Is Microsoft experiencing impending doom?

[stormbind]

Microsoft has managed to squeeze out the competition and dominate PC operating systems, with only open source systems (powered by rabid hobbyists) and MacOS holding out (it being only partially open source).

There are stacks of emulators that empower you to run MacOS on your PC, but they generally incur a performance hit. One of the best currently available is http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html and it covers everything needed to boot OSX.

PC hardware has consistently beaten Macintosh on cost and flexibility, but few would dare claim that Microsoft Windows has performed equally well against MacOS.

Consider what OSX offers. It is a BSD operating system with clever GUI and all the software anyone needs - not like Linux, then There is not much to separate OSX features from MS Windows, except that perhaps only OSX can be forced upon a 0.5MHz computer: http://www.appletalk.com.au/articles/68kpanther/

Macintosh have been planning a change, and nearly all products are now optimised for x86 hardware. Apparently (this is hearsay), from about midway through 2006, the Apple will lose it's RISC processor in favour of cheap Intel parts.

With the assumed CPU change, heavy-duty emulation will no longer be required, and any performance hit from emulation will be small. Are PC hard drives everywhere about to witness an invasion by OSX?

 

[vbraun]

I hope so! If I had the money and all of the games I play run on OSX, thats what I would use. I hope I will be able to run OSX on my computer. I would have a triple boot with Vista, a couple Linux distros and MacOS X.

 

[Xerol]

While it could be a good thing for PC users in general, I can't see this actually being a good thing for Macintosh at all. It would make a good portion of their hardware obsolete, because of the aforementioned cheaper hardware on the PC market. But on the consumer end, I don't see anything too bad coming out of this - it could force Microsoft to become competitive and lower prices and bring MS and Apple into a price war.

EDIT: I should also point out the developer's standpoint on this as well - despite the hardware compatibility, there's still a different software layer to deal with. Converting a PC game to macintosh would still be difficult, time consuming, and expensive. However, it wouldn't surprise me, especially if a price war takes place, if a good portion of the more savvy PC users would be dual-booting. It would be a slight boost to more universal languages like java, however, since it's only a few extra clicks to make a version for a different OS. Not only that, but with the recent decrease in overhead for the JVM, it could become a viable alternative for mainstream applications and games.

At LG we use various programming languages depending on what we're doing and personal preference. I know C++ and use it with other people on larger projects, but for my solo work I prefer FreeBasic, which can export code for Windows32 and Linux systems, but not for mac (and I don't see a mac compiler coming out anytime soon, since that would require compiling for a different architecture.)

 

[Padma]

From what I understand, Apple has chosen to go with Intel chips for it's next round of machines. That *doesn't* mean that they will be "PC Compatable". What I have heard is that even the Intel chip will not be x86/Pentium compatable; it will have a special instruction set for Apple/Mac.

 

[stormbind]

Xerol, in order to use MacOS (even with emulation) you must have a Macintosh ROM which comes built into a Macintosh computer. You can copy that ROM (create an image) and use that with an emulator to boot MacOS: that ROM is your license.

If MacOS were to run on an x86 CPU (which Padma has put in doubt), the scenario would not remove the need for a ROM image from a genuine Macintosh computer, but it would allow emulators to be written with negligible performance hit.

Converting software to Macintosh should not be too hard because it is not all-new. The core of OSX is Darwin, a *NIX operating system currently available for x86 (see OpenDarwin). It inherits the BSD API.

Some higher level components are proprietory, but include an OpenStep API, similar to a product currently available for *NIX/x86 in the form of GNUstep.

 

[stormbind]

From what I understand, Apple has chosen to go with Intel chips for it's next round of machines. That *doesn't* mean that they will be "PC Compatable". What I have heard is that even the Intel chip will not be x86/Pentium compatable; it will have a special instruction set for Apple/Mac.

I suspected that, but heard that Apple had put together some Pentium IV Macintosh for testing. I cannot say if this is accurate information or wishful thinking.

 

[vbraun]

Maybe this article should help: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121437,00.asp

Intel-Based Macs May Run Windows

But Apple says it will stop the Mac OS from running on non-Apple machines.

Narasu Rebbapragada
From the August 2005 issue of PC World magazine

Apple's decision to abandon IBM PowerPC chips in favor of processors from Intel raises the possibility of new, affordable Apple computers that could boot both Mac OS X and Windows.

"Apple will not do anything to prevent it," says Michael Gartenberg, vice president and research director with Jupiter Research in New York. (Today, Macs can run Windows only on a sluggish x86 emulator called Virtual PC.)

At the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in June, CEO Steve Jobs said that the first Macs with Intel processors would appear next year, with the migration to Intel expected to be mostly complete by the end of 2007. Apple did not say which Intel CPUs it planned to use or where they would appear first. But given that Mac OS X is a 64-bit operating system and Intel hasn't yet announced a 64-bit mobile chip, Apple will probably make desktops such as the IMac and the Mac Mini the first recipients of Intel architecture, says Shane Rau, PC chip analyst for the research firm IDC.

Mac OS on Macs

If you're hoping to load Mac OS X on an existing Windows PC, though, you'll be disappointed. Apple has made it clear that the Mac OS will install only on Mac hardware. Likewise, if you've been hoping that the switch to common hardware will mean more software developed for both Windows and Mac computers, you are in for a letdown. Developers say that they won't be able to develop Mac and PC applications simultaneously, because the coding languages are still vastly different. While Mac lovers who have to run the occasional Windows application may rejoice at being able to run native Windows, the migration to Intel may be rocky for developers and users of today's Mac apps.

Developers will have to recompile programs written for PowerPC Macs, and until the new versions appear, longtime Mac fans who buy a new Intel-based Mac will have to run their legacy apps with an emulation technology called Rosetta (named after the famous stone used to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs). Rosetta will run code created for PowerPC on Intel's chips at a pace that Jobs described in a presentation slide as "fast (enough)." In a demo of the technology, however, Adobe Photoshop took a fair amount of time to launch on a prototype Intel-based Mac.

Why the switch? Rau says that Intel can assure Apple a steady supply of chips for all of its products--including desktops, servers, and a range of notebooks. "And not just CPUs, but chip sets, Wi-Fi, and so on," Rau says. In contrast, IBM had been unable to meet Apple's demand for desktop chips, and neither IBM nor Freescale (another Apple chip supplier) had a comprehensive road map similar to Intel's. Further, IBM couldn't solve the PowerPC CPU's heat problems in order to create a PowerBook G5 notebook, and it couldn't help Jobs deliver a promised 3-GHz Power Mac.

Rau says that the change to Intel should help to lower the prices for Macs. That, along with the prospect of a dual-boot Windows/Mac system, could help increase Apple's PC market share--which, according to IDC, currently hovers at about 3 percent.

However, not all observers believe that abandoning IBM in favor of Intel is a smart decision for Apple. "Intel is not the 'de-facto leader in processor design' that it was a few years ago; in the recent past Intel has been out-innovated by both AMD (with a better approach to 64-bit computing) and IBM (with a better long-term strategy around multicore chips)," wrote Ovum Ltd. research director Gary Barnett in an e-mail message.

Hopefully this is helpful.

 

[Cassius Maius]

Microsoft has managed to squeeze out the competition and dominate PC operating systems, with only open source systems (powered by rabid hobbyists) and MacOS holding out (it being only partially open source).

There are stacks of emulators that empower you to run MacOS on your PC, but they generally incur a performance hit. One of the best currently available is http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html and it covers everything needed to boot OSX.

PC hardware has consistently beaten Macintosh on cost and flexibility, but few would dare claim that Microsoft Windows has performed equally well against MacOS.

Consider what OSX offers. It is a BSD operating system with clever GUI and all the software anyone needs - not like Linux, then There is not much to separate OSX features from MS Windows, except that perhaps only OSX can be forced upon a 0.5MHz computer: http://www.appletalk.com.au/articles/68kpanther/

Macintosh have been planning a change, and nearly all products are now optimised for x86 hardware. Apparently (this is hearsay), from about midway through 2006, the Apple will lose it's RISC processor in favour of cheap Intel parts.

With the assumed CPU change, heavy-duty emulation will no longer be required, and any performance hit from emulation will be small. Are PC hard drives everywhere about to witness an invasion by OSX?

In short, Microsoft isn't experiencing impending doom. I use Linux & WinXP commonly, sure OS-X is nice but I’d rather run a User-Friendly Linux distro over it

 

[stormbind]

That conclusion defies logic: I have been using MacOS on PC hardware for years, albeit with a Mac ROM image but that is besides the point

One of those articles clearly pointed to the prospect of dual-boot Windows/MacOS computers. If the new computers have a PC-compatible CPU, all you will need to turn a standard PC into a full-speed Mac is an Apple ROM.

Cassius, I have utter contempt for the network-orientated X11 protocol which I feel is ill-suited to high performance workstation or home computing use. I would much rather use a PDF display system (OSX) it's predecessor, Postscript display system (NextStep), Microsoft's GDI, or even DirectFB (available for Linux).