[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Winning Mindshare via MacOS on Intel (was Re: Software ... Executor)
I have snipped the first portion of Kevin's post away (it requested
people to not fight OS wars on comp.emulators.mac.executor) and have
added comp.sys.mac.advocacy to the Newsgroups line because my reply to
Kevin (and the non-snipped portion of Kevin's message) *is* Mac
advocacy, albeit Mac advocacy that's in ARDI's interest.
I've also bcc'd this to a few people at Apple, because Kevin's letter
is an unsoliticited testimony to why cooperation between Apple and
ARDI would benefit both. A brief description of Executor is provided
at the end of this article for people who aren't aware of what it is,
what it does and what it doesn't do.
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevwil <kevwil@aol.com> writes:
In article <4joh2n$i2t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> kevwil@aol.com (Kevwil) writes:
[snip]
Kevin> Executor Apps in the Browser's hotband: Adobe Illustrator
Kevin> 5.5 NIHImage 1.58 UltraPaint 1.05 ClarisWorks 2.1 Compact
Kevin> Pro 1.50 Dynodex 3.0 GhostScript Giffer 1.1.2 KidPix 1.0
Kevin> MicroSoft Word 5.1a QuarkXpress 3.2 Rescue 2.03 SimEarth
Kevin> Color Speedometer 3.23 Stuffit Expander Tetris Max 2.4
Kevin> TexEdit Vision-3D
Kevin> Where else could you run these apps without a hardware cost
Kevin> of $1200 or more!
I think some of the low-end Macs cost less than $1200, but thank you
for providing this list of what you use under Executor.
Kevin> Apple should probably pay ARDI a commission because, since
Kevin> registering E/D(b&w) and being introduced to the Mac thru
Kevin> it, I have purchased a Performa 460 for my daughter and a
Kevin> Quadra 800 for myself. My Mac backups reside in HFV's
Kevin> created with E/D on Dos-based Bernouilli 90 disks.
You're not alone. Ernst Oud, a frequent contributor to
comp.emulators.mac.executor, and others have reported similar stories.
Macs are still the right choice for millions of people, and even
though Executor doesn't run the Finder, Executor manages to let PC
users see *some* of the benefits of Macs.
As regular readers of the comp.emulators.mac.executor newsgroup know,
we're in the process of getting our first beta CD-ROMs made. Once we
get a beta CD-ROM we're happy with, we'll send some copies to people
at Apple and let them see what we've done so far *without* any
official cooperation between our two companies.
There is technically no reason why x86 based PCs couldn't run a very
large subset of MacOS in a relatively short period of time, with
cooperation from Apple (even without cooperation from Apple we'll be
making great strides in compatibility in '96). Even then, buying Macs
would make sense for millions of users -- everyone with a '386 or
better PC would be able to inexpensively check out Macs, and many
would recognize that for many purposes, real Apple Macs (and clones)
would be preferable to running MacOS on a PC.
The following paragraphs rebut some of the common objections to MacOS
on the PC. NOTE: Executor is *NOT* MacOS on the PC, and the following
paragraphs are *not* talking about Executor as it currently exists,
but about a hypothetical future product that would combine Executor's
technology with MacOS.
I know some people think Apple should avoid MacOS on Intel because
they need all their engineers working on Copland and other Mac
hardware based projects. That's OK. ARDI has its own engineers and
when Executor 2 is shipping we'll have the resources to hire more.
I know some people think that a less than 100% plug-and-play, 100%
compatible with MacOS 7.5, 100% compatible with PPC version of MacOS
on Intel would somehow make Apple look bad, but that's a matter of
marketing. I have enough respect for PC buyers to believe that they
could easily understand the message "this software allows you to run
many Macintosh programs on your existing PC -- if you like what you
see, consider a real Mac for your future computing needs".
I know some people think that putting MacOS on x86 based PCs would
result in fewer Apple and clone real Macs being sold because people
would just use the PC version and not buy real Macs. From a technical
standpoint, this could happen in theory -- if the compiler tools
people gave ISVs the tools to include native x86 code fragments for
compute intensive tasks, the low cost of x86 processors and
motherboards could conceivably result in MacOS running sufficiently
well and sufficiently cost effectively on the x86 to cut into Apple's
sales.
Personally I don't see it happening in the near future because there
would be an awful lot of software engineering necessary to get that
far. Instead I see a limited MacOS on Intel as being a good
compromise for pre-existing machines and for machines that *have* to
run x86 binaries at blazing speeds, with real Macs being easier to
configure, easier to add peripherals to and a more cost effective
solution for Mac-only users. But if an x86 version ever did beat
non-x86 versions in all those categories, then Apple would have the
option of building x86 machines. Some programmers would weep, but the
end user wouldn't care.
Oh well, enough of the hypothetical. We've come this far without
Apple's cooperation (though to be fair, we haven't heard any
objections from Apple, either). We'll still make tremendous progress
in '96 no matter what happens.
Kevin> Eagerly awaiting, after the relese of 2.0, the following:
Kevin> Serial support
We already have some of this working in the lab; it just wasn't stable
enough to make the feature set of E2.
Kevin> FPU emulation
We'll probably support SoftFPU through INIT and cdev support before we
do our own FPU emulation. Mat, our emulator guru, is too busy working
on VCPU (which is faster than Syn68k and also allows PPC emulation)
and besides, it makes sense to add FPU emulation to VCPU rather than
to add it to Syn68k, since Syn68k won't be used after VCPU is done.
Kevin> Non-Postscript printing
That will come fairly soon after we get Executor out of the "DOS box"
in which it runs and into Win32 and/or OS/2 subsystems.
Kevin> Outline Font support Init & CDEV support
Just like supporting SoftFPU to get FPU support, we'll probably
support ATM before we do our own Outline Font support. INIT and cdev
stuff isn't really that hard to do, per-se, we just ran out of time.
Kevin> Ability to run the the following with full functionally:
Kevin> ColorIt 3.0 PhotoShop 3.0.5 Illustrator 6.0 QuarkXpress
Kevin> 3.32 ATM PageMaker 6.0
We'll still make some significant strides in many of those programs
*before* Executor 2 ships.
Kevin> ARDI has done a miraculous job.
Thank you.
--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com
For people not already familiar with Executor, Executor is a program
that allows many Macintosh applications to run on PCs. It uses no
software from Apple -- we have spent the last nine and a half years
rewriting the Mac OS and Toolbox routines using strictly clean-room
techniques (i.e. we haven't disassembled any of Apple's ROM or System
code). Due to the fact that we don't use any Apple code, Executor has
many limitations (you can find them in our answers to Frequently Asked
Questions file available on our web site).
Executor 2 is in pre-beta, we hope to officially put it into beta
later this week. You can pick up a demo copy of Executor from our web
site:
http://www.ardi.com
1.99q is the latest "experimental" release. There is also a patch
"1.99q12" which significantly enhances 1.99q.
References: