Preparing the BIG switch...

[fryke]

Let's for a moment assume that Apple will switch to X86-64 at the end of 2003. It's an assumption only. Don't scream "they won't!", because it's only an assumption.

Let's further assume that Apple has, when making the switch, Mac OS X ready for a new platform of PowerMacs, iMacs, PowerBooks and iBooks. Complete with support for Cocoa and Carbon applications, which only have to be recompiled with an X86-64 flag turned on. Classic won't be available on those new lines of Macintosh computers, but they'll all only be available after MWSF '04, anyway. And by then Classic software will be a thing of the past, anyway.

Now. Let's further assume that this new version of Mac OS X (let's call it 10.5) can't be run on plain PCs. You need a Mac to run it, but you can install VirtualPC 6 on such a new Mac and make full use of the X86-64 PC. Basically, Windows applications will run rootless on a Mac like that.

As a gag, VirtualPC 6 would come with a license of Windows XP Home and a Microsoft Optical 3-button mouse.

What would you think about such a move?

 

[KrinkleCut]

Okay I know it's not the point of your poll, but Virtual PC? To run Windows on the Apple machine with an x86-64? What would be the point of that? Apple wants people to 'switch', not 'accumulate'. It's the equivalent of saying 'you can't live without Windows, but OSX is nice too.'

Oh well, not really important I guess.

So let me get this straight, your projected move would have Apple drop classic all together (I know, inevitable anyway) - what about carbon - how does this fare in OS 10.5? Personally I'd have to reconsider my loyalty to Apple if they made a move that kills my carbon apps. If I have to buy all my software again anyway, I may as well offset the costs with a cheaper machine/platform. I require new hardware every couple of years to make money - if I have to fork out for all new software too, it's not a viable platform for me.

If I'm off base here, and carbon apps are fine, I'm cool with that. It's to the point where I don't see enough of a difference between my two year-old computer and the latest at the Apple Store to make me feel good about buying their hardware. Not a good sign.

 

[fryke]

hmm... if you read my post again, you'll see that i said carbon would be there...

and the point of having VPC running Windows in a kind of virtual machine would be, well, another good reason to switch. a lot of switching users want some kind of rope to hang on to, and VirtualPC is already such a (little) rope for them. IF you had a X86-64 processor in the machine, then why not also use that processor to run Windows applications natively? heck: Apple could even build a kind of 'Classic' if the bought VPC off Connectix!

 

[DMCrimson]

I'm pretty sure that with all Apple has invested in RISC and other technologies like Altivec, they definitely wont be switching to CISC...

 

[fryke]

Well, AMD's X86-64 is not _exactly_ a CISC processor, if you read the papers.

 

[Vard]

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, the 'SWITCH' campaign was actually preparing the MAC community for the 'SWITCH' to something like Fryke is saying?

Just a thought

Later,
Eddie

 

[MacLuv]

 

[kendall]

Apple had a hard enough time getting developers to port apps to OS X from OS 9. Do you honestly think that anytime in the near future Apple would once again expect developers to rerelease an OS X x86 version of their software. Most developers still write software that runs on both OSs.

Even if all it mean was turning on one specific flag, developers aren't going to want to recompile, rebox, relabel and resale the same product for the same OS but different architecture. This would be very costly for some developers. This is why backwards compatibility is so important to both Apple and Microsoft. This is why OS X took so long to get to us, just so people could have their stupid Classic environment and carbon apps. Developers don't have to worry about breaking compatibility and that's one less headache for them to worry about.

Is Apple going to have to build another environment just to run PPC OS X apps? Or maybe everything will just ship with FAT binaries that can be installed on both OS X PPC and OS X x86.

Apple doesn't want to once again go through the hassle. If Apple does switch architectures, then creating Classic and Carbon was just a waste of time because its not going to run on x86 without major retooling. Apple is going to hold out, wait for another PPC varient, the 970 or G5. If Apple wanted to switch architectures, they should have done it when they released OS X. Not right now when OS X is finally gaining some momentum. That would be tragic.

 

[ApeintheShell]

You have to figure though if they built Mac OS X from the ground up with NeXt technology of course, that they might take the chance to make another version of Mac OS X on x86.
That is what gets me excited about apple
and their innovation. They can do what we all doubt. it never fails.

If developers can endure through all of our platforms change im sure the complaints will sooner or later decipate.
example: microsoft windows and their constant standard changes

but we're picky users come to think of it*shrug*

 

[kendall]

Originally posted by ApeintheShell

If developers can endure through all of our platforms change im sure the complaints will sooner or later decipate.
example: microsoft windows and their constant standard changes

but we're picky users come to think of it*shrug*

This is a little different. You can install apps made to run on Windows 95 in XP just fine. You can install apps made to run on OS 9 in OS X just fine.

If Apple moves to x86, you wont be able to use any of your OS X PPC apps with OS X x86. For some people, this will be a huge reinvestment. Especially for those people who just got done upgrading all there apps to OS X. Could you imagine the cost of having to purchase all your current software over again? Could you imagine the anger of people who just switched all there apps over to OS X PPC? Could you imagine the cost that developers would incur having to rebuild, relabel, remarket and resale their software?

Like I said, if Apple was going to switch to x86, they should have done it when they released OS X. Its too late now unless they've figured out a way to make the 64-bit AMD Hammer backwards compatible with PPC.

 

[anerki]

So to solve that we could make Triple processor machines (like the Orange cards a long time ago if somebody remembers them)

2 PPC 7xxx or whatevers ...
1 x86-64 Processor

Thinking about huge power usage of course, maybe 350-400 Watt Power adaptors because the different CPU would require

1) A different daughterboard (my technical background on this is a bit sketchy)
2) Different RAM (whatever type, but RIMMs use power ...)
3) Special caches and all that to make the motherboard accept the new CPU what with USB, Firewire and PCI slots and all that ...

Just a wild idea ... Feel free to destroy my wild imagination

Greetz,
.frederik-jan

 

[fryke]

That would be an interesting concept. But i rather buy a separate cheapo PC for THAT.

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by itanium
Apple had a hard enough time getting developers to port apps to OS X from OS 9. Do you honestly think that anytime in the near future Apple would once again expect developers to rerelease an OS X x86 version of their software. Most developers still write software that runs on both OSs.

Even if all it mean was turning on one specific flag, developers aren't going to want to recompile, rebox, relabel and resale the same product for the same OS but different architecture. This would be very costly for some developers. This is why backwards compatibility is so important to both Apple and Microsoft. This is why OS X took so long to get to us, just so people could have their stupid Classic environment and carbon apps. Developers don't have to worry about breaking compatibility and that's one less headache for them to worry about.

Is Apple going to have to build another environment just to run PPC OS X apps? Or maybe everything will just ship with FAT binaries that can be installed on both OS X PPC and OS X x86.

Apple doesn't want to once again go through the hassle. If Apple does switch architectures, then creating Classic and Carbon was just a waste of time because its not going to run on x86 without major retooling. Apple is going to hold out, wait for another PPC varient, the 970 or G5. If Apple wanted to switch architectures, they should have done it when they released OS X. Not right now when OS X is finally gaining some momentum. That would be tragic.

You have the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. A vendor can easily include versions of its applications for multiple OSs, processors, etc. All of those AOL CDs are multi-platform.

As for VPC, Connectix already sells VPC for Windows. Insignia sold RealPC for OpenStep on Intel Processors. (That was the actual name of the product.) No new precedent is required. Apple could revise the rumored Red Box from Rhapsody days. All of these things are posssible. So is putting a 45 Magnum to your temple and pulling the trigger.

The problem is how does Apple switch to Intel processors and still make money. For one thing, all of this talk about an Intel-based Apple machine that cannot run Windows runs counter to everything that NeXT did and that Apple is doing. OpenStep ran on standard Intel-based machines. NeXT supported only certain configurations, but they were not hobbled in any way. Rhapsody runs on standard in-based machines. So too does Darwin-86. For Apple to go exclusively proprietary would mean that most of its research on Intel-based machines would have to be abandoned. And another thing on that point, Apple abandoned the ToolBox ROM because it was too expensive. Each new version of the OS had to be tested for all of the older supported versions of the ROM. That not only cost money, it takes time.

Top of the line Intel processors are more expensive that PPC processors. They produce more heat. Apple-based computers are much more finely engineered than those from Intel-based vendors. All of this means that an Apple-branded Intel-based computer would be more expensive than other Intel-based computers. They would also be more expensive than Apple-branded PPC-based computers. Yet, they would run the same software that much cheaper Intel-based computers would run.

Recipe for disaster? I think so.