[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Can Quix save Apple?



>>>>> "Carl" == Carl M Holmberg <cmholm@va24669.tu.hac.com> writes:
In article <cmholm-3101961208400001@va24669.tu.hac.com> cmholm@va24669.tu.hac.com (Carl M Holmberg) writes:


    Carl> Clifford T. Matthews <ctm@ardi.com> wrote:
    >> MacOS on PC hardware could run very fast via dynamic
    >> recompilation* and could run blazingly fast if compiler tools
    >> were available** to allow CPU intensive routines to be compiled
    >> into 80x86 code by the software author.
    Carl> [snip]
    >> What we have done is *much* more difficult than what QUIX has
    >> done, and infinitely more useful if Apple ever wants to reward
    >> their software developers and potentially take on Microsoft on
    >> Intel based PC hardware.

    Carl> What ARDI has done is comendable, technically. *However*,
    Carl> from a marketing standpoint, the day Apple decides to pull a
    Carl> 'NeXT' is the day it shrinks from an $11 billion corp to
    Carl> Claris' Windows cubicals. Why? Guesses:

I agree.  Speaking temporarily exclusively as an Apple advocate,
rather than an ARDI/Executor advocate, "Pulling a NeXT" is the last
thing I would recommend Apple do.  However, while continuing to be
hardware manufacturer, Apple could still allow and even encourage
their ISVs to develop on the Mac platform first and then use a
wrapperized version of Executor to reach the non-Mac platforms.  Most
ISVs are going to port to Windows anyway, so in many cases it's a
question of should they do the Mac port first or the Windows port
first, or use some sort of dual-universe porting solution.  Apple wins
if they port to the Mac first, even if they use Executor as a porting
technology.  They lose if the ISV ports to Windows first or uses a
dual-universe porting solution that neuters the Mac side of things.

I believe the rest of Carl's post was based on the assumption I was
suggesting that Apple drop hardware, or switch exclusively to Intel
hardware.  Since I agree with Carl that such a move would be very bad,
I don't have much to say about the rest of his letter.

Apple has the ability to make themselves *much less* dependent on the
success of the PPC.  ARDI/Executor could be turned into a (relatiely
small on the scale of things) profit center that would provide Apple
with a carrot for developers and a whole lot of flexibility for the
future.  So far, a big argument in favor of the PPC that I've heard is
that the P5 and P6 are loaded down with a ton of x86 compatibility
stuff.  However, the P6 is still a pretty strong performer.  What
happens when Intel releases a chip that *isn't* bagged down by the x86
compatibility (whether it's P7 or in the future).  If it suddenly
races past the PPC (or if Alphas and the support hardware to drive
them suddenly drop in price), it would be very worthwhile if Apple
could provide their OS on those chips, running existing software from
day one.

Before the Dr. Amelio replaced Mr. Spindler, I would guess that Apple
would continue to ignore us.  Now?  I don't know.  We'll see what
happens in the next couple of months.

More information about Executor can be found on http://www.ardi.com/.

--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com


Follow-Ups: References: