Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Apple Joins BAPCo 213

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the change-from-the-inside-out dept.
DigitalDame2 writes to tell us Gearlog is reporting that Apple has joined up with Windows benchmarking consortium BAPCo as a full blown member. From the article: "This is significant because it means that Apple has now committed to Windows-based performance testing, and it will influence industry-standard testing methodologies going forward, possibly including Mac OS X testing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Joins BAPCo

Comments Filter:
  • by Rosyna (80334) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:18AM (#15016211) Homepage
    It's obvious that this was just done so Apple can more easily load Windows XP by default on new Macs and phase out OS X. I mean, that's why Avie's leaving after all, his precious mach isn't used in Windows.
    • What utter tripe. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032)
      Apple's not phasing out their #1 competitive advantage. Avie's leaving because he rich, he's worked very hard for decades, and wants to enjoy himself a bit.

      -jcr
      • Whoa, dude, relax. If you took that seriously, maybe you need a vacation.
      • I agree, but I have to admit that both announcements coming the same day made me think the same thing. Especially when you consider the "leaving to pursue other interests" usually is companyspeak for some internal battle that they lost.
        • Re:What utter tripe. (Score:3, Informative)

          by jcr (53032)
          Avie didn't lose any "internal battle". He stepped aside about three years ago, and picked Bertrand to succeed him. If I had a hundred million bucks like Avie, I probably would have left a long time ago.

          -jcr
      • Apple's not phasing out their #1 competitive advantage.

        The poster was talking about Apple's legacy computer business, not their iTunes store.

        TWW

    • You obviously don't know your Mach history [wikipedia.org].
    • While your post is obviously very tongue-in-cheek, I do hope that the ease in which Windows programs will run on the new Macs won't mean the demise of OS X (Of course that wouldn't happen anytime in the next few years though). OS X is the primary reason I'm a new Mac fan (I was primary linux user for 8 years, until my GF got a Mac Mini).

      On one hand, allowing Win XP apps to run on Intel Macs will ease the transition of more people to Macs. Many people have that one critical app that is holding them back

      • On one hand, allowing Win XP apps to run on Intel Macs will ease the transition of more people to Macs.

        I suspect we'll be seeing the Mac equivalent of CoLinux (http://www.colinux.org/)very [colinux.org] shortly. Cooperative operating systems will allow developers to address the best aspects of both systems - UI from the Mac, drivers from Win/Vista, for example.

        Eventually the two commercial oprating systems will merge and become one. The merged system will be co-developed as a joint venture by Apple and Microsoft, who

      • But I'm a bit worried that software developers might not develop native versions for OS X, if they assume people can just run their windows version virtually. Of course this mandates that the Mac user in question buy a copy of XP, so of course not everyone will have that option.

        Most people have enough trouble installing one operating system by themselves. Expecting them to install a second thru virtualization is asking too much.

        No developer is going to expect a large number of users to run their program

        • No developer is going to expect a large number of users to run their program in that method.

          A middle manager might decide to make this kind of decision, especially if Apple were to add some kind of WINE-like emulation layer to make Win32 apps run on the Mac.
    • A hardware company (Apple) to ditch the reason why people buy that hardware (OS X) would be like Microsoft dumping Windows to develop applications for the Mac. It's both stupid and silly.
  • by creimer (824291) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:21AM (#15016220) Homepage
    Does this mean that Windows Vista will be delayed yet again until it passes the Apple user interface benchmark? Maybe Microsoft should license Mac OS X.
    • by jcr (53032) <jcr@NoSPAM.mac.com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:28AM (#15016245) Journal
      Maybe Microsoft should license Mac OS X.

        You probably meant this facetiously, but if you look at the numbers for what MS blew on the Longwind debacle, and what it would cost them to buy a license for OS X, it makes sense.

      When Apple was in the same boat with Copland, they were able to buy NeXT to recover from the disaster. MS has just spent several billion on a failed development project, they're going to ship SP4 six years late and pretend it's Longwind, and they really need to consider whether it's a good business decision to keep throwing good money after bad, trying to update their botched VMS knock-off.

      The Evil Empire has killed off all of the other OS's they could buy, with the possible exception of Solaris. An OS-X license would cost them a couple of billion at a minimum, plus a hefty ongoing royalty, but it would cheaper than what they're doing now. As a bonus, life improves drastically for their users. Something to consider.

      -jcr
      • I honestly don't see Bill Gates giving up that much control to Steve Jobs even though it would benefit users who just want a stable OS to run their applications. Microsoft could buy out Apple, but what would stop Jobs from combining Microsoft/Apple with Disney to take over the world? And how long would it be before Ballmer start throwing chairs at Jobs?
        • I honestly don't see Bill Gates giving up that much control to Steve Jobs even though it would benefit users who just want a stable OS to run their applications

          You know, it's not clear that BG has much of an ego. If he can make more money, he just might do it.

          Microsoft could buy out Apple

          No, probably not. I can't see any way they'd get regulatory approval.

          how long would it be before Ballmer start throwing chairs at Jobs?

          Actually, I think Ballmer's days at MS are numbered. The shareholders are about ready
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Ballmer could throw chairs at Jobs all day and not do any damage. The RDF would instantly convert any incoming chairs into rose petals, confetti, and ticker tape. Ballmer's new job would be to walk around throwing things at Jobs so he would have the appearance of eternal gratitude and appreciation. Ballmer would fully become the blithering ape he really is, and would end up kept in a cage until one day when he kills one of his handlers and they have to put him down.

          The RDF distorts reality. That's what it d
      • You probably meant this facetiously, but if you look at the numbers for what MS blew on the Longwind debacle, and what it would cost them to buy a license for OS X, it makes sense.

        Not really. They'd only be taking a technological step forward in a handful of areas. The best you could say about the rest is it was a step sideways.

        MS has just spent several billion on a failed development project, they're going to ship SP4 six years late and pretend it's Longwind, and they really need to consider whether

      • MS has just spent several billion on a failed development project

        It's not failed until they fail to recover their costs. I appreciate that that's looking more likely every time they put back the release date, but it's by no means certain.

        As a bonus, life improves drastically for their users.

        Short term, perhaps it does improve a lot for a lot of users, although even that's going to be a mixed bag - none (or few) of their apps will run, so they'll be swapping security for appliaction support. Once OS X has a
        • It's not failed until they fail to recover their costs.

          They had to rollback to the Windows Server 2003 code base. They'll never recover the costs from the work in progress that they jettisoned.

          -jcr
      • The difference between Apple giving up Copland for Next and MS Giving up Vista for MacOS is this: MS currently enjoys an OS monopoly, the highest barrier to competition being the creation of a compatible implementation of the Win2^n API.

        MS licensing MacOS means that developers targeting non Win32 APIs have a much easier time reaching native performance and meeting interprocess communication standards. Granted, modern toolkits help quite a bit in the GUI area already, but at the very least this means that
      • Sadly, economics isn't a science and has to deal with human irrational behavior in every area.

        I suspect at least two, possibly more, important people would have to leave Microsoft before their pride would let them make this particular business decision...

      • An OS-X license would cost [Microsoft] a couple of billion at a minimum, plus a hefty ongoing royalty, but it would cheaper than what they're doing now. As a bonus, life improves drastically for their users

        When has Microsoft's operating system strategy ever involved improving life drastically for the users?

        The value of Windows to Microsoft is as a brand, not as an OS. It's the glue and duct tape that holds their entire sales strategy together. WMP, Xbox, Internet Explorer, Office, Media Center; it all ties
  • Is there any way MS could pull the rug out from under Apple if Apple goes further than MS likes? You know, oops, Windows won't activate on Macs anymore. I'm sure the EULA retains MS's right to revoke a license any time they see fit.
    • by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:04AM (#15016354)
      Is there any way MS could pull the rug out from under Apple if Apple goes further than MS likes? You know, oops, Windows won't activate on Macs anymore. I'm sure the EULA retains MS's right to revoke a license any time they see fit.


      Eula's also can claim the right to have your spouse and first born child - doesn't mean it's legally binding. "Right to revoke?" How about right to what I paid for?

      Besides, if Apple were to have a contract with MS (as if), it would not be a one sided EULA.
    • Microsoft should be the scene of many high fives (Granted, they would be clumsy, nerd high fives) if Apple facilitates a way to get Windows working in a virtual machine in the new Intel Macs - Microsoft would win because it would mean another copy of Windows sold and Apple would win because that many more would-be switchers would finally have their last objection to getting a Mac removed.

      There's a mind-boggling selection of specialty software that runs in Windows that will never get ported to the Mac, and
      • it's very easy to imagine a near future where Windows XP takes a role very similar to X11 today - That of providing a compatibility layer for apps that for whatever reason never get around to being made native to OS X.

        I hope Windows gets relegated to such a role. Still MS has a lot of money, which gives them a lot of time to recover from the Longwind debacle. I'm not going to count them out quite yet.

        Hell, they could probably afford two or even three more complete screw-ups like Alchin's Great Train Wrec
    • Is there any way MS could pull the rug out from under Apple if Apple goes further than MS likes? You know, oops, Windows won't activate on Macs anymore.

      What possible reason could they have for even *wanting* to do that, let alone actually doing it ?

    • Is there any way MS could pull the rug out from under Apple if Apple goes further than MS likes? You know, oops, Windows won't activate on Macs anymore. I'm sure the EULA retains MS's right to revoke a license any time they see fit.

      How does Windows know what it's activating on? It's like one of those TNG holodeck episodes where the characters end up going into a holographic holodeck. The only way Windows could tell if it were on real or virtualized hardware is if MS required crypto hardware to prove a cmpu
  • by cyberjessy (444290) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:39AM (#15016277) Homepage
    Vista requires _really_ powerful graphics capabilities to display its higher end Aero Glass interface. This relies on DirectX 10. Older cards will have downgraded UI. But, Apple does not need to incorporate these $-sucking monsters into its machines, as they are not required by OS X (which uses OpenGL).

    This means the Apple machines will not be the ideal machines to run Vista.
    • I seem to remember seeing that Quartz Extreme essentially requires a graphics card that supports DirectX 9, which all current Macs should have.
    • OS X is starting to base more things on top of Core Image (like iPhoto and Aperture) and other technologies that rely pretty heavily on the video card - which is why in the new imacs and Macbook Pro Apple included a halfway decent video card for once.

      So I think in fact Apple computers will be able to run Vista better than most cut-rate $500 computers.
      • OS X is starting to base more things on top of Core Image (like iPhoto and Aperture) and other technologies that rely pretty heavily on the video card - which is why in the new imacs and Macbook Pro Apple included a halfway decent video card for once. So I think in fact Apple computers will be able to run Vista better than most cut-rate $500 computers.

        Not the Core Mac Mini - what were they thinking.

      • OS X is starting to base more things on top of Core Image (like iPhoto and Aperture)

        Not to mention the AppKit itself..

        -jcr
    • Small Correction. Aero Glass uses DX 9, but needs a fairly good card by today's standards. (It does not need DirectX 10, except for games and 3D)

      My point was why would Apple throw in a DirectX card into a Mac, when its(DirectX's) sole use will be on Windows. Even when negotiating with card vendors, wouldn't it be cheaper to get a custom graphics card with all the DirectX circuitry taken out? Why waste transistors on capability you will never use.
      • by mattkinabrewmindspri (538862) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:15AM (#15016383)

        Because the customers might use the capability.

        Even if a customer bought a Mac, uninstalled OS X and ran Windows on the Mac until it died, Apple still got a sale out of the deal.

        And if being Windows-compatible attracts Windows users to buy a Mac and switch completely, that's even better.

      • by Hes Nikke (237581) <slashdot@NoSPAm.gotnate.com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:15AM (#15016804) Journal
        My point was why would Apple throw in a DirectX card into a Mac, when its(DirectX's) sole use will be on Windows.
        - cyberjessy

        this statement is wrong in so many ways. A "DirectX version Y compatible" G{U is simply a GPU that meets a certain threshold for image processing APIs. The marketing departments at ATi and nVidia have turned around and made it a big selling point that the card in your hands will be able to run with all the features enabled by DirectX version Y.

        I submit to you cyberjessy, that Core Image [apple.com] has minimum compatible GPU's that all just also happen to be DirectX 9 compatible. (example 1 [ati.com], example 2 [nvidia.com]) Why? Because the GPU is programable. Core Image needs a programable GPU, and DX9 needs a programable GPU.

        Even when negotiating with card vendors, wouldn't it be cheaper to get a custom graphics card with all the DirectX circuitry taken out? Why waste transistors on capability you will never use.

        -cyberjessy

        there isn't any DirectX circuitry. The GPU tells the host "hi, i'm capable of A, B, C etc" If the host is windows, and all these capabilities meet the minimum requirements for DirectX 9, than DirectX 9 will run, otherwise, i believe it falls back onto DX 8, or some sort of compatibility mode. If the host is a Mac, and these capabilities meet the minimum requirements for Core Image (or even Quartz2D Extreme) than said technology is enabled, otherwise, it falls back on a CPU driven code path that has fewer special effects. Once again, the main GPU capability that Core Image, and DX 9 are looking for are a programable GPU.

        I hope that i have at least partially removed that fishing rod from your throat....
    • I'm getting tired of this exagerration. I'm running Aero Glass on a year and a half old GeForce 6800. It will be nearly three years old by the time Vista is released. The retail for the card is, I think, well below $200, and I'm pretty confident Aero Glass would run on a 6600 GT just fine. By early 2007, a $100 card ought to be able to take care of Vista.
    • Well, you can already buy programs that make specialized, streamlined, winXP isos. Why shouldn't they be able to make a specialized Mac-hardware Vista version? One version more or less of Vista doesn't matter anymore anyway.
  • Obvious (Score:5, Informative)

    by Godji (957148) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:22AM (#15016403) Homepage
    One way Apple has survived through the yars of Microsoft monopoly (besides obivously better software) is that it has able to make its system very interoperable (as much as possible) with Windows in terms of file formats and protocols. Apple has phased-out some of its own in favor of the widely used (and not necessarily better) ones.

    The single biggest incompatibility has been applications, and the single biggest reason has been the fundamentally different processor. With that out of the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is seriously considering helping Windows apps run on OS X. Then it would have the best of both worlds - Unix-like (Darwin) codebase and Windows app compatibility.

    So the fact that "Apple has now committed to Windows-based performance testing" is hardly surprising.
    • Um, not really. See, do you remember what happened to OS2. In that it ran Windows Apps so well, that no one programmed for OS2, only for Windows. Why support two versions when you can support just one and it will run on both. This will assentually make development for OS X dead. And would eventually kill the Mac OS. So Apple will probably just go with virtual pcs, and not the running of apps right on OS X.
    • One way Apple has survived through the yars of Microsoft monopoly...
      Wait, are you implying that Microsoft pirated Apple software?
    • i would say one of the biggest reasons appled survived was that 150 million dollar cash influx from Microsoft.

      Puto
      • Re:Obvious (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No, that's bullshit. Apple was sitting on what, about three billion in cash at the time? What Microsoft did that legitimately helped was commit to a minimum of five years of making Office for the Mac. The cash was more symbolic than anything.
  • by localman (111171) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:44AM (#15016596) Homepage
    I've come across several comments that predict that Apple is planning to dump OSX in favor of Windows as their OS. I'm no Nostradamus, but this seems ludicrously unlikely while Steve Jobs is alive. And no, it's nothing like the switch to intel... processor flamewars were always foolishness: who really cares what processor architecture is underneath? Ask NetBSD... if it can run the OS that's what matters.

    It's all about the user experience, and OSX is the experience Apple wants to deliver.

    Big surprise... having used nearly every OS known to man, I can say that OSX is certainly one of the greatest ever. And it's already well past the bootsrapping stage that kills most young OSs. Ditching it now would be completely insane.

    Cheers.
    • Ditching it now would be completely insane.

      "Don't you mean 'insanely great'?"
      -- Bill Gates

    • In this TWIT [twit.tv] POD cast, John C. Dvorak claims there is evidence that Apple is planning to dump OS X and run windows once everything switches to Intel!!

      That Dvorak has not been torn limb from limb by crowds of angry Mac users is a testiment to their self restraint.
    • A move from OSX to Windows would be a sign that Apple really is dying. Think of it as equivalent to a company producing cheap garbage buying an established company to leverage the name selling cheap garbage. I cant think of any computer examples off hand (lenovo seems to be making good laptops) but in the 70's and 80's boys everywhere dreamed of owning a GT bicycle.. A few years ago Pacific Cycles purchased GT and you can now buy cheap GT's in Wal Mart.

      If Apple switches to building commodity PC hardware
    • And no, it's nothing like the switch to intel... processor flamewars were always foolishness: who really cares what processor architecture is underneath?...It's all about the user experience, and OSX is the experience Apple wants to deliver.

      To be fair any of the detailed versions of the claims of Apple moving to Windows describe Apple using the Windows kernel and simply layering the MacOS GUI on top of that. Under that sort of claim the user experience wouldn't really change and it would be more like switch
  • fact or fiction? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pliep (880962) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:48AM (#15016609) Homepage
    Whereas everything that can be seen on teh internet seems to be true, nothing about this story can be found on Apple's press page or BAPCo's website. The Apple logo is Photoshopped into the picture that BAPCo uses on their about page [bapco.com].

    So, nice headline, but where are the facts?
    • No shit, sherlock... after all, TFA says, quite clearly,

      Note: this is not an official splashscreen; we cobbled it together by adding an Apple logo to the member list.

      So, sorry, but there's nothing particularly sinister about the photoshopped image.

    • by Al Dimond (792444)
      What really seems silly about this whole thing is all the speculation about Macs and Windows compatibility. TFA was very eager to call BAPCo a leader in "Windows benchmarking", but nowhere on BAPCo's website is it mentioned that they're a specifically Windows-only company, even if all their current products target Windows. Couldn't it simply be that Apple is joining them to help develop hardware benchmarks that could compare a machine running OSX86 to one running Windows?
  • Are we ready for...

    ...WindOSX?

  • by simong (32944) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:38AM (#15016855) Homepage
    I remember the first time that I saw suggestions that Mac OS had had its day. It was when the first news that Copland [wikipedia.org] was struggling made its way out of Infinite Loop. A fairly well known and respected member of the UK computer journalism world suggested that as Apple were trying to port to PowerPC permanently, why not build the Copland architecture on Windows NT, whose kernel was fairly mature at the time and available for the PPC chipset. At the time it was fairly radical thinking but MS was in a far better technical position then that it is now. Of course, MS binned their PPC and Alpha support not long afterwards, NextStep became Rhapsody became Mac OS X, Linux matured to become a genuine alternative to big iron Unix and Windows found competition both on the desktop and in the datacentre again.
    In 2005 Steve Jobs announces that the next generation of Macs will run on Intel processors and almost immediately everyone assumes that this will mean Windows in some way. But with the apparent dissatisfaction within Microsoft over the progress of Vista [slashdot.org], against the almost inevitable success of getting Windows XP to work on the Macintel platform, who is going to be the winner? OS X is far ahead of XP in usability, incorporated apps and security. Gnome has a better unified API, even if it struggles to create blue water between it and Windows and for me at least, consequently limits itself on the user experience. So why even consider Windows? Just because it works on Intel doesn't mean that is has to be the de facto OS for Intel machines. That's been broken all ready.
    Remember that the migration to Intel was based on the phrase 'just in case'. So what are Pages, Keynote, Aperture and the other Apple workflow apps for? The day that Mac OS 10.5 appears in a box for Intel PCs? That's a good 'just in case' scenario - just in case Microsoft take their ball home completely and don't release a Universal version of Office perhaps? Apple isn't down, and anyone who assumes that doesn't remember its history.
  • When I think about Apple rating Windows performance, the phrase "full blown member" takes on multiple meanings.
  • What the hell kind of moron would want to run Winshit on an expensive piece of Apple hardware?

    It would be many orders of magnitude more useful to run OS/X on commodity x86 hardware.
  • They really shouldn't call this benchmarking, but rateher bench-MARKETING. Apple has always used benchmarking as a marketing tool. For a long time, it was Macs were than comprab;ae intel base PC. Now that Macs are on Intels, they say Intel Macs are faster than PowerPc Macs. But this is only an onetime deal. It would seem silly to keep touting that in the next revision of Intel Macs. So, hmm let's, what is Macs tangibly better than...? Why not Mac OSX is faster than Windows XP (Vista). You need a selling poi

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...