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?"

17 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Only hope lies in increased popularity. by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:Only hope lies in increased popularity. by Mattcelt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Say it with me by ndansmith · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Developers Developers Developers Developers!

    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).

    1. Re:Say it with me by ebooher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      don't hold your breath for Darwine, though

      Why not? Besides the fact that you'll pass out, fall down, and start breathing again. The only thing really holding up Darwine is the emulation of the processor being tied to the API's. You have to get an x86 emu installed, tweaked, then install something that's not always entirely stable to begin with on top of something else not entirely stable.

      The original post is asking how the move to Intel will affect CAD software. I say any CAD software that is written for a *NIX on x86 will appear very quickly on MacTel. WINE, being what it is, will probably be available for MacTel on day 2. They will no longer need to emulate the x86 hardware, it's already there.

      In fact, I predict someone in the Open Source community will completely side step the issue anyway and develop a Mac-On-Linux (MOL) like system "hole." MOL allows Mac Linux users to continue to run Mac OS X within Linux by giving it control of the underlying hardware resources. Better than Virtual PC, and probably what the Virtual Server product Microsoft is talking about does. I also know there is something on Linux (that I've never used so don't remember) that allows something similar in running multiple Linux instances on a single hardware set.

      What ever bad things the MacTel moves brings with it, the good is in the instant tripling of software that will be available. Whether it be through WINE, or WOM (Windows-On-Mac) (hey ... WOMBAT ... now what can the BAT stand for), or Virtual PC, or straight up multi-booting. MacTel is looking good.

      If nothing else, I regularly SSH into a linux machine next to my current PPC Mac and push programs to it via the X11 protocols. This won't change no matter what the underlying hardware is, so worse case scenario is two machines. One Mac desktop and One Massive *NIX box. (I'm thinking rack mounted Solaris might be fun) and you're set. The great thing about networking is you don't need to run *everything* native. Let something else do the work and push the visual to you through ethernet.

      But everyone here already knew that, right?

      --
      "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
    2. Re:Say it with me by the+phantom · · Score: 4, Funny

      gui.tar ?

  3. Sure, if you want to use virtual PC programs by Matt+Perry · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  4. Hardware OS by Florian · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
  5. No by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  6. If it runs on unix under X11... by SSpade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

  7. Pipedream. by sootman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Programs run on operating systems, not CPUs. Your best chance is if the new Apple/Intel hardware dual-boots, or if Apple gains enough market share that CAD companies decide to start coding for them.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  8. Good news by john82 · · Score: 3, Informative

    'm an engineer, and I simply can't invest in a computer that won't run modeling/simulation software like CATIA and Solidworks.

    You do realize that Solidworks is available for OS X, right?

    1. Re:Good news by ephex · · Score: 4, Informative

      you do realize that's just a viewer, right?

  9. Two points: by Evro · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • 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.
    --
    rooooar
  10. Re:Hardware OS by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.

  11. ooh by i_c_andrade · · Score: 3, Informative

    better not tell the people at Architosh.com that there is not a MacOS CAD workstation

  12. The problem is political, not technical... by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  13. Re:...stop thinking autodesk by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?)

    --

    This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander