It’s a slow news day here at the ranch, and you know what that means: Art Project Day!
A while back I found instructions for making a nifty origami CD case. I use them for most everything now. No longer do I suffer the shame of downloading the latest whizzbang version of NetBSD only to have my CD scratched up days later.
For a while, life was good. But then, I found myself hunting for a Sharpie to label my cases. The inconvenience of finding a marker combined with my terrible handwriting led me to think, “there has to be a better way!” Indeed there was. It turned out I already had a device capable of writing on paper for me. Not only that, but it could even draw the lines on the paper where I needed to fold.
So, Adobe and I went to work building a PDF form that when printed would look purdy and tell me where to fold. I offer this to you today, absolutely free, to do whatever the hell you want with it. If you need help with folding it, check out this guy’s website.
All you need to use it is a printer and Acrobat Reader (for some reason, the form doesn’t work with Preview.app).
Download origami cd cover.pdf
Friday, January 20, 2006
Thursday, January 5, 2006
Apple should team with VMWare
I have a love/hate relationship with tech news speculation. That is, I tend to be a sucker for “ain’t it cool” gossip. In the end, I invariably end up disappointed when my dreams of 128-way 10Ghz Elbrus processors powering an open source BeOS fail to materialize. But hey, what are blogs for if not meta-meta-naval gazing for the IT industry by irrelevant lackeys such as myself?
When I saw the idlest of speculation that Apple is planning on reviving Yellow Box, my heart went aflutter until a few neurons fired their retrorockets of sanity and brought me back to Earth.
Macintosh on Windows? Sorry, you Windows users aren’t going to be seeing any shiny new Macintosh apps rolling through your dilapidated, crime infested ‘hood any time soon. I believe that Apple is in a good position to capture some additional market share, but I don’t believe that saving Windows from it’s krufty API is part of The Steve’s plan.
But there is a problem that Apple needs to address: They are betting the farm in some respects on this Intel switch. Changing platforms isn’t cheap. I believe the benefits of moving to Intel will ultimately pay off, but it’s going to be an expensive transition in the short haul for Apple. Now, Apple has lots of money in the bank, and the iPod certainly isn’t hurting them, but I believe that they really do need to make the Mac work to be a successful company. To do that, I believe they need some near-term Mac platform growth.
Apple needs to get Mac OS into as many grubby little hands as possible—developers, users, the whole shebang.
Easy. Apple is running on Intel. Simply sell copies of OS X to run on beige boxes, right?
No.
That would be stupid. The success of the Mac is based, in part, on the consistency of the user experience. Sorry, but that means making sure that people don’t have to tweak with video drivers and wireless NICs. OSX will run on beige box computers, but only for a very small demographic: savvy members of the digerati too cash strapped to buy new Apple kit, but with enough time to waste making it work. Apple doesn’t need to worry about those people. If they want to hack the system so that they can develop apps on their Intel boxen, so be it. Stick it to the man.
The real answer is so simple, if Apple started today, they could probably make an announcement during Mac World.
Work with VMWare to release an appropriately DRMed version of Mac OS X that runs in VMWare player. Apple can figure out the pricing model. I think somewhere between free and cheap would be best.
Apple could grow their platform base several fold with this strategy. Hell, Apple could make sure that their VMWare image had the developer tools preloaded. How many Linux and Windows application developers would decide to port to Cocoa just to see what all the buzz is about?
Apple wouldn’t be gutting their own sales because there would be plenty of reason to come back and buy the real deal. From my experience, VMWare runs really well, but not as good as a native OS. Video, multimedia and some of the spiffy OpenGL effects would be the the parts that, while still a taste, will always be better on the Mac. People are still going to buy the Mac for the first class user experience and the cool iLife apps.
Millions of Windows users can find out what all the excitement is about. After a desperate week (or two, or three) might security firms encourage users to surf from the relative safety of OSX in VMWare?
Then, some smart person will will develop the “poor man’s” Mac. That is, someone will figure out how to bundle Linux to boot directly into VMWare player and Mac OS X. Instantaneously, the Mac becomes the primary platform for what could potentially be millions of users and thousands of developers all saving up their nickles and dimes for their next system. While Apple is waiting for those piggy banks and change jars to fill, developers start adding value to their platform by building the next killer app.
If people were able to trial OSX in this fashion, what do you think their next machine would be? A PC from HP that can run Windows and Linux? Or would they spend a couple extra bones to buy a PC from Apple that can run Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X natively? That’s right, Apple would have just dumped a whole bunch of users into their own product upgrade cycle.
So, what does this cost Apple to do? Almost nothing. They need to make sure that something like VMWare tools run on OSX and they need some sort of way of ensuring that the VMWare version doesn’t become an easy upgrade path for freeloaders. As for the first point, I’m sure VMWare would be *glad* to help out for the added exposure they would gain. VMWare may already have the technology to help Apple out on the second part as well given their ACE platform that already has support for secured, encrypted disk images. Maybe VMWare and Apple could release a limited function player that supports those features? VMWare allows Apple to give a taste of OSX to millions while only effectively supporting one extra model of “PC.”
Apple and VMWare both could benefit substantially from this arrangement. VMWare gets another venue to demo their software to enthusiasts, and Apple gains exactly the market share that they wanted. Millions of Windows users running OSX? Not too outlandish once you stop and think about it.
Comments (archived)
blah, on Jan. 4th, 2006 wrote:
I have it on relatively good word that VMware is actively porting to intel/apple, so I think that piece of the puzzle is going to happen already by my estimation. I also hear that Microsoft is working on their own hypervisor product (to complement/improve VPC and make it competitive with VMware). Also it is noteworthy that Xen 3.0 has been released and supports unmodified guest OS’s if coupled with Intel (or later AMD) hardware virtualization.
Definitely in the next year or two, virtualization is going to become a lot bigger issue - the question IMO is whether Apple will capitalize on this, I sure hope they do. Other signs (like the patent Apple filed a month or two back which supposedly had mention of choice of OS to boot) are encouraging, but just how far they will push this is unknown until they are releasing Intel products. If they play their cards right, perhaps Apple won’t have to invest much in this, and VMware, MS and Xen can fight for themselves, and Apple can just be an attractive hardware vendor “One phone call for all your laptop, server & SAN needs!”
One place where it would behoove Apple to collaborate with VMware is in the case of VMWare ESX, as it is very particular about what hardware it will run on, if Apple provides a server+SAN (xserve+xraid) system that ESX works with, that could be a hit in the enterprise for once. Already a lot of VMware enterprise customers get picky with their vendors (like going with HP because they have amd64 & SAN with one neck to choke), and Apple might be appealing to such types.
Hard to say what will end up happening, but I have high hopes that we’ll see promising things from Apple, Intel and virtualization in the coming years - ideally with Apple’s encouragement and support.
When I saw the idlest of speculation that Apple is planning on reviving Yellow Box, my heart went aflutter until a few neurons fired their retrorockets of sanity and brought me back to Earth.
Macintosh on Windows? Sorry, you Windows users aren’t going to be seeing any shiny new Macintosh apps rolling through your dilapidated, crime infested ‘hood any time soon. I believe that Apple is in a good position to capture some additional market share, but I don’t believe that saving Windows from it’s krufty API is part of The Steve’s plan.
But there is a problem that Apple needs to address: They are betting the farm in some respects on this Intel switch. Changing platforms isn’t cheap. I believe the benefits of moving to Intel will ultimately pay off, but it’s going to be an expensive transition in the short haul for Apple. Now, Apple has lots of money in the bank, and the iPod certainly isn’t hurting them, but I believe that they really do need to make the Mac work to be a successful company. To do that, I believe they need some near-term Mac platform growth.
Apple needs to get Mac OS into as many grubby little hands as possible—developers, users, the whole shebang.
Easy. Apple is running on Intel. Simply sell copies of OS X to run on beige boxes, right?
No.
That would be stupid. The success of the Mac is based, in part, on the consistency of the user experience. Sorry, but that means making sure that people don’t have to tweak with video drivers and wireless NICs. OSX will run on beige box computers, but only for a very small demographic: savvy members of the digerati too cash strapped to buy new Apple kit, but with enough time to waste making it work. Apple doesn’t need to worry about those people. If they want to hack the system so that they can develop apps on their Intel boxen, so be it. Stick it to the man.
The real answer is so simple, if Apple started today, they could probably make an announcement during Mac World.
Work with VMWare to release an appropriately DRMed version of Mac OS X that runs in VMWare player. Apple can figure out the pricing model. I think somewhere between free and cheap would be best.
Apple could grow their platform base several fold with this strategy. Hell, Apple could make sure that their VMWare image had the developer tools preloaded. How many Linux and Windows application developers would decide to port to Cocoa just to see what all the buzz is about?
Apple wouldn’t be gutting their own sales because there would be plenty of reason to come back and buy the real deal. From my experience, VMWare runs really well, but not as good as a native OS. Video, multimedia and some of the spiffy OpenGL effects would be the the parts that, while still a taste, will always be better on the Mac. People are still going to buy the Mac for the first class user experience and the cool iLife apps.
Millions of Windows users can find out what all the excitement is about. After a desperate week (or two, or three) might security firms encourage users to surf from the relative safety of OSX in VMWare?
Then, some smart person will will develop the “poor man’s” Mac. That is, someone will figure out how to bundle Linux to boot directly into VMWare player and Mac OS X. Instantaneously, the Mac becomes the primary platform for what could potentially be millions of users and thousands of developers all saving up their nickles and dimes for their next system. While Apple is waiting for those piggy banks and change jars to fill, developers start adding value to their platform by building the next killer app.
If people were able to trial OSX in this fashion, what do you think their next machine would be? A PC from HP that can run Windows and Linux? Or would they spend a couple extra bones to buy a PC from Apple that can run Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X natively? That’s right, Apple would have just dumped a whole bunch of users into their own product upgrade cycle.
So, what does this cost Apple to do? Almost nothing. They need to make sure that something like VMWare tools run on OSX and they need some sort of way of ensuring that the VMWare version doesn’t become an easy upgrade path for freeloaders. As for the first point, I’m sure VMWare would be *glad* to help out for the added exposure they would gain. VMWare may already have the technology to help Apple out on the second part as well given their ACE platform that already has support for secured, encrypted disk images. Maybe VMWare and Apple could release a limited function player that supports those features? VMWare allows Apple to give a taste of OSX to millions while only effectively supporting one extra model of “PC.”
Apple and VMWare both could benefit substantially from this arrangement. VMWare gets another venue to demo their software to enthusiasts, and Apple gains exactly the market share that they wanted. Millions of Windows users running OSX? Not too outlandish once you stop and think about it.
Comments (archived)
blah, on Jan. 4th, 2006 wrote:
I have it on relatively good word that VMware is actively porting to intel/apple, so I think that piece of the puzzle is going to happen already by my estimation. I also hear that Microsoft is working on their own hypervisor product (to complement/improve VPC and make it competitive with VMware). Also it is noteworthy that Xen 3.0 has been released and supports unmodified guest OS’s if coupled with Intel (or later AMD) hardware virtualization.
Definitely in the next year or two, virtualization is going to become a lot bigger issue - the question IMO is whether Apple will capitalize on this, I sure hope they do. Other signs (like the patent Apple filed a month or two back which supposedly had mention of choice of OS to boot) are encouraging, but just how far they will push this is unknown until they are releasing Intel products. If they play their cards right, perhaps Apple won’t have to invest much in this, and VMware, MS and Xen can fight for themselves, and Apple can just be an attractive hardware vendor “One phone call for all your laptop, server & SAN needs!”
One place where it would behoove Apple to collaborate with VMware is in the case of VMWare ESX, as it is very particular about what hardware it will run on, if Apple provides a server+SAN (xserve+xraid) system that ESX works with, that could be a hit in the enterprise for once. Already a lot of VMware enterprise customers get picky with their vendors (like going with HP because they have amd64 & SAN with one neck to choke), and Apple might be appealing to such types.
Hard to say what will end up happening, but I have high hopes that we’ll see promising things from Apple, Intel and virtualization in the coming years - ideally with Apple’s encouragement and support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
