[OT] really?

[Eric Dunbar]

> It's too early to make predictions about just what kind of machines the
> Intel Macs will be, but the only impact Apple will have that I currently
> see to be of any consequence is their ability to dazzle current and
> potential users.

Seems like all the users they need to dazzle ;-P (current and
potential = all users ;-)

> > In comes Mac and Mac OS X. It runs on more expensive hardware, BUT
> > that hardware will still run their favourite i86 games, possibly run
> > many "favourite" Windows apps through WINE (or something similar),
> > BUT, they will be able use Mac OS X, a commercially supported OS, use
> > an OS with hands-down the most refined and usable GUI.
> 
> The hardware may or may not run x86 games due to games' reliance on direct
> access to hardware that may or may not be there, and they'll require
> Windows to boot. WINE on OSX is already a reality (Darwine), and putting
> it on a native processor will greatly simplify it, but it won't make it
> work any better. Microsoft regularly makes changes to Windows specifically
> to thwart the use of WINE.

I see three confounding factors here.

1. Psychological. Now developers can code *just* for i86. Yes, they're
coding for two OSes but the CPU-specific compiled code is the same if
they're having to do processor-specific stuff (a la G4-specific code
for e.g.). They don't have to know anything about two set of
registers, different ways CPUs handle numbers, etc.

2. "Fat binary" tools come on the market that will compile an app for
i86 and generate a fat binary that will run under both Windows and OS
X (and, when that happens, Linux may come along for the ride so that
would be good for Linux).

3. Direct access to h/w is just as discouraged under Windows as it is
under any other OS and will not really do much for 3rd party
developers. Gamewriters especially write and use their own libraries
and industry standard graphics programming languages.

> > Most importantly, they will be able to run all their internet apps
> > with NEARLY all the codecs they're used to running (MS may licence
> > restrict its i86 media codecs from running under OS X). All those
> > niggly little 3rd party codecs and plugins that have been coded for
> > i86 (>95% of the market) ONLY will all of a sudden become available
> > for OS X. The hooks are all there in FireFox, Camino, Safari, Mozilla,
> > etc. for third party plug-ins. All that was needed was an i86
> > processor on which to run them.
> 
> Wrong. All that was needed was Windows; the processor isn't much more than
> a coincidence. This cannot affect the availability of codecs for OSX in
> any way. Sure, someone can write .dylib wrappers for existing Windows .dll
> files, just like MPlayer has Linux wrappers for them, but the fact remains
> that the "niggly little 3rd party codecs and plugins" have been coded for
> Windows, not x86. If what you say were true, Linux-x86 would have no
> shortage of codecs, but most of the codecs to which you're referring
> aren't available under Linux, whether x86 or ppc.

The processor is much more than a coincidence. Codecs are often
written at a lower level and especially the multi-media ones that have
to use a lot of processor-specific stuff. Granted they will call upon
system specific libraries BUT the difference between "Linux" and Mac
OS iX is that Linux is a hodgepodge of operating systems, libraries,
quirks and other such crud whereas Mac OS iX is ONE, and I repeat ONE
OS, supported by ONE company with a proven track record. Not only
that, but when you compile an app/plug-in for OS X that uses
Apple-approved and supported APIs you won't have to recompile your app
every time a library is updated!

The other thing about Linux users is that many they want their
software to be "open source". Many plug-ins are *NOT* open source and
never will be since they use proprietary solutions to problems (and,
it wouldn't exactly be wise to give away your bread and butter). Linux
users just don't constitute a large enough *PAYING* market to justify
the expense of supporting ALL THOSE distros and ALL THOSE PROBLEMS
(Linux ain't exactly a walk in the park... I just pooched my Ubuntu's
X.org and now have to figure out how to use CLUI tools to login to my
server to back up my home directory before I "trouble-shoot" (which'll
probably entail format and install anew ;-). Linux users like free (as
in speech) and it seems like they like free (as in beer) even more.

Moving to i86 (not x86 since they're only talking Intel so far) will
bring a *lot* of benefits for Mac OS X users (and Mac Linux users...
though, it seems like YDL won't follow... I guess that makes sense
since Fedora and Ubuntu (which I think will supplant Debian as the
Debian distro of choice) are already well established on i86).

I think the place where we'll see real progress (as Mac users) is in
the realm of fat binaries and not in the use of WINE. Compilers and/or
libraries that can be used on both Windows and Mac will appear
(whether supplied by Apple or some third party). This will greatly
simplify development for both platforms since the same i86 coding
tricks to speed up performance will work for both platforms, and
OS-specific stuff can be handled by a "higher level" library.

With a bit of imagination there's a *lot* that can be done now that
Apple's i86. I think in some ways we over-estimate the importance of
CPU since the same code (BSD) has been compiled for both x86 and PPC
with the same success (back in 2000 people were already compiling x86
Darwin in public), but in other ways the psychological importance of
i86, both for developers and users cannot be underestimated. I see
good things coming from this move.

Apple has been making good strategic decisions for its future in
recent years: iMac (need I say more :-); moving to OS X; making an
affordable consumer laptop and a killer pro laptop; and taking the MP3
player market by storm with the iPod series (that was a stroke of
genius). And, what is good for Apple is good for us Apple
afficionados. They take tried and tested ideas and revolutionise them
*before* anyone else does so, and they often do it right.

I'd happily switch to another OS and/or hardware manufacturer if the
quality and experience were right, BUT, with Apple and its Mac you
know what you're getting, and you know how long you can rely on them
(that is perhaps their strongest point and why users have stuck with
them through thick and through thin).

If you are the first adopter of a new technology you know you won't
get software support for long (e.g. Macintosh (128), PPC x1x0/x2x0,
Beige G3/PB3400). That's a principle that's well known and understood
in the tech universe and not special to Apple (and, if you don't
understand that then you probably shouldn't be an early adopter and
shut up if you ever try to whinge (I love knocking those people down a
peg or two ;-)).

(in general) If you buy a product that isn't the first in its category
you will have support for YEARS to come, and, if you buy something
near the end of its life cycle you know you'll be left without
software updates pretty soon. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Buying early means you have the new tech for a long time but it
becomes dated after a while. Buying late means you have "new" tech for
only a short time, BUT, the software you run will never get "slower"
and more "bloated" because your system will be frozen in time.

Apple's first line of Macs (68K) had a INCREDIBLY long life span. The
Mac Plus was still supported by an OS released TEN years after it was
released. My beloved Quadra 700 with a PPC accelerator likewise
survived for a whopping 8 years with new OSes. And, in the current
line-up the iMac from 1998 is still supported by the latest OS, 7
years later and many B&W G3s from 1999 will undoubtedly be
*functional* with the latest version of an OS for even longer!

The way Apple is now selling its OS upgrades as new versions of an OS
suggests to me that Apple *has already* been focussing on shifting its
business model to that of a hybrid OS-hardware manufacturer and not
just a hardware manufacturer that happens to produce an OS to sell its
h/w.

> > The one thing that I'm wondering about is whether MS will release
> > Internet Explorer for OS i86X. They stopped development for IE a while
> > ago, and, arguably that's now OS X's weak point. Yes, there are
> > Safari, Camino, FireFox and the Mozilla/Netscrape bloatwares BUT there
> > are still _some_ websites which REQUIRE IE or work better with IE.
> 
> There will be no MSIE for OSX-x86. I guarantee it.

I don't think so either b/c, if MSIE *really* is so integral to
Windows then having it run on another x86 OS would be admitting they
were lieing through their teeth during the anti-trust proceedings.

Eric.