All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

The Problem with Apple

<< < (3/4) > >>

psyjax:
Hey VoidMan sorry for not answering.

I was reffering to the Linux buzz a few years ago. When everyone was touting it as the Windows killer that was going to free the comp. industry. Not necisserly IBM and others who use it for Mainframe and technical type tasks, but for the common user.

Microsoft was afraid that if Linux became friendly enugh to gain a foothold in it's market that they could have some stiff competition on their hands. When the DOJ made M$ have to let computer manufaturers ship alternet OS's Linux was the first one out there.

Plus Linux was cross platform (heck even one for PPC). So it was, and I guess still is, a potential thret to Windoze.

Anyway, my point simply was to say, that because Linux, though a damn fine OS, is somewhat obscure and difficult to the common user, furthermore there was no marketing force (not that there should be on a free OS) making it appealing to the common user, so it never caught on like it was expected.

However, Apple OSX/Darwin has an excelent user friendly GUI with the low level tech ability of a *NIX OS. With Apple supporting it, advertising it, and making it both accessible and understandable to the comon user. This coupled with a growing Open Source programmer comunity makes OSX a pretty fine alternative.

This relates to what you were saying about porting Darwin and having to emulate OSX on some level. As I understand it OSX is almost like a shell over Darwin, kinda like Win 3.1 or X Windows. So if that is the case, I belive it should work on anything capable of runing Darwin.

I may be totaly wrong on this, but that is my understanding.

voidmain:
Ahhh, thanks for clarifying that.  Again I agree with everything you say except for the last paragraph.  When Darwin is ported to another platform the OSX binaries will not be able to run on that platform, at least not without some level of hardware/processor emulation, depending on how the original GUI binaries were compiled.  Just because the OS runs on a platform does not mean that the application binaries will run on any platform with that OS.  For instance you can not take "Netscape" compiled on Linux for x86 and run it on Linux on a Sun Sparc.  Netscape has to be recompiled.  Same with Windows.  Windows apps for x86 do not run on Windows Alpha (when there was a WIndows alpha).  You had to get the application compiled for the Alpha processor.

Now this is not written in stone because there is a certain amount of binary formats that try to eliminate them being tied to a specific platform but I don't know what Apple uses, but they would have no reason to have cross platform binaries since they only currently run on a limited set of hardware.

Now you CAN at the OS level emulate the processor and hardware so that the binaries *think* they are running on their native platform but in my opinion that would come at the cost of performance (however minimal that may be).

psyjax:
Ok, now I understand. Hmmm... I just hope once these projects are nearing compleation that Apple decides to re-release or re-compile the bianarys for them. I think this might actually be a possibility since Apple has expresed interest in supporting th x86 Darwin comunity.

Only time will tell.

voidmain:
That would be awesome! Imagine if Dell/HP/BestBuy etc offered machines with OSX as an alternative (since they can't seem to comprehend Linux)?  I think the MS marketshare would start coming down for sure!

Shakinbrave1:
The biggest problem with apple is their crippling of lower-end macintoshes. The first macintosh ever to have an accelerated video card was the power mac 9500! Which was ok, because you could add them via nubus or PCI, but what about all-in-ones? They were stuck with processer-rendered graphics at turtle speeds, and which bogged down the processor. Hence, none of the 60X all-in-ones were capable of any decent gaming or quictime playing, not even the 275Mhz 603e powered 5500s, which could have flown past the PCs of their time with a decent graphics chip. Hell, with a radeon card, it could likely do better than an iMac! Instead, it's useless for much other than internet, and it sucks even at that because it takes too long to scroll though pages with pictures. And how about iMacs... even new iMacs. The iMac G4 has an outdated video card already, and it is totally non-upgradible. Plus, no sound card, so all sound is rendered by the processor, making it slower at anything with sound. The G4 cube was a step in the right direction, but it was so incredibly overpriced it didn't sell. And the G4 is way too expensive for the average consumer. How can apple compete with PC companies if they make a computer non-user servicible? My iMac has a rage 128 card built onto a 2x AGP slot. I could kill someone at apple! My rage 128 is now useless to me, but imagine what Radeon 8500 would do for me? Making the graphics card in an upgradible slot wouldn't cost apple a cent, actually, it would cut the cost of the computers down. Apple intentionally cripples cheaper macs to sell more of their higher-level macs, but it doesn't work, because it just drives people away from macs altogether.Why no $700 G3 cube?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page