Dvorak Says Apple Move to Intel Will Harm Linux 1098
Deep Fried Geekboy writes "John C. Dvorak is pretty quick off the blocks with a response to the news that Apple intend to switch to Intel processors. Thankfully, he doesn't gloat about having called this one correctly, but says that the move is likely to hurt Linux, as OSS developers increasingly target the Mac. Since it now turns out that Dvorak was apparently not smoking crack when he predicted the Apple move, could he be right on this one too?"
More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Harm? yes.
Kill? no.
This is redundant, but you can't kill something that isn't tied to the ownership of a company. Just like HAM radio, Linux will be used by enthusiasts who still like using it for a long long time to come. Sure, some perhaps many people will switch to OS X86, many will not.
In the long run I think the Apple move to Intel will help non-windows people in
general by creating a more dominant force of alternative operating systems on th
e Intel platform. We all win out by having more choice and interoperability between operating systems. You have to admit, its all getting better.
Dvorak again? (Score:1, Insightful)
Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubt it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux covers a lot more hardware (Score:1, Insightful)
Irrelevant (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder can you install Xp on that machine...
Re:Dvorak again? (Score:5, Insightful)
One day you figure out he's been an idiot the whole time, and its too late to shut him up!
Define "Harm" (Score:5, Insightful)
So by "hurt", there's no net change: Linux runs on Macs, and will in the future.
If Apple makes its Macs (say that three times fast) as closed as they are now, then Linux will have nothing to worry about. Linux succeeds, as one developer mentioned, because nothing runs faster than on commodity hardware running with LInux running with Apache. Linux succeeds because of its ability to work very well with open systems. Apple will be a niche player - maybe they'll grow if WINE should run well under OS X with an Intel processor (and I'm hoping so, if for no other reason than I can play Half Life on a Mac finally), but I don't think that Linux will be threatened by a locked hardware base.
If Apple, say 5 years from now, decides that it's going to let the machine hardware become the commodity item and focus on its "special" hardware (iPod, etc) and software (Final Cut Pro, iLife, etc), then Linux will still be unharmed. Even if Apple says "OK, we're still going to sell premium desktop machines at +$300 compared to the competition for quality - but you could always just buy a Dell and pay us $150 for OS 10.7 and we'll be happy, since that still means you'll buy our other software too and you're likely to someday make an official Apple machine your next purchase", Linux will not be "harmed", since Apple can't stop Linux from being made. Linux will proceed along its way.
If by "harmed" you mean market share, then he may have a point. If Apple lets OS X run on standard PC's, then I can see Linux desktop share either becoming stagnent or shifting about.
My personal bet is that if the latter happens (OS X on standard machines), within 10 years we'll see a 50% Windows, 30% OS X, and 15% Linux, 5% other varients in the desktop market - in the server market it may be much as it is now, maybe with OS X and Linux overtaking the bulk of the traditional Unix route.
So, "harm" to Linux? The truth, as you may learn, depends entirely upon a certain point of view. What I've described is just mine. I could be wrong.
Re:can't be wrong all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
it doesn't work that way (Score:4, Insightful)
But he doesn't have a freakin' clue about open source development. It's not an either/or proposition. People will continue to write software that can be targeted to OS X and Linux and [insert favorite *NIX OS here].
Yes, it may hurt Linux on the desktop somewhat, if Apple's Intel-based hardware is cheap and/or running OS X on generic hardware isn't a big PITA. But that's no real skin off my potatos as long as it helps hurt M$.
Looking forward, strategic consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a really interesting aspect of this Intel move is that now Apple has REALLY positioning itself square against Longhorn. The next release of the OS is due around the Longhorn release, and all the lower end macs like the Mini and iMac should be switched by then as well. So come time for Longhorn release will people buy Longhorn boxes or Apple boxes with a sort of "Longhorn" that's had almost two years of refinement, not to mention what's new in Leopard!
At first I didn't think the Intel switch was a good idea, now I'm kind of neutral. One thing I still find odd though - why Intel of all people? Why not AMD?
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, Mac owners will now be able to install standard x86 Linux distros along side OSX too.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then how can anyone predict this will hurt the platform?
Short term, the opposite. Long term? Depends. (Score:3, Insightful)
So in the short term, you end up with more projects that can be released under Mac & Linux.
In the long term... the key to success probably hinges on adaptation. If Linux distros continue on their own path with mixed up UIs, uneven standards, and so on, then the core audience won't grow as fast as if there's a consensus to make it appealing for newcomers.
I'm not saying 'Just make everything look like Mac', just that a succesful long term strategy probably involves watching and, when appropriate, adopting best practices from the similar OS that has a bigger marketshare.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
TW
It'll harm OSX more (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider this reasoning: most software runs on Windows. The average Mac user who's not a paid-up Penguin Jedi doesn't care about OSX being technically better than Windows; they'd care even less than about the PowerPC being better than x86.
The average person who wants to use a video/music/graphics package on x86 hardware will not want to reboot to OSX every time they wish to use the package. (This has been tried before; the DJing software Final Scratch was first launched for Linux, and proved unpopular for this reason.) And with most things still running on Windows first, only a few users would move permanently to OSX.
One part of Apple's business is selling professional software, such as Shake, FCP and Logic. With their own PPC hardware, this software was incentive to sell Macs; if OSX runs on generic hardware, the software becomes its own concern. And if it runs only on Apple's weird (but advanced) OS, it'll be at a convenience disadvantage to rivals which run on ordinary, everyday Windows.
I predict that, within five years, OSX will be "reinvented" as a compatibility layer on top of Windows. This layer will come "out of the box" with copies of Apple's software (be it iTunes or Final Cut Pro), and users won't even need to know it's there. UNIX purists and techies will cringe, but that's not where the money is.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Apple's switch to Intel really doesn't change all that much unless you're a current Apple developer. Apple's hardware is not going to get significantly cheaper, their OS is not going to run on non-apple machines. There's still going to be just as much proprietary-ness in both their hardware and software as ever. They've been making general strides towards open source with OSX, but I don't think that's going to function any differently now that they're on x86.
A mac will still be a mac, and a PC will still be a PC, they'll just happen to have the same processor inside. Like they have the same hard drives and ram and lots of other stuff now. If Apple was opening up OSX to any old dell or emachines box, then maybe there'd be significant migration from Linux. If Apple was entirely open sourcing the whole of OSX, then maybe there'd be significant migration. But not because they're changing processors in their otherwise the same computers.
Re:didn't Dvorak... (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn, and me without mod points today.
Thanks for posting the funniest thing I've read today!
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
So J. Random Luser isn't going to buy a $1000 Mac/x86 and a $400 Windows Longhorn package, particularly if burning OS X and loading Windows disqualifies you from Apple technical support and service. Which it probably would.
No, the only real advantage of Mac, regardless of processor, is integration between proprietary hardware (even if built up from commodity components) and OS X. So don't expect a swarm of switchers bringing their XP CDs.
Dvorak's (Current) Folly (Score:2, Insightful)
Namely, he seems to believe that Apple will make OS X run on any x86 hardware.
They won't. They said they're switching to Intel for chips. They didn't say they're porting to standard x86 architecture. They didn't say you'd be able to run OS X on your current hardware. They said they'd use chips from Intel. Period.
So, going from the past CPU switches they've done, it seems more reasonable to me that Apple will either have Intel design Mac-compatible boards for them or do it themselves, using all the existing technology they use now (OpenFirmware, PCI-x, etc). They won't just start slapping together off-the-shelf hardware that will dual-boot to Windows.
They'll still be Apple. They'll still be Different. And unless they get their hardware extremely cheaply and give up their profit margin, their rigs will still be expensive compared to the cheap commodity hardware that Linux enjoys so much success on.
No more than Mac already is (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, the Mac is acting - and will continue to act - as a retarding factor to Linux desktop adoption. Essentially, if you don't like tweaking, MacOS X is "desktop Linux" available today, and with Microsoft Office, QuickTime and all the rest. In this respect, RH got it right by shifting focus from the hobbyist/home user desktop. Me, I enjoy the tweaking, and consider it a fair price to pay to avoid being locked into anyone's proprietary software, whether Microsoft or Apple. Each to their own though; I gather some people actually use computers to do their real job, strange as that might seem!
Of course, as MacOS X is more-or-less a UNIX, it can be argued that any retardation it causes Linux is balanced by the invigorating effect it gives to UNIX-like OSs like Linux.
Re:Because he is correct! (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't help but wonder if this is a joke, but here goes anyway.
No, to call his grasp on the industry amazing is quite a stretch. For one thing, he wasn't really right. He predicted Apple would move to Itanium within 18 months, and that was over two years ago.
In any case, his latest prediction doesn't seem any more likely than most of his previous ones. This move by apple will have little direct effect on Linux at all. Please, people, get this through your heads: Apple is going to continue selling their computers at premium prices and not allow OS X to run on beige boxes. The only change will be a slight speed bump and maybe some slightly lower prices. Laptops will probably see the biggest benefit.
The point is, this will not change anything. People run Linux for a number of reasons, and one of them is the pricetag. Few people running Linux are thinking, "I would love to buy a Mac if only it were using the x86 architecture." They might think, "I would love to run OS X if only it would run on this computer I built," but that's not what's happening. At least not yet.
Sure, it might be a little easier to run Linux binaries on OS X x86, but it's easy enough to run your Linux programs on OS X now. The bottom line is that if you want a Mac, even after Apple has switched to Intel chips you'll have to shell out for Apple hardware and a largely proprietary OS.
Dvorak says things to get people to read his columns. Period.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
But since the end user will have to do this himself, it will only happen with hackers.
Now that is interesting, qill Apple drop GCC (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel's compiler from the start gives a sizable speedup compared to gcc...
I was thinking about that yesterday. I wonder, will APple drop GCC? Or spend time trying to improve it to the level of Intels compiler? The hopefull among us could wish that part of the Apple-Intel deal was asking Intel to provide some improvements to GCC. But that's wishful thinking and it would probably be easier just to switch to xcode.
The binary portability document though still has a section on flags for GCC as they differ between platforms.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is considering using Intel CPUs on a "Mac" Architecture...
Fact 2:
Linux is predominantly used on Intel/AMD chips on an "IBM PC" Architecture
How the two facts above lead to Dvorak saying that this would mean less development on Linux, I havent a clue.
Hey, have a look at this wookie called chewie
Re:Because he is correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
If he thinks that it will hurt Linux as OSS developers focus on the Mac platform (now that it will be running on x86), well he's still not making much sense. If writing OSS apps for Mac will suddenly be easier, well writing apps that are cross-platform between Linux and Mac will be easier too.
We'll still have plenty of Linux users, and if some OSS developers decide to focus too much (in the viewpoint of Linux users) well, it's open source! The people who want that app on their platform can take the source and make it happen.
I'm not going to suddenly switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows is insecure, plain and simple. You have no source code and there is all sorts of legacy code and other crap in there that you can't control. Except for the stupid licensing/activation it is a fine operating environment but I just can't trust it. That plus the lack of a nice scripting environment that Unix-like systems provide make it unusable as a primary OS.
OS X is slow, bloated, and somewhat insecure. The slow and bloated parts are just a problem with the design. BSD on Mach is wasteful and they do way too much object-oriented stuff that is inefficient (not that OO is bad, just their design which has Smalltalk-like issues). This goes way back the design of NextStep which had similar problems. As for the insecurity, it's the same problem I have with Windows. I don't have the source code to most of the system and there are is lot of legacy and convenience stuff in there that will eventually lead to insecurities just like on Windows (just wait and see when OS X is more pervasive). Although I trust it more than Windows, I can't live with its performance and that nagging insecurity feeling won't go away.
So I'm left with Linux. BSD is not an option because I need VMware to run Windows for development purposes. Linux can be a pain in the ass to work with but it is getting better and at least I have full control. For me this is mostly about security and performance. I know what's going on and can control all the details. This can be a huge pain and I try to mitigate the problem by using the proper tools but at least it lets me sleep at night. Also with Linux I can control what I run. I don't need an Aqua-like eye-candy system to do development on. I can chose to run GNOME, KDE, or something lightweight. I like that control because it keeps my system performance up in the places I need it (eg. I need to run VMware fast, I need to compile fast, etc.).
Non-developers have different needs of course.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Are we sure that OS X won't run on a built computer? Now that Apple is moving to Intel, they'll need an Intel-based motherboard, that means standard memory cards, and they're already using nVidia graphics cards. The hard drives are the same. In fact, I can't think of any hardware other than the case that is now different between a PC and an Apple.
Of course, Apple could require the Intel chips have a special code that OS/X could identify and halt itself if it doesn't match. But that seems silly. Of course, we are talking about Jobs here, so who knows...
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Curiously, Dvorak really did come up with a scoop this time -- if anything he _ought_ to be gloating, instead of using the news as a new opportunity to be stupid.
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe this won't bring more Windows users to the Mac side, but it does mean some of the arguments against buying a Mac go away.
Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if a car company came out with a nice new sedan. This sedan is VERY nice. How much would that sedan hurt the truck sales of a competing company? If the sedan is VERY nice, then it is sure to have an impact on auto sales in general, but since it is not a direct replacement for a truck, its impact on truck sales is going to be limited.
OSX is NOT a direct replacement for Linux. The reason is that it will not run on STANDARD HARDWARE. If Apple were to actually create a version that ran on generic PC's then someplace in hell some imps would be making a snowman. Apple will not create a version for standard PC's because Apple is Apple. If you know the history of the company then you know what I mean. If you don't know the history then explaining it will take too much time. There are many books that have been written about Apple and its history. If you want to know the details, read a couple of them.
The value of Linux is that it is FREE, and yes I mean as in BEER as well as in speech, and you don't have to buy funky proprietary hardware to run it. This is why it is found on servers all over the place, as well as on more and more desktops every day. OS-X is expensive, both in terms of the OS itself, and in terms of the proprietary hardware you have to shell out money for in order to run it. Proprietary solutions, even if they are superior, always have a very hard time competing with commodity solutions. This has been Apple's problem for the better part of 20 years now. It wasn't Microsoft as a software company that sank the Mac, it was the PC hardware industry whose products became ubiquitous. Microsoft simply rode the wave.
As for the development argument, how many Open Source projects are there out there which target the mac exclusively? Answer, very few. How many in fact support the Mac as an afterthought, if at all, because of all the funky things that Apple has done which make porting to it more difficult than porting to Solaris or some other mainstream version of Unix?
I really do get the idea sometimes that people like Dvorak are in the business of making proclamations like this just to get attention. If they're right even some of the time then they'll be able to create an audience and a paycheck doing it.
I have an alternate prediction for everyone. My prediction is this: The Open Source projects that benefit the Mac will usually benefit Linux and vice versa. There will be a few that are Mac-only, or Linux-only, but only in order to replicate some desired functionality that is already present on the other system. Most of the Open Source development that is done for OS-X will be in porting stuff from Linux to it, and in the creation of new projects that can be developed on both platforms simultaneously.
We already see this with FreeBSD where everything from Apache to zsh is up and running because the work of porting between FreeBSD and Linux is usually trivial and writing conditional code to support both platforms is even easier. There are a few packages that don't exist on both platforms, or which exist on one platform as a kludge, but these are the rare exceptions. Linux and OS-X don't have as much in common as Linux and FreeBSD do, but they are still similar enough that supporting both is not a herculean task the way it is with Unix and Windows. Development on OS-X will therefore be a net gain for Linux since most of the stuff that is developed for OS-X will be developed for Linux at the same time and vice versa.
Besides, there is no guarantee that Apple's move to Intel is going to increase sales. It may result in faster computers, but it takes a lot more than that to convince people to buy your funky hardware so they can run your funky os.
Linux has one strike against it in that it is not windows. It is able to overcome that because it is FREE and runs on standard hardware. Choosing Linux is not a commitment to Linux, it c
I don't understand why the CPU matters! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why will it make any difference at all if developers are telling their compilers to compile for x86 or PPC? The application-level code still has to be dealt with, and the CPU isn't even visible to most developers writing most applications, particularly the critical-mass open source stuff that the "masses" would have to adopt to make this turnabout happen.
I'm not happy with the Apple decision, but for reasons other than these.
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
First, let me state that I agree that Mac on Intel won't have a serious impact on Linux. Though I do think it could make a dent in Linux on the desktop (rather than your assesment of a "blip"). On to your points.
1-3: You got me. It isn't free and it won't run (supported) on generic x86 boxes (or even boxes from other large vendors).
4: It won't run on the rack-mounts you got from HP, but it will run on the rack-mounts you buy from Apple. I hear those guys are pretty nice, as well.
5: Loyalty has always kept these two camps intact. Agreed.
6: Define "real" Unix and then tell me why Mac OS X isn't Unix. In my experience, Mac OS X is just as much a flavor of Unix as Linux, Solaris, AIX or any of the BSDs. Sure, it does some things differently, but don't *all* flavors of Unix do some things differently. And in terms of stability, expandability, and playing nice with existing Unix software, it has been pretty good to me. I completely disagree with you.
7: Netinfo isn't great, but it's use is very limited in Panther and later (especially Tiger). In a networked environment, against authentication and directory servers (OS X Server, ActiveDirectory/MS, Kerberos/LDAP, etc.), NetInfo isn't used much at all on local machines. Again, OS X supports open standards and does it well.
8: It isn't free, and the hardware, while likely to come down a tad, IMO, will not be as cheap as commodity x86 boxes. But I do expect their prices to become more competitive with the "big boys" of the Wintel market (Dell, HP, etc.). If you are looking for rock-bottom prices, of course you don't go to a major provider like Dell or HP, do you? Then why would you go to Apple? Other than that, I see no reason they can't compete better with Dell and HP on their own turf.
9: I think you're jumping the gun on this one a bit. This transition is expected to take over two years, yet you are assuming Apple will stay with IA-32 indefinitely based off of their initial Universal Binray Programming Guidelines doc. ISn't that a tad presumptuous? I seriously doubt that by the time Apple get's their pro desktop lines migrated to Intel, they won't support 64 bit processors. We'll see though. Neither of us are mindreaders...
Taft
Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing Dvorak with Bob Metcalfe [infoworld.com]. Metcalfe is a respected commentator and accomplished industry pioneer who was wrong once ten years ago. Dvorak is a Linux-hating troll who is wrong most of the time.
Might help Linux on Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think both will happen. First, since you'll be able to dual-boot, people might dual-boot Mac and Windows now, and since that'll only be possible on a Mac, that means people might leave Dell for Apple.
However, I also think people are leaving Linux for Mac, but that has NOTHING to do with the chipset. It's been happening for a while since Apple switched to OSX. I'm living proof, buying a powerbook I never thought I'd own. But in a way, this will help linux too - I, as an Apple owner, can now put on whatever linux distro I want. Hell, talk about Nirvana - I can *triple* boot Mac, Linux, and Windows. Gives me dirty thoughts just thinking about it.
If there's on linux distro that's probably hurt by this, it's obviously Yellow Dog. Still, great effort all those years, guys.
Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
OSX uses the XNU kernel, a development of the Mach kernel, with the BSD-UNIX personality hardcoded in. It doesn't have the performance characteristics of the BSD kernels at all. On top of this sits Aqua, as eye-candy intensive a GUI as any out there, which places heavy demands on chip performance. Switching to an inferior CPU isn't going to make it faster, even with the higher clock speeds in performance terms the switch is likely to be a wash.
OSX isn't going to outperform Windows on the same hardware by any stretch of the imagination. The switch may well enable Apple to improve their price/performance ratio, if as is rumoured this was prompted by difficulties getting the next generation of PPC chips at reasonable prices in reasonable quantitites, but expecting OSX to outperform any other system on the same hardware is pretty ludicrous. Unless he means to compare OSX today with Longtooth in 5 years or whenever it's finally released.
Re:Now that is interesting, qill Apple drop GCC (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember Apple is a business. The question is does it make "business" sense to spend time improving GCC. If the x86 switch is permanent, I would argue no (other than the other replier to this comment's statement on Objective C which would change this to a yes or maybe). The Intel compiler rocks for x86 and works fine, why waste resources on something that isn't core to the business.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, I have heard Phill Schiller open his trap more then once and end up eat his foot later. E.g. "We don't target the enterprise."
Can we say x-serve?
Apple may not bundle the device drivers with the OS. But that wont stop people.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, you mean a Mach kernel with a BSD userspace, right? With a nice GUI written predominantly in ObjC? You know what architecture OS X is, don't you? (And which strange but wonderful C derivative is predominantly used on OS X?)
Can you put two+two together?
Not crack, more like crystal meth. (Score:3, Insightful)
He predicted the shift, yes, but it didn't happen for the reasons he cites. Dvorak was overall ignorant to the inner workings of the Apple-IBM relationship that prompted this decision over the last year. Dvorak's reasoning is that he believes that Intel is a titan, and that monopolies are good, and that the market should reward them. Steve Jobs switched because he's playing hardball with is suppliers.
I think that this move will be more likely to help Linux than to hurt it. For one thing, this move makes x86-compiled Linux binaries more compatible with the x86-compiled OS X - therefore puts more Linux apps in reach of "casual" open source dabblers who are Mac-heads. Ultimately, this will more closely tie Linux with Mac Users, and vice versa. (not the non-technical subset of Mac users, but the hobbyist/power-user set). I *do* believe that cultivating WiNE for OS X, and other Linux x86 apps, are secretly part of this strategy. Partially to backfill the applications that the platform WILL lose, when it goes x86 - because face it, Adobe and Microsoft may be buying into this bullshit, but the reality is, most other ISV's are not going to recompile or put in the effort to port to x86. Particularly a lot of the shareware/freeware games and utilities (you may as well delete them now, and get used to their absence, they're gone).
I don't think that a whole lot of Linux users are switching to Apple because of the CPU. They're doing it because Apple supports Unix tools they're familliar with, in a much more powerful sensible and workable User Environment (OS X compared to Windows+SFU). This hardware change won't impact that AT ALL, unless there's a real price/performance difference betweem PPC Macs and Intel Macs (and I seriously doubt that, if anything, there will be a penalty in certain areas where the PPC Macs currently exel, like CD ripping, and MPEG encoding).
Above all, I doubt VERY MUCH that the PPC->Intel switch is intended to have an impact on the street-price of Apple systems. Jobs says this is purely about MHz ramping, and heat/power/performance capabilities. He's not going to put a celeron in the Mac Mini, and suddenly drop the price $200.
Linux-heads who are in love with cheap hardware, will stick with Wintel-compatible hardware, and run Linux.
And NO ONE, will run Linux on Apple-intel hardware. Because Apple-intel hardware will cost more than other brands of intel systems, and the features that make it WORTH more (nifty volume controls, sleep/wake/variable power/cooling management, color management etc) are tied into Mac OS X, and won't likely work as well with Unix.
The LOSERS here are Apple Customers who have legacy systems. Over the past 5 years or so, Apple has readily demonstrated their utter contempt for people not running the latest and greatest Apple hardware, by cutting off support for older hardware. Us PPC owners are going to be shit on a lot over the next few years.
Our only solace may be PPC Linux. That helps, not hurts Linux.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
And for good reason! Apple's core advantage is that they control the entire experience--hardware and software. Though I run Windows XP 99% of the time, I can readily admit that Microsoft has a big challenge supporting thousands of different hardware configurations--motherboards, chipsets, videocards, peripherals. It costs a lot of money to do all this QA, and poorly designed third-party hardware and software can kill a system.
Apple would be foolish to give up this advantage! And if, while not supported, XP users by Apple brand laptops to run XP on, that won't hurt Apple!
Re:So it will run on standard hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
So, buy the Mac with the chip (or buy the haxored PCI card that emulates it) and get the shiny happy Aqua GUI.
Writing apps in general will be easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also worth noting is that it's going to help Linux adoption overall as largely the same frameworks are in use for producing Linux games as MacOS X games- the endianness issues, etc. make it more difficult.
Now, it really WILL be pretty much the same thing when you make a game port for one or the other- it's just a recompile away... I like that.
Re:So it will run on standard hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
The company making the OS for IBM computers (Microsoft) had a direct interest in seeing to it that "IBM Clones" (as they were called back then) worked seamlessly with MS-DOS and Windows.
Apple owns both. They could, if they had to, continually update their OS to:
1. Detect knock-off ROMS and ignore them.
2. Re-flash the ROM periodically... possibly even crippling the "fake" ones.
3. Read motherboard serial numbers and phone home.
4. Any of a number of other options to render unauthorized clones useless.
This will make the task of reverse engineering the Apple ROM monumentally difficult. And what would a company get for doing so? A chance to bite in to a small piece of a very small pie (the Mac market.)
No chance of such a thing happening unless Macintosh market share suddenly baloons deep into double-digits... and even then, not much of a chance.
So long as Apple makes their margins on hardware, they are not going to let it happen.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you own a microwave oven? Once again, there are patents and copyright limitations covering it too.
Do you own a TV? Same thing.
Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant? What's so special about software that requires it to be "free" (as in speech and beer)?
Re:More good than harm. (Score:1, Insightful)
Are Mac owners in general thought to be so technically savvy that they would even want to do so? Some will I'm sure, but the general impression of most Mac users is they want it as easy as possible and to "just work". That doesn't seem like the type of people who are likely to dual boot Linux and OSX. Some sure, but it would be a small niche among general Mac users.
On User Interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring, for a moment, Dvorak's predictions for Linux's demise, he does have a very valid point that Linux/Gnome/KDE advocates seem to be missing:
The problem isn't isolated to Impress; KDE and Gome applications tend either to mimic Windows equivalents, or have UI's with far too many menus, toolbars, tabs, sidebars, bells, whistles, and fruit baskets. GUI concepts change dramatically between releases (Gnome's file browser, anyone?), and there seems to be little or no documentation for many applications.
Unix-oriented developers tend to be both intelligent and arrogant; the assumption is that if a program is good enough for a geek, it's good enough for everyone else, too.
That isn't to say that Windows applications are any more consistent; even Excel and Word have annoying differences in menus and options, and programs these days are a web of menus and options. To change a program's behavior (on Windows, KDE, or Gnome), do I look for "Preferences" or "Options" or "Settings" or "Configure" in the menus? Something so simple, and yet so inconsistent.
Being "right" doesn't always (or even usually) mean you'll succeed, and just because FOSS developers think they have the moral high ground doesn't mean users are going to flock to their door. KDE and Gnome need to give people a reason to use them, by providing more intuitive interfaces and a better understanding of user's needs.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
With closed software however, you can't look under the hood (although it's legal under EU patent system to reverse-engineer) or modify as much as you want, simply because it isn't quite possible.
Dvorak Makes Lucky Guess, Now A Prophet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having taken the time to RTFA, it's obvious to me he's making it up as he goes. Linux PPC work will will slack off as it's platform moves to legacy status, but otherwise a MacIntelosh won't make a bit of difference to Linux. Addressing his comments:
Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
Obviously harmful to the computer makers in general and to Microsoft: Assuming a Macx86 won't run Windows, the current market inertia will continue. A Mac will remain a nicely made boutique system. For developers, it ain't the CPU, it's the API.
x86 Competition: The rest of his piece assumes that there's a significant number of x86 developers who work with desktop Linux applications because it's the only non-MS game in town, and they'd love to get out from under the GPL if only they could. This is the fantasy of a (arguably) paid MS shill. So the people working on Open Office, Abi Word, GNU Cash, et al are going to drop everything and run to Apple's API because of an ENDIAN change? At least now we have solid proof Dvorak hasn't written a line of code since he last ran BASIC on a TRS-80.
Made On A Mac (tm)
This is Good For Linux, and PPC Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
If you listen to the TWIT Podcast, Leo and Dvorak were speculating about this on Sunday and Dvorak was preaching about all these people who would buy these new macs, and dual boot windows and osx. this is BS. dual booting is a PITA, and joe user from mac OSX won't give a hoot about dual booting.
Now on to why this will help linux. There is going to be a down turn in demand for apple's ppc equipment now that everyone knows they will be moving to intel. Linux runs great on most macs, and between a slow down in sales and a possible price reductions from lack of demand, plus the number of Macs available for resale during and after the transition, will be a nice base of machines to run linux on. A Dual 2 ghz G5 would make a great Web server that would be capable of a lot of load.
Dvorak makes reference to the crazy interfaces in Linux apps. I don't know if they are any harder, but different is harder sometimes. Also with Gnome's focus on usability and HIG I thing if anything It is getting easier to use than windows and even OSX in some instances. Is there room for improvement?... of course there is.
Re:So it will run on standard hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
You forget that darwin is APSL which support propietary software whitin it. Apple can add whatever the hell they want to darwin's codebase without releasing its source code.
"alternatively how will they prevent the people from running darwin (already working) and adding the proprietary pieces of osx?"
1/ Propietary pieces of "osx" will only run on top of Apple's propietary "darwin".
2/ They will prosecute whoever tries to break their IP.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, AltiVec is more powerful than SSE, but I'm sure Aqua doesn't need all that power.
Besides, it couldn't be that hard to make an expansion card to do the same job on regular hardware.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
( have been burned by a decision of Jobs to drop the Next).
I'm a regular OS X and linux user. The newest strategic
move of apple only confirms me to invest in my linux boxes.
For example, I don't yet see whether we will have to re buy
all the commercial software. It is also not clear, how well
Apple will do selling hardware from now on.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is exactly the point. As much as the MS drones will have you believe that linux is a radical movement maintained by a few shady computer nerds that also own comic book stores, it's not quite that way.
The popularity and marketshare of linux will have a certain ebb and flow that no one can control directly, but this is noise on top of a larger trend. A dip because suddenly a new OS option has emerged on the popular x86 platform doesn't foreshadow the end of linux.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac OS computers have always had a single menu bar. Mac window title bars do not have, and have never had menus in native Mac OS applications. The reason is user testing. Fitt's law states that the time to acquire a target - in this case the menu - is directly proportional to the distance from the mouse pointer to the target, and inversely proportional to the size of the target:
T = k distance/size where k is some per-user constant
This law has been backed up by numerous real user tests.
It turns out that there are 8 screen targets that are effectively infinite in size - the top, bottom, right and left sides, and the four corners. Why? Because they can be acquired by simply slamming the mouse in one of these 8 directions without regard for overshooting the target - it simply isn't possible to overshoot these 8 targets.
This means that the time to acquire the menu can be reduced to almost 0 if you put the menu in one of these 8 locations. The 4 corners are impractical - not enough area to present many menus. Since most roman scripts read left to right, top to bottom, this leaves only the top of the screen. The bottom would force the listing of the items in each menu in reverse order since you obviously want the most commonly used menu items first - they're faster to acquire that way.
Now notice how Windows gets this wrong.
1. Window title bars have menus. Some engineers at MS might have thought that this would make them easier to use - after all they're closer that way. But it turns out that menu acquisition time is longer for window menus than for a single screen top menu bar. This is why you do real user tests - users' perceptions of what is or might be faster are often counter-intuitively wrong.
2. The early versions of Windows had a task bar whose buttons did not extend to the bottom of the screen. This defeats the whole purpose of putting a click target on a screen edge - you can no longer acquire the target by simply slamming the mouse down to the bottom. You must slow down and make sure you don't overshoot the button's bottom on the task bar. You've now effectively pessimized click target acquisition - you've put the click target as far as possible from the center of the screen, but made it impossible to acquire by simply pushing the mouse all the way to the bottom.
I can't tell you how many Windows users insist nevertheless that window menus are faster - that's their perception. But when I time them with a stopwatch they're all surprised to learn that they actually acquire the menu faster on a Mac than on Windows.
Mac OS computers are objectively more usable because the Mac UI has always been based on real world user testing, not some engineers' notion of what would work best.
For more on the basics of usability see Bruce "Tog" Tognazini's site. [asktog.com]
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with testing is that you have to test the whole thing, not just the most critical part. That's why video card benchmarks are done almost exclusively with real-world games instead of benchmark tools these days. Target acquisition is only a piece of the puzzle. If you can show me some studies with real-world tasks then I'd be more impressed.
One test option: Open your email app then open 5 messages. Open three web pages that two of the messages contain links for. Reply to three of the messages, two of the replies must contain data from the relevant web pages and all must reference info in the preivious messages. Half of the Mac tests are done with one-button mice and half are done with the two-button variety. Half of the tests are done with two displays.
I'm sure target acquisition will make a difference, but my guess is that other factors will tend to minimize that difference. I'm not claiming you're wrong, justt that being right in this case might be far less exciting when you take the real world into account.
TW
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac concept of the single menu bar at the top of the screen wasn't just about speed, it was also about space. Consider the old Macs and the screens they had. I think the SE had a resolution of 512x384, or something similarly small. On screens of that resolution, giving each window its own menubar takes up a significant proportion of space when you're working with more than one window.
Anyway, having things always at the same physical location on the screen makes it quicker for the user, even ignoring that the edge of the screen can be reached faster than an other arbitrary position. I think that users on Windows think they're faster because they only recognise the "move" time, and don't include the "locate" time where they decide where they want to go.
There is one problem with the single menu bar that is now showing up more and more these days: the concept is actually more inefficient if you're not working on your primary screen. OK, so most people don't have multiple displays, but having to track across screens is definately slower than a local menubar; you also lose some of your quick targets as they wrap onto the next screen. I don't know if there's a single solution which works everywhere, but KDE and GNOME get around the problem by letting the user configure the menubar either way. I don't expect that Apple will change theirs though.
-- Steve
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, yes, yes, Fitt's law, whatever. Never mind that the Mac way of doing things breaks the whole desktop metaphor, that windows are magic pieces of paper on your desk - my desk doesn't have a strip at the top that magically changes when I bring a piece of paper to the top of the stack.
If you're someone who only uses one application at a time, the Mac model is fine. (But then, in Windows or Linux you can just always maximize the window you're working on, and have the title bar at the top of the screen.) If you switch back and forth between applications - like shuffling the papers on your desk - the Mac model sucks rocks.