Immediately after the announcement of Apple's switch to Intel, Terrasoft Solutions has stated that they would not port their Yellow Dog Linux distribution from PPC to Intel-based Macs.
It is a very, very different matter when you want to support every x86 chipset and SCSI controller in the world.
This would be a very, very expensive thing to do.
And, by the way, this might be the reason Microsoft doesn't do drivers at all - they simply pass this task to hardware manufacturers. A "distributed" approach, so to say.
Apple trying to provide drivers for most of the third-party PC hardware out there would be on a safe path to bankruptcy.
This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP
Maybe.
But it may severely reduce the number of applications available _natively_ for the Mac OS as well.
As soon as the perception "all recent run-of-the-mill Macs can boot into a current Windows OS as well as Mac OS X, can't they?" has become a common one among third-party developers, there will be hardly any porting of apps to the Mac platform taking place, except perhaps by Microsoft and Adobe.
But then again, maybe these two software vendors is all Apple cares about these days.
... the applications I need and want to use, that is (and I am _not_ referring to Microsoft and Adobe apps here).
Also, I will be looking for ways to keep away from the DRM/"Trusted Computing"/(insert your own euphemism here) trap as far and as long as possible.
So in terms of software (including the OS), Open Source will most probably be my way to go.
On the hardware side, I am still fond of the PowerPC platform and my existing equipment (Macintosh PPC, most of it) will certainly serve me well for another couple of years.
In the meantime, I will watch if and how much Apple is going to "Think different" in terms of DRM/"Trusted Computing"/etc., compared to Dell, Gateway, and, last but not least, Microsoft.
To date Microsoft does not have any driver problems. Drivers are a problem of hardware vendors and, of course, of Microsoft's customers.;-)
By the way, I don't think Microsoft will prefer a closed hardware platform as long as it is not their very own closed hardware. Even hardware a point less than 100 per cent under their control will not be sufficient to MS.
Instead, MS will stick to the pseudo-open-platform approach that, taking into account manufacturers being forced to pre-install Windows, has served them very well for many years now.
As to the numbers: Somewhere in the web I have read these days that a mere 2 per cent of IBM's total processor production are going to Apple.
As to style in communications: We do not know in what form, if any, IBM has "promised" to Mr. Jobs to have a 3 GHz G5 ready for Apple at a given time, do we?
So it might have been just wishful thinking on Jobs's side, like "First I will declare a deadline in public" (a great or cool one, whatever his terms are here) "and afterwards I will push IBM help me meet this deadline."
When Apple (Jobs, that is) started complaining publicly about IBM's so-called inability to produce higher-speed processors (remember Motorola in the role of the target, some years ago?), IBM might have returned the ball to Apple for their less-than-optimal and ever decreasing sales figures, especially in the high end segment of G5 Macs. However, IBM did not complain, at least not publicly.
PowerPC has been at least as good a reason to buy a Macintosh as any Mac OS. The Power platform certainly has a bright future, regardless of Apple's moves.
Apple might consider using some Intel products in the near future. But I can't imagine that the Macintosh line will be involved in terms of an Intel CPU used instead of IBM or Freescale ones.
Maybe some subsystem technology will be on topic between Intel and Apple (e.g., increased support for Intel's USB to the disadvantage of Firewire). Even more plausible to me, some new gadget in the "digital lifestyle" area using an Intel DSP or CPU chip might be in the works. Something like an enhanced iPod (including video capability, wireless and/or Bluetooth functionality, etc.?) or some home entertainment device comes to mind, too.
All in all, a change in Macintosh hardware that would require essential changes to the Mac OS and thus affect all the remaining third party software developers for the Mac platform would be a completely irrational move in Apple's corporate policy at the moment. But then again, this does not mean this scenario were completely unlikely...
Slashdot Mirror
Immediately after the announcement of Apple's switch to Intel, Terrasoft Solutions has stated that they would not port their Yellow Dog Linux distribution from PPC to Intel-based Macs.
It is a very, very different matter when you want to support every x86 chipset and SCSI controller in the world.
This would be a very, very expensive thing to do.
And, by the way, this might be the reason Microsoft doesn't do drivers at all - they simply pass this task to hardware manufacturers. A "distributed" approach, so to say.
Apple trying to provide drivers for most of the third-party PC hardware out there would be on a safe path to bankruptcy.
Keeping Hollywood and the RIAA happy - that's more like the main reason to do this.
:-(
Apple, yesterday: "Think different."
Apple, from now on: "Mainstream, but as the champs of it."
And of course, DRM on the coming Macs will also be doing Pixar a favour.
My sympathies to Mr. Gandhi, Rev. King, Mr. Picasso, Mr. Einstein and others as it looks like their names have been misused in an Apple ad campaign.
This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP
Maybe.
But it may severely reduce the number of applications available _natively_ for the Mac OS as well.
As soon as the perception "all recent run-of-the-mill Macs can boot into a current Windows OS as well as Mac OS X, can't they?" has become a common one among third-party developers, there will be hardly any porting of apps to the Mac platform taking place, except perhaps by Microsoft and Adobe.
But then again, maybe these two software vendors is all Apple cares about these days.
... the applications I need and want to use, that is (and I am _not_ referring to Microsoft and Adobe apps here).
Also, I will be looking for ways to keep away from the DRM/"Trusted Computing"/(insert your own euphemism here) trap as far and as long as possible.
So in terms of software (including the OS), Open Source will most probably be my way to go.
On the hardware side, I am still fond of the PowerPC platform and my existing equipment (Macintosh PPC, most of it) will certainly serve me well for another couple of years.
In the meantime, I will watch if and how much Apple is going to "Think different" in terms of DRM/"Trusted Computing"/etc., compared to Dell, Gateway, and, last but not least, Microsoft.
In terms of platform support, cdigix' Ctrax music offering does not seem to be too open-minded:
:-(
"(SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS)
Minimum Requirements
Use a PC that has a minimum of 128 megs of RAM and a Pentium III 650 MHz or Celeron 700 MHz processor
- Windows XP is required for Ctrax
Internet Explorer version 6. This may be downloaded from: Microsoft Internet Explorer Download
Windows Media Player Version 9. This may be downloaded from: Windows Media Player Download
Macromedia Flash Plug-in version 7.
http://www.cdigix.com/website/cdigix/faqs.asp
Kind of a closed shop...
Walter.
To date Microsoft does not have any driver problems. Drivers are a problem of hardware vendors and, of course, of Microsoft's customers. ;-)
By the way, I don't think Microsoft will prefer a closed hardware platform as long as it is not their very own closed hardware. Even hardware a point less than 100 per cent under their control will not be sufficient to MS.
Instead, MS will stick to the pseudo-open-platform approach that, taking into account manufacturers being forced to pre-install Windows, has served them very well for many years now.
Hmmmm... You got a point here. A very good point. ;-)
I wouldn't advise buying AV software from MS even for Windows, let alone for Linux or Mac OS.
Walter.
Apple works hard to provide a quality user experience.
h tml
u sinessnews/view/153069/1/.html
Somebody begs to differ here.
And no, it's not (just) me.
The other person's name is Wozniak:
Wozniak: Apple, Microsoft "Don't Really Care About Quality"
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/16.6.s
Apple co-founder says innovation is no longer the driving force for PC firms
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporeb
W.
As to the numbers: Somewhere in the web I have read these days that a mere 2 per cent of IBM's total processor production are going to Apple.
As to style in communications: We do not know in what form, if any, IBM has "promised" to Mr. Jobs to have a 3 GHz G5 ready for Apple at a given time, do we?
So it might have been just wishful thinking on Jobs's side, like "First I will declare a deadline in public" (a great or cool one, whatever his terms are here) "and afterwards I will push IBM help me meet this deadline."
When Apple (Jobs, that is) started complaining publicly about IBM's so-called inability to produce higher-speed processors (remember Motorola in the role of the target, some years ago?), IBM might have returned the ball to Apple for their less-than-optimal and ever decreasing sales figures, especially in the high end segment of G5 Macs. However, IBM did not complain, at least not publicly.
PowerPC has been at least as good a reason to buy a Macintosh as any Mac OS. The Power platform certainly has a bright future, regardless of Apple's moves.
Apple might consider using some Intel products in the near future. But I can't imagine that the Macintosh line will be involved in terms of an Intel CPU used instead of IBM or Freescale ones.
Maybe some subsystem technology will be on topic between Intel and Apple (e.g., increased support for Intel's USB to the disadvantage of Firewire). Even more plausible to me, some new gadget in the "digital lifestyle" area using an Intel DSP or CPU chip might be in the works. Something like an enhanced iPod (including video capability, wireless and/or Bluetooth functionality, etc.?) or some home entertainment device comes to mind, too.
All in all, a change in Macintosh hardware that would require essential changes to the Mac OS and thus affect all the remaining third party software developers for the Mac platform would be a completely irrational move in Apple's corporate policy at the moment. But then again, this does not mean this scenario were completely unlikely...