Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Since Mac OS X will use a Darwin (Unixish) on x86, it will not be very hard to port your standard CAD programs to run natively in OSX. Mostly it depends on the demand in the market. If a lot of users start asking the CAD software developers for a port to OSX, it will probably happen. Short of that, your best bet may be Darwine or X11 for OSX. Using one of these may allow you to run standard CAD software without it actually being ported (don't hold your breath for Darwine, though).
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.
I dunno, maybe this falls into the "marginal" category, but "scientific" [or "mathematical"] programming is really REALLY REALLY difficult.
For instance, take a gander at the list of FFTs catalogued at BenchFFT:
Then look at their relative performances for speed and accuracy: In many instances, the software and hardware engineers at the companies that build the chips [Intel and AMD] can't write FFTs that are as efficient as third-party vendors [or hobbyists], which should be a pretty good indication that something as ostensibly straightforward as writing an FFT routine is just fantastically complicated in practice.So if you're a company with a lot of low-level proprietary software that's tuned for the x86/x86-64 instructions sets, or for classical PCI bus communications [apparently PCIe is very backwards compatible], or for the nVidia/ATI/Oxygen instruction sets, then your porting job just got a heckuva lot easier if you don't have to deal with PPC RISC, Altivec, etc etc etc.
No, it means that less programs will be ported to Mac OS X, because Mac users can just run them on a Windows emulator.
"No" what? No, there won't be increased demand for OS X native software if there are more OS X users? No, there won't be more OS X users because they have the comfort-option of dumping OS X and running Windows? No, developers won't have a potentially easier time porting apps and such to x86 OS X than PPC OS X?
And you're a fool if you think fewer apps will be ported. Right now, very few apps are ported at all. None of those companies are going to *not* maintain their port. Adobe isn't going to say, "Well, just run the emulated Windows version".
Unlike OS/2 (which you *might* be thinking of), OS X will not come with Windows compatibility built-in. You'll have to buy that separately. So if a software publisher wants to target the Mac (which is more likely given more Mac users), they can't just rely on emulation.
Unlike OS/2, the Mac market in non-vertical environments is not insignificant.
Unlike OS/2, Mac native apps are significantly preferable to emulated apps.
Oh, I don't know about that last. It's been a few years since I got out of the drafting biz, but as of r14 and 2000 the intergrated AutoLISP programming language enabled me to do some really sweet parametric sheet-metal manufacturing design. I looked at replicating the capability in Solidworks, but what we had already in AutoCAD was going to remain faster for over 80% of designs and of equvalent output quality. (As far as actual manufacture went, anyway... visualization was way better in Solidworks.)
Of course, I could have done the same thing in any 2D package, so long as it supported a full programming environment. So I guess it wasn't that specific to AutoCAD.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Like I said, I'm out of the drafting profession. But I still have occasional need to draw some stuff for my own use. What would you suggest for a free/cheap/libre drafting application with broadly similar features to AutoCAD? (In particular, 2D/3D drafting with [hooks to] a full programming language and keystroke macros?)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Why spend money on a Mac version, when you can just tell Mac users to buy your Windows version and emulate it at full speed.
Because developers who are interested in cross-platform sales already make Mac versions -- they know they'll lose customers if their app no longer has Aqua effects and built-in spell checking and other things Mac users expect.
Developers who don't do crossplatform, well, some of them will say "great, now I don't have to worry about it since they have VMware!", while others will say "great, now I can do cross-platform a lot easier!" I think in the end, more software will be developed for the Mac because the number of small developers who are curious will be much greater than the number of large companies that are trying to shave money from the budget.
And keep in mind the Mac, as it is now, is a niche market anyways. Companies don't need an excuse to stop developing for it if, they either find that they are making a lot of money from it or they go after the 90%+ that are running Windows.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
X11 is not nasty.
On OSX it is. In fact, it's the antithesis of everything the Mac UI stands for - it's clunky, enigmatic, and difficult for people who aren't familiar with it to troubleshoot.
My girlfriend gave up on using openoffice altogether because of X11.
While I don't argue X11's potential, its implementation on OSX leaves much to be desired.
What makes you think the switch will prompt Dassault Systemes to port CATIA to OSX?
:\), and it's one of those pieces of software that keeps me from switching to OSX (Valve's Source is the other big one).
They already support AIX on POWER and PowerPC. Given that they haven't ported a program that runs on AIX/PPC to OSX/PPC, what makes you think they will port a Win/x86 program to OSX/x86?
It's not about obscurity. CATIA runs on platforms with tiny marketshares like HP-UX (on PA-RISC?), Solaris on Sparc, and IRIX on Rx000. The software is obviously very portable, DS just has no interest in an OSX port.
I'm a huge fan of CATIA (just reupped my license a week ago
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.
Yes, users want to run apps natively, but running from the command line or X Windows is not good enough.
To blend in with the system, it must look and feel like a Mac app , not only superficially. Users will expect such things as:
In short: users want a Mac app. If they were happy running a Linux app, they would be running Linux already.
http://www.architosh.com/features/2005/features/a