MacOS X For Intel. Has the Groundwork Been Laid

by John Kinsella

Breathe in, breathe out...

Just try to relax. I know it's been confusing and hectic and has left us all feeling sort of dizzy. But it's OK, the feeling will pass...

I thought about doing a standard recap of Steve Jobs' keynote from MacWorld 2000 in San Francisco 2 weeks ago. But since it's been done better (and worse) than I could have done by others on the net, I decided to wait until the storm died down to publish my analysis. What I am about to suggest may not sit well with some, it doesn't sit well with myself sometimes, and it may be nothing but rumor-mongering falsities. But it is, in my humble opinion, possible, plausible, and down right scary.

The MacOS X preview Jobs gave us was a very enlightening experience. The new Aqua interface is nothing more than.... very, very interesting. Some like it, some love it, some hate it, and some just don't know what they think yet. But one thing is certain; everyone has some feeling about Aqua. As I sat through in impromptu preview;

(Did anyone else get the feeling that this was thrown together at the last moment? Despite all the rumors, there were no hardware announcements, and to Apple I say good job. The only mistake Apple has continually made was announcing new hardware too early, before it could be shipped. I hope this is a case of Apple waiting until everything is in place and they will be able to actually ship the product en mas.)

As I sat through in impromptu preview one disturbing and at the same time optimistic thought ran through my head, "Man this seems a lot like Windows 9X." I know, how could that be a good thought, but please, before you chop my head off, let me explain.

Many of the new additions to the OS seem to be pulled from our unfortunate Windows counterparts. From the dock, which is how the Start Bar in Windows should be implemented, to the new finder, which is now in its own window with drives not showing up on the desktop anymore, things seemed very similar to those things found in Windows. Now there are tons of things that OS X brings from other places, the file viewer from NeXT, and new innovations like the shadowing of windows and anti-aliasing throughout the system. What I found important about those features taking from the Windows world relate back to a theory I had way back when NeXT was purchased from Apple.

At the time, when the Rhapsody (pre-OS X name) YellowBox (pre-Cocoa name) was available for Intel-based machines, the hope arose that you'd be able to run the new OS on Intel machines. And you could, since OS X's kernel is extremely portable and easily moved from one processor to the next. Finally, it seemed there may be a very viable alternative to Windows, putting the Windows OS and Microsoft monopolies in very serious jeopardy. Steve Jobs ended all of these dreams when Apple discontinued the YellowBox for Intel program, instead focusing efforts on getting OS X for Apple hardware finalized and finished in a respectable period of time. So what happed to YellowBox for Intel?

It's still on the shelves in Apple's back room, just sitting there waiting to be found again. Or, was it ever put on the shelf in the first place?

Step with me into an alternate reality for a moment. Imagine Apple continued YellowBox for Intel and released it as a final product. Now, any application that was written for YellowBox would run on PowerPC AND Intel hardware. A great boon for developers, this would truly allow them to write for one environment and have it run on the Big two. The problem? Microsoft still owns the OS on Intel, and could do any number of things to "break" YellowBox and leverage their control.

Back to our reality. What we saw from Aqua and the familiar pieces from Windows may set the stage for the return of YellowBox for Intel. Only this time, it may not be just a simple environment to be run with Windows. No, instead it may be a revolutionary OS to replace Windows (Or at least provide an alternative.) What Windows users would switch an OS if they weren't familiar or comfortable with the new interface? By incorporating things that Mac users understand and are comfortable with, as well as things that Windows users know and love, added with the things UNIX users beg for, Apple has in effect created the ultimate OS. Everyone understands how it works and is basically comfortable with it, it can run easily on most any hardware, and it looks just too damn cool. Is this just a fantasy of mine?

As I see it, the only reason PC makers defend Microsoft is because they have no choice but to use their products, especially Windows. What they need is a viable alternative, one that allows them to break from Microsoft's hold and not kill their own hardware business. For Apple, it creates an infinite number of benefits and problems. How can they keep their hardware selling like hotcakes? Make the hardware look really cool, setting it apart from the others. How do they make money from the OS, without the research and development eating the entire R&D budget? Darwin, the basis of Apple's open source movement and let those guys work on making it all work. Apple just keeps the graphics and UI portions for themselves, to be licensed by those PC makers. One problem though is the need to run Windows Apps. Here, the infamous Red Box, a windows emulation-like environment is essential, as businesses will not trash their investment in Windows based products.

What do you think? Am I nuts? Does this make sense? E-mail me and let me know! ijohn@mac.com

John Kinsella is a support specialist at a prestigious school in Minnesota. He has supported and used Macs for the last 8 years and has been writing his unique thoughts and ideas for the last 1 and 1/2 years.

.

February 09, 2010