. They have not been in the workstation market since 1998 - a quarter of a century ago, meaning that they would have to build a completely new design organization to make such systems (even their former VAIO machines were not at the high end of the performance market, just at the high end of the price range for consumer focused machines). That would be a multi-year process. By the time they could enter the market, everyone would long since have either moved to Apple Silicon or Linux/Windows based x86_64 systems.
Apple typically alternated between nVidia and ATI (eventually bought by AMD), from as far back as the PowerPC days. It is a short time if you consider 23 years ago a short time.
AMD acquired ATI in 2006. nVidia provided GeForce cards for the PowerMac G4 in 2001 (they have have gone back further, but I stopped looking).
You are just making things up at this point. Putting it in all upper caps does not make it any more true. Apple always talked about the graphics card and/or discrete chip provider.
I think you are arguing that Apple should have seeded control of a critical piece of its operating system to a third party. Can you come up with any example where Apple has done that? Ever? By 3D apps do you mean any application that used 3D graphics like Final Cut, Motion, most games, chunks of the user interface, etc. or just some subset of those.
You say this based on what example? Given that Sony failed building workstations and failed building expensive, design focused Windows computers, why would they succeed this time? What recent experience do they have selling to these niche markets? Would they be limited to these niches in some way? How would they promote their machines against Apple’s machines, without denigrating Apple’s systems? How would it be beneficial for Apple to be arguing that Apple Silicon is not good enough?
There is no part of your argument that is based on reality as it actually exists, rather than some fantasy world you want to will into existence.
If Apple feels this market is worth addressing, they will build Apple Silicon systems that address it. If they do not feel it is worth addressing, they are not going to dedicate engineers to continue to support it in a way that would muddy the message and force them to share deep internal secrets with a third party that brings nothing to the table.