🚀 go-pugleaf

Sub:    Re2: Total Chaos
 
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>The PowerPC chip will be used for personal, office level computers by
>>Apple, and in high end workstations by IBM. This is a nice and clear
>>separation, and it's actually a win-win situation for both parts.
 
>       There is no such 'clear separation'.  Sun workstations now start
>at prices well below high-end Macs.  If there is a real separation in
>future, it's going to be between portables and desktop machines.
>It's a classic IBM ploy to try to make such distinctions stick by
>marketing means and by crippling the low-end machines.  When I hear something
>like the above, I expect to see "low end" machines crippled by limited
>expansion capability.
 
What in the world makes you think this?  As Apple has stated time and again,
the relationship with IBM is restricted to a technology sharing agreement.  We
are not restricted in what kinds of machines we build, nor is IBM.  We will do
what makes sense to be competitive in the marketplace.  If IBM wishes to
cripple its low-end machines, that's their business.  Apple certainly is *not*
going to cripple its machines!
 
>>PowerOpen is for the 'Open Systems People', while MacOS for PowerPC
>>is for the rest of us :-). Another win-win, if you think open systems
>>is the way to go, go for PowerOpen. If you like the MacOS environment,
>>you got it.
 
>        Using software emulation.  Right.  As Kent has previously admitted,
>the new machines will run the Mac OS in a software emulator, something like
>Soft PC, and the "real PowerPC environment" will have a different
>API and GUI.  Sounds like A/UX.
 
No!  Portions of the MacOS will be emulated at first, but A/UX will not be
involved.  Portions of the MacOS will be native PowerPC code at first with the
percentage approaching 100% as time passes.  The interfaces will be the same as
today's with limited extensions.  Over time one might expect the API's to
evolve, but that would be the case whether or not PowerPC was involved.
 
The GUI will not be different!  Why would we want to replace the successful
Macintosh GUI?  The only changes to the GUI will be part of the natural
evolution that a more powerful processor will allow.
 
The place you might be confused regarding A/UX is that there will be an option,
as there is today, to run the Macintosh OS on top of A/UX.  This is to allow
those users who need A/UX to also have the Macintosh interface and environment
for running Macintosh applications.  This is no different than the situation
today with System 7.0 running on top of A/UX 3.0.
 
>        It's sad.  If Apple had come out with a protected-mode MacOS with
>multiprocessor support (difficult, but possible) kicked Motorola into
>building faster M68xxx CPUs and saturated the educational market with
>low-end Macs equipped with built-in CD-ROM drives, Apple could have
>retained its leadership position.  But, with top management choosing a
>"strategic alliance" with IBM, a classic tar pit, as Apple's future, one can
>only expect decline.
 
Saying that building a protected-mode MacOS with multiprocessor support is
difficult is a *severe* understatement!  As for the rest of the paragraph, well
that's your opinion.  I don't agree with it.
 
>                                        John Nagle
 
Barry Locklear