[FulcrumPilot]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23769

Jobs’ blueprint for success in the PC business
Opinion Microsoft and Dell look on. In alarm?

By
Jeff Lawson:
Tuesday 07 June 2005, 15:55



MAKE A NOTE of this date, Monday 6 June 2005. It may well become logged in the annals of commercial computing as a turning point for Microsoft and Dell.

Microsoft, the company whose operating system software brings daily GUI crashes and folder locks. Dell, the company that proffers market-stall computers with all the glamour of dishwashers.

Enter, Apple.

IBM’s inability to deliver G5 PowerPC processors running at portable temperatures scuppered Apple’s G5 PowerBooks. With IBM’s semiconductor capacity soon to be thrown headlong into production of Cell processors for Sony PS3 and PowerPC processors for Microsoft XBox 360, Apple was compelled to look elsewhere for a reliable horsepower vendor.

Enter, Intel.

Microsoft’s alliance with AMD has brought high-calibre multi-core processors to the PC world and brought it discord with Intel. Intel is bracing itself for the announcement that its pre-eminent customer will be shipping AMD-based systems. Riding on the colossal Dell marketing machine, Athlons and Opterons will get the exposure that AMD would like to give them but cannot afford. In short, Dell is about to take AMD mainstream. Not that Dell particularly wants to lose its cosy relationship with Intel but it wants to lose customers to AMD vendors even less.

The real action will come from Apple and Intel who are too savvy to let their long-standing differences prevent them collaborating in a new PC venture of gargantuan potential. Furthermore, Jobs won’t find the move to Intel quite so distasteful now that his nemesis, IBM, no longer manufactures PCs.

Apple’s receipts from its 76% dominance of the MP3 market plus Intel’s cash mountain gives them the financial clout to take on Microsoft and Dell. Luckily for the Apple-Intel team, they have superior technology too. Granted, Intel’s latest processors are dogs but the main event is eighteen months out, when Microsoft ships Longhorn, so Intel have the interim to get their act together. The next revision of Mac OS X, named Leopard, will be launched then too. Expect to see games running on x86 Leopard as fast as on x86 Longhorn: no need for gamers to run Windows.

In the meantime, Microsoft have the distraction of XBox 360 that will soak up cash in its futile battle against Sony’s PS3. PS3 not only has better hardware but is backward compatible with its predecessors. Dell has seen the writing on the wall and tried to pre-empt Apple by announcing, just a few days ago, its intent to produce upmarket PCs. Well, Dell, you can put lipstick on a pig but that won’t make it more appealing.

On Monday, at the Apple developers’ conference, Steve Jobs demonstrated Mac OS X Tiger running on x86 hardware…without the audience realising that it wasn’t on a PowerPC! Later this month that same hardware will be in the hands of developers. Developers will also get tools to migrate their software to x86. Any software that, due to neglect, doesn’t make it will run on top of a binary translation layer just like the PowerPC version of Microsoft Office did on Monday. The transition is said to be quick and easy and Mathematica was cited as taking just a few hours to recompile with slight tweaks.

Eighteen months and counting. Eighteen months and the choice will be simple: buy a solid operating system running on a PC designed by the coolest computer company ever or buy something of dubious ancestry out of a car boot. Time for fickle investors to repopulate stock portfolios. Time to think different! µ

[turtle777]

IBL.

-t

[Randman]

Gee, another opinion piece.

[typoon]

This will definitely be interesting to see over the next 2 years. Apple and Intel really have a chance to chine here. Let the games begin.

[olePigeon]

So, anyone think that Intel Prototype really WAS a Mac mini?

[d0ubled0wn]

The only thing missing from this piece is a pic of the author wearing a cheerleading outfit with pom-poms.

And this quote is laughable:

Expect to see games running on x86 Leopard as fast as on x86 Longhorn: no need for gamers to run Windows.

It's already been established going x86 won't speed up games, it's OS X that's slow in gaming (why I don't know.) And speeding up gaming on the Mac isn't going to suddenly convince all those games developers to suddenly develop for a 3-4% market share platform.

[mitchell_pgh]

I'm a Mac zealot calling that writer a Mac zealot!

I'm under no illustion that Microsoft is going to fall because of this move... but I do see Apple's growth potential. Especially if you could run XP/Longhorn on a Mac x86.

"Buy a Mac... if you don't like our superior OS, feel free to use Windows"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

"Buy a Mac... if you don't like our superior OS, feel free to use Windows"

Wouldn't it be fun if Apple would even take their OS X license back and give you a Longhorn license, if you were not satisfied ?

-t

[theolein]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I'm a Mac zealot calling that writer a Mac zealot!

I'm under no illustion that Microsoft is going to fall because of this move... but I do see Apple's growth potential. Especially if you could run XP/Longhorn on a Mac x86.

"Buy a Mac... if you don't like our superior OS, feel free to use Windows"

Everybody here knows my decision to switch to Windows by now, but I seriously hope that Apple makes it hard to install Windows on an Intel Mac. Too much of that and you remove any impetous for developers to port their software to OSX. Instead they'll just say that you need to boot into Windows to run such and such a piece of software. Microsoft would love that, and I don't really wish Microsoft much good.

Microsoft will probably release an x86 OSX version of virtual PC in any case which will run at almost native speeds. They would do it as part of their bait and switch strategy: Why buy the OSX version of Office when the Windows version runs at full speed?

No, I hope, for Apple's sake that they do add in a few quirks to make it difficult for Windows to be installed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by theolein

Everybody here knows my decision to switch to Windows by now

Yeah, you made that known, but never bothered to say what you expect from that switch.

* Are you going to switch NOW, meaning in the next weeks and months, or once Intel-based Macs come out ?
* Why do you think Windows (now and later) has to offer more than PPC + OS X (now) and OS X + Intel (later) ?
* Why is Windows XP suddenly bearable, and before it was teh devil ?

Or are you just mad at Apple because they are going to the dark side, so you want to join the dark side before them ?

-t

[d0ubled0wn]

Theolein, you have to realize that there are users out there who need the ability to run the occasional Windows app. If they don't have that choice, will they be forced to go back to a Windows box? And these common users are NOT going to want to jump through hoops to install Windows, it should be as easy as VPC is now.

Maybe the solution is to incur a speed penalty so that it runs at current VPC speeds

[theolein]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yeah, you made that known, but never bothered to say what you expect from that switch.

* Are you going to switch NOW, meaning in the next weeks and months, or once Intel-based Macs come out ?-t

I'll be switching when I have some money. Hopefully that won't be too far in the future. If it too far in the future then I may as well just get an Intel Mac when it comes out. I'm in no way anti Apple, Mac or OSX. Quite the contrary actually.

Originally Posted by turtle777

* Why do you think Windows (now and later) has to offer more than PPC + OS X (now) and OS X + Intel (later) ?-t

Better value for my money at the moment. If I had more money then I wouldn't even think of switching. Plus other job related advantages, specifically related to Linux and Novell.

Originally Posted by turtle777

* Why is Windows XP suddenly bearable, and before it was teh devil ?-t

I've never been anti-Windows. I've written often that I think Windows is perfectly ok as a productive platform but that I think OSX is better, especially for computer newbies.

Originally Posted by turtle777

Or are you just mad at Apple because they are going to the dark side, so you want to join the dark side before them ?
-t

[olePigeon]

Windows. Bah. I think Apple will embrace WINE like they did X11 and make it work really well. We'll be able to run Windows crap without Windows.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

Theolein, you have to realize that there are users out there who need the ability to run the occasional Windows app. If they don't have that choice, will they be forced to go back to a Windows box? And these common users are NOT going to want to jump through hoops to install Windows, it should be as easy as VPC is now.

Maybe the solution is to incur a speed penalty so that it runs at current VPC speeds

I know that. It's perfectly reasonable that people will want to or have to run windows apps from time to time for various reasons, such as business or an app being windows only.

But you can bet that Microsoft hasn't been sleeping over this news either, and you can in fact be sure that Microsoft has known about for almost as long as it's been a done decision by Apple. And Microsoft, or at least parts of Microsoft will certainly see this as competition on their home turf and come up with strategies to compete against it. Microsoft is very good at that sort of thing.

For instance, MS Office 2003 Student and Teacher edition now comes with 3 user licenses. You can run it on up to three PCs at home. It is pretty rare for Microsoft to allow its customers any leeway with respect to licencing. This makes it much more attractive to run Office than it used to be, although this move is more likely aimed at OpenOffice than Apple.

However, whether VPC runs at full speed is probably irrelevant to Microsoft. They still get to sell you a Windows license. But, Microsoft announced this week that it is finally releasing a VMWare like package for Windows, which will allow people to run other OSes under Windows. One of those OSes will obviously be OSX, since you can customise a VM quite easily.

I don't know if that helps or harms Microsoft but it does show they haven't ignored these developments totally.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Windows. Bah. I think Apple will embrace WINE like they did X11 and make it work really well. We'll be able to run Windows crap without Windows.

Actually no, I don't think Apple will touch WINE with a ten foot pole. There are significant legal questions relating to patents in WINE and Apple would never do something as silly as get themselves caught in a legal trap that was foreseen.

[thunderous_funker]

Considering that MS makes VPC for PPC and x86 already, why would that change? Hell, the biggest install base of VPC is on Windows machines already. MS will be more than happy to sell MacTel owners VPC and a Windows license. Why wouldn't they?

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by theolein

...but I seriously hope that Apple makes it hard to install Windows on an Intel Mac. ....

I hope, for Apple's sake that they do add in a few quirks to make it difficult for Windows to be installed.

Phil Schiller already said that running Windows on a Mactel would not be difficult, but not supported by Apple.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by E's Lil Theorem

Phil Schiller already said that running Windows on a Mactel would not be difficult, but not supported by Apple.

I'm trying to think of a way to run Windows apps without having Windows. In any event, if I had to run Windows, I'd rather have it in a VM.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by E's Lil Theorem

Phil Schiller already said that running Windows on a Mactel would not be difficult, but not supported by Apple.

I didn't read that, but it's interesting.

The reason I will continue to use a Mac is their great hardware and amazing software. Until Apple proves me wrong, I will continue to buy their product.

Does the idea of being able to run Windows on the Mac x86 box seem interesting? SURE... for games perhaps (not that I'm a big gamer). I also use some GPS tools that are PC only and I currently run in VPC which is very slow.

The idea of a near native speed VPC seems VERY interesting.

For all those leaving, I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Won't you feel foolish if you find that Apple creates an amazing x86 experience with OS X. Like others have mentioned, the thought of dual CPU Intel chips seems VERY interesting. Perhaps not now, but in a few years, who knows.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by theolein

Actually no, I don't think Apple will touch WINE with a ten foot pole. There are significant legal questions relating to patents in WINE and Apple would never do something as silly as get themselves caught in a legal trap that was foreseen.

I agree... that being said, Wine for Mac x86 should be much easier as there won't be any PCU emulation needed. But it naturally won't run on PPC Macs.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Considering that MS makes VPC for PPC and x86 already, why would that change?

For one thing, they may as well be two different products with the same name. The code bases, feature set, and basic purposes that people would ever want to run the program are completely different. They're not even really the same kind of program: VPC/Mac is an emulator, while VPC/Windows is a multiplexer. The only similarity between them is that they're both called "Virtual PC".

Porting Virtual PC/Mac to OSX/Intel would not be one of those simple recompiles, either. VPC may be one of the most heavily-optimized programs on the Mac today, and there is a lot of assembly-language code which can't be ported at all. Even if you did, you'd have a basic emulator, which would be very slow.

If you wanted VPC/Win like performance on VPC/Mactel -which I'm assuming people do- you'd need to port that codebase. This includes all the usual hassle of a Windows/Mac port, except that you're dealing with the low-level functions of the OS, so it's not just the frontend which has to be rewritten; almost everything does. Not only this, but VPC/Mac has many features which its Windows counterpart does not, and these would need to be rewritten, all while taking into account that very little code could be reused. The end result is that we're not really talking about a "port" of either the Mac or Windows version: VPC for Mactel would be a completely new program: not a port or even a fundamental rewrite, but something totally new, built from scratch.

My point behind all this? XCode claims to make ports from MacPPC to Mactel a simple recompile, but this doesn't apply to all programs. As far as that goes, Virtual PC may be the most nightmarish exception that there could possibly be. That gives Microsoft an awfully powerful incentive not to port it: massive effort for very little gain.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Millennium

My point behind all this? XCode claims to make ports from MacPPC to Mactel a simple recompile, but this doesn't apply to all programs. As far as that goes, Virtual PC may be the most nightmarish exception that there could possibly be. That gives Microsoft an awfully powerful incentive not to port it: massive effort for very little gain.

I think a better way to say that would be "XCode claims to make ports from MacPPC to MacTel potentially as simple as a recompile."

I don't remember anyone saying that every program would be that simple. Apple even gave a graph of how difficult it could be for some developers. While they may have sugar coated it a bit, it isn't like they flat out said "It's simple!!!"

[JoshuaZ]

blah blah blah blah

[Randman]

Actually, M$ does have incentive to port a much-improved version of VPC to the Intel Macs. To do that would give M$ some money rather than have people dual boot and maybe use a not-so-legit version of Longhorn or XP.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by Randman

Gee, another opinion piece.

That's all anyone is going to have for anbother 12 months until the first Intel Mac comes out. That and stupid questions like "Is my G5 worthless?" and "Should I return the iMac I just bought?"

Idiots.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Randman

Actually, M$ does have incentive to port a much-improved version of VPC to the Intel Macs. To do that would give M$ some money rather than have people dual boot and maybe use a not-so-legit version of Longhorn or XP.

Would it get them more money than the multiple millions of dollars that would be spent writing the program from scratch, given that both of their other codebased could serve as useful documentation but little else? They wouldn't recoup the costs for several years at least, assuming they ever did. This doesn't even begin to cover the money supposedly lost to piracy.

[Sven G]

As for x86, besides Wine and a new Virtual PC, there could also be the quite fast QEMU Accelerator Module, probably, if ported to OS X Intel...

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sven G

As for x86, besides Wine and a new Virtual PC, there could also be the quite fast QEMU Accelerator Module, probably, if ported to OS X Intel...

It suffers the same problem as the Wine and VPC: it has to deal with low-level calls to the Mach kernel which are likely to be quite different from the corresponding calls in either Linux or Windows.

The author of the accelerator module wants large amounts of money to Open-Source it, to guard against "potential loss of revenue". I'm forced to ask where the revenue would come from, since he already gives away the accelerator for free, but whatever. This means that there's no source for just anyone to come along and port, but it has another implication: writing this was evidently hard enough that the author -someone who ordinarily gives his code away- feels compelled to keep this particular source closed and ask for Large Amounts Of Money to open it.

Oddly enough, if a 'red box' comes out I expect to see it from the Darwine project. Their stated goal of transparent execution of Windows programs on OSX/PPC is still a technical impossibility, but the code they've already written could prove extremely useful to someone doing a compatibility layer on OSX/Intel.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Millennium

My point behind all this? XCode claims to make ports from MacPPC to Mactel a simple recompile, but this doesn't apply to all programs. As far as that goes, Virtual PC may be the most nightmarish exception that there could possibly be. That gives Microsoft an awfully powerful incentive not to port it: massive effort for very little gain.

I guess the real issue is exactly how much effort and exactly how "little" gain?

I suspect MS has more than enough resources for such a project. They might even have something in the works.

As for gain, VPC lets MS sell their OS to Mac users. Right now I don't know a lot of Mac users who really use it that much because of the serious performance issues. Take away those performance issues and I'd imagine just about every Mac user would seriously consider have VPC installed. Why not? That could transslate into turning VPC/Mac into a pretty profitable project.

And strategy wise, MS would be wise to enable the best possible Windows on MacTel experience possible. Why would't they want to play on both sides of the "platform war"? If Apple starts gaining market share, MS can still sell them OS licenses and hide their snickering when Michael Dell throws tantrums.

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

blah blah blah blah

The secret to 239 posts in less than 10 days revealed!!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by joltguy

The secret to 239 posts in less than 10 days revealed!!

"Bla bla bla", formerly known as "+1"

-t

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I'm a Mac zealot calling that writer a Mac zealot!

I'm under no illustion that Microsoft is going to fall because of this move... but I do see Apple's growth potential. Especially if you could run XP/Longhorn on a Mac x86.

"Buy a Mac... if you don't like our superior OS, feel free to use Windows"

Exactly. People that want HIGH END system and want to run Windows will buy it.

I already know someone getting one when it comes out to run Linux on it.

The more I think about this, the more I wish Steve would have done it 5 years ago.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Exactly. People that want HIGH END system and want to run Windows will buy it.

I already know someone getting one when it comes out to run Linux on it.

The more I think about this, the more I wish Steve would have done it 5 years ago.

It's best for Apple, no doubt about it. The PowerPC standard was at its peak, or close. But it sux for those of us who have been with them for awhile -- it's yet another platform shift. I'm tired of them, and that's why I've been so pessimistic.

Oh, and...

IBL.

[Zimphire]

I upgrade every 3 to 4 years.

So these platform or whatever changes really don't bother me.

I don't need the latest and greatest either. Most people don't

When the G5s came out I took advantage of getting a cheap new G4 tower for a grand on Ebay.


It will last me till the Intel boxes come out.

I can't believe I just said that.

[DeathMan]

I'd say Windows has a huge incentive to port Virtual PC to Intel, as well as improving performance, as they should be the ones with the best ability to do so. However, since when is MS one to make the best possible product over a "good enough."
Either way, we'll see something along the lines of a "Windows in a window" type thing. Looking forward to it for testing web applications, personally. Getting some decent performance.

Dang, I hope cringely is wrong and Apple doesn't merge with Intel.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Exactly. People that want HIGH END system and want to run Windows will buy it.

I already know someone getting one when it comes out to run Linux on it.

The more I think about this, the more I wish Steve would have done it 5 years ago.

They couldn't have done it five years ago. It would have made the transition to OS X impossible, and they didn't have the market/mindshare to do it. They've got the cash, the time with Longhorn being delayed, and a lot of people interested in buying Macs again.

[Link]

The reason I naysay the "Apple-Intel" move isn't because of my opinion on the x86, that's one thing.. it's more like Apple invested in PPC in such a way that now mimicks a lot of things they did in the mid 90s -- they spent millions, maybe even billions on projects, had a disagreement, and then axed them, some already almost ready to go into production, and some like the newton going for a little while and then being killed off.

The problem is almost every time Apple did that, someone else came along and pulled through with something similar, quicktake and newton just to name a few, and then made billions on it. Of course, this was because apple was so far ahead of the time that nobody really cared about such things -- who wanted a digital camera in 1994?!

PPC on the other hand is NOT one of those whacky things, MS and sony are embracing it along with many other companies, and I still think if Apple/Steve Jobs is having problems "getting heard" by IBM, they're going to have even worse problems "getting heard" by Intel, who'd buy more processors in a week than Apple would be able to sell in a year.

On the other hand, I can see where it went, IBM was arrogant and Intel kissed Steve Jobs' butt, and I think Steve Jobs is a guy that loves butt kissing. I could sympathize with the guy, I hate it when people are arrogant towards me.

Either way, Steve Jobs emphasized at WWDC to keep development going for both PPC and "intel", not just for longetivity of PPC support but "just in case", I'm guessing so that if IBM or Motorola come through with something really good, things will change, and they can!

Not to mention Apple still owns part of the tech behind the PPC platform, they can still start production or use it to their heart's content, though I think they'll just move to the next big thing.. X86 is kinda like a current stop, something better will probably come from it, not to mention Apple will be using Intel processors that aren't on the market yet and won't be until sometime next year, so we REALLY can't say what will become of them for sure until x86 OS X and x86 macs hit the market.

That aside, I think a lot of the things said as "reasons" for apple going to x86 are simply speculation, such as Apple "had no choice", or "IBM didn't want to produce it anymore" -- money talks, and there's probably still other reasons. For all we know, someone on the Board of Directors might have waken up one morning not long ago and said "Gee, we have OS X running on other platforms and I'm really bored with the G5, let's do something else!".. don't think they ONLY have it running on PPC and X86!

Coding x86 assembly is gonna suck though.

[Zimphire]

http://murren.no-ip.org/~ian/intel/intel1.jpg
http://murren.no-ip.org/~ian/intel/intel2.jpg
http://murren.no-ip.org/~ian/intel/intel3.jpg

[michaeljohn63]

Originally Posted by FulcrumPilot

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23769

Jobs’ blueprint for success in the PC business
Opinion Microsoft and Dell look on. In alarm?

...there are holes in the logic and gaps in the facts all over this article. The main thing is that Apple is a bit player, for IBM, for Microsoft, for Dell, and for Intel. Apple's entrance into the PC world won't make much difference to any of these companies, because Apple is not competing with them on the PC front. Perhaps in the living room, but that remains a big if. Jobs has been pretty down on the living room PC concept. We'll see. But, Intel, Microsoft, Dell and Intel all make the lion's share of their cash in the enterprise. Apple switching to Intel does almost nothing to change that market.

[Zimphire]

Michael I hear Intel is upset about MS snubbing them.

Not a good move on MS's part.

[JellyBeen]

You guys need to read this article.
This guy might just have it nailed!!!

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

[DeathMan]

John Gruber covered this story, and I don't think he's too far off base. Even if we'd like to see Steve at the helm of Disney, it seems more likely that he'll stay with his baby.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by DeathMan

John Gruber covered this story, and I don't think he's too far off base. Even if we'd like to see Steve at the helm of Disney, it seems more likely that he'll stay with his baby.

With the DRM issue, you mean? I'm becoming more and more concerned that this may be exactly what's going on. A few other places are starting to pick up the story.

If this is true, then I may be switching to Linux sooner than I had planned. The switch to Intel is bad enough, but I won't use DRM-crippled hardware no matter what platform it is.

[moki]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If this is true, then I may be switching to Linux sooner than I had planned. The switch to Intel is bad enough, but I won't use DRM-crippled hardware no matter what platform it is.

Quite contrarian of you to be moving from MacOS X to Linux at a time that people are trending towards the opposite. Hope it goes well for you.