Slashdot Mirror
Cringely: OS X on Intel
sti writes: "Cringely's column this week argues that Apple should port OS X to the Intel platform. He makes an interesting case for it. I would definitely favour this. I've always had this warm spot in my heart for Apple but rarely had the money to pay for their overpriced hardware."
OS X on Intel just wouldn't have the same experience. When you buy an Apple machine you know that the OS is well tuned to run on that hardware. You don't have to worry about an odd mix of hardware or bios problems that are responsible for a number of woes on x86.
I think the only way for OS X to be viable on x86 is with different pricing. Say something like $50 for no support, but $150 with support. That way way nerds like us can play around with a leet OS cheaply, while those who need support would make up for lost hardware profits.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
First of all, I'm so tired of the "Overpriced Hardware" statement, but that's a different post. As for porting OS X to intel. let me explain this one more time:
The hardware is half the magic!!
The reason OS X and all the Mac OS's before it work so well, is that there is a finite, documented set of hardware that it has to work with. Unlike Linux and Windows OS developers, Mac OS developers don't have to worry about every pre 1990 ISA soundblaster compatable card, periphial, and motherboard.
Yes, OS X is great, so go support the company who put it together, by buying one of thier computers. You won't be disapointed.
Cringley himself answers his own stupid question... Who would buy such a beast? Mac users buy Mac hardware, so why bother? That's exactly right Cringley, so the product would be a waste of time. Either the Mac users would save some pennies on Intel hardware and Apple loses, or they wouldn't
and it would be a waste of time. Most users are simply not going to bother loading another OS with Windows, that's why BeOS failed. Linux is making some headway because (a) it's free as in beer and (b) it's free as in liberty. We don't need another stinkin proprietry OS, one is enough and users know it.
No, the biggest problem will be getting all of the application manufacturers to release two versions of the software. And before everyone talks about the 68K->PowerPC as a refutal, don't forget that that was only transitional. Try and find 68K binaries now. You get lucky somtimes, but not normally.
Now, the problem is simple. If you release on two platforms, you have to support two platforms. That is, two compilers, and their associated bugs. That is, two different endian systems. That is twice the headache in any project managers book.
Unforuntaely, this (Macintosh being overpriced) is not FUD. And I'm a Mac user.
The reason Mac hardware is considered overpriced is because the only thing we can compare them to is the prebuilt kits from Compaq, HP, etc..
There's no DIY aspect to Macs. It's like buying a dishwasher. Which is exactly what Jobs wants in the first place.
But, when you compare all of the Macintosh industry, to all of the x86 industry, the Macs do fall behind in the price department.
This is a visceral implementation of the Cheap, Easy, and Fast problem. Apple chose Fast and Easy. And implemented that well.
Rather than nay-saying anyone who has anything against the pricing of Macs as FUD-broadcasters, I think it is more important to point out how FSCKING SIMPLE AND COOL MacOS is compared to just about anything else in the non-free OS market.
Cringely points out possible benefits to Apple if they enter the OS market on Intel (and has several good points). But what about the certain negatives? Apple now is a mild threat to MS's power. But if they 'infringed' on turf that was MS's, they would certainly be targeted by the giant. Is it really in Apple's best interests to rouse that big of bully? I don't think so.
Cringely mentions Netscape in his article (how by competition, MS made IE better). Look what happened in that case. Would Apple want to risk the same fate? To sacrifice themselves so that Windoz might be a little nicer to use.
Come on.
The thrust of Cringely's argument, which he devotes most of his article to, is this: Apple should port OS X to Intel because "it is exactly the competitor Microsoft needs." But what really matters to Apple is: Will porting OS X to Intel make Apple more or less profitable?
Cringely resolves this complex matter in the space of a paragraph length assertion "The upside for Apple is enormous. Suddenly, their software budget is leveraged across a much larger number of units, making the company more profitable and able to spend even more on making the software better."
Really, Cringely? I think we need more than a handwaving assertion to back this up. e.g. What effect will porting OS X to Intel have on Apple Hardware sales? What will MS's response will be - will it withdraw its Office and IE products for OS X? etc.
Love it or loathe it, Mac Hardware has consistently been the most interesting consumer products in computing. To wit:
Last time Apple licensed their OS and made beige boxes like everyone else they almost went out of business.
As far as anyone complaining that Apple hardware is too expensive, go on eBay and buy any slot-loading iMac, max out it's ram, and install OS X. It runs OS X great, and you can get these darn things for, oh about $300 dollars. If they're anything like my Macs, they will last 6 years without a blip.
My father is a blogger.
It's simple. Let's say apple release OSX on intel. Forget their hardware sales, forget support problems. This would be the future:
1) Office is no longer available on any apple lines, neither is Explorer.
2) Office XP++ doesn't write in any format office X can read.
3) Office was never available for OSX on intel.
4) Microsoft tells Dell, HP, etc that if they want to offer OSX then windows wil cost $$$$ more per copy.
which leaves apple going steadily bankrupt, and the masses with no options if they want user-friendly but don't want Bill....
I'd love it, I'd be first in line to buy it, but it ain't gonna happen
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Where is Cringley getting useful applications for OSx86? One of the things that has kept the mac platform alive is very stable & mature ports of MS Office. MS will *not* port office to a direct windows competitor.
Sure, it's BSD, so OSS apps can be compiled for it, but people don't want abiword or kword, they want MS Word. There's no way apple is going to bundle pre-compiled OSS software, and even if they did, it's not what people are looking for. If anything, without apps, this would be a niche desktop OS.
Unless Cringley expects a perfect win32 emulator to appear, or perhaps he supports a classic mode for windows [this is feasible, grab the netraverse guys and port win4lin to bsd in a rootless mode], this won't work.
The real problem porting would be Quartz. From what I understand, Quartz is rather heavily optimized for AltiVec. They might be able to help the x86 version along with better video card acceleration, but they would probably have to settle for slower speeds there anyway. The other problem would be Classic. If Apple even bothered porting Classic to x86, it would run incredibly slow because it would have to emulate a PowerPC as well as a 68K chip.
However, a port to x86 would bring up some very interesting possibilities, such as a WINE type system for running Windows binaries, rather than a Virtual PC type full emulation. Or perhaps an end to this stigma MacOS has in the eyes of game developers.
That way dual-booting might actually be a nice thing. On one side you have linux, on the other you have OSX, a beautiful and powerfull OS, not some Microsoft piece of crap. Plus we get nice hardware. Altivec anyone?
Pedro Côrte-Real.
It always amazes me how forgetful geeks are of their geek "history". Even events that happened scarcely a decade ago fade into the background, much less thirty or more years ago.
It's time for a short lesson in Ancient Apple History, kiddies.
It turns out Apple had seriously considered porting the MacOS to Intel hardware in a joint venture with Novell beginning in 1992, as part of the secret, so-called "Star Trek" project (although Intel's Andy Grove knew of and supported it.) It's all covered in detail in Jim Carleton's book "Apple" (yes, sometimes you have to actually read real books, people!), on pg. 166-180, and elsewhere.
The goal was to put the Mac's "finder," which provides the distinctive look and fell of the Macintosh on the screen, onto an Intel-based computer...(Gifford) Calenda designated a former System 7 manager, Chris DeRossi, to head up Apple's side of the project. In a meeting with their colleagues from Novell, someone suggested the endeavor be called "Star Trek". "The idea beaing 'Boldly go where no Macintosh has gone before,' Rolander recalls.
Note that this is all well before the release of Windows 95. One can only wonder what the outcome of a full-out battle of the Mac OS with Windows 95 on Intel boxes would have been, because the project was killed in 1993, shortly after a working prototype was developed. The ostensible reason given by Carleton was that the cost of development was too high : Apple had finite resources, and didn't commit a large enough software budget to handle both the release of MacOS for Power PC hardware and Intel simultaneously.
Carleton goes on to criticize Apple for its short-mindedness in squandering a prime chance to compete for market share. However, the larger debate within Apple has always been whether to pursue the "high-right" strategy of selling small numbers of highly profitable boxes and hardware, or the "low-left" strategy of selling larger numbers of low profit boxes and hardware. The same debate occurred when Apple licensed its hardware in the late 1990s. The discussion ultimately comes down to this basic point.
While I won't go into the merits of both sides of the argument (Carleton does in some detail), I will note that people don't run computers for the operating system : they run it for the applications. For the largest fraction of consumers, the single largest software application is Microsoft's Office. Microsoft now develops and sells Office for MacOS because it is a nice niche market, and doesn't directly compete with it's bread-and-butter Wintel market.
However, would Microsoft develop Office for an Intel-based MacOS directly in competition with Windows? I would bet not. Think about what that means for an Intel-based MacOS.
Best,
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
As for cost, the price of a high end Mac doesn't seem so unreasonable compared to similarly configured high end dual Xeon (and even Athlon MP) workstations. It may even come out favorably for Apple. The Apple entry level isn't so high, either. The cost argument has just been the most popular anti-Apple FUD lately.
As for ease of use, I'm still not buying the idea that Macs are easier to use. There are ancient studies and a lot of unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence, but not much proof of anything. I think it's pretty much a wash, and probably a dead issue.
As for speed, the G4 leaves me unimpressed. Altivec optimized binaries _do_ scream, but for >95% of the code you run, they don't seem any faster (MHz for MHz) than Intel's Pentium 2/3 generation. Binaries optimized for the P4's extended instructions, and account for the branch predictor that is woefully inadequate for its deep pipeline are also very fast, but in the PC world, this is considered a Bad Thing(R).
Of course, that brings me to one of the more interesting concepts: there is a perverse relationship between the Macintosh and PC worlds. Hardware/software/design deemed good by one camp is considered bad for the other. All-in-one systems have never been popular PC designs, and so on.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz