OS X on Intel Hardware? 34
CNN has an article originally from Macworld on the possibility that OS X will be ported to Intel-type hardware. There is much mention of Wilfredo Sanchez and his recent port of Darwin to Intel compatible hardware, and the economic state of Apple and how that may shape the decision to run with this idea. Most of it is speculation, but definitely interesting if it comes to pass, seeing as not much would be needed in the porting effort from where they are already.
Autoconf and configure scripts on MacOS X (Score:1)
It appears that most configure scripts don't properly recognize Darwin/MacOS X and will immediately fail to configure.
I just tried building bash 2.04 and found this to be the case. I did however find Apple's config.guess and config.sub files in /usr/libexec and copied them into bash's support directory. configure then wored, but make failed when it tried to link in the malloc library.
Re:So tired of this topic resurfacing (Score:1)
I believe Apple had two cards. Teh one I know more about was the later one, a NuBus based 486sx (not PCI, macs didn't have PCI in those days). Didn't play with it much, only thing I did was play Windows Solitaire with it. No one had a use for it.
Not a bad setup, if that's what you need. Took a sh*tload of disk space to do it. You basically created a disk container for it. Thre was soe clipboard translation, and you could run both computers at the same time. They shared the net and serial ports (good this, Idunno if anyone remembers the horror of Win3.1 winsocks).
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Re:This idea... (Score:1)
Well woop de fucken do. He might grace Apple with a purchase of software which cost more to develop than the $100 he probably think it would cost him.
This is a prime example why Apple should NOT release OS X Intel. Luke warm response to say the least
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Re:Good stuff (Score:1)
Hmm, I may very well be wrong but I believe Apple has ported move of the Carbon/Classic APIs to 8x86 for the quicktime version of windows.
As far as Quartz goes, I seriously doubt that Apple programmed it in assembly. More then likely it was some variant of C. Any assembly optimizations that might be incorporated into Quartz would probably have first been written in C. When doing an 8x86 port they'ld loose that assembly but should still be able to do the port because they'ld have the original C code.
Now I make this sound sooo easy. In reality I'm sure it would be a very complex job.
Whay I would love to see is for Apple to make a port of Quartz / Cocoa only. This would really push developers to support the Cocoa enviroment and wouldn't canabalize Mac sales that much because most of the Mac users out there will still want access to their Classic apps. One problem with this is that I heard, directly from an Apple employee, that Carbon and Cocoa are linked together. Sometimes a Cocoa API call will internally call a Carbon function. It makes sence - this why they don't have to make two copies of everything, but it also makes an 8x86 port that much more difficult.
Willy
Slashdot's officially SNAFU'd (Score:3)
You're right though, this IS important news!
Re:well might as well get on-topic.... (Score:3)
This was largely an illusion due to volume differences. Power Computing sold maybe 200,000 machines in their entire lifespan. Apple seels about 1 million per quarter. When you have such low volume as Power Computing, you can announce products and ship them much sooner.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
cool, but... (Score:2)
Ive wanted a Mac for years but cannot afford to ditch my PC or have 2 computers.
I'll bet the license fee will be pretty evil, seeing as Apple has a vested interest in selling you its hardware.
--
Hot grits
Re:well might as well get on-topic.... (Score:1)
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Apple have a vested interset in making money. For the moment, their cash-cow is the hardware. NeXT dropped the hardware and became more profitable. The same could happend to apple on a much larger scale. But time is flying, and the NeXT advantage is hardly as strong as it was in the early 90's...
So, if they do a x86 version, they'll have to make it expensive (the idea would probably be by making the OS only avalaible with a specific hardware) but may price it more and more correctly while transforming into a software company.
NeXT tried that and failed. Be tried that and failed. Apple could try too...
Cheers,
--fred
So tired of this topic resurfacing (Score:4)
I don't think anyone has a religious attachment to the assortment of microelectronics that make up the PowerPC chip. It's just a chip, after all. The issue is that there are some fundamental hurdles to overcome if Apple was to release an OSX on x86 and not have the shareholders lynch Jobs. None of which I've seen the osxonintel.com people address, by the way:
1) Profits: How does Apple succeed by competing directly with Microsoft and Linux on the same hardware? How do they differentiate? Much of Apple's core value to its customers is because of the tight integration of the hardware and software.
2) User experience: How does Apple maintain the Mac ease-of-use with such a plethora of x86 hardware to support?
3) Applications: All of the legacy Mac apps (Carbon and Classic) are processor-dependent. A great OS is useless without applications.
4) Product introductions: Apple is currently able to rapidly introduce new technologies in both the hardware and software simultaneously to get products to market quickly. These include FireWire, Airport and many other low-level improvements that don't have sexy names. Waiting for hardware manufacturers to get their act together would hurt Apple.
Some of this may be solved by Apple creating a proprietary machine, much like a current Mac, but with an x86 chip instead of PowerPC. That may solve all the problems except #3. How do you run current Mac apps, especially those that are so sensitive to performance like Final Cut Pro? I know all Slashdotters think that a Pentium III 1.2GHz is worlds faster than a G4/500, but in real-world use, this just doesn't seem to be the case. This seems to be especially true for media-intensive applications that the G4 was designed for. And there's only so fast Office is going to launch. Regardless of which chip is faster, it's clear that the x86 is not a significantly faster chip to emulate a G4 in any sort of reasonable manner. The only solution, therefore, would be for Apple to build some kind of hybrid machine with both a G4 and Pentium/Athlon on board.
And then there's the most basic question: why? Yes, Intel has continually ramped up the megahertz of the Pentium (as has AMD), but the G4 has held its own in real-world performance. The biggest issue to tackle is the perception problem that Motorola has created by not upping the clock rate of the G4 in about a year. But Apple has addressed this somewhat by shipping MP systems at the same price as single CPU machines. And while this power is not really exploited by Mac OS 9, Mac OS X (the topic of conversation) was built for SMP. In that case, you can get a system with two fully-utilized G4s on board for $2500, the need for an x86 system is greatly deemphasized.
Finally, there is this weak but persistant argument that as soon as Apple releases Mac OS X for x86, their marketshare will explode because everyone already has the hardware. I flat out just don't buy that. Sure, maybe hobbyists would pick it up, but with no apps (Office and IE, for example), it's useless for real work.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Good stuff (Score:3)
Note that Carbon is not supposed to work on i386 now (while Darwin and the Cocoa environment does). Quartz (the window manager) either. So it may be a little more trouble than the ports that NeXT did.
Anyway, the real killer that apple have is the Yellow Box. It is the Cocoa environment on Windows, and this would be a very very smart move to make it avalaible again (in that case, people could write windows apps in Cocoa). Without that, the developer mindshare of apple is going to shrink more and more (because hard-core mac developers have little reasons to move to Cocoa: they would loose Mac OS 9 compatibility, and have to learn a new language. And the less Cocoa developers, means less Cocoa apps, means less possibilities to move to another processor/OS, which in turn means less appeal for the mac platform, which means less developers....)
Cheers,
--fred
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
related stuff (Score:1)
http://www.benews.com/c gi- bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?id=13857 [benews.com]
Re:So tired of this topic resurfacing (Score:1)
darwin on x86 (Score:1)
for hack value and no other reason. Then the mac rumor sites
found out and went crazy over this inanity.
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
It always surprises me that Apple are so insistent on remaining a hardware company. They have a reasonably strong OS, they have a lead in multimedia software, yet they have refused to acknowledge plans to capitalise on the huge x86 OS market. I don't get them. Nobody gets rich selling just hardware. Well, not _that_ rich.
Re:Open Source the GUI (Score:2)
Re:So tired of this topic resurfacing (Score:1)
How about an optional PCI card with a PowerPC processor? Not everyone will need legacy support. Many people just want to do their eMail and internet browsing. Making it optional would help reduce the initial sticker price.
>Yes, Intel has continually ramped up the megahertz of the Pentium (as has AMD), but the G4 has held its own in real-world performance
You're quite right, the higher megahertz come at a price. A longer pipeline, bigger die, greater power consumption, and greater cost just to name a few. Motorola really sells CPUs to the embeded market so they don't care that much about making an inefficient chip. But they could focus more on raw speed.... And I'm sure an 8x86 port would help motivate them some more. I doubt Apple would sell 8x86 equipment because the PowerPC is so cheap and allows for great designes due to it's low power consumption. The _threat_ of loosing Apple as a customer is however a good thing dispite how remote the possibility of it actually happening might be.
Willy
i386 support - wrong direction (Score:2)
I am excited about OS X, but worried. I am mainly worried about support for the Software I depend on (Adobe Illustrator, QuarkExpress, Adobe Photoshop), for the little plugins for that software I use, and for the drivers for most of my hardware (high-end scanners with Photoshop plug-ins for their fuctionality, etc.). Furthermore, there will be about a two year period where I am working with a mixed environment of MacOS and MacOSX computers (and Linux and Win 2000 servers - we like to use the right tool for the right job). How well will everything work together?
With all this confusion, I cannot afford to switch both my OS and my hardware. Sollutions like multiple processors are better for the type of job I do. Photoshop in MacOS 9 gains a huge performance boost with multiple processors (while the rest of the OS gains some instability).
This talk is good, I guess. If nothing else it will scare Motorolla into increasing the clock speed on the G4...
Open Source the GUI (Score:1)
--
Re:cool, but... (Score:2)
apple can support 2 different platforms ..right!!! (Score:1)
but..i think they dont have 2
apple can make he OSX-intel
OSX-intel dont have to be 100% compatible with OSX-G4
and and apple dont have to abandone her own G4 hardware
just make a new OS for intel machine
and i doubt that we can predict its success
many ppl say
i doubt its that easy to predict the software or PC market
anyway...intel got linux and microsoft
and i dont know why apple might not want to make an OSX-intel ???
they might loose some g4 sales
but heh
cliche:"apple should seperate their hardware division from their software division"
Re:apple can support 2 different platforms ..right (Score:1)
Re:Open Source the GUI (Score:2)
How do you qualify that? They have about 4 billion in the bank, have been profitable for the past -- what -- 11 quarters, and sell a million machines every quarter.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:So tired of this topic resurfacing (Score:3)
Oh my god! apple on x86! revolutionary! (Score:1)
This wouldn't be the first time Apple made software for x86. Apple's flagship web development program, webobjects, has been available for windows nt almost since it was released. It doesn't even run on apple operating systems except X server (btw i'm trying it on x beta next week). It'll run on Solaris, HP UX, and a few others. I think apple did a great job porting it to nt. I just wish they'd port it to redhat. Maybe if I sacrifice a smallcute helpless animal the gods will lissen....but I digress.
Re:Slashdot's officially SNAFU'd (Score:2)
The database seems to have got corrupted, and various articles are only appearing in the sections, rather than as part of the main story flow. You can't even get to this one (or the NT Hosting Trollfest) via the Previous and Next article links below the articles.
You're right though, this IS important news!
Not at all. Some topics are not considered important enought to get front page billing. This one didn't make the grade.
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Perhaps you've heard of a man named Michael Dell. Then again, perhaps not.
Re:cool, but... (Score:1)
Nobody gets rich selling just hardware.
Sun seems to do okay
Ever heard of Solaris? Or Java? Sun is primarily a hardware company, but they do have much more to offer.
Re:cool, but... (Score:3)
Exactly. You do not understand their core customer base. The Mac users would not be tolerant of the hardware nightmares that are associated with x86 hardware. Not to mention losing all Mac applications (they are processor dependent).
Just because it's they way you personally think things should be, doesn't mean it the best thing for the platform, the company or the userbase.
Nobody gets rich selling just hardware.
Sun seems to do okay.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson