This letter was written in response to news reports that the
University of Waterloo in
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, was considering phasing out Macs in favor of
Windows computers. This letter should be appearing soon in Imprint, the
university newspaper.
Macintosh, a long term solution
Any move by the University of Waterloo away from the Macintosh and
toward the Intel-Windows platform cannot be considered a long term
solution. The facts speak for themselves.
1) The Macintosh operating system has been evolving since 1984.
Resources permitting (memory, drive size, etc.), a 1986 Mac Plus can
run many applications in use today.
2) The Macintosh OS is already a 32-bit operating system, which is
exactly what Windows 95 hopes to be, but fails at because of the
required backward compatibility with 16-bit Windows software. The Mac
OS has always been a 32-bit OS.
3) Apple has already made the transition from a sophisticated CISC
technology to the more powerful, more efficient RISC technology - all
this without loss of compatibility with older software and
hardware.
4) Today's Power Mac is prepared to run tomorrow's OS, whether the
next version of the Mac OS, Apple's version of NeXTstep, Linux, or
BeOS.
5) With programs such as SoftWindows and Virtual PC, Mac owners have
the option of running both Macintosh and DOS/Windows software. For
those seeking the most performance, there are also PCI cards which
provide a full Pentium II processor.
6) The Mac OS has a history of being easier to use, as does
Macintosh hardware. Despite the best intentions of Microsoft, Intel,
Compaq, and others, the competition has not yet caught up.
7) Microsoft has a history of obsoleting otherwise viable computers
via OS upgrades. For all intents and purposes, Windows 3 abandoned the
80286 and Windows 95 runs so poorly on an 80386 as to make using it a
futile exercise. We can anticipate Windows 98 and Windows NT 5.0
leaving the 80486 CPU behind.
8) Intel has made its intentions to move from the 80X86 chip family
to a new VLIW RISC chip code-named Merced. This 64-bit CPU is intended
to ship in 1999 and replace the Pentium family, obsoleting millions of
computers.
9) Apple has been building Power Macs with 64-bit* PowerPC
processors for several years - without obsoleting old equipment or
disrupting the ability to run legacy applications.
Clarification: The PowerPC processors have a 64-bit base
architecture. The versions used in Power Macs to date are 32-bit
implementations of that 64-bit architecture. Because of this, future
migration to 64-bit implementations of the Power PC design should be
fairly painless.
The Apple Macintosh has been and remains the best long term
computing solution. They are the only computers that can run the Mac
OS, versions of Unix, and Windows, something no Intel-based computer
does.
Other Macintosh advantages include ease of use, ease of expansion,
lower support costs, and ease of networking.
It would be very shortsighted of the University of Waterloo to
abandon Macintosh support - unless it wants to create an information
systems department with more staff and a larger budget.
* Since first posting this editorial, I have been in correspondence
with a gentleman who questions the validity of claiming the PowerPC
601, 603, 604, and 750 are 64-bit CPUs. Here are the facts:
The PowerPC family is based on the 64-bit architecture of the IBM
RS/6000.
These chips all have a 64-bit data bus.
These chips use both 32-bit and 64-bit internal registers. (64-bit
registers are for floating point numbers.)
These chips have internal data paths of 32 to 256 bits.
These chips use a 32-bit memory space.
Only the 603 and 603e support a 32-bit data bus, which is very
inefficient.
Motorola and IBM promote the PowerPC as a 32-bit implementation of
a 64-bit architecture.
64-bit implementations of the PowerPC design will work like the
current 32-bit implementations.
Based on the underlying architecture and the 64-bit data bus, I
believe the PowerPC can legitimately be called a 64-bit CPU, even in
current 32-bit implementations. Others maintain that the use of 32-bit
registers and 32-bit memory space justify calling it a 32-bit CPU.
I think both positions are legitimate for historical reasons.
The Intel 8086 was a 16-bit CPU. It had 16-bit registers and a
16-bit data bus. However, it only had a 12-bit address space.
The Intel 8088 was considered a 16-bit CPU, although it was
essentially an 8086 with a narrower, 8-bit data bus.
The Motorola 680x0 family is generally considered a set of 32-bit
processors, yet the 68000 had a 16-bit data bus, 24-bit address space,
and 32-bit registers. (All subsequent 680x0 chips were 32-bit across
the board.)
The Intel 80386 was a 32-bit CPU, whether in its normal or SX
(16-bit data bus) version. However, until the OS and applications were
rewritten for 32-bit operation (something Microsoft is still nailing
down with Windows), the 386 spent most of its time in a 16-bit
compatibility mode.
The Intel 80486 and Pentiums are enhanced versions of the same
32-bit architecture first used in the 80386, making them 32-bit
implementations of a 32-bit architecture - even though the Pentiums
have a 64-bit data bus and some 64-bit and 80-bit registers.
The simple fact is that the Intel CISC architecture is at the end of
the road, forced to use increasingly powerful technology to support an
increasingly outdated architecture. This is one reason Intel will be
introducing the 64-bit Merced chip in 1999 - to overcome the 16-bit and
32-bit legacy of the 80X86 architecture.
The PowerPC architecture is at the start of the road. When it
becomes feasible to move personal computers to the 64-bit level,
migration to full 64-bit implementations of the PowerPC design will be
relatively painless. We won't be moving to an entirely new
architecture, as Wintel users will be forced to do.
Gone fishing for the summer, 6/13/00.
"Even on the Macintosh, where things are generally considered to be
easier, Murphy's Law seems to work overtime."
Advice presented in good faith, but what works for one may not work
for all. Computers are like that. Please report errors to
Dan Knight
.
Letters sent to Low End Mac may or may not be published at the
editor's discretion. Email addresses will not be published unless the
sender specifically requests it. If you prefer that your message not
be published on Low End Mac, clearly mark your message "not for
publication." Letters may be edited for length, context, and to match
house
style.
LINK
POLICY: This site allows and encourages
links to any public page, so long as the linked page does not appear
within a frame that prevents bookmarking the linked page.
PRIVACY
POLICY: In brief, we don't collect any
personal information unless you subscribe to one of our email lists,
in which case you have to give us your email address.
Low End
Mac is an independent publication and has
not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Apple
Computer, Inc. Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, iMac, and iBook are
registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Additional company and
product names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of the
individual companies and are hereby acknowledged.
