Whatever happened to...
Anthony D. Minkoff
There has been some hand-wringing about the risk to the Mac of the OS/2
effect. Mac users will be able to run Windows software quite well -- at
least, those who are willing to shell out for a copy of VirtualPC or
something similar will be able to do so. Software developers may
therefore decide that it's not worthwhile to maintain a Mac version of
the software, figuring that a single version -- the Windows version --
will be accessible to both Windows users and Mac users.
Can Apple combat this effect by releasing a cross-platform version of
Cocoa as a "better" way to develop applications for both Windows and Mac
users?
Aquila Deus
support GNUstep!
Nasht0n
The only way for Apple to avoid the OS/2 effect is to make their systems
proprietary, from MBs all the way to the CPU. IOW, they would be using
Intel's offerings, but probably making enough mods to the CPU so that
Windows will not be able to boot from it.
Apple is a h/w company primo and very capable of designing their own h/w
to the point that both companies can benefit from each others'
expertise. This is extraordinary because I believe that this R&D will
probably find its way into every box, PC or Mac. So far, Apple has
helped popularize certain technologies, but with the exception of
firewire, what else that Apple developed has really found its way into PCs?
Being able to dual boot to Windows/OS X would signal the death knell for
Apple as we know it today. I don't believe we would be seeing too many
applications being developed for the Mac side of things.
It's bad enough that they were obligated to effect another transition,
they're not going to rock the boat to the point that their whole
business model changes also.
YMMV, of course.
Nicolas
Andrew J. Brehm
Microsoft might see this as a direct attack and stop supporting the Mac
OS.
It really depends on whether Apple's stragety is survival as a 3-10%
player or whether their strategy is a direct attack to get it all.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Charles Jo
Apple still generates the bulk of their revenue from selling boxes,
correct? So, at this stage, their real enemy is Dell and other box
makers. If Apple boxes can do more things, then the logical thing to
do is warm up to both Microsoft and Intel. I use both Macs and PCs and
if Apple's future boxes allowed for dual booting (or better yet,
simultaneous use of both OSes without emulation -- yes, VPC is way too
slow) and the price delta is not too big, then I would definitely buy
Apple boxes.
Sarcastech
http://www.charlesjo.com/newsletterissue?newsletterIssueEntityId=285
Tim Smith
"Anthony D. Minkoff" <admi...@NOSPAM.cox.net> wrote:
> ...Yellow Box for Windows?
>
> There has been some hand-wringing about the risk to the Mac of the OS/2
> effect.
OS/2's problem was IBM, not Windows compatibility. IBM provided very
poor support to developers, and IBM didn't promote OS/2 to end users.
--
--Tim Smith
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> ...Yellow Box for Windows?
I already saw a news article to the effect that the Yellow Box people
are sticking with the PowerPC instead of becoming another x86 Linux
distributor.
> There has been some hand-wringing about the risk to the Mac of the OS/2
> effect. Mac users will be able to run Windows software quite well -- at
> least, those who are willing to shell out for a copy of VirtualPC or
> something similar will be able to do so. Software developers may
> therefore decide that it's not worthwhile to maintain a Mac version of
> the software, figuring that a single version -- the Windows version --
> will be accessible to both Windows users and Mac users.
At least a full version of Windows XP - and apparently, this, not
"not-so-VirtualPC" is all that will be required, according to reports
of the leaked x86 Tiger... but the final box may not be exactly like
the development system - costs quite a bit of money.
Plus, pretty well everyone with OS/2 had Windows in the first place.
You have to be motivated to buy a Mac, and if you're motivated to buy a
Mac, it is by no means certain you will buy Windows.
Apple has made porting applications to the x86 Mac from the PPC Mac
easy.
What, therefore, is likely to happen is that companies supporting the
Mac will continue to do so - and companies producing software for
Windows will continue to do so.
Now, some companies supporting _both_ Windows and the Macintosh - which
include some very major vendors, such as Adobe and Microsoft - might
possibly reconsider their Mac support, depending on what happens
between now and 2006/2007.
Microsoft has not, of course, commented on whether it sees Apple's move
as a threat, an opportunity, or both.
Even with no apps, of course, a Mac also running Windows could be used
to surf the Internet safely in Mac mode. Maybe this is the new bottom
line: Microsoft has just one year to make Windows a more secure
operating system, or wind up with Apple as the owner of the PC hardware
market.
Instead of Microsoft/Intel, Microsoft/Intel/Apple? They can't want
that. But Microsoft took a giant stride forwards with Service Pack 2
for Windows XP, so they might be able to pull it off, and forestall the
*indirect* competitive threat from Apple.
John Savard
imout...@mac.com
> Anthony D. Minkoff wrote:
> > ...Yellow Box for Windows?
>
> I already saw a news article to the effect that the Yellow Box people
> are sticking with the PowerPC instead of becoming another x86 Linux
> distributor.
There are no Yellow Box people. You're thinking of Yellow Dog Linux.
> Now, some companies supporting _both_ Windows and the Macintosh - which
> include some very major vendors, such as Adobe and Microsoft - might
> possibly reconsider their Mac support, depending on what happens
> between now and 2006/2007.
I don't think major and/or popular apps that have to integrate well
with the desktop will go Windows, but I do think costy apps like Maya
will go Windows, and most niche stuff might go or stay Windows.
Steve Hix
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Anthony D. Minkoff wrote:
> > ...Yellow Box for Windows?
>
> I already saw a news article to the effect that the Yellow Box people
> are sticking with the PowerPC instead of becoming another x86 Linux
> distributor.
Is there some confusion here?
Yellow box was an old Apple approach to running their OS on Intel
hardware, back during the early post NeXT acquisition period.
Yellowdog Linux is the group that has stated that they are going to be
sticking with PowerPC for their distro.
ZnU
I think this idea that being able to run Windows apps with decent
performance is a threat to native Mac apps relies on a confusion of
cause and effect.
For the most part, people buy Macs because they want to run Mac OS X,
and they want to run Mac software within the Mac OS X environment. Not
the other way around. Dropping OS X versions of apps because OS X users
gained the ability to run Windows apps faster would make sense, if Mac
users were just a generic sample of the personal computer market that
happened, at random, to use a different platform, and didn't have any
preference one way or the other. But this is obviously not the case.
And, of course, if Mac users want to run Windows, they'll have to buy
it, at full price. How could any software vendor *not* think their Mac
sales would die overnight if they required Mac users to pay $200 to a
vendor they hate, to install a system they don't like, exposing their
machine to a huge amount of malware they're trying to avoid?
Honestly, this doesn't seem more realistic than a vendor just telling
the Mac user base *now* to go out and buy new machines from Dell to run
their software. That happens every now and then, of course, but it
doesn't seem to undermine the platform.
[snip]
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
imout...@mac.com
> I think this idea that being able to run Windows apps with decent
> performance is a threat to native Mac apps relies on a confusion of
> cause and effect.
Even in the case of Maya?
Photoshop isn't at such risk since the company has years of work
invested in their OS X codebase, and Photoshop has to be a good desktop
citizen, but I see very little barrier to keeping Maya on OS X, given
good hardware virtualization from Intel.
> For the most part, people buy Macs because they want to run Mac OS X,
> and they want to run Mac software within the Mac OS X environment. Not
> the other way around. Dropping OS X versions of apps because OS X users
> gained the ability to run Windows apps faster would make sense, if Mac
> users were just a generic sample of the personal computer market that
> happened, at random, to use a different platform, and didn't have any
> preference one way or the other. But this is obviously not the case.
This is true. In the OS/2 example there wasn't ~that~ big a diff
between the PM and the Windows desktop UE or API, AFAIK.
> And, of course, if Mac users want to run Windows, they'll have to buy
> it, at full price.
heheh, not necessarily. If Microsoft really wanted to fuck with Apple
they could release a Gaming Edition, featuring just directx and
associated gaming API for $19 or so.
> How could any software vendor *not* think their Mac
> sales would die overnight if they required Mac users to pay $200
(home is $90, pro is $145 at newegg)
> to a
> vendor they hate, to install a system they don't like, exposing their
> machine to a huge amount of malware they're trying to avoid?
I'd do it to get Halo, Half-Life, etc on my machine. I think Doom3
could possibly be the last native id engine/game we'll see on the Mac.
Since Carmack is one of the few OpenGL guys, he might stay, but people
doing D3D ports will start looking over their shoulder later this
decade.
> Honestly, this doesn't seem more realistic than a vendor just telling
> the Mac user base *now* to go out and buy new machines from Dell to run
> their software. That happens every now and then, of course, but it
> doesn't seem to undermine the platform.
I agree for everything except apps that cost more than say $500 and
anything that runs fullscreen.
Ryan Gordon is a good guy so he'll still be doing ports like UT.