 |
|
|
|
Next: Mac G4 (Vers.)10.2.8 No Firewire devices found
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 14
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:57 am
Post subject: transition to "multi-platform"
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>system, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
or less) with a different vendor.
Linux and many free BSDs are available on dozens of platforms, not only
the kernel but also tons of applications. Many people see this as a
major advantage of these over other systems.
In my opinion, Apple could and should try to go a similar way. Instead
of saying "in a year your PPC system will be obsolete", they could say
"from now on you will always have the best CPU available for your
task". They could then put the best low-power CPU in their new
tablet-subnotebook (hey, I'm allowed to dream, right), and the biggest
Tera-FLOP-3kW-Heater in their HD-video-rendering workstation,
regardless of the architecture.
I think that way they could avoid all the panic about machines and/or
software becoming obsolete, and instead turn it into a huge marketing
argument.
All that would be needed for this is continuing development of both
system versions by Apple (which shouldn't be a big problem), and
systematic use of fat binaries by other software providers (which
shouldn't be a problem either).
I really see no reason to drop PPC-support, when you get it practically
for free. But for that to work Apple would need to announce clearly
that PPC is not going to be dropped and people should continue to write
clean, portable code.
Ciao,
Jens
P.S.: obviously, some software such as VirtualPC or similar would
depend on the processor, but I don't see that as a major problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 14
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:46 am
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>hardware>misc (more info?)
|
|
|
Neill Massello wrote:
>
> I think you're missing something: Apple makes hardware. They have to
> pick a processor to go in the cases.
For each of the cases they have to pick a processor. There is no need
to pick the same one for notebooks, workstations, blade servers, and
clusters with thousands of processors.
> And some people take the fact that
> Apple switches processors every ten years as indicating that they are
> *more* "processor-independent" than most of the other companies.
That's exactly what I am saying. Therefore they should emphasize on
this as an advantage, rather than making everybody fear that their
PPC-based system will be completely obsolete in a year (which it won't
in any case).
Since everybody has to move to fat binaries anyway, why not make the
most of it and keep all options open, instead of "obsoleting" PPC after
a relatively short transition period? Why not keep the possibility to
use POWER, Cell or whatever processors for those machines that would
benefit from it?
Ciao,
Jens |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 3646
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:40 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1118263591.856884.134380.RemoveThis@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since everybody has to move to fat binaries anyway, why not make the
> most of it and keep all options open, instead of "obsoleting" PPC after
> a relatively short transition period?
Because most developers won't stand for it. Testing and support are big
expenses and the diversity of platforms complicates that quite a bit
unless you want to get into a fully virtualized platform where we'll all
essentially writing scripts for a massive app that Apple is responsible
for porting everywhere they like.
G
--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 15, 2003
Posts: 1093
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:35 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jens Grivolla <jens.grivolla DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
>
> I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
> processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
> or less) with a different vendor.
>
> Linux and many free BSDs are available on dozens of platforms, not only
> the kernel but also tons of applications. Many people see this as a
> major advantage of these over other systems.
I think you're missing something: Apple makes hardware. They have to
pick a processor to go in the cases. And some people take the fact that
Apple switches processors every ten years as indicating that they are
*more* "processor-independent" than most of the other companies -- the
ones that aren't hobbies and actually have to make money -- in the
computer industry, including a rather larger profit-making company that
also publishes an operating system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 18, 2004
Posts: 1718
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:17 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1118253435.242381.50560 DeleteThis @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
>
> I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
> processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
> or less) with a different vendor.
Apple is a hardware vendor.
The fact that they're able to make this transition indicates that the OS
is already written portably. So if they want to switch to different
hardware again down the line, they'll be able to do it.
But they're not interested in selling software that users can load onto
non-Apple computer systems. And it's probably more trouble than it's
worth trying to sell systems based on a wide variety of designs -- it
fragments your manufacturing resources unnecessarily.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar DeleteThis @alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 50
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:09 am
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <uce-2DAD4C.17401608062005 RemoveThis @comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce RemoveThis @splook.com> wrote:
> In article <1118263591.856884.134380 RemoveThis @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since everybody has to move to fat binaries anyway, why not make the
> > most of it and keep all options open, instead of "obsoleting" PPC after
> > a relatively short transition period?
>
> Because most developers won't stand for it.
Oh, please! Developers don't care for the most part. The real reason
Apple announced it as a "switch" is the same reason they announced 3GHz
PPCs: that's the *plan*. There isn't a great deal that prevents them
from revisiting the PPC in the future if IBM gets their act together.
No developer worth their wage is having any kind of fit over a new
processor.
> Testing and support are big
> expenses and the diversity of platforms complicates that quite a bit
> unless you want to get into a fully virtualized platform where we'll all
> essentially writing scripts for a massive app that Apple is responsible
> for porting everywhere they like.
Uh, we already do that, calling it Cocoa and Carbon and any of the
miscellaneous technologies that Apple provides. There might be extra
testing for some low-level stuff, but for the most part the developers
*should* be able to assume that Apple has taken care of the platform
independence. If my quad-fat NeXT apps were fine under the same
scenario, then Apple's resources had damn well better make the dual-fat
experience just as good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 3646
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:42 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <droleary.usenet-3A5121.14093109062005 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet RemoveThis @2005.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <uce-2DAD4C.17401608062005 RemoveThis @comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce RemoveThis @splook.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1118263591.856884.134380 RemoveThis @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since everybody has to move to fat binaries anyway, why not make the
> > > most of it and keep all options open, instead of "obsoleting" PPC after
> > > a relatively short transition period?
> >
> > Because most developers won't stand for it.
>
> Oh, please! Developers don't care for the most part. The real reason
> Apple announced it as a "switch" is the same reason they announced 3GHz
> PPCs: that's the *plan*. There isn't a great deal that prevents them
> from revisiting the PPC in the future if IBM gets their act together.
> No developer worth their wage is having any kind of fit over a new
> processor.
I would agree. I also think there are a fairly large number of
developers that aren't, as you say, worth their wage.
> > Testing and support are big
> > expenses and the diversity of platforms complicates that quite a bit
> > unless you want to get into a fully virtualized platform where we'll all
> > essentially writing scripts for a massive app that Apple is responsible
> > for porting everywhere they like.
>
> Uh, we already do that, calling it Cocoa and Carbon and any of the
> miscellaneous technologies that Apple provides. There might be extra
> testing for some low-level stuff, but for the most part the developers
> *should* be able to assume that Apple has taken care of the platform
> independence. If my quad-fat NeXT apps were fine under the same
> scenario, then Apple's resources had damn well better make the dual-fat
> experience just as good.
And you'd like to assume that the developers have uniformly done the
right thing? The Mac date routines never had a Y2K problem, but in 1998
Microsoft released a Mac application that did.
Actually what intrigues me most about your comment is that it implies
you've never worked anywhere where testing was a matter of policy. The
industry - not company but industry - in which I work wouldn't consider
such confidence in the tool/platform vendor an acceptable substitute.
--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 50
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:13 am
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <uce-4BF96F.17423009062005 RemoveThis @comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce RemoveThis @splook.com> wrote:
> And you'd like to assume that the developers have uniformly done the
> right thing? The Mac date routines never had a Y2K problem, but in 1998
> Microsoft released a Mac application that did.
I don't assume it. Instead, I'm simply comfortable with the idea that
developers that don't do the right thing will have more work to do (or
they die). Why should I care about their app more than they do? If it
turns out something I use doesn't work on Intel and the developer won't
have an update by the time I buy one, I ditch the developer not the Mac.
I frankly don't understand the mentality that makes sense out of running
business-critical functions on a 680x0 because of vendor lock-in, and it
won't be any more logical when the PPC becomes the "old" system.
> Actually what intrigues me most about your comment is that it implies
> you've never worked anywhere where testing was a matter of policy. The
> industry - not company but industry - in which I work wouldn't consider
> such confidence in the tool/platform vendor an acceptable substitute.
No, rather I've worked where testing was both important *and* done by
someone other than the developer. Everything that got back to me in the
days of a four platform NeXT indicated they did a fine job. The
confidence was *earned*, and so I give Apple the benefit of the doubt
today. Only time will tell if it is deserved, but until there is solid
evidence of massive incompatibilities, I am *not* going to run around
like a chicken with its head cut off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 157
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:55 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>system, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2005-06-08 10:57:15 -0700, "Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> said:
> I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
>
> I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
> processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
> or less) with a different vendor.
>
> Linux and many free BSDs are available on dozens of platforms, not only
> the kernel but also tons of applications. Many people see this as a
> major advantage of these over other systems.
I'm very surprised that no one seems to have followed up on this post.
I think this is one of the most interesting ideas I've heard yet. It
would solve some big problems with the current plan.
Cheers!
--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 368
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:14 am
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2005-06-11 08:55:36 +0300, Elden Fenison <usenet RemoveThis @moondog.org> said:
> On 2005-06-08 10:57:15 -0700, "Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla RemoveThis @gmail.com> said:
>> I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
>>
>> I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
>> processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
>> or less) with a different vendor.
>>
>> Linux and many free BSDs are available on dozens of platforms, not only
>> the kernel but also tons of applications. Many people see this as a
>> major advantage of these over other systems.
>
> I'm very surprised that no one seems to have followed up on this post.
> I think this is one of the most interesting ideas I've heard yet. It
> would solve some big problems with the current plan.
>
> Cheers!
It became such a debate that we are dead bored of Intel name even 
Besides jokes, its what I mean for week now.
If there was an announcement like that on front page, nobody (even the
people using since '84) wouldn't go mad. Minimac, G5, G4 sales wouldn't
stop, people wouldn't ask at G5 forums "should I return this order?"
and some genius Apple editor wouldn't delete their post making them
100% sure that they should.
It somehow proves Apple has a way too far restrictive deal with Intel
which is very sad.
Ilgaz |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 07, 2005
Posts: 33
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:14 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Elden Fenison <usenet.TakeThisOut@moondog.org> writes:
> On 2005-06-08 10:57:15 -0700, "Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> said:
> > I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
> > I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
> > processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
> > or less) with a different vendor.
> > Linux and many free BSDs are available on dozens of platforms, not
> > only
> > the kernel but also tons of applications. Many people see this as a
> > major advantage of these over other systems.
>
> I'm very surprised that no one seems to have followed up on this
> post. I think this is one of the most interesting ideas I've heard
> yet. It would solve some big problems with the current plan.
It's not so promising for Apple because the company makes much money by
selling hardware. Going "processor independent" which basically means
cross-platform approach, would be disastrous to hardware sales in the
long run: everyone could run Mac OS X without Apple hardware. Frankly, I
assume most people today buy a Mac for the OS, not because of the great
hardware. Macs are almost always nicely built machines but not so unique
as some people would like them to be.
Thomas Jahns
--
"Computers are good at following instructions,
but not at reading your mind."
D. E. Knuth, The TeXbook, Addison-Wesley 1984, 1986, 1996, p. 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 157
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:14 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2005-06-11 11:14:41 -0700, Thomas Jahns <Thomas.Jahns.TakeThisOut@epost.de> said:
> It's not so promising for Apple because the company makes much money by
> selling hardware. Going "processor independent" which basically means
> cross-platform approach, would be disastrous to hardware sales in the
> long run: everyone could run Mac OS X without Apple hardware. Frankly, I
> assume most people today buy a Mac for the OS, not because of the great
> hardware. Macs are almost always nicely built machines but not so unique
> as some people would like them to be.
Perhaps I missed the point of the OP. To me he didn't seem to be
suggesting that Mac OS X should run on non-Apple machines. Nor was I.
--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 40
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <87oeacdalq.fsf.TakeThisOut@tjahns.news.arcor.de>,
Thomas Jahns <Thomas.Jahns.TakeThisOut@epost.de> wrote:
> Elden Fenison <usenet.TakeThisOut@moondog.org> writes:
> > On 2005-06-08 10:57:15 -0700, "Jens Grivolla" <jens.grivolla.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
> > said:
> > > I'm wondering why Apple announces this as a transition to Intel.
> > > I believe that it would be much better to make a transition to a
> > > processor-independent system rather than to get locked in again (more
> > > or less) with a different vendor.
> > > Linux and many free BSDs are available on dozens of platforms, not
> > > only
> > > the kernel but also tons of applications. Many people see this as a
> > > major advantage of these over other systems.
> >
> > I'm very surprised that no one seems to have followed up on this
> > post. I think this is one of the most interesting ideas I've heard
> > yet. It would solve some big problems with the current plan.
>
> It's not so promising for Apple because the company makes much money by
> selling hardware. Going "processor independent" which basically means
> cross-platform approach, would be disastrous to hardware sales in the
> long run: everyone could run Mac OS X without Apple hardware. Frankly, I
> assume most people today buy a Mac for the OS, not because of the great
> hardware. Macs are almost always nicely built machines but not so unique
> as some people would like them to be.
So this means that either Apple will make their hardware unique
(proprietary) so others can't duplicate it or stop selling hardware and
become another Micro$oft.
Which do you think it will be?
--
Telamon
Ventura, California |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 07, 2005
Posts: 33
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:03 am
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Telamon <telamon_spamshield.DeleteThis@pacbell.net.is.invalid> writes:
> So this means that either Apple will make their hardware unique
> (proprietary) so others can't duplicate it or stop selling hardware and
> become another Micro$oft.
>
> Which do you think it will be?
Since Apple does not have the kind of financial resources that an OS
like Windows requires (which supports almost any piece of PC hardware),
there's little choice for them IMO.
Thomas Jahns
--
"Computers are good at following instructions,
but not at reading your mind."
D. E. Knuth, The TeXbook, Addison-Wesley 1984, 1986, 1996, p. 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 07, 2005
Posts: 33
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:11 am
Post subject: Re: transition to "multi-platform" [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Elden Fenison <usenet.RemoveThis@moondog.org> writes:
> On 2005-06-11 11:14:41 -0700, Thomas Jahns <Thomas.Jahns.RemoveThis@epost.de> said:
> > It's not so promising for Apple because the company makes much money by
> > selling hardware. Going "processor independent" which basically means
> > cross-platform approach, would be disastrous to hardware sales in the
> > long run: everyone could run Mac OS X without Apple hardware. Frankly, I
> > assume most people today buy a Mac for the OS, not because of the great
> > hardware. Macs are almost always nicely built machines but not so unique
> > as some people would like them to be.
>
> Perhaps I missed the point of the OP. To me he didn't seem to be
> suggesting that Mac OS X should run on non-Apple machines. Nor was I.
What did you suggest then? That Apple build _and_ support hardware for
more than one CPU architecture in the long run? They are switching to
Intel because being the only maker of PowerPC based desktop and
notebook systems isn't feasible for them at least with the current
market share (which is less than 1% where I live).
Thomas Jahns
--
"Computers are good at following instructions,
but not at reading your mind."
D. E. Knuth, The TeXbook, Addison-Wesley 1984, 1986, 1996, p. 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Mac