Explaining Transitions: AppleTel
The landscape of the computer industry changed yesterday, with the announcement and confirmation by Apple Computer's CEO, Steve Jobs that the future Mac line will have Intel Inside.
There are many angles that are being considered. Why and why now? Perhaps it is best to take Jobs' explanation at face value: Future business for Apple can be realized only through Intel's Processor road map (more likely the x86-line). Apple isn't happy that G5s and perhaps its successors can not run on notebook computers (the fastest growing hardware segment today). Thats the reason today and the immediate future--- the two years transition period when current G4s will be yesterday's chip. Further down the line, it is difficult to speculate what it is exactly, but Apple has probably projects in the pipeline that will work with a company that can deliver performance for every resource and buck that it uses.
What does this mean for the rest of the industry? Does this mean, Mac OSX will run on your PC today? Well yes, as long as you have drivers for those devices you are installing the OS into... and all you'll need is a compile of the code. Does this mean, it is theoretically possible to rip off a copy of OSX and install them on current Wintel tech? Then the answer is yes. So in this scenario, Microsoft is “sort of protected” because the important parts of OSX--- quicktime and the other layers, those are not open source. Apple is not muscling into Microsoft turf than they are already doing and have been doing ever since. But then, if price is right, why wouldn't they switch to OSX, which is superior to Windows in loads of ways?
Does this mean, Windows software can run on Apple? The Windows API is vastly different from OSX. Apple's OS is still more natively connected to Linux where in theory, a program that works on Linux will work on Macs with little software or code change. But what is easy is that developers will have less problem creating solutions for two platforms. Intel and the PowerPC are different architectures animals, now that Macs are x86, then it is far easier to port code.
And what of Linux? Does this mean, it is effectively dead now that Apple's x86? Of course not! For Linux, its strength lies in its ability to provide enterprise solutions--- specifically the backroom jobs that are handled by the big boys. These allow you to send email, to connect to the office, to provide firewall protection or that company-wide directory services. And there still that exotic PC hardware that wintel uses.
Linux may find it more difficult now to make a case that it is the preferred desktop choice, no different from what it is encountering now. It has very little in the spit and polish look of OSX. They are both Unix, they both use roughly the same compilers--- GCC and many similarities. But Linux hasn't made itself user friendly. It hasn't created a polished desktop look or an integrated user interface. Its great to play with these things but at the end of the day, sometimes, we need to get some work done and if you're looking for a unix-based desktop, Mac OS X is the right pathway for you.
Who's been affected by this change? The big looser is IBM. The Power architecture that they've so painstakingly worked to market since the G5 came to commercial use is now perceived as a dead end architecture. x86 has won the war of the processors. At the end of the day, without knowing the facts, IBM probably looked at the numbers and that further development would probably not be worth the investment and instead focused development on Game Chips that probably had the right set of volumes they needed to make things happen and leaves the impression that the Cell (which is based on the Power family) is probably not going to be a very good general purpose processor.
Will the transition work? Probably, the major pain is over as Steve Jobs demonstrated. OSX works on x86. The apps have plenty of time to migrate, which is good.
So will I be in line for a x86 Mac? Of course, there's more to the Mac than its hardware, its “soul” as Jobs put it was what really won me over: OS X, which just plain rocks.
There are many angles that are being considered. Why and why now? Perhaps it is best to take Jobs' explanation at face value: Future business for Apple can be realized only through Intel's Processor road map (more likely the x86-line). Apple isn't happy that G5s and perhaps its successors can not run on notebook computers (the fastest growing hardware segment today). Thats the reason today and the immediate future--- the two years transition period when current G4s will be yesterday's chip. Further down the line, it is difficult to speculate what it is exactly, but Apple has probably projects in the pipeline that will work with a company that can deliver performance for every resource and buck that it uses.
What does this mean for the rest of the industry? Does this mean, Mac OSX will run on your PC today? Well yes, as long as you have drivers for those devices you are installing the OS into... and all you'll need is a compile of the code. Does this mean, it is theoretically possible to rip off a copy of OSX and install them on current Wintel tech? Then the answer is yes. So in this scenario, Microsoft is “sort of protected” because the important parts of OSX--- quicktime and the other layers, those are not open source. Apple is not muscling into Microsoft turf than they are already doing and have been doing ever since. But then, if price is right, why wouldn't they switch to OSX, which is superior to Windows in loads of ways?
Does this mean, Windows software can run on Apple? The Windows API is vastly different from OSX. Apple's OS is still more natively connected to Linux where in theory, a program that works on Linux will work on Macs with little software or code change. But what is easy is that developers will have less problem creating solutions for two platforms. Intel and the PowerPC are different architectures animals, now that Macs are x86, then it is far easier to port code.
And what of Linux? Does this mean, it is effectively dead now that Apple's x86? Of course not! For Linux, its strength lies in its ability to provide enterprise solutions--- specifically the backroom jobs that are handled by the big boys. These allow you to send email, to connect to the office, to provide firewall protection or that company-wide directory services. And there still that exotic PC hardware that wintel uses.
Linux may find it more difficult now to make a case that it is the preferred desktop choice, no different from what it is encountering now. It has very little in the spit and polish look of OSX. They are both Unix, they both use roughly the same compilers--- GCC and many similarities. But Linux hasn't made itself user friendly. It hasn't created a polished desktop look or an integrated user interface. Its great to play with these things but at the end of the day, sometimes, we need to get some work done and if you're looking for a unix-based desktop, Mac OS X is the right pathway for you.
Who's been affected by this change? The big looser is IBM. The Power architecture that they've so painstakingly worked to market since the G5 came to commercial use is now perceived as a dead end architecture. x86 has won the war of the processors. At the end of the day, without knowing the facts, IBM probably looked at the numbers and that further development would probably not be worth the investment and instead focused development on Game Chips that probably had the right set of volumes they needed to make things happen and leaves the impression that the Cell (which is based on the Power family) is probably not going to be a very good general purpose processor.
Will the transition work? Probably, the major pain is over as Steve Jobs demonstrated. OSX works on x86. The apps have plenty of time to migrate, which is good.
So will I be in line for a x86 Mac? Of course, there's more to the Mac than its hardware, its “soul” as Jobs put it was what really won me over: OS X, which just plain rocks.
posted by Cocoy at
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home