Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple & Community Evangelizing Into Uncoolness?
kbeischer writes "John Kheit followed up his MacObsorne article, which others have since covered minus the parts detailing a Steve Jobs uncanny ability to repeat his own mistakes, with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press, Apple's managment and parts of the user base as a bunch of deranged goose-stepping lemmings that are ignoring the costs associated with the Mac PPC to Intel switch. In the editorial, he links to an older article on BOZO (bitter obstanate zealot order) users causing market share loss. All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?"
So please, RTFA. It's worth it.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
...from John Siracusa of Ars Technica
Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today's Macs?
A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal has more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto--
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.
Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this?
I think I speak for many Mac users when I say "I have confidence in Apple's decision to continue the Mac experience using Intel CPUs."
- I made the x68 to PPC switch.
- I made the OS 9 to OS X switch.
- I'm going to make the PPC to Intel switch.
Our platform has constantly been playing catch-up and on a rare occasion, our top of the line jumps ahead of the x86 top of the line for a month or so.
Unfortunately, very few of us live at the top of the line. Our consumer offerings fall well behind the x86 architecture in various areas. While the rest of our hardware is well ahead of the PC curve, the CPU does not.
Perhaps if IBM had shown us a portable G5 or a 3+GHz system... I would be morning their absence.
I will also wait until I see a shipping system before casting negative speculation on this issue. Perhaps apple WILL use a BIOS in the shipping system, perhaps not. Will we still have Firewire 800? What about Target Mode... etc. etc.
How about you wait and see what Apple and Intel can conjure up?
I want to know what Kheit and the other naysayers think Apple's options were. Motorola failed to deliver on faster chips and IBM has such a huge cash cow with the CPU business for the new X-box and PS/3 that you have to wonder how much effort they'd be willing to make to produce faster desktop chips for Apple.
Apple is already falling behind in the laptop world, for $1000 less than Apple sells their top of the line G4 laptop I can get a Toshiba with a 17" screen, built-in wireless, super drive, 100Gb hard drive, 3.33 Ghz CPU and 533Mhz front side bus. OK, sure, megahertz comparisons are hard but when you're comparing two CPUs and one of them is clocked twice as fast and has a faster front side bus then it's pretty much over. Sure, the Toshiba is a brick compared to the PowerMac 17" (although it's a very solid brick, I've owned Toshibas and like them quite a bit) but if you don't want a brick with a huge screen you have smaller and lighter options.
I'm not really happy about this decision but the naysayers such as Kheit aren't saying anything other than "we're pissed off because we're losing the PowerPC", they certainly aren't offering any kind of alternative strategy for what Apple could have done instead of switching CPU architectures. Perhaps they'd be happier if Apple continued on as a sort of red-headed bastard step-child of IBM and Freescale and faded into obscurity as their CPU offerings became less and less relevant and less and less competitive to what Intel and AMD were offering.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Historically, Apple has led in technology innovations: GigE, 802.11g, USB instead of serial (how's your PS/2 keyboard?), Firewire, Firewire800, standard optical audio I/O (sharing a connector with the analog I/O, which is nice), standard line-level audio inputs, optical mice, self-illuminating and adjusting keyboards, touchwheels, self-crossing ethernet. Just because many of those innovations are now on PCs doesn't make them any less of an innovation.
You, Sir, are still a zelot, and one grasping at crumbs. Mac hasn't even gotten to an onboard RAID controller, although they'll get one with Intel finally.
Really? So, I can't RAID multiple hard drives in my Mac, without needing any add-on hardware or software? I wonder what it's doing, then.
-T
optical mice, self-illuminating and adjusting keyboards
Um, I'm pretty sure Microsoft were the ones who came out with the first modern optical mice. The puck mice Apple was using in 1999 sure weren't optical.
And those keyboards are nowhere near as good as the ones the IBM Thinkpad was already using... and the LED at the top of the Thinkpad's screen does a MUCH better job of letting you work in the dark.
1. Software vendors will abandon support for PPC machines as soon as it makes business sense to do so.
Of course, but here's the thing : in the very, very, very vast majority of cases, it won't make sense. Comparing the situation to NeXT is a bit silly ( unless you'd like to compare numbers of installed users, see my point yet? ). If someone decides to stop supporting PPC, it means their product has somehow become Intel-specific ( how? ) and they have a small PPC install base, _and_ don't want the existing PPC customers. That should be pretty rare, really. I'd like to see the numbers of NeXT vendors that dropped 68k support and kept Intel support, anyway; I don't think that number is as high as this guy claims.
2. Software vendors will charge you money for Intel (or PPC) versions of software when it makes business sense to do so.
They'll happen either as upgrades or as new versions of software. You'd pay for those anyway. Yes, people buying Intel macs and wanting native performance will end up buying lots of new software. Duh. Guess what happens with every OS switch? Of course, if performance is acceptable, you can probably put off that software purchase for quite a while... initial reports show Rosetta getting pretty decent performance, so this could be less of an issue. Even if it is, is it a reason to not buy a Mac today? It sounds like more of a reason to not buy an Intel Mac if you already own a PPC Mac.
3. Apple has shown it drops support for old products regularly because it makes business sense to do so.
Like every other company on the planet? Yet, with the tools in place to make builds for PPC a single checkbox away, it should be some time before simply using that check box doesn't make business sense. Let's see... when exactly did NeXT stop supporting 68k hardware, since that's what he's comparing this to? Was there ever an NeXTStep for Intel release without a matching 68k release? Ok, I know... there weren't many of the first, but it was pretty easy for them to keep 68k support, and they did.
4. Macs tended to have a far longer life-span than the average PC.
Yea... and this changes how ? Right now, a dual G5 is right up there with a top-of-the-line PC ( well, except maybe for the graphics card, maybe ) and will still compare to that same PC... his prediction is that in 2 years today's PCs will be obsolete? Wow. Stunning.
5. The new Intel machines promise to be much faster than current machines.
Huh. That's the reason for the switch right there in a nutshell, isn't it?
6. People do not buy computers only for how it will serve them today, but for how capable it will be in serving them for their desired term of use.
uh... as compared to _other_ computers available to buy _today_. If I _can_ put off buying a computer, I'm going to; tomorrow will always provide faster computers at lower prices. If I can't ( say, I'm a student starting college this fall... or a business which just hired a new employee... or I just need a computer to handle my digital photos ), well, I'm likely to buy one now rather than wait a year. Better ones will be here in the future, but that's not terribly relevant today. If I want to run OS X, this doesn't deter me from buying a PPC mac unless I can wait anyway. In which case, I was going to maybe wait anyway for a year. For that relatively small group of users that can wait for a year, sure, Apple will parlay those users into pent-up demand for their first Intel machines. That's somehow bad for Apple?
7. Potentially no Classic support.
I thought he was looking for reasons why people won't buy more PPCs? If you want Classic support, you'll run out and stockpile PPC Macs. Believe me, though... few people want it. This publishing industry he's talking about don't represent that many computers... and it does represent a business that sets up systems and never, ever replaces the
Firstly, your subject line is patently false, per your link. PowerPC was introduced in 1994, not 1996
. .........2.5. ......4.0
Let's look closer at those numbers (per your link.)
Year...Share.....units (millions)
1991....11.2.........2.1
1992....12.
1993....10...........3.3 - PowerPC announced
1994....9.4..........3.8 - PowerPC shipped
1995....9............4.5
1996....5.1...
2004.....2.0..........3.5
Apple's market share peaked two years before PowerPC. It was in decline for two years before PowerPC. From the looks of things, PowerPC gave the Mac a temporary boost in unit sales, even though market share continued to decline. I would say, based solely on the numbers, that PowerPC had no discernible effect on the Mac's viability in the market.
actually, the "G5"s you're referring to are not even close to being a true G5. The core in both the Xenon and Cell chips are a stripped down power core that would be crappy at running real world applications.
Just because they use the same ISA doesn't mean they're the same chip. It's not unlike saying the Pentium 4 runs at 3.6 ghz therefore the Pentium M could run at 3.6ghz too.
"Before, SOME mac users claimed PPC was THE way to go. Now SOME Mac users are saying Intel sounds like a good idea."
I think a large part of the fallacy is in the timescale. The "Megahertz Myth" was VERY real in the past, is less real currently, and will be even less so in the future.
Why? Because Intel found out it was true. And when they found out they couldn't just keep increasing the clock speed to boost performance, they started changing their strategy and incorporating a lot of the design components that were making the PPC kick the x86's ass at the same megahertz. Intel's designs are looking more and more like PPC designs now.
It isn't a one-way street either. The G5, in particular, borrows some features from the Intel line like deeper pipelines (while the new Intels are borrowing wider pipelines from the PPC) and others which have made them run much faster, but also much hotter/energy hogging than the G4.
The only thing I still don't like about the x86 line is that it still requires a lot of extra kludgy transistors and a few silly limitations to keep some degree of backwards compatibility all the way back to the original 1970's chip. There is something to be said for throwing out compatibility and moving to a modern design.
As others have said, it's all about future roadmaps. Intel is committed to low watt (for portables), high performance general computation chips in the future while IBM is going towards higher watt (consoles that are plugged in) specialty chips.
I understand your point, I think, but I'm not commenting on that, just a point of info--
This stone age font--did you copy it into the font folder in the os9 system folder or one of the several OSX font dirs?
One of the nifty backward compatibility features of osx is that it uses any classic font (true type or postscript) that is in the classic system folder (though if there is an OSX version, it'll use that first). No need to translate it to unicode or whatever you tried to do. Classic need not be running. I use one named combinumerals that started life as a windows truetype, which i translated into a mac truetype. I also use a couple ps fonts that I got from adobe years ago. All merely copied into the OS9 fonts folder. Simple.
If it's a ps font, you'd want to have the ps font file and at least one bitmap size file, or better, a font suitcase with several sizes and faces.