Neowin.net - Apple should have used Intel chips, Sculley says

Apple should have used Intel chips, Sculley says

Posted by malebolgia on 09 October 2003 - 19:14 · 41 comments & 2470 views

Apple Computer should have adopted the Intel Corp. architecture when it had the chance, former chief John Sculley said Tuesday. In the late-1980s, when Apple was using Motorola Inc. 68000 series chips and considering its next step, Intel co-founder Andy Grove tried to convince the company to migrate to Intel chips, Sculley told a standing-room-only crowd at the Silicon Valley 4.0 conference, held at the Computer History Museum, in Mountain View, Calif. An experienced team from Cupertino, California-based Apple studied the idea but turned it down. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors, which had a more advanced instruction set, he said. Apple later adopted RISC.

"That's probably one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made, not going to the Intel platform," said Sculley, Apple's former chairman and chief executive officer, now a partner in New York investment firm Sculley Brothers LLC. As it turned out, Intel was able to keep its CISC architecture and bring the RISC instruction set into it. What Apple had underestimated was the power of Intel's overall system as a manufacturer, bringing billions of dollars to bear on the problem and solving it through evolution, Sculley said. "They never had to do a heart transplant," he said.

News source: InfoWorld

He likened Microsoft's Securing the Perimeter plan to installing a fence around a compound, or a gated community for homeowners. Stepped-up security measures can't eliminate break-ins, but they can reduce or thwart attempts by robbers--or, in the case of software, hackers--he explained.

"You need to have multiple levels of security in a corporation, multiple levels of defense. It's like a gated community. You need additional levels of security, doors locked and alarms turned on, and additional defenses, countermeasures such as putting up a fence, to be protected," said Muglia. "It doesn't always work, but it's additional protection," said Muglia.

Sources speculate that Microsoft is working with top firewall vendors and antivirus ISVs to allow them to hook into the Microsoft Update and Software Update Services -- and tap into .Net -- to coordinate an industrywide response to an attack across the internet.

Muglia would not comment on speculation about a possible .Net-based shield, and denied speculation that the company is poised to acquire a major firewall vendor.

In July, Microsoft moved into beta testing its more enterprise-oriented Internet Security & Acceleration (ISA) Server 2004 upgrade, code-named Stingray, a Windows server firewall solution. "Not to my knowledge," Muglia said when asked about a possible buy in the firewall space.

However, even as the company will evolve its ISA platform, Microsoft will need partnerships with ISVs and solution providers for Securing the Perimeter for heterogeneous networks. "We think every customer needs a firewall. But we're not going to do a Linux firewall."

Microsoft's forthcoming management stack is expected to help matters. He said the availability of SMS 2003 in November will help enterprises deploy security patches in a more efficient way while the Windows Update service for consumers and SUS upgrade will help both midsize companies and enterprises automate their infrastructure security.

"A year from now you'll see additional countermeasures in place, as well as better firewalls," said Muglia. " We'll have SMS 2003 out there so there's a better tool for deploying software and the next release of SUS for the Windows server for companies that don't require SMS. "

In addition, Microsoft plans to ship management packs for its forthcoming Microsoft Operations Manager (MOM) 2004 next summer. "The next generation of management packs for MOM 2004 will have a broad understanding of security events, as will the next management pack for the Windows server," Muglia said.

Observers said Securing the Perimeter is a step in the right direction -- if executed well.

"Microsoft appears to be working to improve patching on several fronts and will be working to create new and improved perimeter defenses," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, a newsletter. "Both are reasonable and good moves, if they can accomplish them in a timely manner, and provide perimeter defenses that people can reasonably install and configure."

Securing the Perimeter is just one of a number of security initiatives under way at Microsoft and across various divisions in the company.

Sources in the analyst community say they expect Microsoft will announce significant improvements to the Internet Connection Firewall in Windows XP and add behavior-blocking capability from the technology it acquired from Pelican early in 2003.

One systems integrator who asked not to be named said Microsoft is busy reducing the attack surface aspect of Windows, IE and DirectX components, and is "hardening" the defensive aspects of .Net technologies. But the Windows configuration plans and enhanced SUS are key parts of the countermeasures Microsoft plans, he said.

This week at Momentum, the company's annual partner confab in New Orleans, Microsoft is expected to rally partners to its security cause. The company is poised to detail an updated security solution accelerator for its forthcoming Systems Management Server 2003 and a new security solution accelerator for SUS, Muglia said.

"These are handbooks for the VAR channel," said Muglia, noting that the deployment guides help channel partners lock up customer infrastructures. "The channel is very important because it supports so many small and midsize businesses, and enterprises are doing more and more outsourcing."

Later this month, at its Professional Developer's Conference, Microsoft is expected to announce the availability of the first software development kit for Microsoft's Next Generation Secure Computing Base, formerly code-named Palladium.

The software, to be embedded in the Longhorn version of Windows due in 2005-06, will exploit security advances in Intel's next generation 32-bit and 64-bit processors.

Security executives confirmed for CRN recently that Microsoft is working on a series of enterprise-oriented security products/services but would not discuss details.

Possible products in the lineup include intrusion-detection, firewall and antivirus products, according to information available on Microsoft's website.

Sources predict Microsoft will debut intrusion-detection technology and possibly antivirus technology into Windows following its acquisition of Romanian antivirus vendor GeCAD, which closed 3 September.

However, no decision is final, said Amy Carrolle, director of product management for Microsoft's Security Business Unit. She did note, however, that a subscription-based service is likely.

"The deal just closed. We're in the alpha testing phase, and it's too early to speculate, " she said. "Our plan is not make antivirus free but in a model similar to a subscription model."

Observers said it remains unclear how well Microsoft can execute on its ambitious plans, but its security woes are as big a threat to its business as was the antitrust case.

Numerous viruses and worms this summer have exploited flaws in Windows and have infected hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide.

The problems cost businesses millions of dollars in lost productivity and service fees. One report recently issued by five security analysts claimed the government's sole reliance on Windows on the desktop constitutes a threat to national security.

Both Muglia and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer admit it's a bigger worry than Linux.

"Microsoft has thrown a lot of resources at trying to be more secure," said John Pescatore, a vice president at Gartner. "We've seen progress on Windows Server 2003, but they haven't had a new desktop software product since they got security religion, and security problems on their desktop software is a bigger threat to Microsoft's dominance on the desktop than the antitrust [case] ever was. The lawsuit didn't cause enterprises to try out Mac and Linux desktops -- security problems in Windows have, though."

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: vet

malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(2 replies) #1 Posted by aristotle-dude on 09 Oct 2003 - 19:23: Says that guy that almost drove Apple into the ground. Take what he says with a grain of salt Sculley was no visonary and had no real technical knowledge.

#2 Posted by kairon on 09 Oct 2003 - 19:58: PPC is a much better platform for Apple. Lets there OS stay exclusive to real apple machines to avoid ripoffs.

And G5 was a great choice as well. Going with intel for the new powermacs would have broke compatibility to existing apps and drove Apple into the ground.

(2 replies) #3 Posted by toadeater on 09 Oct 2003 - 20:11: Real Apple machines ARE a ripoff!

(8 replies) #4 Posted by gameguy on 09 Oct 2003 - 20:41: imagine how different things would have been...

(1 reply) #5 Posted by corrosive23 on 09 Oct 2003 - 21:11: all they would have had to do was make an apple exclusive bios and still used x86 procs, make os only install on apple bios'

(1 reply) #6 Posted by Colonel Sanders on 09 Oct 2003 - 21:57: They should have changed processors way back when? Look where they are now, competing head to head with the worlds best.

(3 replies) #7 Posted by eSouL on 09 Oct 2003 - 22:54

QUOTE

...would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors, which had a more advanced instruction set...

bull****. obviously RISC has 'simpler' instruction set, hence the name.

#7.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 09 Oct 2003 - 23:01: Greater numbers of instructions (CISC) does not equal a more advanced instruction set. Quite the opposite. RISC is more advanced in that it can do more operations per clock cycle than CISC (in general). I think you need a refesher course in system design.

#7.2 Posted by eSouL on 09 Oct 2003 - 23:31: what he said was more advanced 'instructions set'. this is not the case of RISC, since RISC only make use of the most commonly used instructions. the idea itself might be advanced, but the instructions set is not. i think u need a refresher course in english.

#7.3 Posted by dp123 on 10 Oct 2003 - 00:49: eSoul, you are COMPLETELY, F'IN WRONG on this, alright. Reduced Instruction Set doesn't just mean a smaller based set of instructions... Nor does a smaller base mean they are COMMON functions. Common, really? What do you know? I wouldn't try to correct someone by saying RISC uses COMMON instructions! It means all possible instructions can be accomplished from this base... CISC can't accomplish this so it includes a number of complex (AGAIN complex DON'T mean ADVANCED) instructions to accomplish what RISC does. If it has a smaller base of instructions, but this smaller base can accomplish all possible and necessary functions/instructions for computing they are more advanced. Another aspect of RISC is the goal of completing the instruction in one cycle -- CISC frequently requires multiple clock cycles to complete the same instruction... If CISC is chewing on the same instruction for multiple clock cycles while the RISC chip is done in 1, which do you think is more advanced?

(1 reply) #8 Posted by Shaahin on 09 Oct 2003 - 23:11: Intel Propaganda.

(2 replies) #9 Posted by jsuen on 09 Oct 2003 - 23:25: Not just Apple. It was the mistake made by every single computer manufacturer that could do such a thing. The x86 platform was, by then, too diverse to allow such a move, and emulation was not ready yet.

The 68K was in the same position as the x86... everybody used it and it was fast. But almost anybody who tried the RISC/ Next Generation OS thing failed.

Take a look: MIPS, Alpha, Sparc, PowerPC, ARM, PA-RISC, even Intel's own i860... only one has been able to consistently beat x86.

#10 Posted by warr on 10 Oct 2003 - 00:45: it is not about apple, it is about the RICS community losing the market force.
market dominance is very much more important here than technology, which is why Wintel can succeed.

#11 Posted by svenllr on 10 Oct 2003 - 03:39: Two things I see. One, Sculley nearly killed Apple and anything he says has no credence. What do you expect from a guy that use to be Pepsi's CEO? Second, if Apple would have gone with x86, they would have surely died. Their OS had little applications for it but there was tons for the lesser and crappier Windoze. If you need any proof how a superior operating system couldn't compete against the Dark Side, I have two letters and a number for you: OS/2.

(6 replies) #12 Posted by busdude on 10 Oct 2003 - 05:02: if Apple released OSX to the x86 world, and did it properly (with features comparable to XP/Pro) i think they could easily give M$ a run for their money...

#13 Posted by redFX on 10 Oct 2003 - 15:55: If they can get the macosx to to run on x86 and run windows software, it would be the dream os.

Heck, even just osx on x86 would make me go gah gah.

#14 Posted by matthew24 on 10 Oct 2003 - 19:19: 64bit computing on the G5 has Sculley proven to be wrong.

#15 Posted by richcz3 on 10 Oct 2003 - 21:31: As A PC user Sculley is wrong.
At that time the RISC chip was by far the better bet and the MAC as whole was a better more stable performer. He is simply looking through 20/20 hindsight based on processor speeds of today.

On the other hand the MAC is slowly but surely morphing into a PC. Vitualy all of a MACs inards will have a PC foundation. In two or three years, the shared components between a PC and a MAC will be virtulay the same aside from the Processor. Which in the end is enough to keep the MAC a MAC.

richcz3

Last edited by 27429 on 10 Oct 2003 - 21:38

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top