Mac OS X and the Cell Processor: A Marriage Made in Heaven?
Jim Lee Jr.
having the ability to run OS X, Linux and Windoze Will it be a good
thing if developed? Cuss and discuss, Wintrolls.
Mac OS X and the Cell Processor: A Marriage Made in Heaven?
Dan Knight
2005.02.18
In discussing the real world potential of the new Cell processor
(jointly developed by Sony, IBM, and Toshiba), Robert X. Cringely points
out that software, not hardware, will determine the fate of any new
computing platform.
Software, not hardware.
Repeat that mantra to yourself. It goes a long way in explaining the
ongoing survival of Apple's Macintosh computers and their nearly
complete failure to make inroads into a world dominated by Microsoft
Windows.
Ground Zero
Apple, Radio Shack, and Commodore started the personal computing
revolution on an equal footing with the introduction of home computers.
Prior to 1977, microcomputers were for hobbyists who cobbled together
their own computers; from 1997 forward, the Apple II, Commodore PET, and
Radio Shack TRS-80 created a market for ready-to-use personal computers.
There were no operating systems. There was nearly no software. Everyone
was on a level playing field, and each computer came with a version of
BASIC that allowed buyers to create their own programs.
As the personal computer market grew, two thing happened. The big one
was the introduction of affordable floppy drives, which created a much
broader market for commercial software. PC owners could buy a word
processor and just use it - and that also meant that their next PC would
probably be the same brand so it could run the same programs and use the
same files.
With one exception, personal computers of the 1977-1980 period used
proprietary operating systems, floppy disk formats, and hardware. Apple,
Atari, Commodore, Sinclair, Tandy, and others made the whole widget.
The exception was CP/M (created in 1974 by Gary Kildall), an operating
system that worked on the Zilog Z-80 and Intel 8080 and 8085 CPUs. Any
computer that used CP/M could use the same software and the same files -
but there were a multitude of incompatible floppy disk formats that
often made it a challenge to move files from one computer to another.
Microsoft made a Z-80 card so the Apple II could run CP/M, and the
operating system was also ported to the TRS-80.
Enter IBM
In 1981, IBM entered the personal computer market, and things have never
been the same. The original IBM PC didn't come with a floppy drive, a
video card, or even an operating system - they were all extra-cost items.
A typical IBM PC system included two 5.25" 160 KB single-sided floppy
drives, a video card, one or two I/O cards (for printers, modems, etc.),
and PC-DOS 1.0. The operating system, also known as MS-DOS, pretty much
clones CP/M for the new IBM architecture, and IBM's choice of an Intel
8088 CPU made it fairly easy to port CP/M software to the new platform.
The IBM name, the ability to leverage the installed base of CP/M
software, and the availability of MS-DOS on non-IBM hardware helped make
this the standard platform for the computing industry. Companies that
made DOS-compatible hardware incompatible with IBM's floppies, memory
architecture, or expansion bus may have made a better product in some
respects (the TI Professional Computer and Zenith Z-100 come to mind),
but being unable to read IBM disks or run unmodified software designed
for the IBM doomed them.
IBM's architecture and Microsoft's operating system created a platform
that decimated the competition in the business world and with computer
hobbyists. CP/M was considered a relic of the past by 1984.
Enter the Macintosh
Apple unveiled the only alternative hardware platform to survive against
the IBM/Microsoft platform in January 1984. The Macintosh used a 3.5"
floppy disk, which was incompatible with DOS computers and Apple's other
computer lines. It was based on a 68000 CPU, which was different from
the 808x, 6502, and 6809 CPUs in the other computers on the market.
In short, it was different. Very different. Completely different. And it
was an uphill battle to gain a foothold in the Microsoft-dominated
market. Apple worked with Microsoft to make sure Word and Multiplan (a
predecessor to Excel) were available on the Mac - even today it's
crucial to the Mac's survival that Microsoft Word and Excel run on Apple
hardware.
Still, by 1984 there was a wealth of software for the IBM and its
multitude of clones. Getting people to switch was unlikely, and the Mac
has never had anything close to the number of software titles of the
Microsoft DOS/Windows platform.
It was niches that grew the Mac's market, and none more than desktop
publishing, a field invented by Aldus PageMaker and the LaserWriter
printer. Because of PageMaker, LaserWriters, and Apple's very simply
networking, Macs became the platform of choice for page design. This
later extended into other fields, such as illustration (Freehand,
Illustrator) and imaging (especially Photoshop).
The Mac has been successful in the music world as well, offering good
MIDI support early on. It was also the first computer line to offer a
CD-ROM drive.
And it was always the second-place operating system as IBM/Microsoft
built in the CP/M base and then built Windows on the DOS base, always
leveraging yesterday's standards to keep tomorrow's customer.
Apple Survival
There are enough applications for the Macintosh that most people can do
everything they need to do on the platform. That's been true for nearly
20 years now. And Apple has done a marvelous job leveraging their own
history to grow and maintain the Mac market.
Thanks to a very clever 680x0 emulator, Apple was able to move to the
PowerPC CPU while allowing pre-PPC software to run on the new hardware.
In fact, many parts of the operating system remained in 680x0 code until
after the Mac OS stopped supporting 680x0 hardware.
The Macintosh owes its survival to Macintosh users who followed the
platform through hardware and software changes, including the
transitions to PowerPC and to OS X. Apple has been very successful
selling 3 million or more computers a year, losing only a few users to
the Windows platform and probably gaining as many from Windows as it
lost.
The Future
Cringely is looking at the future of the Cell processor, which is linked
to the PowerPC architecture that has powered Macs since 1994. It's more
different from today's Mac CPUs than the G5 is from the G4, and it
remains to be seen how useful (or useless) it might be at the heart of a
computing platform.
If it has the flexibility and power - and it certainly appears that it
will - it could form the basis of a new generation of personal computers
that could go head-to-head with the Intel/Windows platform.
Microsoft has tried to leverage Windows' dominance in the past, porting
Windows NT to PowerPC and a few other CPUs, but they discovered the same
obstacles there that others had in standing against the Microsoft
standard - existing software wouldn't run on the new Windows hardware.
That made migration difficult and killed Windows on other hardware
platforms.
Today there are three computing platforms: Intel/Windows, PowerPC/Mac
OS, and Unix/Linux on almost any hardware out there. How are they
positioned for Cell-based computing?
Windows on Cell
Microsoft would face exactly the same problems with Cell architecture
that it did when porting Windows to other hardware platforms. The simple
fact that existing versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and the like
won't run on non-Intel architecture means that every program would have
to be redone for the new hardware.
I can't see Microsoft going that route, because they know few would
follow them to the new platform.
*nix on Cell
Linux, Unix, and BSD have survived in part because they are hardware
independent operating systems. You can run Linux on a PC, on a Mac, or
even on an iPod. The key is that *nix and *nix applications have to be
compiled for each platform. You can't just take a program that's
compiled to run under Linux on a PC and have it run on a Mac; you have
to recompile or rebuild the software first.
For *nix geeks, that's not an issue, and you can rest assured that Linux
will be available for Cell architecture soon after the first Cell-based
computers ship.
While programs to replace Word, Excel, Photoshop, Quark, and the like
exist for *nix, the whole *nix paradigm assumes users who really know
what they're doing - that was one of the biggest arguments against OS X
ever succeeding. Geeks may adopt Linux on Cell, but the masses won't
until Linux is as easy to set up and use as Windows or the Mac OS.
OS X on Cell
The most promising candidate to control a generation of Cell-based
hardware is Mac OS X. It's already based on PowerPC architecture, and
the obstacles Apple has dealt with in moving from Motorola 680x0 CPUs to
early PowerPC CPUs and more recently to the G5 put them in a good
position to adapt to a somewhat different architecture.
Further, Mac software is already designed to run on PowerPC hardware, so
I suspect a lot of it could be coaxed to run without modification on the
new Cell architecture. For best performance, software will have to be
updated to take advantage of the new hardware, but thing should run well
enough to make it feasible to run current OS X programs on the new
computers.
OS X for All
The next step is to create an OS X consortium so Apple could work with
Sony, IBM, and others to create a standard Cell computing platform that
others could license. There are already PC companies interested in
licensing the Mac OS, whether because of Windows problems or Microsoft's
hubris, and a new hardware platform would give them the opportunity to
"go Macintosh."
Apple would have to be willing to give up complete hardware control over
the platform, which is why a consortium would be essential to the
success of OS X on Cell. And Apple would probably see a decline in
Macintosh hardware sales due to competition, but that would allow Apple
to concentrate on what it does best - innovation and easy-to-use
products.
The Mac OS already has almost all the software anyone could ever need.
The Cell architecture would address one area where the Mac is weak - 3D
gaming - and could help reshape Apple as the Macintosh/Mac
OS/iTunes/iPod/great and easy applications company.
Just imagine 10 million new Mac OS users a year. Millions more OS X
upgrades. Millions more people who might buy Pages, iLife, Final Cut,
and Apple's other software. Millions more who might buy Apple hardware
the next time around, since their Cell-based HP or Compaq already runs
the same OS and programs.
After all, it's the software that sells the hardware, not the other way
around.
warb...@yahoo.com
and having no control of content, then
perhaps Yes, the cell is a perfect choice for Apple
and you.
C Lund
In article <1108901391....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
warb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you like digital rights management (DRM)
Marginal, on the mac.
> and having no control of content, then
> perhaps Yes, the cell is a perfect choice for Apple
> and you.
And you're basing this on ...?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
warb...@yahoo.com
C Lund wrote:
> > If you like digital rights management (DRM)
> > and having no control of content, then
> > perhaps Yes, the cell is a perfect choice for Apple
> > and you.
>
> And you're basing this on ...?
Oh sorry, I thought I was talking with INFORMED people,
who know that Cell implements DRM from the ground up.
news
> (this line is here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
>
> In article <1108928429....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> And what makes you think Apple would implement this in a hypothetical
> OS X that runs on Cell?
>
Could they actually stop it being implemeted by some program? And if so
how would we know, would they make it public that they had disabled it?
Or is it something that would have to be consciously implemented by the
system programmers to be able to be used?
I mean how could we be sure, seeing as the system above Darwin is not
open source?
Not rhetorical questions, though they might sound argumentative. I think
it is one thing to not have DRM built in in the first place, and keep
your board from being being massacred by the pigopoly, but quite another
to have built-in DRM and not implemet it. Does Steve Jobs have kids?
Andy
C Lund
In article <1108928429....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
And what makes you think Apple would implement this in a hypothetical
OS X that runs on Cell?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Yef
Intel and Microsoft were threatening to implement
Paladium, which was a scheme to implement DRM
on the hardware level. To give you an idea of how
paranoid their scheme was, they were going to encrypt
data flows between the major chip in the system
so that hackers couldn't tap in and (gasp!) somehow
record movies onto another piece of hardware.
Well, apparently Cell picks up on the theme of
hardware-based DRM. Maybe it can be disabled,
I don't know, but it's the same corporate arrogance
again, saying we aren't allowed to copy DVDs and
such that we bought and own.
C Lund
"Yef" <e9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, I remember Paladium. But it required both Intel and MS to
implement - IOW both HW and SW. While Cell may or may not have DRM,
keep in mind that Apple's DRM is marginal - and probably just as much
as Apple had to implement in order to get RIAA to sign up for the
iTMS. I'd be worried if Apple had a history of draconian DRM, but they
don't. Quite the contrary.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
news <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > And what makes you think Apple would implement this in a hypothetical
> > OS X that runs on Cell?
> Could they actually stop it being implemeted by some program? And if so
> how would we know, would they make it public that they had disabled it?
> Or is it something that would have to be consciously implemented by the
> system programmers to be able to be used?
I would assume a programmer would have to consciously implement it in
order for it to work.
> I mean how could we be sure, seeing as the system above Darwin is not
> open source?
Darwin *is* the system. The stuff on top is the media layer and the
GUI. If Apple implemented a draconian DRM on this thing, it would only
be a matter of time before somebody issues a patch that "fixes" it.
> Not rhetorical questions, though they might sound argumentative. I think
> it is one thing to not have DRM built in in the first place, and keep
> your board from being being massacred by the pigopoly, but quite another
> to have built-in DRM and not implemet it. Does Steve Jobs have kids?
He has a daughter, Lisa, IIRC.
> Andy
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund