MacVillage.net

It has been rumored for over a year that Apple was secretly keeping Mac OS X builds for x86 deep in it?s Cupertino Labs. In recent months, high profile articles have claimed to have testimony confirming the existence of such builds. These statements have generated quite a bit of controversy in the industry.

There are really two platforms to think about, hardware speaking. PowerPC (Macs) and x86, commonly known as Intel. x86 is what people commonly refer to as a Windows computer, but some do install Linux, and even Darwin, the core of Mac OS X which has been publicly available for x86 for quite some time. The rest of what makes up Mac OS X is not available for x86, that is a PowerPC exclusive. One should note that you can also run Linux and Darwin itself on PowerPC.

The idea that Mac OS X already exists for x86 is frightening to some, but it shouldn?t be.

Apple?s revenue is based on two, soon to be three components, software such as Mac OS X, QuickTime, and Final Cut Pro. Hardware, and Internet Services, such as .Mac. Perhaps this could lead Apple into ?thinking different? and creating a whole new business plan. Allow me to explain.

Make the PowerPC (Mac) version of Mac OS X available free to anyone who owns genuine PowerPC hardware. Mac OS X has all the drivers needed right now for most Mac users already there. Mac OS X is designed for the computers that Apple designs, and vice versa.

Charge for Mac OS X on x86, allowing these users to have Mac OS X, but they don?t get all the goodies and simplicities that Mac hardware allows, for example, drivers may not exist for every configuration, and some features may not be fully functioning on x86 based on hardware limitations. For users who need this stuff, there?s a Mac. For those who don?t, you can buy the OS on its own. Apple can create a division that companies can hire to create drivers for their products.

Apple would generate revenue both ways. The PowerPC users get free operating systems, and guaranteed compatibility, keeping the hardware side strong. The software side would do just as well selling x86 copies and creating drivers for companies.

This would create a more secure fiscal future for Apple. No matter what happens with the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) alliance and the future of the PowerPC, Apple would have a business plan. It would promote the growth of Mac OS X, and give Apple a stronger position in the software industry.

According to Apple, in 2003, future Macs will not be able to boot Mac OS 9, limiting them to Mac OS X. [Press Release] Will this actually happen? No way. If you use Mac OS 9, and don?t plan to switch, don?t worry. Why do I make such a bold statement? There are two possible routes this situation could go:

First is Apple will initially prevent OS 9 booting, but will release a patch in a few weeks to re-enable Mac OS 9 support after they realize that many businesses need Mac OS 9, and won?t reinvest in software to use Mac OS X, especially when everything is working well. This is just like how the eMac was for education only. Remember that? Well despite Apple?s hopes, the eMac is now taking away from iMac sales. Why? Because that?s what the customer wanted.

If for some odd reason Apple refuses to re-enable Mac OS 9 support on new computers, the open source community will create a hack. Rest assured. The second it becomes public how they disabled Mac OS 9, there will be several hacks. It will happen.

But why won?t Apple just Open Source Mac OS 9? Just because it isn?t UNIX, doesn?t mean it has no use to anyone. By letting the open source community take care of Mac OS 9, just like Mozilla has been raising the Gecko engine for Netscape would really provide some high quality products for the future. Mac OS 9, is a much simpler operating system compared to Mac OS X. It would be great for future handhelds, and appliances that Apple may want to release in the future. In the near future, storage and processor speed on such devices will increase greatly. Mac OS 9 with a new AtEase like Finder would provide a Palm like interface while still having the powerful backend and flexibility that Mac OS 9 has. Proprietary technology perhaps in the way? Think about it. Mac OS 9 is so extendable thanks to the Extensions capacity, that they can remove whatever they don?t want the world to see and leave it mostly intact. For example QuickTime can be removed. Does Apple really care about OpenTransport while Mac OS X has different network capabilities?

As announced the other week, I will be doing a rather lengthy series on working in a bi-platform environment, particularly Mac OS and Windows.

Once again, I am working on my Mac during Weekends, and must use a Windows XP laptop as per schools recommendation. More detailed information can be found here

The first obstacle I noticed was harnessing the golden application of the Internet. Email. I personally have several email accounts, some for business here at MacVillage.net, and a personal email account that I use for my family/friends. Now the question was how can I access my mail 24×7. My personal mail was with Netscape Communicator 4.8, old but a great client indeed, and business mail was on Outlook Express 5.

To my surprise, I was able to copy the Netscape profile to my laptop with Windows XP and open it with Netscape 4.79 for Windows. I was able to view all my old mail. Netscape kept the mail format similar across platforms (I guess they had to for roaming access capabilities). My bookmarks were also there. I then decided to import them into Netscape 7, which is really Mozilla 1.0.1. I chose this over Mozilla 1.1 for several reasons. Netscape 7 is a bit more polished with some neat security options such as P3P. Netscape 7 also has an integrated AIM/ICQ Client, and IMAP capabilities for its mail client. It’s a slightly more polished product, while Mozilla 1.1 is a bit more cutting edge. While nice, I decided to go Netscape 7. Sure enough it imported perfectly. I could now access my mail, and even search old mail through Netscape 7.

I have read that a similar job can be done with Mail.app and Netscape 7/Mozilla directly since they use similar formats to store data, although I have yet to confirm this report.

I should also point out that it did take my bookmarks over perfectly. It’s a great browser, and a good solution for those who feel that Internet Explorer is just a toy in XP. It doesn’t have a very professional feel with Pre School like icons.

My next task was to see if Outlook Express would be so kind. To my expectations it didn’t work. Not only do they use different formats for their data files across platforms, but XP didn’t recognize Outlook Express 5 for Mac. So there was no way to import old mail. This is important to me because I often go back to old emails. Once you have had this ability it’s hard to go back to not having it. That is my big hatred of web email.

My solution so far is to use a webmail client installed on the MacVillage.net servers for access administrative email. A new version is in the works for the near future which hopefully will be more robust and allow for portable checking during the week and on the weekends Outlook can do it’s job. For now that is the best solution that I have.

So my solution is about 50% successful, although what works, does do a pretty good job. Netscape is still a very robust, not to Windows like Mail client. If only NavZilla would work on Windows I would have a really nice looking email client?. That would be pretty cool.