On Nov 19, 2005, at 5:10 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Ted. Apple did play some games to try and prod IBM. And your
assertion that they could use Intel for laptops until IBM got
its act
together is hysterical. Glad you aren't running Apple or any other
real company. You want them to commit to a much more expensive 2-
architecture strategy indefinitely?
Why not, every major name brand computer manufacturer produces
systems
that are either AMD or Intel CPUs.
Ted, are you really this dumb or do you just play it in the list.
AMD and Intel are the same architecture -- the x86 architecture.
No, they are not the same architecture. Both can run "x86" programs
but the chips have a superset of instructions that are different.
Please
read what the gcc flags -march=opteron and -march=pentium4 do
and quit with the nonsense. If these are the same architecture
then those flags wouldn't exist.
Whatever you say Ted.
The Opteron is a superset of the 32 bit x86 architecture adding in
64bit capability.
They are the same architecture Ted. That doesn't mean each can't
have their own optimizations and different sets of features.
Architectures are not a chip. They are the architecture with
different chips being different implementations.
for Intel just as easy as for Power PC. And besides, they are
going to
be
doing it anyway - or do you really think Apple is going to turn
it's back
on
all it's Power PC installed base?
Aha! So forced obsolescence isn't an Apple motive like you earlier
claimed as Apple will be supporting both for a while and NOT turning
their backs on the installed base. Which is it Ted, forced
obsolescence or not?
What Apple WANTS and what they are going to DO may possibly
be different things.
Apple WANTS obsolescense of the PPC stuff, no question about it.
Whatever you say Ted. Obviously Apple hopes that people adopt the
x86 stuff as quickly as possible so they can reduce their support
costs of PPC. But that doesn't mean the intent and purpose of the
move is to cause a spike in sales to make more money.
Use your head Ted
They will be pushing with the marketing as hard as they can to do it.
But, when the pedal meets the metal, that is, when the buyer has
cash in hand and is standing in the computer store looking at the
x86 Mac and the PPC Mac and deciding what to buy - well, what
happens as a result of that, is what Apple is going to DO.
If the buyers stick with the PPC stuff and ignore the x86 stuff then
Apple has no choice but to give it up and stick with the PPC. Oh
sure, if things get bad Apple will change pricing to practically give
away the x86 stuff compared to the PPC stuff - but right now we don't
KNOW what will happen. I can definitely assure you that if Apple
fails with the marketing campaign to switch the customer base to
x86, that they won't turn their back on PPC - because they will be
unable to do it and stay solvent. But I think you will see them
doing everything short of simply stopping production on PPC gear
to convince customers to buy the x86 gear.
Whatever you say Ted.
No, I am not. I am fully aware that unix like and UNIX runs on
multiple platforms. It is also a major undertaking. x86 is still
the only real stable version of FreeBSD with the x64 version coming
along to join it -- a very related architecture btw.
NetBSD m68k runs just as stable as FreeBSD, I've had it running for
years on an old 68K Mac. Read the history of FreeBSD - it was
originally chartered for ONLY the x86. The BSD code itself came to
the PC from a non-PC architecture.
???? Read what I said Ted. I was not talking about netbsd. You like
to change the subject when shown you are wrong.
UNIX was designed to be ported to
many different architectures. For that matter the crackers have
already
broken the weak security and run MacOS X 86 on standard PC hardware:
http://www.osx86.theplaceforitall.com/howto/
The above is irrelevant to the discussion. Apple made the x86
version of OS X. Not some hacker group. The hackers only got the
pre-
release dev version to run on HW that lacked the Apple security
chip. Big deal. It in no way supports any arguments you have made.
If not then why do you feel compelled to comment on it? Does
that bit of news disturb you that much? I merely brought it up to
illustrate that it is not this big major undertaking to support
multiple platforms with UNIX, Apples doing it now.
You brought up the irrelevant stuff Ted. Stuff that does not
support anything you have said.
Of course Unix runs on multiple platforms. No one made any claims to
the contrary. The first Unix exposure I ever had was some sort of
System III (????? that is from 21 year old memory) on a Z8000. A
little later I was using Ultrix on a VAX and some BSD on one of those
AT&T machine, 3bXXX, forget its name. In todays world you have
Power, Sparc, Itanium, x86, x86-64, etc. All different CPUs. And
all irrelevant to the argument. You claim that Apple could easily
support multiple architectures. I never disputed that they could do
that. Just that no desktop manufacturers support multiple
architectures and very few Server manufacturers do (for example, HP
is moving everyone away from the HP chip and Alpha to Itanium and
with different OS on x86/x86-64). Because it costs a lot more money
to support multiple architectures.
Although, come to think of it, it also illustrates one other point -
that Apple isn't simply taking the Intel CPU and using it in their
own superior hardware design. Instead they are just copying the
existing Wintel motherboard designs and porting to that.
We don't know that and that is a subject of much speculation. Will
they be adopting Wintel motherboard designs or coming out with
something different? (ie, BIOS versus that new Intel thing no one
uses, etc)
Yet
even one more reason to ask why are we going to spend extra
money on an x86 Mac hardware when what's in the guts of the
x86 Macintosh is the same thing that is in any typical Wintel clone.
We'll see...
If I was running Apple I would have opened the specs ages ago.
Apple
did so and for a while people made Apple clones, then Apple got
greedy.
Or more specifically, Jobs got greedy. Since he was the one that
killed
the Mac clones.
Like it or not Ted, Apple would not have survived without that
action.
Jobs thought so but I think that's a rediculous assumption.
Whatever you say Ted. Don't let facts get in the way (or historical
20/20 hindsight).
Microsoft
was much much smaller than Apple and they stayed out of the PC
hardware market, and now are far larger than Apple. That proves that
there is no need to be in the hardware market to survive.
????
That does not prove anything. The comparison is a false one.
Apple is a HW company and would have to transition to a SW company to
fulfill your claim. That is much harder than starting a new market
and growing it like MS more or less did.
I was not happy with that action but the proof is in the
pudding. Apple has revitalized itself greatly and did so by taking
control of the Macintosh market, as the owners of the IP, and
providing a much better user experience -- doing so by controlling
both the HW and the SW.
And, with the switch to Intel they are now giving up control of the HW
because they are simply porting to the existing Wintel motherboard
designs.
We'll see if that is what they do. The internal guts may be the same
Wintel motherboard designs or may be different. However, with PPC
they never really controlled the HW either as they were dependent on
IBM and Motorola.
So much for the "better user experience" More proof that
you don't have to control the HW.
Proof of nothing Ted. An Apple designed and integrated x86 Computer
will be as user friendly and advanced as the PPC ones are. The CPU
has nothing to do with that.
Jobs did not retard MAc development. He accelerated it.
Wrong,
No, it is 100% correct. The Macintosh market turned around and a lot
more advancement took place after Steve returned and a lot more
developers work on it now than did then. He accelerated Mac
development Ted. The clones did nothing really innovative except use
commodity PC parts and cases and cannibalize Mac sales.
the Mac clones at the time were faster and cheaper than the
Apple Macs of the time.
They were not faster except that is as that they were shipping less
machines, they could adopt the faster CPUs at a quicker pace. So
yes, they were faster versions of the same Apple designs because they
were more nimble, being copiers of Apple technology instead of doing
the R&D. They were cheaper because they did not do any industrial
design.
Why do you think Jobs purchased Power
Computing? He wanted their R&D.
There was no R&D there Ted. Believe me. Power Computer used an
Apple motherboard design they licensed, laid it out in an ATX form,
stuck it in an ATX case, and sold it.
If their stuff had been slower or
just ripoffs of the existing Mac designs he would have walked away
from them.
They were ripoffs of existing Mac designs Ted. All the clones were.
They all licensed Apple motherboard designs and used PC components
and cases. The Power Computing stuff was mainly based on the
7500/8500/9500 motherboard. The Motorola stuff was based on the 6xxx
series MB but with a 604 CPU instead of a 601/603.
Apple bought Power Computing to pay off the Power Computing people
and probably forestall litigation.
Believe me Ted, I worked in the Mac market at the time as a
consultant and as a software developer. I worked on Power Computing
and UMAX clones as well as Apple stuff. I went to the Apple
Devleoper conferences.
The number
of developers today developing for Macintosh are much greater than
they were then. Get your facts straight. Some day, when Apple has
30 or 40% of the market instead of 3-4%, they can again open it up.
Consider that when MacOS moved to UNIX that all the UNIX software
vendors could now easily port their applications to Macintosh.
Those aren't the people who came to the Mac Ted.
Since
a Mac with OSX on it makes the best damn "X Windows workstation"
in existence today, far superior to anything that Sun puts out, it
really
makes a tremendously compelling argument for a UNIX isv to port to
Macintosh. Not only do they get a solid hardware design that has
a company actually interested in the OS behind it, but they can
maybe tap some customers in the traditional Mac software markets.
Apple's success today is largely due to them coming to their senses
and jettsoning that rediculous pile of assumptions called MacOS,
now Mac OS Classic. For crying out loud - a resource and data fork
for every file? Sheesh! That one decision of Jobs is what saved
Apple
as a company. And it certainly wasn't original, lots of people over
the years long before MacOS X had suggested Apple look at doing
just that. Novell even tried the same thing but they didn't have the
persistence to make it work. Now look where they are.
Whatever you say Ted. Forks (or lack thereof) to the rescue!
That makes a lot of sense. IBM
was not interested in making a G5 caliber chip made for laptops.
That's what Apple says to justify their switch.
That is what IBM said and also did. IBM did not come through and had
nothing they were working on. Get your facts straight Ted.
The low-power Power 970FX cpu which is currently available from IBM
uses 16 watts at 1.6Ghz. The speed and power of that chip at 1.6Ghz
is far faster than a Pentium running at 1.6Ghz, as has been proven by
benchmarking. See the following article titled
"No More Apple Mysteries, Part Two" here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520
After some research, the author found serious problems in how MacOSX
is optimized for the PPC. Perhaps if Apples programmers had done the
work, they could have used the existing G5 chips in laptops that would
be just as powerful as anything that is shipping on the Wintel
platform.
Whatever you say Ted.
They publish lots of things, as does Intel, and I am sure IBM gave
lots of info to Apple under NDA. IBM as much as came out and agreed
with Jobs, using other words, after the Apple announcement.
IBM is going to say whatever Jobs wants them to say because they
do not want Jobs in a fit of pique to cancel their contract for the
existing
production. He has been known to do things like that, you know. One
year he threw out all the Apples scheduled for demos at a convention
that had ATI video chips in them over some tiff with ATI. Another
time
he
make the bookstore in the Apple office building toss all books by a
publisher
who had pissed him off over some slight. The guy is rather unbalanced
when he thinks someone is crossing him.
Whatever you say Ted.
Are you really this dense Ted. Do you think that Apple was relying
only on a published roadmap? That they had no contact with IBM and
saw IBM commitments and plans for the future?
I never said Apple was relying on anything told to them from IBM,
published
or otherwise. I have said Apple is making a marketing, not a
technology,
move that is calculated to make a lot of money for them.
Whatever you say Ted.
-IF- they transition and the Intel-based Mac's don't crash and burn
like the Apple Lisa.
It already looks like the Intel transition will be a success based on
the buzz and based on the continued growth of the Mac market AFTER
the announcement.
I love this arguement - people are buying lots and lots of currently
shipping
PPC gear so they must be wanting Intel-based gear. You ought to be a
politician.
If people were afraid of the Intel move, Ted, they wouldn't now be
buying PPC based stuff as they would be leaving the Mac market
altogether. OS X is the platform Ted and people's PPC purchases are
a show of faith that the Intel platform will be a success. People
wouldn't be buying a dying platform.
If people were worried about it they wouldn't be
renewing their commitment to the market
Or they are afraid all the PPC stuff is going away and they want to
get
a last 5 years or so of life out of their existing software, so buy it
now
while it's still here.
Whatever you say Ted.
and most vendors will release
Intel compatible versions of their apps.
which will cost money, thus making money for those vendors, which
proves my point that this is all about getting more money out of the
Apple customer base.
Whatever you say Ted.
Of course people will buy Intel compatible versions of their Apps.
Since most SW vendors who don't have a free side-grade for their
first version Intel compatible apps will wait until they do the next
major uupgrade to do so (history supports this based on previous
transitions), they won't be making any more money since people would
be paying for the upgrade anyway, whether PPC or Intel.
I already explained that to you in detail and you keep coming back
with your fantasy.
You are missing the point. Do you think that software vendors who
make
and sell Mac software applications are going to port to MacOS X
Intel
then
give free upgrades to all their customers? Of course not.
In the past, when Apple went from m68k to PPC, or from OS 9 to OS X,
many vendors did come out with their current versions for the new
(HW/
SW) architecture. For free.
That isn't free since everyone running an older version of
something has
to upgrade to the current version in order to get the free
upgrade. Oh
sure it helps CURRENT owners of software - but your only going to own
a current version if you are a good little customer and you have
always
bought the new version of a program when it's been released. I might
point out also that all a company has to do is release a new
version of
their app that is PPC only, followed by an offer for a "free"
upgrade to
x86 when they release that, to qualify for your statement.
This makes no sense. If you were happy with your old version, stick
with it. Apple has the compatibility layers there to support your
old versions. Heck, I still have Photoshop 4 for the Mac.
Or they waited to support the new
architecture until they had a major new release come out -- which was
a paid upgrade no matter the platform.
Which, if the underlying architecture didn't change, you didn't
have to
buy. Since the underlying architecture will change, now you have to
buy it.
No you don't Ted. Apple has the compatibility layers there to
support it. People buy the new versions as they want the new features.
I have worked at several software companies, I worked at them from
1990
to 1998 in fact. Every one was vitally interested in customers buying
every version of a software package that they released. The customers
they hated were the ones that bought one version then never
upgraded it
to the new version when that came available. In fact for quite a
while
in
the 90's it was routine practice at many software companies to only
fix
bugs
in the new versions, including security holes. So if a customer
called
in
with a bug they got told that yes, we will fix that bug, but only
in the new version, you will have to buy the new version to get the
fix.
Fortunately that attitude died when Microsoft started giving out
security
patches for free, for current AND PAST software versions.
So yes I am very familiar with all the tricks used to get software
customers
to keep buying the next version that is released.
People buy new versions because they want the new features. Yes,
featuritis is a marketing gimmick used to get people to buy more SW.
But don't blame Apple for that. MS seems to excel in it much more
than Apple...
You make no sense Ted. History nor logic support your argument.
You claimed it was an effort to obsolete the SW so people would have
to pay more money and generate more revenue. You have provided no
supporting evidence. History speaks against your position as well as
Apple's actions and statements of now. They are doing and spending a
lot to make sure the transition is smooth and people do not suffer
like you claim.
Once again you are missing the point. Your statement:
"and spending a lot to make sure the transition is smooth"
is a perfect example. Sure they are spending to make sure the
transition is smooth but the fact that a transition process even
exists at all is what the real point is.
Apple is of course spending money on the transition process
BECAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO TRANSITION!
Yes, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that you claim
that Apple want's people to transition so they can drive a spike in
revenue. I claim it is because the long term health of their market
demands it -- ie, in order to continuing competing their existing
platform was not going to cut it.
If there was no effort to obsolete existing SW then there would
be no need for a transition process, and no need for a new
architecture to transition to. The fact that a transition process
exists at all proves that an attempt to obsolete SW is underway.
No it doesn't. That makes no sense.
78 million bucks ring a bell? per year?
Your point is? Some years Steve does well because his stock and
options do well because his actions have greatly benefitted Apple and
its stockholders. He does not get $78m / year. He got $1 in salary
and he traded all his options for restricted stock in 04 -- that is a
one time event.
No it isn't, he's done that several times.
It is not an ongoing thing. You claimed that what he did was per
year. It wasn't. It was a one time thing. He has had, in some
other years (not every year), option grants or whatever. (Previous
years option grants were the things converted in 04 btw. It was not a
new allotment as best as I can tell from reading a few news stories
on it).
And Steve is one of the few executives who probably
deserve it based on his performance. Many executives companies don't
perform as well as Apple and they make as much or more and then leave
in disgrace as their company tanks or is in a scandal and take
another $30m in a golden parachute...
I won't argue that. Steve Jobs definitely deserves what he makes.
But
your assertion that he just makes what an ordinary Joe makes is
preposterous.
I never claimed he makes what an ordinary Joe makes. I merely said
that your idea that it was his greed that drives him was
preposterous. His ego maybe, but not his greed.
He makes a lot of money because he is an expert at
convincing people they need to spend a lot of money with Apple. This
new architecture thing is just his latest trick to get more money for
Apple.
Whatever you say Ted
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html
"We should note, however, that apart from a few architectural
differences
(such as our use
of the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as
possible with
FreeBSD
(our BSD reference platform)."
Remember, "a few architectural differences". Sounds like one of the
bases to me.
I never said FreeBSD was a base of the OS X -kernel-. That's you
saying
I said that.
I said it was a base of -the OS- which it is.
No its not. FreeBSD is used as a base for some non essential parts,
replacing the earlier BSD 4.3. OS X works just fine without the BSD
layer and the stuff added to the system to support the BSD layer.
Yes, OS X uses FreeBSD based software and interfaces but is not
reliant on it and hence it is not a base.
Well, I can't argue with this since you seem to have no problem
directly
contradicting what Apple publishes on their website. But then again,
maybe
the Apple website is lying. Since Apple, like many companies, is
so good
at doing that, it could be the case.
Apple never published on their website that OS X is based on
FreeBSD. Go read it again.
You dream up all kinds of crap Ted. I did a Google a minute ago "Ted
MIttelstaedt conspiracy" . It appears you are convinced of more
conspiracies than just this if my cursory glance at the results is
correct...
We must be looking at different listings. I tried that and I find
a lot
of
copies of posts over the BSD logo design controversy. Which I suppose
you might think that I accused it as being a conspiracy. But in
actuality
I simply accused people of caving in to right wing religious
nutcases. I
might point out that Beastie is still on the FreeBSD website.
Although
he's no longer on the FreeBSD 6.0 bootup screen. Maybe knocking him
off that will quiet down the right-wingers.
But the only other thing I could find where I was accusing anyone of
a conspiracy was I made a comment a few years ago on one of the
automotive newsgroups that it seems like there's a conspiracy between
the big 3 automakers to use salt on the roads so as to rot out car
bodies so people will keep buying new cars all the time. Since
salting
is
done routinely on the East Coast where the Big 3 are, and really
not done
many other places in the country. And the environmentalists hate it
since it gets into the ecosystem and wreaks havoc with the wildlife.
Interestingly a few other Easterners in the group mentioned seeing
salting trucks driving down roads where they live in the winter, that
had had no snow for weeks, and salting the road anyway.
But I think maybe your confusion lies because I have many times
pointed
out decisions and actions that happen which have official reasons
given, make a lot more sense when you consider ulterior motives.
Like this Apple Intel thing. And some people don't like that so
they accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. For example a few
years ago when the US got itself into Iraq I was saying the WMD thing
was baloney, that oil was the reason the US went in. And I think I
got accused by many right-wingers of being a conspiracy theorist.
Funny
how these days that the news media is now saying the WMD thing
was baloney. I guess it's still hard for people to believe that they
get lied to regularly.
Whatever you say Ted.
You call it a logo but it is not really a logo according to good logo
design. And interestingly you didn't deny my point.
Your point was that FreeBSD didn't have a real logo (before the
contest)
I showed you that the FreeBSD distribution itself claimed that Beastie
was the logo. I think that's a bit more than just me denying it, I
think
its
me proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has always had a real
logo - Beastie.
Whatever you say Ted.
People realized that Beastie was not really a logo. Hence the
competition.
Apple wants to force everyone to
buy new Macs (Ted)
Excellent - you finally understand what I'm saying.
I have always understood it Ted. Understanding it and agreeing with
it are two different things. You claims are utter BS Ted. History
does not support it (based on previous transitions). Nor does
logic. Nor any other set of facts.
or they made a business decision to switch because
the PPC was no longer a long term viable architecture for their needs
(Chad).
Btw, your theories don't pass Occam's Razor either. You add
complexity to Apple's decision when the simplest is Apple's stated
public reason.
Most successful ways of making money don't pass Occam's Razor.
If they did, then making lots of money would be so simple and obvious
that everyone would be doing it.
It was just an interesting observation. And I think a valid
observation since people who ascribe all sorts of complexity to
actions that can be described in much simpler terms are usually wrong.
And no company knows what their future needs are going to be anyway.
It may very well be that the decision to switch to Intel was the
stupidest
and most idiotic technical decision that Apple ever made, but 3 months
after doing it a hurricane destroys the only production facility in
the
world that IBM has that manufactures G5's, and if Apple hadn't
switched,
their production of computers would have come to a screeching halt.
If something like that happened, the world would be hailing Jobs as a
true visionary.
Sometimes, even horrible decisions end up being good ones, due to
side issues that nobody could have forseen. And, vis-versa.
The one good thing of it is that it will certainly make it easier
to run
FreeBSD on the x86 Macs. Hey, you don't suppose that the Apple
developers might be behind all of this! Maybe Jobs is being snookered
by his own people! ;-)
Whatever you say Ted.
Chad
Ted
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
