Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (
More info?)
Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apple suffers from the exact same curse and blessing that Microsoft
>>>suffers from -- it has locked its users into a proprietary operating
>>>system, and the applications are therefore also proprietary. It's a
>>>blessing because it allows it to charge huge amounts to its userbase.
>>>It's a curse because you're stuck on one platform forever.
>>
>>
>>What ARE yu talking about. Mac started running on a 68000 with an OS I
>>can't remember, then went to MacOS, then to Power CPUs, then to OS-X. It
>>may be proprietary, but it sure isn't "one playform" no matter how you
>>define it.
>
>
> Well, yes Apple has been a lot more successful at pushing its userbase
> around than Microsoft has in the past. But back then, the installed
> userbase of Macs was a lot smaller than it is now too: a few million vs.
> about 25 million now. The last major change really was the switchover
> from 68xxx to PowerPC -- that was a hardware switchover. The switchover
> from MacOS to OS X is trivial by comparison -- it's just software. In
> the hardware switchover, Apple had to come up with hardware emulators
> and stuff, whereas in the OS software switch, the majority of
> applications worked between the OSes, with a few odd men out.
>
> Microsoft's userbase in the 100's of millions, possibly approaching the
> billion mark. Microsoft's userbase was already in the 100's of millions
> when Mac made the jump from 68xxx to PPC. So really the size of the
> transition that you can force down your locked-in users' throats is
> inversely proportional to the size of your userbase. Apple couldn't hope
> to make the 68xxx to PPC transition today, with its userbase as large as
> it is today.
Humm. Apple ported from 68xxx to PowerPC, and ported from one operating
system to a completely different one. The processor move was long, but
not that long. Apple provided an emulator, and most vendors simply
recompiled around that limitation. Carbon did the rest.
I would assert the opposite. If apple changed CPUs again, their user
base and vendors would switch faster this time, because they are used to
it. If Apple switched once a year, then it would still work out. Vendors
would simply get used to changing CPUs with version numbers.
The OS API is far more important than the CPU type. That's as it should
be, high level languages were supposed to make that possible.
Now onto Microsoft. They have stayed put ? No. The move from 16 bit
windows to 32 bit windows was huge, both in terms of virtually recoding
everything, and ALSO in terms of changing the API, since they not only
widened everything, but 32 bit flat mode changed the way memory and
programs were handled entirely.
Then Microsoft went from Windows to Windows NT, a complete, from scratch
recoding of the operating system.
Now Microsoft is going from 32 bits to 64 bits, on the very same
processor. If they are "entrenched", there is a hell of a strong
current running through that trench !
>
>
>>>In theory, OS X is portable, in reality it is not. Similarly, Windows
It does not have to be. Only the API has to be stable, and the API is
evolving into a collection of APIs. OpenGL is in common to both Windows,
Apple and even Linux. Windows used to be WOW for 16 bit to 32 bit,
now its WOW32 for Windows 32 bit to 64 bit.
>>
>>
>>AFAIK OS-X is open source, although the graphical manager isn't. It's
>>based on BSD, and I think it was ported to Sparc as a proof of concept
>>(by two students on a one week break if I recall). And you can run (at
>>least) freeBSD and Linux on Mac, although I've only seen it on a laptop.
>
The Unix section is open source. Everything else is not. Thats like saying
that the statue of liberty's base is free for the taking. Try moving it.
>
> The reality is that Mac OS X is not portable, and it's got nothing to do
> with what programming language it was written in, or if its close
> relatives are running on other platforms. It's not portable, because its
> userbase won't let it be ported. It's too entrenched. Everytime an OS
> port is made, doesn't necessarily guarantee that the userbase will
> follow into the new platform. HP-UX exists on PA-RISC and Itanium, the
> PA-RISC crowd isn't easily following HP-UX into Itanium for HP. For Sun,
> Solaris exists on Sparc and x86/x64, the Sparc crowd doesn't necessarily
> adopt Solaris on x64 just because it's there.
All true, and who cares. Apple and Microsoft don't port operating systems,
they recode them entirely, and emulate the old API. Why ? Because by the
time it became necessary to move, the code was obsolete anyways.
Jeez I wonder if the new MSN servers are all
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram