[NTLUG:Discuss] Mac v. Linux

[Steve Baker]

Burton Strauss wrote:
> Wrong.  It will be HUGELY visible.  Don't you remember the conversion from
> 68xxx?  EVERY SINGLE application needed to be re-written (at a minimum
> re-compiled) and for years and years had to be offered in two versions.  At
> least with CD and DVD, you can probably get all of this on one disk so it's
> largely transparent - for NEW stuff.

Yeah - I agree that the change-over period will be traumatic - but once it's
done, the net result (I predict) will be very little different from what we
have now.

The press announcement said that they'd be using 'Fat Binaries' (binaries
with both PPC and Intel machine code encapsulated into a single file).

> But all of the old stuff won't work.  And just like at other transitions, a
> lot of code will be orphaned.

Possibly.

What makes it easier this time is:

1) Much less shortage of space on storage media - Fat binaries are not a
    problem.

2) Developers will very often already have their code built for Intel
    CPU architectures already because they are shipping Windows versions.
    Hence, they ought not to have endian issues, struct packing issues, etc.

3) Other long-time Mac developers who were bitten by the 68k->PPC transition
    should have learned valuable lessons about keeping their code portable.

> Besides, I think you are also wrong on how much commodity hardware will
> creep in.  It's just not cost effective to design a new bus and then new
> North/South bridge chips.  So it's still going to be SATA and USB and PCI
> and DDR.   So while there may be a custom boot rom (BIOS), at some point
> it's going to load x86 code.

Doubtless quite a lot of commodity hardware will creep in - one assumes that
the main reason for Apple to take this costly and dangerous step is precisely
to take advantage of off-the-shelf hardware.   After all, this is an increasing
trend.  Apple havn't designed their own graphics hardware for many, many years
for example.

> My bet?  If you want to run windows on the ApplePC, go ahead.  They'll tell
> you it's not supported, but it will probably work...  And if you can boot
> Windows, you can boot Linux.

I doubt there will be any problems porting Linux to an Intel Mac - but Windows
relies on a lot of old legacy junk that the Intel Mac may well not support.

Apple's problem is that they are computer manufacturers.  If their hardware
is 'just another PC', then the relatively high price of Mac hardware will
put them in direct competition with the Dell's and Gateway's of this world.

The Intel Mac hardware has to be very clearly different from a classic PC.

> So now you're back at the question of why anyone would pay the Apple Tax for
> commodity hardware.  And whether you want to pay for an OS to get support or
> roll your own.

Yep.

> I can see a future where there are three viable desktop OS choices -
> Windows, Mac and Solaris - all running on the same cheap Chinese hardware.

That presumes that Apple wish to become a software company - and I don't
see any signs of that.

If that's what they intended then their first announcement would be MacOS
for PC's...and that's not what they've announced.

> And then there's the oddballs - Linux and the *BSDs.  Which will be used by
> a few die-hards but mostly by people who have cars in their front yards
> sitting on cinderblocks.

I doubt Linux will fall far behind MacOS - and I'm quite sure Solaris won't
be a bigger force than Linux on the desktop...that seems inconceivable.

I agree that there will be three viable desktop OS's - but they'll be Windows,
MacOS and Linux - not Solaris.

---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1 at airmail.net>    WorkEmail: <sjbaker at link.com>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net    http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
            http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----