🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Kanefsky (kanefsky@datamagic.com) wrote:
> (so far Intel's been keeping up very well, but lately I think it's
> because they can throw so much more money into developing each new
> generation of 'x86 chip, and that may not work indefinitely.)

That's for sure.

> Well, you're probably right in the sense that IBM isn't going to ditch  
> OS/2 in favor of MacOS, but they are working together to the extent that
> they've defined a new architecture such that IBM machines will be
> compatible with Apple machines in the same way that Intel-based machines
> are compatible with each other now.  The goal is to set a new "IBM
> compatible" standard that eventually replaces the old standard (which
> Intel has taken over from IBM).

Moreover, Apple is pressuring IBM to adopt MacOS as its OS of choice 
since OS/2 seems destined to dwindle.  Yes, that's right, Apple is 
applying pressure to Big Blue to get in bed in the OS market *as well as* 
the processor market.

Think about this for a minute.

> And you don't think 10% of the personal computer market is a market?  If
> you were a clone maker, you'd rather compete with literally thousands of
> other clone makers for the miniscule profit margins on PC clones,

Gateway understands this and tried to get into the Mac market but the 
deal fell through.  Lots of people blame the deal on Apple (since Apple 
claimed that part shortages were at fault), but who knows why the deal 
was nixed (as opposed to merely put off).

> Actually, I believe Apple will do a much better job with Copeland than
> Microsoft did with Win 95 or even NT.

Win95 I can easily see since Copland will have little of the legacy code 
problems that riddle Win95.  NT is a harder sell -- and is the test for 
all the Unixheads floating around this group.

> Remember that the MacOS now is kind of bloated and largely emulated. 

"Kind of"?  Let's not mince words.  Open Transport is really one of the 
first steps in showing what a new architecture built from the ground up 
on PowerPC can do (when it works).  The speed is really nice (and even 
then, it still rests on some system code that will be rewritten for 
Copland) -- and it will only get better.

That's the nice thing about Copland: it will give your PowerMac a nice 
speed boost in every way.  But in Win95, you've got pages fluttering by 
when you copy files, eating up processor time: sounds like a wonderful 
speed boost to me.

> But even if Copeland had substantial bloat over the current MacOS, just
> the fact that it'll be almost completely native should at least make
> up for that, so that it'll be at least as fast as the current MacOS and
> won't require faster hardware.  The memory requirements are actually going 
> *down* from what I hear, due to a cool new virtual memory architecture.

Copland will not have bloat.  Considerable toolbox rewriting is also 
occurring, remember, with the several QuickDraws being merged, passed 
through redundancy filters, and honed for speed.  Same for mostly 
everything else.  Sure, you'll get additional managers such as the 
Interface Manager and whatall, but what you'll get will be amazingly lean 
and fast compared to the previous generation.

Copland's real competition will be with NT in more ways than one.  NT 
will be more like Copland, NT will run on CHRP boxes along with Copland, 
etc.  But it's Win95 that will be the spiritual competitor, and I have no 
doubts that Apple is in a better position (with a fresh architecture and 
a host of cool technologies such as OpenDoc, etc) to provide something 
wonderful.

Regards,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jason Newquist                          http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~newquist/
newquist@maxwell.ucdavis.edu            eWorld - newquist@eworld.com