4th June 2005, 2:18 PM
4th June 2005, 3:17 PM
I read this earlier today and thought it was odd as well. Apple did a good job of seamlessly transitioning from Motorola's processors to the PowerPC, but I don't see why they need to make this move. Technically it's still a rumor, but it's gaining more steam everyday. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
4th June 2005, 5:51 PM
Pair this with the fact that Microsoft is using an PowerPC CPU in their next games console, and things are weird...
6th June 2005, 12:26 PM
It's official.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000137045772/
Today's presentation was running on an Intel P4. Jobs says we'll see the transition take full swing this time next year. I think Microsoft's in trouble. :D
One big question still remains: can any PC hardware run OS X? Will it support AMD's chips as well?
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000137045772/
Today's presentation was running on an Intel P4. Jobs says we'll see the transition take full swing this time next year. I think Microsoft's in trouble. :D
One big question still remains: can any PC hardware run OS X? Will it support AMD's chips as well?
6th June 2005, 3:00 PM
Well, Jobs sold me. Although the PowerPC architecture is more elegant, it's been evident to Mac fans the last few years that it hasn't been making huge strides. IBM had promised a 3 GHz PPC by now and we still don't have it, and there still isn't a G5 processor that can run cool enough for a laptop. Apple has put a lot of thought into this as they have had OS X running on x86 for years. That showed a lot of forethought. It seems that developers will have to do very little legwork to get their applications to run natively on x86 processors as well as be backwards compatible with the PPC processor. The Mathematica group only had to change 20 lines of code to get their code to run on x86. This will hurt Apple in the short term as many people will hold of buying a new Mac to wait for the Intel Macs, but I think it's a good long term decision.
As for OS X running on non-Macs, I wouldn't bet on it. Apple still makes a lot of their money on hardware, and one of the reasons OS X is so stable is because Apple is able to control the hardware. If they didn't have that control OS X would run into some of the same compatibility problems as Windows. I'm all for this decision as long as I don't have to see those Intel logos on the outside of my Mac or here that damn chime during Apple commercials.
As for OS X running on non-Macs, I wouldn't bet on it. Apple still makes a lot of their money on hardware, and one of the reasons OS X is so stable is because Apple is able to control the hardware. If they didn't have that control OS X would run into some of the same compatibility problems as Windows. I'm all for this decision as long as I don't have to see those Intel logos on the outside of my Mac or here that damn chime during Apple commercials.
6th June 2005, 3:06 PM
Haha, just 20 lines? Something tells me that was the section making sure it was running on PPC hardware :D.
6th June 2005, 4:10 PM
Yeah, Mac people gave up on backwards compatibility years ago, right?
... poor Mac people...
... poor Mac people...
6th June 2005, 4:39 PM
Well from what I understand OS 10 comes with OS9 which you can install in another directory. OSX actually uses OS9 when running old applications, or something of the sort.
6th June 2005, 4:47 PM
Even if that's true, Apple isn't exactly known for being very good on backwards compatibility, to say the least...
Of course, I'd just say MacOS as a whole is overrated, but hey, I'm a PC person so wouldn't you expect it? :)
But I do know that I've heard that Apple backwards compatibility is a lot worse than MS's... though MS has tried hard to catch up with WinME, XP, Xp sp2 (breaks more older things, I've heard...), and the upcoming Longhorn...
Of course, I'd just say MacOS as a whole is overrated, but hey, I'm a PC person so wouldn't you expect it? :)
But I do know that I've heard that Apple backwards compatibility is a lot worse than MS's... though MS has tried hard to catch up with WinME, XP, Xp sp2 (breaks more older things, I've heard...), and the upcoming Longhorn...
6th June 2005, 6:06 PM
Mac OS X is completely backwards compatible with previous versions of the OS. I still play all of my old games in OS X. It's pretty much a minimal install of the old OS, but OS 9 and earlier programs have no problems running in OS X. I don't know why you've heard Apple isn't good on backwards compatiblity. The methods they will use for software emulation on the new Intel machines are supposedly going to be completely invisible to the user, which is the best you can ask for.
And after reading a lot on this news I found out that Windows will run on the new Intel Macs, but OS X will not run on non-Macs. Now I'm sure no one is going to buy a Mac to just run Windows on, but having a computer with one partition with Windows and another with OS X is an incredible opportunity. You can have an awesome OS and then an OS to use for playing games. It does scare me a little, though, as some developers may stave off Mac development since they can just tell their customers to buy the Windows version, but I don't think many important developers will do that and the benefits far outweight the drawbacks.
And after reading a lot on this news I found out that Windows will run on the new Intel Macs, but OS X will not run on non-Macs. Now I'm sure no one is going to buy a Mac to just run Windows on, but having a computer with one partition with Windows and another with OS X is an incredible opportunity. You can have an awesome OS and then an OS to use for playing games. It does scare me a little, though, as some developers may stave off Mac development since they can just tell their customers to buy the Windows version, but I don't think many important developers will do that and the benefits far outweight the drawbacks.
6th June 2005, 8:08 PM
But is it compatible with Apple II software (like Windows with DOS)? :)
So they managed to keep software compatibility before when they changed CPUs? Interesting... this time it sounds like it'll require programs to be rewritten -- most older ones won't be! Does this break them or will there be emulation or something?
Mac OS X is, of course, based off Unix, which runs on any platform, so the theory isn't too hard to understand... it is interesting that MacOS won't run on most Intel/AMD computers, though. How will they manage WinXP running on their machines but not MacOS on Windows/Linux ones?
So they managed to keep software compatibility before when they changed CPUs? Interesting... this time it sounds like it'll require programs to be rewritten -- most older ones won't be! Does this break them or will there be emulation or something?
Quote:And after reading a lot on this news I found out that Windows will run on the new Intel Macs, but OS X will not run on non-Macs. Now I'm sure no one is going to buy a Mac to just run Windows on, but having a computer with one partition with Windows and another with OS X is an incredible opportunity. You can have an awesome OS and then an OS to use for playing games. It does scare me a little, though, as some developers may stave off Mac development since they can just tell their customers to buy the Windows version, but I don't think many important developers will do that and the benefits far outweight the drawbacks.
Mac OS X is, of course, based off Unix, which runs on any platform, so the theory isn't too hard to understand... it is interesting that MacOS won't run on most Intel/AMD computers, though. How will they manage WinXP running on their machines but not MacOS on Windows/Linux ones?
7th June 2005, 2:27 PM
Well, I was thinking of things anecdotally. When we went from Apple IIe to Macs the Macs came with a card that allowed you to run Apple II software. That Mac lasted a few years and by the time we were ready to upgrade we didn't use the Apple II software anymore. I don't remember the transition from Motorolla's processor to the PowerPC because we had very little Mac software at that time and pretty much relied on what was pre-installed. The OS 9 to OS X transition was the big one for us since we literally have hundreds of software programs now, and most run on pre-OS X operating systems. Every single one of them that we still use runs on our computers with no noticable problems. On our end the transition was fairly easy. It's on the developers end, however, that I've read there have been problems.
The Apple IIe to Macintosh pissed off a lot of developers, and many who were already leaning towards PCs totally left Apple. Motorolla to PowerPC wasn't as bad as their was emulation to run pre-PPC programs on PPC Macs, but developers still had to do a little legwork so they were still pissed off. OS 9 to OS X was the easiest transition as Apple has been making things much easier for Apple developers with the development tools they provide for free. Developers still had work to do to move from OS 9 to OS X, and some of them took a few years to finally get their programs up to code, but almost all of them loved the transition because OS X is lightyears better than anything that came before it. This transition looks to be even easier as developers who have been using Apple's tools don't have to do much to get their programs to run on x86, and end-users won't notice a difference at all.
I think Apple and Steve Jobs have been thinking about this move for a while so they hopefully know what they are doing. You need to provide backwards compatibility for a few years, but there comes a point where only a small percentage of people will still need that backwards compatibility. I know I have never felt the need to use Apple II programs from over 20 years ago. Yeah there's a nostaligia factor for some of the games, but that's what emulation is for.
The Apple IIe to Macintosh pissed off a lot of developers, and many who were already leaning towards PCs totally left Apple. Motorolla to PowerPC wasn't as bad as their was emulation to run pre-PPC programs on PPC Macs, but developers still had to do a little legwork so they were still pissed off. OS 9 to OS X was the easiest transition as Apple has been making things much easier for Apple developers with the development tools they provide for free. Developers still had work to do to move from OS 9 to OS X, and some of them took a few years to finally get their programs up to code, but almost all of them loved the transition because OS X is lightyears better than anything that came before it. This transition looks to be even easier as developers who have been using Apple's tools don't have to do much to get their programs to run on x86, and end-users won't notice a difference at all.
I think Apple and Steve Jobs have been thinking about this move for a while so they hopefully know what they are doing. You need to provide backwards compatibility for a few years, but there comes a point where only a small percentage of people will still need that backwards compatibility. I know I have never felt the need to use Apple II programs from over 20 years ago. Yeah there's a nostaligia factor for some of the games, but that's what emulation is for.
7th June 2005, 2:50 PM
I like to be able to actually use my games. "Re-purchase them"" 98% of games do not get updated for hardware changes (sure, Windows still uses x86, but lots of older games are processor-speed-reliant and don't work on fast ones) or software changes (16 bit programs to 32 bit programs to the mostly upcoming 64 bit stuff; dos to windows to win95 to win98 to winxp (i don't know of anything compatible with winme and not win98, so I didn't mention that one -- but there are win98/me programs not 95 compatible.)...)... yes, there is emulation, for older stuff, and DOSBox is cool, but that doesn't help me with mid-'90s Windows games, many of which seem to have problems running on modern PCs, now does it... or games that required 3DFX cards for hardware 3D (okay, there are some 3DFX emulation drivers. I've tried them, they work for some games and not others.), etc.
Anyway, the point is, I like to be able to run my games. And I can run most of them on my current PC. Not all of them -- a few don't work, or don't work correctly -- but the vast majority. If I had a mac (well first I'd have maybe 10% as many games as I do, because macs don't get many games) that quite simply would not be true.
Of course, as I said, Windows isn't exempt. WinXP has pretty bad DOS emulation and I've heard more than enough about the problems XP has with many Win95/98/Me-designed Windows titles to know it has a bunch of problems there too.
I know, providing legacy support is hard... but I really appreciate it when it's there because it's pretty frusterating to have games you cannot play.
Anyway, the point is, I like to be able to run my games. And I can run most of them on my current PC. Not all of them -- a few don't work, or don't work correctly -- but the vast majority. If I had a mac (well first I'd have maybe 10% as many games as I do, because macs don't get many games) that quite simply would not be true.
Of course, as I said, Windows isn't exempt. WinXP has pretty bad DOS emulation and I've heard more than enough about the problems XP has with many Win95/98/Me-designed Windows titles to know it has a bunch of problems there too.
I know, providing legacy support is hard... but I really appreciate it when it's there because it's pretty frusterating to have games you cannot play.
7th June 2005, 3:10 PM
Well, I can't play my Apple II games anymore, but every other Mac game I own runs just fine on my current Mac. You are a pretty avid PC gamer, though, so I can see how this would be an issue for you, while I have always been more of a console gamer. I started out playing games on the Apple II, but once I got an NES I was sold on consoles.
Anyway, John Dvorak wrote an interesting piece on the Apple/Intel deal. He said it has the potential to kill Linux, and it's something I never thought of before. Definitely an interesting theory.
Anyway, John Dvorak wrote an interesting piece on the Apple/Intel deal. He said it has the potential to kill Linux, and it's something I never thought of before. Definitely an interesting theory.
7th June 2005, 9:58 PM
I'm sure there are Apple II emulators... you'd need a 5 1/4" drive, though.
This isn't as big an issue as it could be (for Apple) because pretty much by definition Mac people aren't gamers... I mean, how can you have many gamers on a platform that gets almost no GAMES? :)
But yeah, whenever I do get XP (on my next computer or something probably), I think I will want to dual-boot it with either 98 or ME, for backwards-compatibility. I like the fact that I can play virtually all of my games on one PC, and don't want that to change in the future... (a corollary to this, of course, is the fact that I like to have them all installed too... :) (and tens of gigs of demos too, of course!).)
This isn't as big an issue as it could be (for Apple) because pretty much by definition Mac people aren't gamers... I mean, how can you have many gamers on a platform that gets almost no GAMES? :)
But yeah, whenever I do get XP (on my next computer or something probably), I think I will want to dual-boot it with either 98 or ME, for backwards-compatibility. I like the fact that I can play virtually all of my games on one PC, and don't want that to change in the future... (a corollary to this, of course, is the fact that I like to have them all installed too... :) (and tens of gigs of demos too, of course!).)