Re: How many times must Apple make such DRASTIC architecture changes?

[Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com>]

In article <1OIpe.17401$QX1.14703@fe06.lga>,
 "Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:

> I believe this latest move to Intel was the 4th drastic change by Apple in
> their history.  Correct me if I am wrong but the first MAJOR architecture
> change was from the Apple II/IIgs or whatever to the Macintosh 68K.

You're wrong and right at the same time. The IIgs came out after the Mac 
(and was a major architecture change from the prior II models, btw) and 
you've forgotten the Apple III and the Apple IV. But there was never, 
TTBOMK, any intention for the IV and V to retain any sort of 
compatibility with the earlier models.


> The second major architecture change came in 1994 when Apple moved from the
> 68000 CPU to the IBM PPC CPU.  Hardware would still work in the PPC Macs,

To some extent. You've forgotten about a couple of shifts along the way, 
though, as peripheral connectors changed and several incompatible 
expansion slots came and went (alongside NuBus, which showed up in 1987 
and lasted through the first generation of PowerMacs). Drivers were 
often an issue as well.


> The third major architecture change when they moved from their old World Mac
> to their New World Mac with OSX.

The transition from OW to NW happened in 1998, well before OS X shipped.

> The new world macs are way different, as
> well as OSX.  OSX is based on Unix, and far more powerful than the classic
> mac os. But I have to wonder if Apple originally wanted Unix to be their OS,
> when the first Mac was designed. I have noticed that OS 8.1 can read Unix
> formatted disks, but I wonder about OS 7.  Was a Unix os part of apples
> original plan?

Not likely as far as I can tell/remember. They did borrow some things 
from other sources, but it was meant to be essentially a home-grown 
Frankenstein's monster. (And note that in the book the monster was not a 
stiff-jointed, ugly monstrosity.)


> And the last major change happened recently with this move to the Intel x86.

Nothing has happened recently with regard to Mac OS on x86 except an 
announcement. The work has been ongoing for half a decade and outside a 
subset of developers the machines won't be here for about a year.


> Funny after all these years, PC's have remained x86, and  even a new PC
> being sold today can run many DOS applications.  Granted they cannot use all
> DOS apps, but certainly a much higher percentage of apps than what a OS
> Tiger user can of Apple II apps.

I can run Apple II apps fine under Tiger. The emulation environment 
isn't part of the stock install, but it's readily available to anyone 
who wants it.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.