Although I do enjoy a good history lesson, I'm not usually the one to bring up old news. Just a while ago, however, I stumbled across an old Wired News article from all the way back in 2000 that I thought was just too good not to mention.
It's a very short article that you can zip through in just a minute or so, but here are some interesting quotes from it when viewed in light of the upcoming Intel move:
Apple has no plans to change its fundamental business model and release MacOS X for Intel machines. "I've personally heard Steve say they would never do that..."(Never say never)
"There's no chance of any of that appearing in x86...There's just too much work to run on anything but PowerPC."(Too much work?)
"...all of Apple's software developers would have to rewrite their applications to run on a MacOS X/Intel machine." (Really?)
Aside from the few chuckles I had when reading it because of the obvious irony, I have to wonder if perhaps universal binaries weren't at least a twinkle in Steve's eye back then.
Matthew Russell
is a computer scientist from middle Tennessee; and serves Digital Reasoning Systems as the Director of Advanced Technology. Hacking and writing are two activities essential to his renaissance man regimen.
What do you think -- an ironic coincidence or steadfast planning? You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.
Showing messages 1 through 6 of 6.
Business Model Unchanged
2005-10-01 21:42:59
hudlee
[Reply | View]
Well apple isn't changing their fundamental business model yet. That would require selling Mac OS X so it ran on any pc and dropping the hardware
biz. While I hope they do this eventually (or are forced too) it certanly doesn't appear to be the current plan.
"I have to wonder if perhaps universal binaries weren't at least a twinkle in Steve's eye back then."
I'd say they where alot more than that in 2000.
I'm starting to feel old here and I'm only 21. Anybody remember the Mac OS 68k to PowerPC transition which used fat binaries containing versions of software for both 68k and PowerPC?
Are these different from universal binaries somehow?
Apple has no plans to change its fundamental business model and release MacOS X for Intel machines
That meant existing Wintel hardware. Apple bought NeXT, and NEXTSTEP3.3 had run on NeXT's 68k hardware, and HP PA-RISC, and 32bit SPARC, and Wintel. Apple were busy making PPC-based Macs. Intel-based Macs were not under consideration.
There's just too much work to run on anything but PowerPC.
True in 2000. Lots of MacOS 7/8/9 code about in those days. It was hard work getting people to transition to Carbon. Even inside Apple. In 2005, people are supposed to be using Xcode and Cocoa, and for those that are, porting to Intel means finding and clicking one checkbox, remarkably like I did in front of an HP712/60 in 1995.
all of Apple's software developers would have to rewrite their applications to run on a MacOS X/Intel machine
Same again. It was true in 2000; substantially less true now.
I ran across this link just a while ago while scavenging some other info on Darwin. It's amazing how far things have come along and to reminisce back to what was going on when things were just heating up.
http://www.wsanchez.net/blog/archives/000011.html
You missed the most important quote.
2005-09-22 19:36:13
lgw4
[Reply | View]
"I think it's a safety net for Apple," Siracusa said. "They want the core OS to be portable. They want to be sure in coming years that the OS can be ported over with little or no difficulty."
in other news...
2005-09-22 18:54:17
cpenner461
[Reply | View]
soon to be released: the video iPod, and a PDA from Apple (newton v2?)
Weblog authors are solely responsible for the content
and accuracy of their weblogs, including opinions they
express, and O'Reilly Media, Inc., disclaims any and
all liabililty for that content, its accuracy, and
opinions it may contain.
Weblog authors are solely responsible for the content
and accuracy of their weblogs, including opinions they
express, and O'Reilly Media, Inc. disclaims any and
all liability for that content, its accuracy, and
opinions it may contain.
biz. While I hope they do this eventually (or are forced too) it certanly doesn't appear to be the current plan.
"I have to wonder if perhaps universal binaries weren't at least a twinkle in Steve's eye back then."
I'd say they where alot more than that in 2000.
I'm starting to feel old here and I'm only 21. Anybody remember the Mac OS 68k to PowerPC transition which used fat binaries containing versions of software for both 68k and PowerPC?
Are these different from universal binaries somehow?