[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Apple and IBM agreement (MacOS)
Clifford T. Matthews <ctm@ardi.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" == LevelGrnd <levelgrnd@aol.com> writes:
>In article <4mq7km$hi1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> levelgrnd@aol.com (LevelGrnd) writes:
> Mike> With this week's news of Apple and IBM's agreement to give
> Mike> IBM the rights to license and sub-license the MacOS, does
> Mike> this spell any new and exciting news for ARDI. With ARDI's
> Mike> wish to integrate the true MacOS into Executor, does this
> Mike> agreement make it any easier (i.e. sub-licensing via IBM?)
>It may.
>We don't have any contacts at IBM, but when the beta1 CD-ROMs come
>back from the duplicators, we'll try sending a few of them out and see
>if we can stir up any interest.
>We don't yet know what IBM's license allows them to do. If they can
>produce x86 boxes that run MacOS under Linux, they could do very well
>by us. Just think, MacOS with memory protection and pre-emptive
>multi-tasking on a box that can run x86 binaries at native speed.
>That would give Metrowerks the incentive to add their existing x86
>backend to their Mac compilers so that developers could develop Mac
>applications that would run native on this new platform.
>I think the scenario I've described above would be best done by Apple,
>not IBM, but Apple may be too squeamish about embracing x86, something
>that shouldn't be the case with IBM.
>Let's cross our fingers.
>--Cliff
>ctm@ardi.com
Unfortunately, this is not the case. IBM's Microelectronics division
has licenced the MacOS for bundling with the PowerPC processors that
it produces.. It's mainly to allow a 'one-stop-shop' for hardware
vendors that want to produce Mac clones.
The deal has nothing to do with the PSP (Personal Software Products)
division, who actually makes the OS/2 operating system (and,
basically, all of IBM's x86 OS's).
I wish, though... <G>
Follow-Ups:
References: