Will MacIntel Hardware Open The Door for Mac OS X CAD?

xcleetusx wonders: "I've been a fan of Apple for years, and with their current strangle-hold on mainstream media my desire to make the switch has been growing ever more, but the same nagging issue that has prevented my switch for years still remains: I'm an engineer, and I simply can't invest in a computer that won't run modeling/simulation software like CATIA and Solidworks. Since this software is available on Unix (which Mac OS X is built on) and also on Windows (Intel hardware), is the Apple switch to Intel-based hardware going to better my chances for a Mac OS X CAD workstation, or will it remain a pipedream?"

Comments

Only hope lies in increased popularity.

[Goalie_Ca]

Hopefully the switch means increased popularity which will lead to more support from venders. I'm an engineering student (ece) so i don't usually deal with cad and solid works but i deal with other stuff like spice and vhdl. Luckily eagle comes for os x.

Biggest complaint though is that most software that is "ported" uses X11. It's quite nasty.

Sure, if you want to use virtual PC programs

[Matt Perry]

is the Apple switch to Intel-based hardware going to better my chances for a MacOS CAD workstation

Maybe. The software of which you speak is less dependent on the processor than it is on the Windows or UNIX API that is being used. Your best bet is to write a letter to the software company indicating that you want a native MacOS port.

What might happen that could help you is that virtual PC programs will be able to run MS Windows at near full speed since it'll be running on the same processor that Windows is written for. So you should be able to run a virtual PC program with Windows and your CAD apps on your Mac.

Best guess at this point

[TimmyDee]

My best answers at this point are. . .

We can only hope.

-and-

We'll have to wait and see.

I'm a big user of GIS, and while I find GRASS to be a wonderful alternative to ESRI products, it's sometimes too much hassle to fire up GRASS, define a region, import files, etc., if all I want to do is edit a shapefile or query a feature. I do know about QGIS and other alternatives, but sometimes it would be nice if ArcGIS was ported to the Mac. Given the change in landscape over the past couple of years and changes yet to come (Intel, I'm looking at you), I think there's more probability of these sorts of things happening. They are, however, still possibilities. Until a company commits to producing their specialized software (CADD, GIS, etc.) for the Mac, or until there is an increased demand for Macs in such industries, we're still just speculating.

Now, if Apple manages to wedge their way into the server market with a killer Intel-based Xserve coupled with a low-cost Xserve RAID, we may see those pressures come from another side. Time will tell.

Hardware OS

[Florian]

The switch to x86 doesn't change the API of MacOS X and hence won't magically give you Intel PC software. And if that software had been cross-API-compatible (via Qt, wxwidgets etc.), it could have been released for PPC-MacOS already.

The only thing that is likely to happen with Intel-Mac is that Windows Emulators - and hence Windows software - will run at nearly native speed.

No

[Otter]

This is not complicated and I don't get why people find it so difficult to comprehend. Macs are still going to be Macs, with MacOS and Cocoa. There's going to be a chip inside with a different instruction set; everything upstream will be essentially identical.

MacOS is not going to magically turn into Windows or Linux just because there's Intel Inside. Mac development will be unchanged, with some marginal exceptions.

Re:No

[node 3]

But it will make four things dramatically easier and more compelling.

1. Emulation
2. Porting
3. Games
4. Drivers

Emulation is obvious. Compare VMWare vs VirtualPC.

Porting isn't as obvious, but anything that takes advantage of, or relies on, features of the CPU (byte ordering and SSE/AltiVec are important).

Games, because they depend on the CPU, optimization, and video drivers.

Drivers, because now NVidia and ATI (for example) can leverage x86 optimizations on their Mac driver.

So, you're right in that it doesn't mean Google Earth or Counter-Strike are now just a recompile away from being full-fledged Mac programs, but the prospects for running more software on the Mac will benefit from the x86 move.

Another factor that will help, but is not really a technical aspect of the switch, is that it opens the door of the Mac to more people. If x86 Linux and Windows will run on a Mac natively, then more fence-sitters will be able to justify getting a Mac, which translates into more consumer demand for native Mac apps.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of Mac user is going to use an application that's been designed to Windows UI conventions, for a Windows audience? Answer: only the tasteless. And how many tasteless Mac users do you know?

Re:No

[am 2k]

Well, when two different products are available, Mac-users will always pick the one that's more Mac-like, so who's going to be the one with more money in their pocket in the end?

If it runs on unix under X11...

[SSpade]

...it'll run on OS X under X11 with fairly minimal porting effort today.

If the companies haven't made that port available then the (trivial, from an application developer point of view) change from PowerPC to x86 isn't going to change that.

It's all about size of market and differential pricing. Not the CPU that happens to be in the box.

Two points:

[Evro]

• How does the Mac have a "stranglehold" on media? The iPod is a popular music player... I don't see how that equates to a stranglehold on media.
  
• If you love Macs so much, shelling out $500 for a Mac Mini shouldn't be such a huge "investment." It's not like you can only use one or the other.
  
• As others have said, the Mac running on Intel hardware really doesn't mean much in the usable software sphere, the APIs are the same.

...stop thinking autodesk

[lawnboy5-O]

VectorWorks and TurboCAD are already here - and have been for many years. After several conversations with the AutoDesk AutoCAD procuct manager, it seems they think the Mac is dead, or dying. Anyhow, VectorWorks does handle AutoCAD files nicely, as long as you can get the M$ AutoCAD users (wiennies) to use standards-based file formats. CAD was born on the Mac... and I believe its still better with the available stuff today; AutoCAD is very much a M$ product - too much of everything, and nothing worth using day-to-day

Re:...stop thinking autodesk

[david duncan scott]

CAD was born on the Mac...!?

Look, I'll give you DTP and maybe even the slide puzzle, but CAD was born well before the Mac. In fact, I'll lay a buck that the Mac was designed using CAD.

(While you're at it, can I recommend John Walker's site, Fourmilab? His history of AutoDesk:

1. includes the following: "If only because of the support burden, we can't target every computer system in the world during the first few months. The current idea is to pursue the CPM (8080 and Z80) market immediately with all we've got. This means installing the Sierra Z80 board in lots of existing computers.
   
   We need to do more evaluation of the IBM and Apple situation with respect to both technical and marketing questions. We ought to be getting hardware for non-Z80 systems within 4-6 weeks.
   ", which I think makes it pretty clear that they were showing a CAD program back when Apples accepted CP/M cards,
   
2. and neat trivia like, "We're also looking closely at JPLDIS, a very useful data base system written in Univac Fortran. The program is in the public domain, so we have the right to convert it to microcomputers and sell it. In fact, it apparently is being sold now under the name of Dbase II, but there's nothing to stop us from getting into the act.
   

   Who knew that DBase sprang from a PD program?)
   

Re:Sorry, have to be anonymous here.

[stevew]

This doesn't stand up to the simplest of analysis. Consider that Wintel ISN'T the platform of choice for most if not all CAD software. The platform of choice 5 years ago was Solaris NOT NT/XP/etc.

The reason is practical and historical in nature. These applications needed more memory, stability, and horsepower than the average PC had. Many applications wanted to be in a 64 bit address space. None of the MS products supported this until very recently.

I don't need to bash MS with the above. MS products were more aimed at the home than the back server room from the beginning.

Only recently the perferred platform for these types of applications has become Linux on 64 bit Operterons. They all still support Solaris as well - though not Solaris x86 yet that I'm aware.

To address the original poster's question of whether these apps will become available on OS-X. I doubt it for two reasons. The first is that the hardware will still be sourced from Apple, therefore there will be an "Apple Hardware Tax" applied. The next issue is that as of today, OS-X is still a minor player in both the server space and the desk-top space. Only if this changes will vendors decide to begin supporting yet another OS (which has a cost to it -it's more than just compiling it to the new environment for a product to come into being!)

Re:Hardware OS

[Eil]

The switch to x86 doesn't change the API of MacOS X and hence won't magically give you Intel PC software. And if that software had been cross-API-compatible (via Qt, wxwidgets etc.), it could have been released for PPC-MacOS already.

True.

The only thing that is likely to happen with Intel-Mac is that Windows Emulators - and hence Windows software - will run at nearly native speed.

Not strictly true. Everybody is concentrating so hard on the whole Windows emulator possibility that they're completely missing another benefit to x86 Macs that I'm personally looking forward to: Linux binary compatibility.

FreeBSD has had rock-solid Linux binary compatibility for years. Almost any executable compiled on and for Linux will run perfectly well on FreeBSD. Porting the Linux compatibility layer to Darwin is probably something that a skilled dev can do on a rainy weekend. And that's if it hasn't been done already. For x86 Mac users, this immediately opens the door to almost all programs built for Linux, both open and closed.

I say to the fellow who wants his CAD software on Mac: You'll probably waste your time pestering the vendor to release a native OSX version of the application. And WINE is unreliable at best, which x86 OSX won't change. What you want is to be able to run the Unix version of the app natively on your Mac and that's what Linux binary compatibility will do.

The problem is political, not technical...

[argent]

"Since this software is available on UNIX (which Mac OS X is built on) and also on Windows (Intel hardware), is the Apple switch to Intel-based hardware going to better my chances for a MacOS CAD workstation, or will it remain a pipedream?"

If the software is available on UNIX, and is not available on the Mac right now, then whatever is holding it back is unrelated to the processor the Mac is using. Either the vendor does not consider the Mac market large enough (which is odd, since by this time the majority of workstations capable of running UNIX software are Macs), or they consider even a port to another UNIX platform unreasonably difficult, or they don't realise that Mac OS X runs ordinary UNIX applications very well.

These are not problems that will be solved by switching to a new processor, case design, color scheme, mouse, keyboard, monitor, or pizza topping.

Re:Sorry, have to be anonymous here.

[pipingguy]

This doesn't stand up to the simplest of analysis. Consider that Wintel ISN'T the platform of choice for most if not all CAD software. The platform of choice 5 years ago was Solaris NOT NT/XP/etc.

You are full of shit. Which CAD environment are you talking about? Is it possibly within your own personal sphere of knowledge or are you referring to "real" CAD use as defined by reliance upon big iron?

The vast majority of CAD users are trundling along with 2D AutoCAD on WinTel systems and making do because the full transformation to 3D seems to require a bunch of IT jerks that would impede their productivity. You sound like one of those jerks.

Apple's plan is to gain marketshare through piracy

[User 956]

Hopefully the switch means increased popularity which will lead to more support from venders.

The switch will mean OS X will be easily pirated. Apple's whole plan is predicated on something Microsoft has known for years: piracy = marketshare. No matter how you slice it, people who otherwise wouldn't have bought an apple machine will download and install this on some machine or another, even just "because they can". Apple knows this.

When they release OS X for x86, you can expect a huge jump in marketshare from the current ~2%, simply because people will be torrenting this thing like crazy. (as if they aren't already)