Slashdot Mirror
Does New Development For Mac OS X Make Sense?
DLWormwood wonders: "As a long time Mac developer, originally as a hobbyist and then a professional, I'm feeling pessimistic about the future of the platform now that Apple is embracing Intel and abandoning the few remaining 'Mac' technologies (like the PowerPC and OpenTransport) left to the platform. With the high likelihood that these new Macs will offer a full speed version of Virtual PC and (what I think is) the almost assurance that some clever hacker will make 'X for x86' run on commodity hardware, I'm doubting the willingness of most IT and development houses to even give the Carbon and Cocoa APIs a first glance. (If it wasn't for the poor past performance of VPC, I would not have gotten my first Mac programming job.) Can anybody with a more optimistic view think of a scenario where a modern development house will do Mac development in an age where the help desk will just say either 'switch boot to Windows/Linux' or 'run Virtual PC?'"
Apple is much more than just a processor. What really differentiates Apple from the Windows world is the OS. Not to get into the argument about stability, OS X is much more intuitive and overall an easier to use operating system.
I don't think that you will come into a situation where a help desk would tell a user to switch into Windows or run VirtualPC because I doubt that Macs will ever come with those pieces of software installed. Working at a helpdesk is not about telling users what they should do, it's about helping them do what they want to do
I think that now that Apple is switching to Intel they will have more flexibility in pricing and will probably continue to grow their market share. I'd say that the prospects for Mac developers will be better than ever in the future. If you need another opinion check out this article.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
I think your view, while logical and understandable, is unnecessarily pessimistic.
The market has always viewed the Mac as another computer, one interchangeable with every other computer. While a Mac is (technology wise) a computer, the people who buy them view them very differently and the sheer dynamics of the Mac Economy (the customers, companies and products that hinge on the Mac platform) prove this out.
Take your fear of people figuring out how to run X on beige boxes... Apple doesn't care about these folks. Simply by having not purchased a Mac, this portion of the market has already proven that they are unwilling to have ever paid the Apple premium so, in effect, Apple will virtually never loose a sale to this crowd.
Or think of it this way; the kind of people who are drawn to the Mac platform are drawn to it PRECISELY because they don't want to fuck around with patches, workarounds and general hackery in order to make their computer run. Here is the test: could you imagine telling your mother to run out, buy a beige box, download some boot hack, install it, then install OS X on top of that? Probably not and that's exactly why Apple isn't going to be kept up at night worrying about the people who are going to hack OS X to run on commodity hardware.
If anything, I think this will bolster Mac sales- the kind of people who are willing to jump through the hoops to make OS X run on beige boxes are computer enthusiasts and typically serve as the computer information maven within their circle of friends. I think that if these hardcore Windows guys get OS X (for free) and play with it on their beige (or Tie Fighter) boxes, they are going to be pretty impressed. When it comes to telling people what computer to buy though, they will probably just recommend to their friends that they buy a Mac.
The same logic generally applies to your second point (will software developers still make Mac versions of their stuff). I think that the answer here is again, a big yes because there is a fairly substantial wall between people who will want to run native apps and people who want to run emulated apps. As someone with a Mac, I've proven (by voting with my dollars) that I am someone who will pay a premium to have an elegant computer that "Just Works." Any software developer with half a brain is going to realize that forcing the Mac customer to run clunky Windows emulation (even if it is at native speed) is inherently out of step with what that customer wants.
I think this is the perfect time to start developing Mac software. Porting over PC code is going to be easier then ever. The overall buy rate of Macs is going to be increasing significantly. A major chunk of risk in regards to the stability of the Mac platform has now been removed. Apple will be rocking the computer world within the next 24 months...
What makes the Mac OS what it is is the platform, and all the technologies involved with it. These are not going away.
Macs are %90 PCs anyway, they use products from Intel, AMD and other chip venders and they use the industry standard architecture of PCI. They just use a different CPU.
I think this move is being made to make the Mac platform more viable and vibrant, not less.
Though I don't quite see the path yet either... the platform is still wonderful, and Cocoa is still the best development environment ever.
PS Am I really first post? Weird.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
nope sorry...not really. though i already use several different linux distros, and even a windows box (for gaming). i have a power book, but i just cant really get into it...its just ...too gui for me.
though my parents love osx (as they arent power users). i never really saw much in the way of what OSX could offer me that my *nix boxes couldnt. even with a few simple steps my windows box is clean, though smei bloated with MS code and default features...
Well, I'm fairly sure OpenTransport has been gone for a while now, but to answer the question...
One, Mac users will still want Mac-native applications. Witness the lack of interest in X11 ports of Linux programs. These all work just fine, but look comparatively ugly. Same goes for Java apps.
Two, Cocoa and friends is a wonderful language / API set. The programs I have made under OS X have been actually fun to create and build. I, for one, will still program for OS X, regardless of what everyone else does, because I use OS X.
I think the problem facing people programming for OS X will be the same as it always has been, which is just getting enough user base to make the application financially viable for companies. That is up to the markets.
There are a lot of things that made a Mac a Mac long before those two technologies were introduced.
NuBus
Motorola 680xx CPUs
SCSI
1.44 MB Floppies
ADB
HyperCard
(and many others)
Did the Mac stop being a Mac when those technologies were replaced with other, better technologies or dropped altogether?
I'm completely confused by your assertation that if someone makes OS X run on beige boxes that development houses won't look at Carbon/Cocoa. In a word, "HUH???" How do those two statements have any correlation to each other whatsoever?
Apple needed to switch to a different chip supplier because IBM/Motorola will be spreading themselves thin filling supply contracts for all three next-generation consoles. Since those contracts are going to be bigger and more lucrative than Apple's purchasing commitments IBM/Motorola probably told them they'd be last in line.
Apple saw the writing on the wall and moved to a CPU supplier that can fulfill their needs. That they get a higher speeds, dual cores, and lower prices also is just icing on the cake to them.
How this change affects corporate adoption of the Macintosh platform is probably a great big, "not much". Those industries that have shown a predilection to Macs will continue to use them. Those that haven't, won't. Unlike geeks, most people don't care what chip runs their PC. They care about what tools are at their disposal.
If it quacks it's a duck. If it has minimalistic (not minimal) design esthetics, ease of use, runs OSX, and is sold by Steve Jobs it's a Macintosh. It's a Mac regardless of what collection of silicon and transistors makes it run.
If I have to reboot to a different environment I lose access to all of my prior programs. We're talking about computers here, not gaming consoles. Being able to run multiple programs on the same desktop (plural for those with virtual desktops) is a huge benefit.
As to the idea of Virtual PC running at native speeds, I am unwilling to call this as a negative. (It sounds too much like the complaints of the buggy-whip makers.) If something becoming faster, better, etc. endangers an occupation based on compensating for that previous slowness or other faults, then it's time for that occupation to die. Let it go.
If anything, full speed VPC will help Mac adoption as the few programs which require Windows can then be used inside of OS X.
The key factor here is which of the desktops provide the better user experience. That desktop will become the dominant one, assuming that apps from either OS can be used. When that happens, it will make more sense for software houses to program for that dominant desktop.
So we've heard alot of rumors about this change in the last few weeks, Apple made their big announcement yesterday.
And now we're swamped with all these Apple people throwing out fearful statements like "Apple's switching to Intel, therefor Apple going to get replaced by Windows!".
You guys DO realize that an Apple computer is more then just a Processor, right? There's still a whole proprietary computer built around the CPU, and this OS X thing which runs on the Hardware, and some applications which run on the OS.
I seem to remember similar hysteria during the old MacOS to OSX change. "My programs will never run! The WORLD IS OVER!" but Apple's been doing pretty well since then, as has development for the Mac.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
The issue for developers isn't that bad - after all, apple appears to be making it fairly easy to produce cross platform code. If you were going to develop before, why not now? It will be many years before there is a significant number of apple intel systems to run PC stuff quickly. If you were going to write for the apple PPC last week, your situation hasn't changed much and won't for the next couple of years. You will write with standard PPC tools, or use the latest version of Xcode (or similar) which produces fat binaries, and runs on both platforms without a performance hit.
Interestingly, the major improvements in Tiger, such as core video and so on, move all the graphically intensive stuff into the GPU. The cleverness of this is that the lack of the altivec units aren't such a big issue if you use the OS X core API's - everything is done in the graphics card, altivec is much less important, and this means that emulation of the PPC code will work fairly fast on their software emulator (rosetta). So your legacy code isn't going to suffer too much, and newer code even less so using the core API's even if you don't use fat binaries, which you will.
Of course, you could just write for windows, but then you are going to miss a large number of apple users and watch other developers make money in that market whilst you compete in the win32 sphere. Your choice as a developer I guess.
Eventually, the powerbook I am writing this on will be a legacy piece of hardware because the number of people using PPC will be too small to be worth developing for.
However, a similar situation exists for old windows boxes, not because the processor has changed, but because the hardware requirements are too high for big new apps to work on it.
This process will take many years to occur, and won't be a problem for developers unless all new purchases stop for apple.
If this happens, you will get alot of warning over the next 6-12 months that its time to bail from apple.
As a user of apple computers, after the initial concern, I am much less worried about making new purchases because the obsolescence of the current models will take years to occur. It really isn't so different from the transition of OS 9 to OS X. You can still run stuff in classic mode. And my current power book is still a magical 12" laptop that does what I need, and will be good for a few years no matter what, and for which I'll still buy new software for (if its good enough to buy). So the market will still be there.
I don't think that many apple fans will jump ship, even if they are not happy - after all, what is the alternative? Go back to windows? Get your apps working under linux (like iLife, Keynote, etc?). Even if you feel abandoned by apple, the alternatives are still either a malware ridden platform or alot of hard work and a significant drop in the eye candy factor.
In the longer run, its going to be more a case of alot more dissatisfied windows users jumping ship and the apple user base growing, in my opinion.
My 2c worth
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Nobody buys a Mac because it's got a cool processor - they but it because it's got a great interface that makes life easier for them.
Who cares if it's x86 or PowerPC - it's the OS and the Apps that make Macs great.
My Journal
Is OSX really tied down to the PowerPC chip. As far as i can tell with X being based off the BSD kernel you could just replace it with the stock BSD kernel for an x86 chip and continue business as usual.
Just because OS X will run on Apple-branded x86 machines doesn't mean that those users will also have Windows on them as well, even though they CAN. Same thing for Virtual PC. Those things are optional, and I'd say most machines will probably NOT have them. So, that's really not any different from the current situation, is it?
What's more likely is that the PowerPC versions of Linux will see development slow to a crawl (over time).
The new x86 Apple platform will be THE platform to have for multiple OS support. OS X, Windows, Linux and all the BSDs, should run just fine, most likely. That'll be nice.
I'm just hoping that the rumours of WHICH Intel processors they'll be using are correct (the Pentium M line). I'd really rather they not go with the Pentium D line. A nice Yohan or Merom-based Apple would be pretty great. Still woulda preferred some nice Athlon 64 action, though. Oh well, can't have everything.
Either the question is very poorly worded or the submitter (and the editors) have no clue what they're asking.
:)
From an application programming perspective the APIs have virtually nothing to do with the hardware platform.
(Though I must say it's amusing reading all these threads about it...!
Because the CPU is irrelevant in the big picture. People buy the engineered package, called an iMac or a PowerMac or a PowerBook, and the PowerPC is really a sidebar in the whole deal.
Sure, some apps perform better on PowerPC, but some others perform better on x86. And no one said exactly what model of Intel CPU future Macs will have. Given that Mr. Jobs mentioned a concern about power consumption, I'd bet that the current Pentium 4 or Xeon CPUs will not get a Mac logo. The Pentium M or an even better CPU in the pipeline (Jobs specifically said he had access to Intel's roadmap) are much more likely to be in future Macs.
Watching the keynote reminded me why people love Apple. It really has nothing to do with PowerPC. The WWDC presentation was full of energy and hype and buzz, and the audience applauded and cheered like no other tech company presentation I've seen.
They will (use Cocoa, etc.) when OS X becomes the dominate OS.
/.?! I wish I could post a freakin comment. Slashsuck seems to think 30 minutes is less than 2 minutes.
The fact of the matter is that it's not a lot different than it is now. OS X is still OS X and it will still be running on Apple hardware (which will be the only legal way to run it).
--
And WTF is wrong with
Why does it seem so strange that people might actually choose products based on their attributes?
you had me at #!
This is the same reason why Linux people are still pushing Linux apps like Open Office, and other tools for linux. You can install VMWare in Linux and run your Windows very fast almost native speed like VirtualPC. Why would you want Linux apps if you can run all your windows apps in Linux using VMWare? Well first you have the hassle of running windows on top of an other platform needing each window to reach a normal screen resolution. Secondly there is cross communication between the two OS while some things work well others don't. I don't think most people got a Mac because they went. I want a platform that can't run windows and where people on each side of the debate say each other platform is faster. They buy a Mac because OS X is easy to use, Dependable, and secure. Unlike windows and linux which is designed to run on a bunch of hardware. OS X is optimized and designed to run on whatever platform that Apple produces. As well the hardware is well designed, for appearance, functionality, sound, and usefulness. From handles on the PowerMacs, to a small form factor.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I've noticed a lot of strange talk lately. That somehow the x86 Mac is a BAD thing. That somehow, Mac software will cease to exist. I just don't get it.
I'm feeling pessimistic about the future of the platform now that Apple is embracing Intel and abandoning the few remaining 'Mac' technologies (like the PowerPC and OpenTransport)
Those are not "Mac" technologies! Those are implementation details! Who cares what kind of chip is under the hood?
What kind of "long time mac developer" are you anyway, don't you know what makes programming a Mac special? The nice clean APIs. The integration of all the services (want to write a Bonjour-enabled program that shares iTunes playlists whenever you drop the computer? No problem!)
Programming in Objective C and Cocoa is like getting a hand job. I put it right up there with Ruby and my other favorite languages, even though it is positively ancient (but its old age is just indicative of how well-designed it is).
I can't imagine writing GUI apps without the various tools Apple makes available.
With the high likelihood that these new Macs will offer a full speed version of Virtual PC and (what I think is) the almost assurance that some clever hacker will make 'X for x86' run on commodity hardware, I'm doubting the willingness of most IT and development houses to even give the Carbon and Cocoa APIs a first glance.
Do you seriously think "X on x86" will be anything more than a geek toy and/or a cease and desist magnet? Just forget about that, it ain't gonna happen.
And the virtual PC thing is also a red herring. I'm not going to pay $150 for a copy of Windows just so I can run your $20 shareware (or whatever) on my Mac.
I also don't care what "most IT and development houses" are doing. Shrink-wrapped software from big companies is pretty much a dead industry to me outside of a few things like PhotoShop. I buy shareware, I use open-source, those are people who are passionate about the platform.
Now that I think about it, I probably don't want folks like you writing Mac software in the first place, because you don't believe in the platform. That's what your question suggests, anyway.
Can anybody with a more optimistic view think of a scenario where a modern development house will do Mac development in an age where the help desk will just say either 'switch boot to Windows/Linux' or 'run Virtual PC?'
Yeah, because when people buy a Mac, they aren't going to buy Windows or Linux along with it. They don't want some hideous Windows crap on their desktop that doesn't respond to the services menu, that doesn't work right with Expose, and that doesn't minimize to the dock.
As for folks making windows-only software and telling mac users "we aren't going to write a mac version, go do XYZ (XYZ = use Java, buy a PC, go fuck yourself, etc)".. how is that different than now?
I repeat, x86 on Mac is just an implementation detail that means nothing to me. All I know is that in a couple years, my new Macs will be faster and cheaper, that's fine with me.
All the buzz on the news and the blogs is going to die down and we'll move on. It really isn't a big deal, the sky isn't falling, the users don't care, the developers SHOULDN'T care because they will still have enthusiastic paying customers, so really, who cares? I guess game programmers who have mastered PowerPC assembly might be a little annoyed, that's about all I can think of.
ever wonder how windows got so big? why it runs on every desktop? piracy. piracy is not always bad.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
...is some kind of big deal or 'legal issue' or geek-only passtime are living on moon base alpha.
It not only will happen, but unless Apple slash the prices on their own hardware it will be the pissed off Mac users that will go this route first.
It is very very difficult to justify to an increasingly consumer savy public that you can't run OS X on generic x86 boxes because Apple have have put a byte in the ROM somewhere to stop that happening.
Why would anyone want to pay a premium for crippleware ?
The 'legal' side of it is just irrelivant as well, totally meaningless. It was never their lawyers that made Apple sell products it was the genuine users and fans that held a passion for the Apple experience. Now that has been turned on it's head by Jobs anything is up for grabs.
I don't want to have to use Windows versions of programs. I don't like the way Windows lays things out. I don't like the UI. I just don't like Windows. That's why I have a Mac. I don't personally care much about the pretty outer shell, though it's a nice bonus - and there's no way in hell I'd buy the shell if I were going to have to run Windows to get anything done.
I'd switch back to Linux first. (Although, of course, anything I can get in Linux I should be able to get in OS X, so that wouldn't really be necessary...)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Are you out of your mind? OpenTransport was a part of Mac OS 9. It's never been a part of Mac OS X.
Oh, wait. You must mean HyperTransport. But wait. Let me ask you something. First, what the fuck do you know about Apple's abandoning it? You know that Apple's G6 machines are going to have Pentium D processors on Apple-built system boards. So of course Apple will use whatever component busses are available.
But second, what the fuck do you care what components Apple uses? That's like giving a shit about who made the ball bearings in your chair.
A Mac is a computer that runs the Macintosh operating system. That's it.
No matter what Windows-on-a-Mac solution you've got in mind, I can assure you that it won't come out of Apple's hands. That'll make it essentially nonexistent for the vast majority of average users. Apps will still have to be developed for OS X for those users. And if dual-booting becomes an issue, Apple most likely make it impossible through a quiet update, a la the Rhapsody issue.
----- "All right. It was a miracle. Can we go now?"
You should leave the OS X development arena. It'll leave more room for me...
I recently ordered a Mac Mini (up to day 11 of the wait - already overdue) - will future releases of OS X run on my Mini?
It is reasonable to assume that 10.5 and probably 10.6 will be released as PPC versions, but what about there-after?
For internet usage, audio/video/DVD playback, such a computer should last at least 6 years (just like my PIII has). Did I make a poor 'investment' or will Apple release PPC OS X for several years to come?
Mike
If a Mac could run the handful of Windows only programs I need (in addition to generic apps) to do my job, exactly what arguments could my boss use to stop me buying one?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Steve Jobs would recommend (by deed, if not by word) that you avoid tying youself to a single platform. Go ahead and develop for Mac, but make sure that your product also runs (to the extent possible) on other platforms.
You may save yourself a lot of grief if something goes wrong with your favorite platform. (Apple might bundle equivalent function with the OS, as happened to Konfabulator). At the very least, you will learn a lot about platform differences.
Just because it is Intel it doesnt mean jack shit it will be x86. From what I understand, Apple owns the IP of the PowerPC design. There is no reason why Intel can not make a bigger, badder PowerPC, just with an Intel logo on it rather than IBMs. Just a thought......
Is it confimred that it will be the x86? Intel can probably build other processors to Apples spec too. Does comodity hardware mean you have run an x86? Would it be as simple as flashing a new rom into say a cheap soyo motherboard to get it to run with a chip that is not an x86? How close is the hardware tied to the processor and it's instruction set? Same form factor different animal anyone?
If you permit Windows to run on OS X as well as on native Windows, you concede the most important battle by telling developers that using the Windows APIs is just as good as using your own APIs.
I never saw OS/2, but it happens all the time that some useful app comes to the Mac as an ugly port from windows/linux and gets picked up. Its popularity always lasts precisely as long as it takes for a Mac-native competitor to appear.
The fact is, any developer who decides that using the Windows APIs is just as good as using Apple's APIs isn't going to last very long on Apple's platform -- not because they'll give up but because they'll be replaced. Mac-native applications will still be written as long as users keep voting with their feet, the same way they do now. I haven't seen any reason that should change.
If things *didn't* work out this way with OS/2, it's either because their users didn't strongly prefer native apps, or there weren't enough of those users to justify independent development. I've been on Macs for a decade, and everything I've seen suggests that your history just doesn't apply here.
almost assurance that some clever hacker will make 'X for x86' run on commodity hardware, I'm doubting the willingness of most IT and development houses to even give the Carbon and Cocoa APIs a first glance.
Doesn't this make the platform all the MORE attractive? People like OSX, people are INFATUATED with it. The main barrier people have is the expensive (and sometimes viewed as inferior) hardware. Now that's not an issue, and if OSX for x86 is able to run on my crappy bargain basement PC, wouldnt' that mean MORE market for OSX software?
If the windowing system and graphical environment (Aqua/Cocoa/etc) were open sourced and could run on top of Linux/FreeBSD/etc., I'd never touch X again.
As a long time Mac developer, originally as a hobbyist and then a professional, I'm feeling pessimistic about the future of the platform now that Apple is embracing Intel and abandoning the few remaining 'Mac' technologies
You are extremely lucky to be developing Mac applications for a living. I envy you.
Apple is still going to be making incredibly well designed computers. They'll still be named "Macintosh". The Macintosh will still have a great looking case. The OS will still be called "Mac OS X" and will have code names based off of large cats. What will change is that the CPU inside the Macintosh will be named something else. That's it. You will still have to buy it from Apple, and you will not be able to put your Mac OS X installation DVD into a Dell or Gateway PC and expect it to install. Hackers may come up with a way, but it will be unsupported, since anyone who installs the OS onto a non-Apple certified machine will be breaking their license agreement. No company in their right mind will run PCs with a hacked OS X installed -- they'll just buy Macintosh computers and be done with it... and they'll be better off for it as well.
So program away, and feel good about yourself, you are doing what others only wish that they could do.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Back in the OS 9 days, a company called connectix (bought by MS) created a product for the mac called "vitural playstation". It allowed your mac to play playstation games. It was cool and worked well on the hardware of the day (around 400 mhz?) . Life was good.
Then someone pointed out, OMG, if this software get s better than noone will write Mac games (mac games were few and far between), because you could just buy a virtual playstation and playstation games.
It never happened. People still created mac games as emulated while fine, wasn't as good.Sony sued connectix and lost and ended up buying the virtual playstation and deep sixing it. Connectix went on create virtual PC and get purchased by MS (insert speculation about xbox 2 emulation here)
Native apps matter. They look and feel better. itunes is a mac app on windows and at work it looks and feels wierd on Windows, even though it acts like a normal mac app. (I'm os agnostic, I regularly us Mac (home) Solaris/Hp-ux and windows (work).
What would be cool is a port of the Mac libraries to linux (GNUSTEP http://www.gnustep.org/ ) so one could write mac/linux apps.
This is just stupid. "PowerPC" doesn't make the Mac. Otherwise, IBM would be a big seller of Macintoshes. Open Transport is just a poor attempt at reinventing the wheel. It made sense before TCP/IP was the only game in town, but it belongs in the bit bucket, in favor of modern network stacks built around IP.
With the high likelihood that these new Macs will offer a full speed version of Virtual PC and (what I think is) the almost assurance that some clever hacker will make 'X for x86' run on commodity hardware, I'm doubting the willingness of most IT and development houses to even give the Carbon and Cocoa APIs a first glance.
Sorry, but this is just as stupid. Once again, what is OS X, if not Carbon and (especially) Cocoa? Lots of developers code for X, not because it runs on PowerPC, but because, well, it's cool. Powerful apps are quite easy when you're provided a good set of frameworks.
Can anybody with a more optimistic view think of a scenario where a modern development house will do Mac development in an age where the help desk will just say either 'switch boot to Windows/Linux' or 'run Virtual PC?'
You definitely don't get it. Mac is the frameworks. Intel changes none of this.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
(I liked it so much, I bought the sig)
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
I tend to agree with your pessimism, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons.
The shift from PPC to Intel signals a shift in culture at Apple. It means that Apple has gone from being an innovative 'cool', 'hip' company (of course we know that a lot of that is just marketing hype) to being much more staid and conservative.
If Steve Jobbs felt he really needed to make a move to a different CPU he could have made a very bold move (something he _has_ done in the past) and chosen to move towards the Cell processor. Why would that make so much sense? Well, for one each Cell processor contains several PowerPC processors, so chances are there would have been a fairly easy transistion from PPC to Cell - almost seamless. And two, the Cell architecture promises a quantum leap in performance over what is available now.
But instead, Steve looked out over the CPU landscape and chose Intel. Intel: boring, staid, not terrifically innovative anymore, married to an old CPU architecture. Their only real gamble in recent years was the Itanium and it failed miserably.
So this time the switch from PPC to X86 is nothing like the switch from 68K to PPC for Apple. Going to the PPC really did give Apple a quantum leap in performance. This switch is being done more for bottom-line business reasons. Jobbs feels he can get better pricing out of Intel. He also feels that the relationship with IBM was somewhat rocky. I think one of the big problems was that he couldn't get a G5 in a laptop. However, he may have lost his patience at just the wrong time. IBM was apparently about to be able to fulfill that wish.
This was a huge opportunity lost for Apple. Had they gone with the Cell processor it's possible that they would have been able to create machines that were so much faster than Intel/AMD PCs that it would have drawn a lot of attention and market share. But instead Apple took the safe route. Too bad. These are strange days when Microsoft is going towards PPC (XBox 360) and Apple is moving towards Intel. Perhaps the bold move in the computing world will come from an IBM/Sony partnership creating Cell-based boxes that run Linux.
But look on the bright side: in a few years you'll be able to pick up dual 2.5GHz G5 machines at garage sales for about $25.
The original poster actually brings up a huge point that NO ONE SEEMS TO GET. You're all blathering on about how no consumers are going to abandon the mac, it's more than the chip, blah blah blah when the guy (or gal) was actually talking about DEVELOPERS abandoning the platform because it's no longer necessary to develop for it because it'll run any old Wintel app via VPC or other emulation. That's sounds pretty freaking plausible, if you ask me. For example:
CFO: Well Mr. Chairman, we could either invest $5 million dollars to develop the next version of Killer® App(TM) MX CS 6.0 for both Windows and Mactel and Mac PPC machines... ooooooorrrr, we could spend $2.5 million to develop it for Windows and tell the 3% Mac market to run Virtual PC.
Chairman of the Board: Well, I think the decision is obvious, then, Ted.
CFO: But, OS X has a wonderful user experience, a beguiling user interface and no viruses...
Chairman of the Board: *blank stare*
Shareholder: SCREW THE MAC! SAVE MONEY! MORE MONEY! GROWTH! REVENUE! SYNERGY! MOREMONEYMOREMONEMOREMONEY! *DROOL*SLATHER*HOWL@THEMOON*
CFO: *sigh*
Chairman of the Board: We're awfully glad to have a team player like yourself on our team, Ted. Here's a solid gold card for your quarterly bonus, plus a luscious high-class prostitute.
CFO: Screw the Mac. Let them eat Virtual PC!
Christ people, can't you read the writing on the wall for 20 seconds before letting your flap traps start whapping uncontrollably against your keyboard?
Like Be and RedHat, Apple is the new OS vendor out there. Be ran on 2 platforms and is dead now. RedHat runs on 3 (or more) platforms and has big community backing. Apple does too. They both have good application base, although Apple has more on one platform, the PPC.
Some say Apple has a good OS, so they'll have success. Others say their Intel hardware will be superior and people will buy more of it, since it will be cheaper and efficient, so Apple will be successful.
And yet for some reason, I'm also pessimistic here.
We had the evil wintel. And then we had the Apple, motorolla, IBM alliance. IBM is very busy pushing Linux-on-PowerPC, which means that hardware platform will have a future, and might just pull ahead of x86.
However, the AMD64 platform showed that the x86/x64 platform is the best thing out there and Apple is too moving to it. Less diversity. Just a bunch of OSes on the same chip on roughly the same motherboard (since the mem handler is built into the chip, theres less else on the AMD64 mobo). Thats now the entire desktop market of the world.
There was once a time when we had IRIX on MIPS, OpenVMS and Tru64 on Alpha and VMS, Solaris on Ultrasparc, HPUX on PARISC, Unixware on Intel, OS2, and all the BSDs plus Linux out there. It was a rich world. Lots to learn. Each one had a strength you could count on. All thats collapsed, Be was bought out, SCO was too, Alpha, Tru64, OpenVMS were too, Ultrasparc and Itanium and PARISC are dying, MIPS is dead, OS2 is dead, the diverse mainframes are dead, and we're seeing even more industry consolidation, and later the demise of some of the companies who couldnt differentiate enough.
I suppose I'll feel different when I'll see a cheaper macmini with an Athlon64 FX55 (or equiv) running OSX.
OSX had better be able to make me buy the whole deal now.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Apple has been developing builds of Mac OS X for Intel since day once. They obviously have the resources to handle both architectures at the same time. So they will be able to maintain builds for PowerPC as well as Intel for years to come but yes, they will eventually phase out PowerPC, yes.
If you've read about the keynote, or watched the video, you'll know that Apple will introduce the Intel line in 2006, and complete the transition of all Apple products to Intel in 2007. My guess is you'll have two years of OS X updates for PowerPC after that (about how long OS 9 was still maintained after OS X was introduced). Simple math says your PowerPC will probably be running Mac OS X 10.8 (Garfield?) in 2009 by the time PowerPC is EOL'd.
Of course, I don't know for sure. It's just speculation based on Apple's historical transitions. They're not going to leave you out in the cold.
Gabriel Ricard
Seriously enough. This might be a great plan.
If something like Xen can switch OSes between OSX and Windows, the new mac might be a great package for people who need to run win32 as well. OSX could even do API translation like in WINEX to run win32 apps at near native speeds.
In that case, I'm buying a mac!
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I think the major problem is that now VPC will have virtually no performance hit. And if you don't want an actual virtual computer and the bugginess of Windows, I'm betting WINE will be out of OS X within 6 months of the first x86 macs ship date.
I have a shitty sig!
How the heck do you know this?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It's unfortunate, but endianness is the most important part of an API. You're going to have to reverse to order of the bytes for the string literal in "Hello, World!" to make it work. It's just not worth the effort.
English is easier said than done.
i bought a mac because of os x, not because my ibook has a g3 inside...
You still have to have software translating from the APIs of one operating system to the older one, but using the same processor.
This would indicate that the performance level you might get on VPC would be comparable to Classic on MacOS X.
Do you know anyone running MacOS X who still uses Classic with any frequency? I don't, because the ancient applications are just plain sluggish.
The main advantage of the Mac platform is MacOS X, not the hardware it runs on. And we still have a distinct lack of virii and spyware. None of that will change, so the Mac will continue to be viable. (I expect Mac virii and spyware eventually but I think it will always be a much, much smaller problem than under Windows).
Right now, the odds are pretty good that you have software from the following vendors on your Mac:
Apple (Final Cut Pro, Motion, Pages, etc, etc, etc)
Adobe (Photoshop, etc)
Macromedia (Flash) - of course they will become Adobe soon
Microsoft (Office)
Apple is obviously fully committed to its platform.
Adobe has made a public announcement that they are committed to the new Intel platform.
Microsoft has made the public announcement that they are committed to the new Intel platform.
That covers about 95% of the software on my computer. And I'm sure that the shareware vendors will also support it since it's pretty darn easy from what I can see.
So I don't see a problem. I was very sad to see this happen because I'm a bit sentimental about Macs being different, but if i delivers us faster creative applications, then that's what we need.
D
OpenTransport has been gone for quite a while.
And anyway, CoreImage, CoreVideo, and QuartzComposer (among other things) knock OpenTransport into a cocked hat as far as providing interesting things to base software on.
I completely understand Steve Jobs' point about moving to Intel. IBM has had little success exploiting the massive "room for growth" they vociferously touted with the announcement of the G5. I have a G5 Dual 2.5GHz machine, and it never ceases to bug me that a machine with such a "low" clock speed requires liquid cooling and a half-dozen fans to spin up every time I start compiling code.
As a programmer since the Z80 and 6502 days I'm a little perturbed by this move, but really just for aesthetic reasons. The reason I could never abide the x86 architecture is that in its original incarnation it seemed so brain-dead and backwards. With its backwards endianness, funky limited-use registers, paged memory, and bolted on extensions it always seemed like a kludge on top of another kludge.
When I discovered the 680x0 architecture (through the Amiga) I was very pleased. The bits were in the right order, the registers were all general-use, and there were plenty of them, and they seemed to be more interested in energy efficiency.
While Intel was building processors that required giant heat-sinks and fans to dissipate all the waste heat I was glad that Apple was seeking out processors that pushed efficiency and low energy consumption.
Maybe this is a misconception, but I thought that at some point the ancient x86 instruction set and registers were "set aside" in favor of a more modern RISC-style processor core, and the old x86 stuff is supported as a kind of pass-through layer on top of that. I understand that's the case with AMD's Athlon, anyhow.
So what I'm hoping is that any new computers based on the Intel architecture will eschew the legacy cruft and compile only the core instruction set. Then perhaps they can drop the pass-through x86 layer and get even more power for the price.
How much have I got wrong in my thinking on this matter?
-- thinkyhead software and media
The problem won't lie in developing for OS X once they are under x86... the problem will be who's going to develop for PPC in the meantime? This next year of waiting to switch will most likely be a barren wasteland of new apps and upgrades.
Additionally, this move to x86 will force users to buy a new mac, since any new versions of software will not be able to run on their PPC chips. It will be a game of "when to upgrade" based on salivation over third party software, just as much as over the new hardware.
Do you suppose it really matters what CPU is in there? Apple's change is mostly a change in the proverbial black-box. Users are shielded from the CPU by many, many layers. Basically, the only reason users care about CPU's is because big chip companies (and certain computer vendors) spend a lot of money convicing them they should. I'm not saying that they don't have differing relative advantadges, I'm just saying that those relative differences really don't add up to much for the majority of users. Certainly for the majority of Mac users.
As for developers, applications are usually writen in a moderately high-level language and platform architecture related issues are left for the compiler to deal with. So unless you plan on writing to the metal in assembly or you plan on using chip specific features (like Altivec) I wouldn't be concerned. At all.
Apple on Intel is like the original Porsche 924. Either it's a very bad marketing decision or a precursor to a play for a much larger chunk of the mainstream market...
I think too many people here are thinking that with Apple's Intel announcement that OS X will be able to run on any thrown together, piece of crap Intel computer out there. Apple will continue to sell their own cases containing Apple-designed motherboards that just happens to have an Intel chip in it. I seriously doubt that OS X (Intel) will be able to run on anything but Apple's hardware. That does not follow with Apple's history of business.
Why doesn't QT even register to Mac developers? Seems to me that if you can code for three platforms at once, you'd at least avoid obsolecence.
I don't know what the particular quirks of QT are, but I can't help but think it may be of *some* use to Apple-heads, especially in situations like this. Am I right?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
. . .could you imagine telling your mother to run out, buy a beige box, download some boot hack, install it, then install OS X on top of that?"
.
And I own two G4 Powerbooks, 15 and 17", two partioned volumes each, running Tiger, max RAM, broadband, wifi / Airport Express, Nokia Bluetooth . .
I'm also a grandmother, and you all need to get: (who am I talkin' to: dateless geeks) women are not what you think.
It's not about the chip in the box, it's about selling and then providing an smooth computing experience and a feeling of "I am cool." As long as they maintain their tight control over the hardware stack and ensure that their lifestyle products integrate well and work smoothly, it doesn't matter what they use for a CPU, GPU, USB EHCI controller, hard drive manufacturer, &c, &c....
Another way to think about it is "outsourcing". I bet they're offloading a significant chunk of R&D cost onto Intel with this move.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
"All thats collapsed, Be was bought out, SCO was too, Alpha, Tru64, OpenVMS were too, Ultrasparc and Itanium and PARISC are dying, MIPS is dead, OS2 is dead, the diverse mainframes are dead, and we're seeing even more industry consolidation, and later the demise of some of the companies who couldnt differentiate enough".
Intel was the sole survivor of the processor wars. Now all processors are Intel.
1.67 GHz with a 167 MHz bus aren't anything to write home about, and Freescale isn't looking to be speeding those things up in the foreseeable future.
Compared to Intel's portable offerings, the G4 is by far the "bottom of the barrel", and in the future that comparison is only looking to get uglier for Freescale.
apple is dead now.
One nice thing about moving to Intel is that there are far more low-level optimization tips available for Intel, than there are for PowerPC.
Apple's profiler, Shark, does a great job, and provides hints on how you can improve performance of your PowerPC code. But it could be handy to be able to use the Intel-oriented resources that are widely available at bookstores and online.
Speaking of optimization, I'm curious how it's going to be on Intel, especially with Intel talking about providing their compilers and optimization tools for Mac.
Up to now, it's been pretty much all GNU stuff and Apple stuff.
Will Shark work with Intel executables as well as it does with PPC executables? Will the Intel tools be free? How will they integrate with Apple's performance tuning tools? For that matter, how will Intel's compiler integrate with GCC and XCode?
Questions, questions. But no show-stoppers.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
We won't need CherryOS! :D
I'm sure that somebody will figure out how to hack OS X to run on a generic Wintel box. It won't affect anything. Nobody will use it except for a handful of hackers, and not for any serious purposes, because it will be too much of a pain to maintain, with the patches breaking every time Apple releases a system update.
Adobe's commitment is not unlimited. They have already slowed or ceased development for the Mac platform--Framemaker, which may admittedly be something of an orphan for Adobe, is no longer supported on the Mac. Adobe Capture, an OCR scan to Word and PDF is not available for the Mac. This means that, with PDF drivers that are available for PC but not Mac, Adobe has already decided to cut Mac out of future commercial participation in advanced Adobe production techniques. Again, for those of you who are graphic artists this may not mean much--but even Adobe's support for Mac is already a junior effort to their PC effort. Heck, does Adobe even have to be asked whether they will support continued Wintel developments?
But here's my thing...
I don't want to spend a ton of dough on a P4 to run OS X when the P4 I already HAVE is more than capable of running it. I dunno this just seems to take some of the cool factor out of getting a Mac to me.
I always thought of it like having my muscle car and my Porsche of computers at my desk.
No sig for you!!
Mac O/S has excellent Java support. Write your code in Java, and it should be able to run on whatever hardware macs currently have under the hood.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Yeah. The stinging and very real issue you and several others are choosing to ignore is the value issue. If there is nothing to really distinguish a generic PC with a Mac other than some BIOS/rom/software thing to allow OS X booting (oh! and a pretty case) then we've got a problem.
Others have already said here that since the New World Macs, generally speaking most components and peripherals have been identical to standard PC ones. The motherboard the IntelMac will use will be probably be standard too.
If Apple choose to add a big chunk of markup for 'branding reasons' onto their Intel PCs then that puts them in a rather unique position on the Intel platform where customers are just paying for a nice case and and a piece of firmware which allows OS X to be booted.
That my friend, is just not competitive or realistic and is where all the apple fanboyisms will just melt away to reality. So yes, it is a very real concern, and a very real issue which is not going to go away. It's an issue that can be alleviated by Apple coming in it at very competitive standard price range seeing as indeed they will be using standard parts and peripherals and probably motherboard designs.
It won't affect anything. Nobody will use it except for a handful of hackers, and not for any serious purposes, because it will be too much of a pain to maintain, with the patches breaking every time Apple releases a system update.
Like XPostFacto you mean ?
You see when it comes to the crunch, the consumer isn't stupid and will want the best deal. They will want the best deal to run OS X and if (and it is an if) OS X takes off in some way on Intel CPUs then users may well wish to express their choice and not understand why their trusty Windows machine which uses the same parts won't let them boot that nice new Mac thing they heard about. Indeed there may be considerable pressure on Apple to enable that if they start coming up with arbitary, inflated prices for having their logo on the side of a box which is in every single way now identical to a generic PC.
Are you assuming that Apple will use plain x86 cpus from Intel because they announced they'll use "Intel processors"?
I think Intel will produce a custom Apple-specific cpu. It'll most likely be dual-core and 64-bit given the timeframe. But more importantly, it will probably support some or all of Altivec, x86, and G5 instructions.
This will provide more difficulty in plain non-Apple computers running OS X. And it will ease some of the difficulties porting applications to the new cpu. Doesn't this scenario make more sense than Apple switching to plain x86 from Intel?
-rwa
Framemaker was never more than a niche application, and was never widely used on the Mac. Cutting Mac support meant next to nothing.
I don't know what point you're making here. OCR is another niche application and is rarely used in the design/production/pre-press fields in which the Mac has market dominance. In fifteen years in the industry I have seen OCR used only a few times. Adobe Capture looks to be more of an application for end users. As the production/pre-press people are the ones making the documents and the the deliverable PDFs, we have access to the text files used to create them. We don't need to scan anything, unless it's an older piece which isn't in a digital form. That, like I said, is very rare.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
True, but certainly it does not look like Mac compatibility for the top applications (i.e. Photoshop and Illustrator) is in danger.
...
One of the reasons Adobe is not as much of a Mac supporter as it once was is Apple's software division. Final Cut Pro absolutely slaughtered Premiere in the marketplace, and with good reason.
In looking at software quality and design, I trust Apple more than I do any other vendor. I use Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, etc, and they're all amazing applications at a very fair price for what you're getting. I've also done some mission critical documents in Pages and it really does a slick job with styles.
I wonder if Apple will ever design a pro photo editing application. Photoshop is great, yes, but not easy to learn. A bit of competition would do the end user a world of good
D
For one thing Apple is about the OS, and not the hardware. For me OS X run on Darwin, not on PowerPC.
Sure it's not compatible and programs need to be recompiled, but the spirit of Apple will transfer flawlessly.
As a long time user of Both Wintel and Apple machines, I will finally be able to ditch my Windows PC for lack of Power in my Mac to play games.
As for this article... they guy is needlesly pessimistic. I WANT Mac apps. I prefer them. This transition will only scare the windows programmers and not the mac ones. MORE people will be using Macs than ever!
Tsk. This article is a lot of FUD!
People love the hardware and will continue to buy it.
Think about it. Why do people love the iPod. It's not because of a super chip. THe same does apply for Apple laptop.
I'm 100% sure that some people will buy the future Apple's laptop and put Windows or Linux on it.
However, i must say that the OS is nice too.
Tonight I wrote a large portion of an experimental RSS program in 45 minutes using only my mouse and XCode's CoreData modeling tool.
What was the question again?
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Sorry, Mom...
I realize they probably had no choice with laptop G5 not working out, and the desktop G5 not ramping up in speed fast enough either, but this is not good news. The Intel chips are not great, the Pentium-M is and will remain 32-bit for a while. It has great speed and autonomy but it is yesterday's technology (the P-III in a different clothing). The 64-bit processors from Intels are all a sad joke, both the EMT and the Itanic.
Somehow if Apple had gone to AMD I'd have been much happier. AMD64 works fine on the laptop.
Macs and PCs will be much more alike. I can't see how the potential ability to run Windows programs better via VPC can be an advantage for Macs. This will probably mean that in a short few years the big software houses will only develop for Windows and expect their programs to run on Macs too.
Then why would people buy a Mac a all ? Sony and Toshiba make pretty laptops too.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/
(scroll down to 'Write Chameleon Code')
32 AND 64 bit for PPC
32 AND 64 bit for x86
That is one ph-A--t momma
OT has died with classic. NeXTSTEP already ran on multiple platforms years ago (including Intel). It is just coming back to Intel. Apple will probably keep PPC-Support "just in case".
Or WINE. But that won't make an application "Mac-like". There will be demand for a replacement. See below.
It will happen. But Apple will not make a version of MacOS X that installs on Non-Apple hardware out of the box. It may break on the next update. Not an option for average users. And it probably violates the license. Unacceptable for business.
Carbon was designed to help porting Classic apps to MacOS X (and to allow them to work with MacOS 9). It should not be used for new software!
You asked for it! :-)
Imagine you develop software for Windows.
- Mac users use it with VPC/WINE.
- They are annoyed because it doesn't feel right.
- Someone decides to solve the problem and writes a native opensource replacement.
- Someone else uses GNUSTEP to port it to Windows.
- You are out of business
Better switch now!n/t
Just FYI, there are 8 different api's for handling a length prefixed string in windows, each defined separately with WHOLLY different semantics and parameters for performing the same tasks. Ironically while they are not interchangable, each of them has a different, subsection of text-proccessing or storage-management none of the others has, and a completely separate method of conversion to a LPSTR (std string pointer). I have talked to dozens of people about this, and most people who've done work in windows have seen this, Nobody has the slightest fucking clue why they are there or what they have to do with each other. It's like seeing a glowing pink elephant on I-95 every day while going to work, but everyone just drives around it, pretending it doesn't exist.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Hello,
There is 2 types of applications: customer and server.
And we haven't speak about the XServes : they will also switch to Intel ? I understand that for doing powerful laptops Centrino is the better, but that about the Macinstoch servers ? Also, i suppose that we are a lot to have see in the past that darwin could be compiled under i386 since a lot of time and that the only big missing part was Aqua.
For the strategy of Apple i suppose that this is very good to begin by moving to i386 (the successors of) and perhaps to port the comparison not on the hardware but on the software.
By the way for me it is very good for Microsoft to have a "serious" competitor [in which MS has 10% of auctions]), so it can argue (with EU for example) what he is not monopolistic (and apple also ship a media player with his os). So this could be a real good thing for MS on certain aspect.
As i see it,one of the main arguments for developing, and running professional apps, on Mac OS X, either i386 or ppc, is that it is the most cheap Unix supported by a constructor on the market. Also it provide some guarantees about open source products included in it (when there is a bug on Apache or other OSS software ported by Apple on OS X it is corrected soon).
Now's a good time to start Mac programming. A few things to keep in mind here:
This situation isn't like the OS/2 situation at all. You can't and will never be able to just run Windows apps on a Mac, and if you install all the necessary things to run them, they will still look out of place, and people will still avoid them.
For consumers, nothing will change. In the best case, they won't even notice the Intel chip, except for the fact that some of their applications will become slower.
Mac users will not stop buying Mac applications because the chips in their Computer has changed.
It makes more sense to develop for Mac than ever. The market share is going up and they have a wonderful development environment that in addition to giving you free data handling, UML modelling and the best GUI builder on the planet, will now cross compile your application for whatever processor flavour Apple decides to use next with little more than a check box tick. The only thing the platform is missing is choice. You've got to buy an Apple.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
once upon a time, powerpc: one chip to rule them all
now, the cpu is actually 'irrelevant'. it's all about the OS.
sure. talk about a reality distortion field.
didn't steve said the reason that apple made the move to intel was because they would be able to squeeze more performance per watt going forward?
sure, the cpu is 'irrelevant' and it's all about the OS, right?
"This is just stupid...
Sorry, but this is just as stupid..."
Lovely approach to people that are actually looking to work on your behalf.
A Mac is REALLY now just another (high-priced) PC.
People's concerns are still valid. I know how beautiful OS-X software is, but, really, why would anyone now develope applications for the Mac when the argument becomes, "Well, for PCs, we already have Windows" or "Mac is a PC, so just install Windows on it and run the so-and-so software".
All the games I have on OS X are converted to PowerPC with great man power and cost.
.app on same cpu?
How to convince those companies do a schizoid thing as one directx exe and one opengl/opelal
They had customers like me touching nothing Intel so having a PPC OS X, as they knew we don't pirate that much, they spent good money on converting the thing to PPC/OS X
Now nothing can stop people dual booting to win32/64 and play their directx game. OS X just became another Linux or OS/2.
Also time to speak the truth, win32 combined with DirectX will be much better for games on x86, its better right now.
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=conte nt&task=view&id=1386
I just realised (maybe rather slowly) something about OSX.
Remember how it used to be 0S 6.0 or OS 9.1 or whatever, and then with the move to PPC it became OSX... fine roman numerals, but was it also an inside joke reference to OSX being the OS for X86???
Or maybe I just have my off topic tin foil hat on...
Will announce that they will switch from x86 to PPC and offer an x86 emulator that runs near x86 speed :/
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
The only thing that has changed is that Apple has dropped another one of their outlandish pieces of hardware. Getting rid of all the proprietary and elite crap has been one of the best things that Jobs has done; I'm still pissed at Apple because they put their stupid "ADC" connector on my iBook instead of a standard mini-DVI port but won't provide a ADC-DVI converter. The way I see it, switching to Intel is just another step in this process. I'm hoping they'll go Opteron with the PowerMacs.
The question should be: What is this going to do to Linux development? Apple is the Unix that is on a roll at the moment. Not only the graphics, but also the stuff they have done under the hood (look at launchd) is way beyond what Linux has to offer for the desktop. How to you keep people who want Unix in the fold? As somebody else pointed out here, if you miss the command line, you just open the Terminal. Hell, it runs NetHack. What more could you wish for?
Anyway, I think this would be a very foolish time to switch. If anything, Windows developers might spend they next one or two (snicker) years until "Longhorn" comes out taking a look at what Apple has to offer, now that we know that learning .Net was a waste of time...
I'm backing off my initial belief that Apple is dead, based on zero hardware sales for PPC this year and zero software availability for Intel next year (making the new boxes pretty much worthless except for checking email.)
It's now starting to look like their emulation technology might really be that good, something like 80% performance if you believe its maker, 30% if you believe thinksecret's reports from WWDC. While it's pretty limited compared to the old 680x0 emulator, it's no worse than Classic and makes Intel Mac's at least look possible.
The opening I see is for new products that might be able to grab market share by outperforming the top tier stuff for the first year or two. (All their promises aside, I'd be amazed to see Adobe or MS ship anything x86 before 2007, or Quark before 2008, if ever, based on previous experience and pure inertia. Add a year, if you're a businessman concerned with ROI from the size market involved.)
That means that a well engineered Java application might be substantially faster (w/ a native JVM) than a C++ program on a Mac86, as well as running on other platforms. The same goes for most other platform independent languages: The WxWidgets library will surely get ported, making WxPython a better option than ever before, as is PyObjC if you can live with the platform lockin.
Many of those "second class" languages are also significantly more powerful than C++ for development purposes (bear in mind that the C crowd is now pretty much stuck with XCode, too.) That raises the possibility of writing something the big guys won't be able match once they finally do get moving.
I don't understand why you're concerned. Do you think that the reason that developers wrote software for OS X in the past was that they really liked PowerPC? I mean, the architecture is slightly nicer than the x86 (what isn't?) but most programs are written in a form that will compile trivially for any architecture. From a developer's perspective, what's the big deal?
One positive aspect of this is that any code tuned for the x86 (ie, DOOM 5 or whatever) will be able to run on Mac immediately, so I expect that the Mac will get applications like that much sooner.
I notice that a lot of folks are busy justifying the x86 platform. I tried really hard to like what apple is trying to do but I can't. I spend a lot of time and energy harping on how good the ppc platform really is compared to x86 to the point where I even dug into the ppc assembly code. I really like the ppc. Maybe I am deluded or delusional but I can't unsay all the good things I said about the ppc, especially the g5 for me to start bitching about it now that Apple wants to part company with it.
I don't believe Apple when they say that intel is technically better or commercially better than the ppc platform. Even a cursory crawl of slashdot's apple archives would show you that the ppc is a viable platform. In the end, I think Apple could not stomach IBM's road map, Apple did not have the balls to go where IBM is going with the next generation of PPC. There is a new war brewing between the old school and IBM's take on where the "future" is, between the console and the desktop. There is life in RISC yet.
So, having backed the PPC for the last four years, I am not going back. I might be wrong but I 'd be damned if I am inconsistent!
life is all about searching and sorting
"Does New Development For Mac OS X Make Sense?" Not if Chewbacca is from the planet Endor.
Go read folklore.org. All of it. Realize that what made the Mac special is not the hardware, but the software.
Look at the hardware of the original Mac. Look at the hardware of the current Macs. What's the same? Not much at all.
But (even through what was essentially an OS replacement), there is still a full featured software environment with all of the things that make it a Mac.
Have you lost your imagination?
If you were my employee and you told me that you couldn't imagine a reason, besides CPU architecture, to develope for an OS, I would, to be fair, confront/challenge you on it. If your bleak, narrow-minded views did not change, over a course of between 3 to 6 months, I would let you know your services were no longer needed.
I just wouldn't want to work with someone who wasn't daring enough to dream again.
Actually not to stray too far afield Adobe Capture is used a lot mostly for document flow, and digitization. Not end user in the least. (It is also hooked into a whole lot, easy to integrate into a semi custom program). Actually I am kind of suprised that document archiving and digitization doesn't have a bigger pressence on OSX I mean there is Acordex, but still... I mean there is a bigger UNIX product field then OS X. But it is pretty structual.
Now I know someone will say there are a few so why are more needed? Well, when you draw up a proposal for a $10,000-$100,000 document imaging station you had better include at least a couple alternatives.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
I think you're wrong about OS/2. Developers didn't like it because of market reasons. It wasn't a consumer OS, and no matter what you think about OS/2, the marketing and appearance of Windows 95 KILLED IBM in the consumer space, and in the business space, Microsoft had better value and had support from hardware makers. I think all this porting talk is just a small thing developers worry about. Developers follow the money.
Apple appeals to a different market than IBM, and always will. The consumer market is where Apple has it's biggest successes. It doesn't matter what you can/can't port or run on Apple, because people purchase Apples for simplicity, home use and high-end graphics. You mostly can't replace these things with emulated Windows apps, so the Apple won't lose it's appeal.
Listen, OS/2 was terrific engineering. But IBM couldn't win in the market - their fate was essentially set when IBM clones appeared. It's the same reason that Apple faltered at the same time- nothing about porting software, it's about competing against the huge Wintel biosphere with expensive, proprietary stuff. IBM left the PC OS business essentially because they had other options, and Apple didn't. Apple found a market that worked for them, and they've stuck around long enough to gain ground back at this opportune time.
I know this move won't help Intel with the PC makers, so Intel has finally given up on M$. They clearly see that their integrated chip designs work better in Apple's economic model because Apple doesn't have to leave their options open with AMD. Apple can sell at higher prices and people will pay. With Dell, HP, etc., their competition keeps driving the price of Intel's components down, and M$ doesn't budge on the OS, so I'd make a deal with Apple, too. The future is integrated systems like consoles and cell phones (Microsoft Cell OSs run on non-Intel), not these monstrosities called Personal Computers. Despite the prices, Apple is closer to selling information appliances than HP/Dell/Lenovo/Gateway+Windows is. Does anyone else think the Media Center PC is a disaster in the marketplace?
The computer market is getting crowded and messy.
I'm still not sure of why Apple is switching processors and which of Intel's processors they will actually use. La Grande?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
What is this going to do to Linux development? Apple is the Unix that is on a roll at the moment.
Nothing. Mac OS X is a gorgeous, practical, functional, and just plain superior desktop. But (a) Linux has ironically created a certain amount of application lock-in (though much of that is due to gcc and gcc extensions, not all of it is), and (b) it's got a ways to go on the server. The two main problems are:
Performance of the standard UNIX APIs are less than stellar. In particular, Mach threads are too heavyweight.
Implementation of the standard UNIX APIs are incomplete. The one that I ran into? They don't provide a standard tape interface, so you can't run any standard UNIX streaming-tape software on a Mac. I don't know if Apple made some deal with Dantz or they just like Retrospect a whole bunch, but it sure ain't my idea of how to do backup.
Now Linux isn't my free-UNIX-of-choice, desktop or server, but while I'm using OS X as my desktop I'm not happy with Macs as servers until they do something about these problems.
Let me assure you, your fears are well founded. This signals the end of the Mac. Switch to developing for Microsoft Windows now!
But, before you go...um...what was your product? Oh, just curious. Yeah, we're right behind you...we're going to give up Mac development too...um...next month or something. Yeah, that's the ticket. So...what was your product again?
Strange how this has definately made me want to get a x86 Mac, while making this Mac person question the platform...
I run Linux on my computers...the way I see it, I'm paying for an OS (Windows) that I delete when I get my machine. If I buy a x86 Mac, at least I will be buying an OS that I respect, with the best UI out there (best Unix GUI, hands down...heck, without the qualifier...best UI hands down)...
I've been thinking about getting a Mac of some sort (ibook, or mini), and this will push me over the edge. What stopped me before were all the x86 only Linux 3rd party apps that would not work on PPC Linux (flash, acrobat, anything else that supported "Linux", but they never compiled for PPC Linux, etc).
With a x86 Mac, I can switch between Linux & OSX, and my guess is that I will use OSX, or at least dual boot.
And of course, as others have pointed out, Mac is more than PPC...spotlight, expose, good UI, etc, etc. There is nothing dependent on PPC...
Canonical Anonymous Coward
ps: and to all those who've whined about the apple "premium" in the past...(comparing hardware costs with Dell and noticing that Macs cost more)
There is a cost associated with a decent OS/GUI...I will pay that cost, because it benefits me in the long run....grumble grumble..as I sit here cleaning up my friends windows box from virii & spyware....
Canonical Anonymous Coward
Can a sig be more clever than it's creator?
Will the JVM or Rosetta have more overhead? They're both interpreters, after all.
Or wxWindows or QT or SDL/OpenGL... There are several stable solutions out there that allow the programmer to work on his favorite platform, and not have to worry (as much) about final platform.
When you've finally given up hope on Apple, you have lost much in code.
Anm
While the above comments have centered on Virtual PC technologies, I feel a bigger threat is with WINE, which offers a Windows API without emulation. WINE is getting quite mature and, for example, does a decent job with many games and Offce. I see it as a huge threat to Cocoa development, because an software house can simply right a Windoze program, veryify that it works with WINE, and suddenly have a program that is "Mac-compatible". (Note this is essentially what Mathworks does with MATLAB: instead of a true Mac port, they simply offer a X Windows interface and make use of the OS X's X server).
The argument for a developer is that can put all their eggs in one basket and they have a single support staff as well.
Now you might make the argument that this just opens the door for another developer to ship a true Cocoa client that everyone will run out and buy. But in cases of an entrenched product (Photoshop, Office, etc.) I'm not so sure.
Take a specific example: let's say that Adobe now produces one Windows version and ensures that it works with WINE. Now they've got a product that works on Windows, Macs, and Linux machines.
Does anyone think that current Mac users wouldn't make do with the "ugliness" of the Windows interface in order to continue to use a program they're familiar with?
Xcode. Ksource. Eclipse. Every unix tool. And now its all (err... will be soon) cross platform. The apple compliers are already load distributing across multiple macs on the network. The only glaring hole to fill would be a mips based mac. The embedded development industry won't change rapidly, but there is no denying that apple has a stunning tool set offer to embedded devlopers. It can even come with all the microsoft office products your IT department and managers force you to use.
I disagree that developers will stop developing for Mac. That is the typical response from a typical PC user who doesn't have a clue. Have you ever thought that maybe people will buy more Macs so they can get off of Windows due to the fact that it's so insecure, full of viruses,trojans, and spyware. Not to mention Microsoft won't have anything special with longhorn two years from now. OSX Tiger has a lot going for it. Certainly safer then any Windows OS to date.
You went to an Intel/Windows platform because of how they decided to connect keyboards together that left them in a very proprietary way with limited third party support for keyboards, mice, etc?
Talk about cutting a nose off to spite the face, you went to an arguably (very arguably) inferior architecture whole bore who never supported SCSI drives (by a major vendor) locally, never had ADB, and serial ports worked for modems mainly?
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I think the implication of Mac switching to Intel is really not a lot.
For me I use the computer for text editing, web browsing, storing files. Underneath, the OS provide a TCP stack, a file system, some security, process and memory management. When I program I use Java and Python, which come with their virtual machine running on multiple platforms. Nothing I've mentioned so far is specific to any CPU. (Perhaps process and memory management in some way, but the OS usually shield me from seeing the hardware layer anyway.)
Even when I program in C, what matters for me is the platform API rather than the actual machine code generated. After all C is the key technology that makes unix portable to different hardware platform!
I describe this as 'hardware being virtualized'! Eventually you may find OS X running on even more hardware platform like PDA. From user and developer's point of view it makes no big difference.
Some have suggest that Apple may use Intel's EFI or that the current Apple devkits are just hacked together and will not resemble the final product. I now firmly believe they may toss an extra chip on the motherboard that would act like serialport dongle (to get a program to run) of yesteryear. Other than that, they'll have their lawyers out in full force so the only way to get OS X on a system officially would be through Apple. Yet, some warez group could crack OS X's lockout and allow it to run on a whitebox PC. My only concern at that point would be if the devices in your system had OS X drivers. Something tells me that the next two or three years will allow Mac users to throw in sound cards, video cards, etc. into their systems because manufacturers will write the device drivers necessary. However, I could be wrong.
The announcement that MacOSX will run on Intel machines, meaning WINE may be a development option for Cross-PLatform Development is a Concern. Even if WINE for MacOSX is not Possible, many Software Managers may decide to discontinue MacOSX Native Development because "We can just port it over using WINE".
One way of avoiding the "Win32 Apps on MacOSX" cannibalism, would be to write Cocoa bindings for Win32, making it easier to port MacOSX Programs to Windows.
IANAP, so I don't know the feasibility of this, but a similar Project was started in the dying days of BeOS, allowing simple BeOS programs (were there any other kind) to be quickly ported to Win32.
The one or two test apps which were successfully run on Windows were Fully Multi-threaded (like all BeOS Apps) and (if you exclude the time needed to develop the bindings) quicker to develop; just write them in BeOS, compile them using the BeIDE plugin and Voilá, Instant Win32 App.
I like the programs that run in X11. It's X11 that annoys me. It runs a little funny and doesn't obey Mac application rules. For example, it says that it exits on apple+X, but in fact, it doesn't. This is very bad behavior.
If X11 was better behaved, I would feel better about running Linux programs on it.
I have run KDE a couple of times on X11. It's rather pointless since Aqua is much nicer (and runs faster) but it's a cool hack.
Apple is a _BUSINESS_. They could give a shit less whether they run Power CPUs or Intel as long as they are still a viable business. I think they've been quite PATIENT with IBM, and obviously they realized there will be no Powerbook G5 in the foreseeable future - and that costs them a fuckload of potential revenue/profits. So why are you (acting) so surprised as though any one of us wouldn't have made the exact same move if we were in Apple's shoes?
:)
OF COURSE, development will go on - most Mac users could give slightly more than a fuck about what CPU the Mac runs on as long as the software/GUI is preserved. Upon hearing this news, 98% of Mac users scratched their ass and said, 'whew, let's move on then'... Just like you should instead of dweebing on this issue like a bunch of worried grandmothers!
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
...I'm not going to buy your software. I will have a Windows emulator, for software development, but there's no way I'm going to go out and buy non-native software that doesn't follow Apple's UI guidelines - it's just too painful to use.