BetaONE will rise again!


Reply
  #1  
Old 4th Sep 02, 10:50 AM
ecperez ecperez is offline
BetaONE Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 542
ecperez is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via ICQ to ecperez Send a message via AIM to ecperez Send a message via MSN to ecperez Send a message via Yahoo to ecperez
It's long been assumed that Apple has maintained an x86-compatible version of its old NeXT OS, which these days is marketed as Mac OS X. But now a report at eWeek confirms its existence, status and staffing levels.

Nick de Plume and Matt Rothenberg report that an x86 version of "Project Marklar" is maintained in step with the PPC versions, has around a dozen engineers, and is even feature "complete" with the 10.2 Jagwyre version.

(Which presumably means it's got the new calculator that features a paper tape and currency conversions, not the old Apple calculator.)

So will Apple embrace x86? We've been down this road so many times before, it now resembles a muddy, rutted battlefield pocked with the rusting remains of abandoned arguments. (I know you're thinking Route 101 south of San Francisco is bad - this is worse).

So we won't spend too much time returning to those arguments, because you know them well enough. Apple is a high-margin hardware company, and the switch to becoming a software house licensing an OS to all comers might not prove fatal, but it would certainly result in a much smaller, much less significant Apple. It would face the same problems that IBM (with OS/2) and Be Inc. (with BeOS) both encountered in trying to support a wide range of rogue hardware, and in trying to get OEMs to preload the OS.

(When Be snagged Hitachi as an OEM for a dual-boot system, Hitachi wasn't allowed to install the bootloader, or advertise the fact there was another OS on the system at the Windows desktop.)

Marklar most likely doesn't signal a strategy shift, it simply remains prudent business sense: it helps to have a Plan B, if only to use as a bargaining counter. Think of it as Mutually Assured Destruction. ®

Source: The Register.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for phpBBStyles.com.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.