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

Re: congrats to ardi



>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Killion <kevin@shsmedia.com> writes:
In article <kevin-1106960822050001@shs.pr.mcs.net> kevin@shsmedia.com (Kevin Killion) writes:


    >> Questions: 1. Is Apple a hardware company or Operating System
    >> company ???  2. Why should Apple support Executor and promote
    >> sales of x86 PCs. ??  3. What financial benefits will Apple
    >> receive by supporting Executor ??

    Kevin> Answers:

    Kevin> 1. In its entire history, Apple has made only two products
    Kevin> that have been resounding popular successes: the Apple ][,
    Kevin> and the MacOS operating system.  The ONLY reason people buy
    Kevin> Macintosh computers is to run MacOS.

I think that characteristic is a little harsh.  Macintoshes are
computer systems, which have a hardware component and a software
component.  The original Macintosh hardware was fairly important
because Apple had the foresight to use a chip that had a linear
address space and hardware that had good resolution bitmapped
graphics.  Initially the MacOS just *couldn't* run on alternative
hardware, so the fact that they developed cool hardware and a cool OS
simultaneously is a little more impresive than the idea that the MacOS
itself was a resounding popular success.

However, as time went by and the alternative machines *could* run
MacOS, it was a shame that people weren't given a chance to.

    Kevin> 2 and 3.  The certain way to kill MacOS and Macintosh is to
    Kevin> allow developers to slip over to Windows and stop writing
    Kevin> for Mac.  Right now, all the financial inducements (not to
    Kevin> mention social pressure, development tools, and rational
    Kevin> future vision) are lopsided in favor of Windows, as pained
    Kevin> as I am to say that.  Isn't it clear what Executor really
    Kevin> could mean for Apple?  Executor allows a developer to stay
    Kevin> loyal to Mac, work with the Mac APIs, and still be able to
    Kevin> sell into the lucrative Windows market!

Yes.  I think that for the Mac to be successful with end users, the
Mac API has to be successful with programmers.  Restricting the Mac
API to only run on a particular set of machines, when Microsoft is
actively going the opposite way (NT can run on PPC machines as well as
the Alpha and x86) is a very bad move.

There's more to the argument than that, but I do agree that your
insight is a key one.

    Kevin> ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Kevin> Kevin Killion kevin@shsmedia.com Stone House Systems, Inc.
    Kevin> http://www.mcs.net/~shs/

--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com


References: