Guess what is coming on the x86 OSX! (true news) with Aqua

[DJ_TRicks]

New News that seems very strange as soon as i posted my last post i got two rather random messages


both of which were two people who said they worked for Apple
well one said that i was wrong the other said i was wrong in some parts but what the most important thing is ....

APPLE IS COMING TO THE PC!!!!

both; one in the uk, and one at apple in california; have both seen a full working OSX port of the panther 10.3 ported to a DELL intel system computer.
Now were not just talking the Darwin kernal but the whole thing that includes Aqua interface!!!!!!!!!


Now this makes perfect sense
Dell + apple = Dell selling Ipods....
but why stop there its possible DELL, the first company for custom oder computers to put linux on might start selling PC with OSX installed

now i was told the whole os was compiled using several clustered Dell servers all running intel chips but since its for x86 OSX will run on atholons as well i was told

[jefhatfield]

more and more i am starting to hear that os x can be on a pc and will go that way as an option

being here over two years, i have seen the most persistent rumors actually come true the majority of the time

os x for intel has been a major point with a lot of mac users...while other mac user hate the idea

sj said it best when he mentioned that apple is a software company first and a hardware company second

just imagine if apple pushed their os more than the hardware in the early days before gates got off the ground!

[mymemory]

Sounds good to me, PC hardware is cheaper, I may get a PC later on as long it can run Windows based software. There are a lot of softwares out there in windows enviroment that call my attention.

[beefstu01]

I'm not surprised. They'll probably offer this in additon too their own hardware, possibly. Remember, Apple has a fully ported Jaguar copy for the x86 in their building. Maybe nothing, but I think it means something. They won't ever completely switch to the x86 structure, but maybe offer it as a windows alternative and blow open the doors for OS X application development (more people will go for a cheaper OS, I know it)

[Sun Baked]

Any news on a PPC emulator engine for this version, or how the endian shift is being handled?

[Chaszmyr]

Has anyone else noticed this same person, who is new to the forums, has posted 3 very difficult to believe threads in one day???

[Sun Baked]

[insidedanshead]

The reason apple has an x86 version in house is if Motorola and IBM don't pull through... (now with the IBM 970 in works i dont see them NOT pulling through) they will be able to buy intel or amd processors for their own machines.. apple will never allows its system to run on a machine they won't get money for.. think about it... Apple on dell? are you kidding me? I may be a newbie but come on get real..

[DJ_TRicks]

so you think im just blowing smoke, shoveing BS? well ass monkeis porting OSX has already be done to the kernel
all you need is the X interface which is aqua

remeber OSX is based on Next hardware and BSD!

so i post my info as i get it ok so if you dont like it then just deal with it
and spelling? i posted my chat transcript thats all so if we use shorthand in it you can kiss me and my freinds butts

ill post what i get when i get it
at least im ethusiastic enough about my love of the mac to post info i get that might intrest others who would like it !!!!!

so leave me alone if you dont like it deal just dont be an ass and start mocking me ok?

[Sun Baked]

:rolleyes:

[insidedanshead]

We weren't.. or atleast I wasn't mocking you... thats great if you have friends that work at apple..and they tell you stuff... I have friends that work at Budweiser.. they give me beer. I like beer. but anyway.. think logically.. why would apple allow its OS to run on a machine other than theirs... your friends may have seen OSX running on a dell.. but it was probably an x86 test.. which again is if apple includes x86 processors in their machines..

one of the biggest .. and probably most overlooked advantage of apple is that apple oversees every part that is placed in its machine.. the OS has to reflect the hardware thats installed in each box.. and if OS X is ported to run on ANY x86 machine.. you have to include the code in the OS to compensate.. by which youve inflated your OS to the size of the good year blimp.. yeah I want that.. an even bigger fatter chunkier os.. sounds appetizing.. im gonan go eat some ribs.

later kids.

p.s. anyone remember back in the day when we were saying that stevie boy had AMD on his speed dial? well this all goes back to that.. if IBM has no future with apple.. maybe we will see PowerMacs with AMD processors.. a little less scary than apple on dell.. ugh..

[DreaminDirector]

alright....perhaps this is a bit out of control. I'm not going to trash DJ Tricks about his three rumor threads, but there have always been rumors about x68 running OSX and the elusive apple iPhone/PDA/Tablet etc....


Tell you what, if your right about ALL of this stuff by the time 10.3 comes out, I'll send you ten bucks. Just start sounding a bit more credible if this is all true.

[iJon]

I think the whole idea of osx on my pc is so stupid. i have a mac and a pc. if osx came out for pc i wouldnt put it on. you know why, because it isnt windows. windows is the only reason i have a pc. i have a pc because of all the games adn windows software that isnt for mac. if i put os x on my pc i would have a pointless machine.now im sure if i was a basic user and all i did was email and internet but didnt have a mac, i would put os x on there becasue being fed up with windows.

iJon

[bousozoku]

Since Apple makes very little on software, they are unlikely to allow the operating system to run on Dell or any other hardware that they don't control. It would put their reputation for quality and reliability at stake.

They may yet bring out Mac OS X on x86 compatible hardware, but whatever it is, it will be an Apple-designed motherboard in an Apple-designed case. Then, they can charge nearly as much money while making more profit per unit.

[ja0912]

Originally posted by insidedanshead
The reason apple has an x86 version in house is if Motorola and IBM don't pull through... (now with the IBM 970 in works i dont see them NOT pulling through) they will be able to buy intel or amd processors for their own machines.. apple will never allows its system to run on a machine they won't get money for.. think about it... Apple on dell? are you kidding me? I may be a newbie but come on get real..

Exactly!
I had a conversation with a couple of intoxicated Apple employees one night in August. I was told there is, was, and will be an x86 version of OS X continually developed with the normal version as a "just-in-case", and is not planned to ever be released. I am also only a newbie, but this is the only reason to have x86 OSX that sounds rational to me.

[DJ_TRicks]

he said from what he knows they want to pull a sun microsystems like move
and release x86 osx with just very little added features mostly so the grid computing can use the pcs alot easier but they will provide the sdk packs to make drivers for any hardware peice you would want

[Fukui]

think logically.. why would apple allow its OS to run on a machine other than theirs... your friends may have seen OSX running on a dell.. but it was probably an x86 test.. which again is if apple includes x86 processors in their machines..


Why? Because by 2005 MS will have an entirely new OS written FROM SCRATCH. This means A) No legacy, B) Almost certainly a fully Modern development system (no more crap Visual Basic) and C) MS can see what apple is doing with OS X and copy what ever the he11 they want, making the distinction between the Mac's advantages and the PC's diminish.

So, apple (hardware) will, in the future have two choices, stick with a great but further marginalized OS, or License from MS. Jobs has been down this road before, marginalization is the kiss of death. He knows what he needs to do.

[insidedanshead]

Are you saying license Windows to run on Apple's machines? If you are you completely changed the context.. we were refering to OS X on x86 architecture.. but yes I agree with you.. but marginalization is what keeps us mac users superior.. clearly we're not here to debate between OSes.. to me thats like debating religions.. OS X IS superior.. .. But honestly, how many OS ideas can you borrow from apple before apple is on your case .. microsoft is in a bad spot.. a spot i don't think they've ever really been in. I'm sure Windows 2005 .. or whatever they willl call it.. will be good.. much like Windows XP was leaps and bounds better than 98 and 2000.. but its more than just the OS.. its the features.. iPhoto, iMovie, iCal, Mail, Sherlock? I mean I don't see this stuff in the windows environment... and i use it everyday.. in fact that reminds me.. im sort of taking this stuff for granted.. i think to thank apple im going to go buy a new machine..

dan

[robbieduncan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Any news on a PPC emulator engine for this version, or how the endian shift is being handled?

If (and this is a big if) there is no need to do this with modern OSX apps. Each app can contain multiple binaries (for multiple platforms) whilst sharing the same resources. NeXT apps used to do this all the time.

[Falleron]

I dont believe this rumour about going to x86.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by DJ_TRicks
he said from what he knows they want to pull a sun microsystems like move
and release x86 osx with just very little added features mostly so the grid computing can use the pcs alot easier but they will provide the sdk packs to make drivers for any hardware peice you would want
It's already here, but NOT called OS X. It's called Darwin and is just another Unix system. They have a PowerPC variant as well, it's your OS X kernel.

This news is old. It's nothing special. It exists for years. It's just a unix layer to use x86 hardware in the Xgrid they are working on. Nice to have but won't change the world.

[edesignuk]

In some ways I think OSX on x86 would be a good thing, that is the cost of the hardware and the hardware options available.
But, IMO the stability of OSX comes greatly from the hardware and software combined.
Apple have total control over the hardware used and so can make sure that the OS works seamlesly with it.
If you start installing OSX on all manor of manufacturers hardware you're going to end up running as stable as WinME! :(

[groov']

I have 3 macs and an intel pc (need it for webdesign control).

Hooray for the day that I could go all OSX. Bye bye MS.

Go Apple go...

I mean of course, one partition with windows, to keep the control issue running...

[robbieduncan]

Originally posted by groov'
I have 3 macs and an intel pc (need it for webdesign control).

Hooray for the day that I could go all OSX. Bye bye MS.

Go Apple go...

How would x86 OSX enable you to remove Windows? Would you not still need it for the same reason as you need it now? You would still need to check that your websites look OK on Windows.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

This is ridiculous.

If Apple cooked up a OSX version for x86, they did so as an experiment and as an insurance policy in case their PPC partners (Moto, IBM) totally drop the ball on them.

Now that we know IBM will be making the next generation of killer CPUs for higher end Apple machines and that Apple will continue to use Moto G4s for the lower lines, there will be NO CHANCE that the x86 OSX will EVER see the light of day.

Apple THRIVES on closed architecture. It guarantees perfect software/hardware integration and MANDATES buying an Apple system to run their superior OS. Apple probably makes 100-fold more net profit from machines than they do on software. If they wanted to just be an OS authoring company, they could be very successful at it--after they lay off 95% of their workforce and shrink their company down to nearly nothing.

I know a lot of PC fans out there who like Athlons wish Apple would give OS X to them. You're all frustrated at the sub-par G4 specs in comparison to the top of the line PCs. If you NEED ultimate speed for non-AltiVec processes above all else, buy AMD. But if you are running Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, or any other AltiVec-optimized programs, or actually intend to use your system in the real world and want it to work intuitively and unobtrusively, buy a Mac and be happy with it. I'm estatic with mine--I get work done, I never get viruses and it never crashes.

Hell will most definitely freeze over before Apple gives you an OS that does not run EXCLUSIVELY on their machines. Period. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Even if Moto and IBM disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow and Apple HAD to use x86 architecture, you'd better believe they would still gerry-rig their systems to prevent anyone from running OS X on anything other than their machines.

PC fantasy indulgence now officially over.

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
PC fantasy indulgence now officially over.
Amen to that!

[cr2sh]

What better way to betray those newly aquired SWITCHERS than to offer support for the PC they DIDN't buy....
I can see the new slogan now..

"Switch... or not... whatever, no biggie"

This rumor doesnt even make sense... why put all of this effort into getting them to change hardware, when that is the one thing Apple makes the least profit on? If this was in the pipeline, and they were that worried about going broke.. they would have simply released it. total bunk.

[wwworry]

If apple were to make hardware that is truely competitive with retail amd/intel offerings then it might make sence to offer OS X on x86.

If the profit margin on an iMac is $200 and you can sell an x86 copy of OS X for $200 then what's the difference? If the higher margin power macs can out perform x86 boxes then people would buy the power macs and apple keeps the higher margin.

I don't think Apple would complete abandon hardware because most of their mindshare is in their physical designs. And, once you let the cat out of the bottle...

It may be possible. The accountants and marketers will decide or it may come down to Jobs not wanting to see his beautiful OS X on an ugly AMD box.

It doesn't make too much of a difference either way to us at this point.

[beefstu01]

Apple already has an in-house port of Jaguar for the x86 archetecture.

I wouldn't be surprised if they released OS X for the x86 in addition to their lineup. Cheap computers, cheaper but more stable operating system.... It'll blow open the doors for OS X program development IMHO

[Cappy]

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
Now that we know IBM will be making the next generation of killer CPUs for higher end Apple machines and that Apple will continue to use Moto G4s for the lower lines, there will be NO CHANCE that the x86 OSX will EVER see the light of day.


Now that we know? Know what? There are no guarantees that Apple will use this new IBM cpu or that they'll continue using the G4. Sure it sounds like it makes sense but to alot of folks there was a time when the BeOS made alot of sense in becoming the next Mac OS. The media and public were literally stunned when Apple chose NeXT over Be. The same could happen again.

[wrylachlan]

While I think that a full port of OSX is highly unlikely, I can definitely see Apple porting the Cocoa environment to windows and linux to encourage their crossplatform developers to make use of cocoa. As I understand it one of the barriers to greater cocoa adoption currently is that Objective C (which Cocoa is based on) is not as well implemented on other platforms so code re-use becomes an issue.

This could also tie in with the xGrid initiative. Unless Apple plans on selling really low margin computers, which I don't think they are, I'm not sure how much benefit they'll get out of XGrid. Who's going to use expensive apple boxes in a cluster when they can use inexpensive linux boxes? But if you have cocoa for linux, developers can write the control software to run on an apple and the client to run on linux boxes (with an apple royalty for the enabling software). Thus apple sells more high margin computers for development without having to get into the quagmire of building massive volumes of low margin boxes.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Cappy


Now that we know? Know what? There are no guarantees that Apple will use this new IBM cpu or that they'll continue using the G4. Sure it sounds like it makes sense but to alot of folks there was a time when the BeOS made alot of sense in becoming the next Mac OS. The media and public were literally stunned when Apple chose NeXT over Be. The same could happen again.

i was stunned a few times in apple's recent history

the cube
lcd imac with g4 processor released in one package
ipod

[LethalWolfe]

Like a couple of other people have said what makes Macs so nice is the tight intergration between Apple's hardware and Apple's software. Apple might make a swtich to x86 procs (AMD or something), but they would still make their hardware and OS proprietary. That is the only way to keep the Apple quality (no BSDs, easier to use, etc.) that is there #1 selling point.

Apple just flat out releaseing an x86 OS that can be put on any machie is an idiotic idea. The OS would run into the same issues Windows has (millions of different hardware, software, and firmware configurations) and be much, much less stable than it is now.

Apple using x86 procs in the future I can see. Apple releasing an x86 OS for use on any computer I can't see.


Lethal

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Apple releasing an x86 OS for use on any computer I can't see.


Lethal

there is just too much money to pass up if apple doesn't eventually go this way with some of their operating systems for sale

staying in a bubble in the future won't work well imho

[Fukui]

The OS would run into the same issues Windows has (millions of different hardware, software, and firmware configurations) and be much, much less stable than it is now.


You just gave the reason why apple could still sell OS X for PC and still sell macs...

I also think porting the dev system to linux would be a good idea, I don't know about windows, but that might be a good alternative to licensing OS X.

[cubist]

... supported ONE (1) SCSI board, the Adaptec 154x, ONE (1) ethernet NIC card, and about THREE (3) different graphics boards. They didn't support all different motherboard chipsets either. There was a "certified" program which tested particular computers to run it. One of my customers who was running NeXT had to buy Digital (aka DEC) PCs at twice the price of Dells to run this OS. None of the ten or so PCs I had at the time would run it; it always crashed during installation.

If MacOS X comes out for X86, it will probably be like that too. You are not going to get it to run on your pieces-and-parts clone.

[Cappy]

Originally posted by wwworry
If apple were to make hardware that is truely competitive with retail amd/intel offerings then it might make sence to offer OS X on x86.

True but they also need to do more to distinguish how different it is from a Windows machine. It'll be a tough sell. Not impossible but tough.

Originally posted by wwworry
If the profit margin on an iMac is $200 and you can sell an x86 copy of OS X for $200 then what's the difference? If the higher margin power macs can out perform x86 boxes then people would buy the power macs and apple keeps the higher margin.


Think of the bigger picture. With hardware you have to worry more about inventory and costs of components along with other factors. Software doesn't have as many of those demands but there is piracy and a few other things to worry about. MS has pretty much demonstrated that software is the way to go if it's done right.

And before someone says "or done wrong" in reference to their "illegal" tactics consider that MS would still be a multibillion dollar company had they not done what they've been convicted of and Apple would still be in the minority as they are now. MS and Apple are both successful businesses but MS is the model that more people are going to follow when it comes to selling an OS platform to people.

Want to know something scary? Consider a future where Apple sells highend boxes for professionals with the Mac OS but on the lowend the Mac OS is the frontend for a major online service. This could be installed on any current x86 or PPC system. AOL would love to have something like this which would give them Quicktime as well. .Mac services would likely grow significantly. The installed base would be huge. Lots of folks I'm acquainted with don't like this idea because of a large amount of hate towards AOL(me somewhat as well) but this is the sort of thing that could backfire on Apple if AOL or even someone like Earthlink were to use Linux instead. There are some details in there to be addressed but someone like AOL would like nothing more than to take over the desktop completely. You think the Mac has a small marketshare now...watch what happens if this were to occur.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by cubist
... supported ONE (1) SCSI board, the Adaptec 154x, ONE (1) ethernet NIC card, and about THREE (3) different graphics boards. They didn't support all different motherboard chipsets either. There was a "certified" program which tested particular computers to run it. One of my customers who was running NeXT had to buy Digital (aka DEC) PCs at twice the price of Dells to run this OS. None of the ten or so PCs I had at the time would run it; it always crashed during installation.

If MacOS X comes out for X86, it will probably be like that too. You are not going to get it to run on your pieces-and-parts clone.

a compatible os x with just about everything would be great, though

do you want them to use windows?:p

[zarathustra]

I am not a hardware know-it-all, but think this is possible?

1) most Mac components are PC standard (hard drive, PCI, AGP, USB, etc..)

2) The BIOS in an IBM-compatible PC is what describes what & how should work - and it's the firmware on the Macs.

3) Apple builds a completely closed architecture with a closed frimware based on x86, allowing them to keep the control over hardware, but use an AMD processor (or even Intel). The user will not necessarily know what the motherboard and processor are, but everything works as a Mac, since most components are already "PC" compatible.

You won't be able to build your own PC and load OSX on it, just like you can't build a PPC machine and load MacOS on it - unless you have access to a firmware that will make it work.

Remember when you had proprietary serial ports, SCSI drives, NuBus, LocalTalk, etc? They were slowly replaced by "industry standards" - except for technologies that were pioneered by Apple and adopted by the rest.

In essence, and just to recap, one more proprietary component (PPC processor) is removed and replaced by a "standard PC" part. You will still be buying an ultimate user experience, but maybe at a lower price.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by zarathustra
You won't be able to build your own PC and load OSX on it, just like you can't build a PPC machine and load MacOS on it - unless you have access to a firmware that will make it work.
Au contraire! You can simply build an Amiga PPC workstation and load Linux on it instead of the AmigaOS and run Mac-on-Linux and install Mac OS X on it, no firmware/whatever needed. It's been done.

Of course, this is illegal since the computer itself is not licensed to use Mac OS X.

[FattyMembrane]

Originally posted by DJ_TRicks
both; one in the uk, and one at apple in california; have both seen a full working OSX port of the panther 10.3 ported to a DELL intel system computer.

you should at least wait until there are conclusive rumors about 10.3 for ppc before you start saying stuff like that. we all know that 10.2 runs on x86, but as others have said, this is a precautionary measure. does anyone remember the "startrek" project? apple ported system 7 to the x86 and tried to have it sold by, you guessed it, dell. did that ever happen? others have made excellent arguements as to why apple will not go x86 only (or x86 at all) and while it's almost certain that 10.3 will have an x86 port, it will remain an inside deal, just like all of the rest.

p.s. does anyone know what kind of filesystem apple uses for their x86 builds of os x? i'm assuming that hfs+ would work, but ufs would work if they are just using cocoa apps.

[scem0]

Your right, it rules out the possibility that apple will sell OS X to
PC users, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that apple will buy
Intel or AMD processors if/when they need to. Hopefully that
will never happen, but it could happen.

[Gelfin]

Um, Tricks, do you think we've never seen this before? Somebody (usually somebody young) pops up and then within a few hours starts a pile of wildly improbable rumor threads, claiming to be "connected," alluding to mysterious shadowy informants who spontaneously (and melodramatically) provide piles of information, most of which runs completely counter to conventional wisdom.

I'm going to bite the bullet here: I've seen this pattern of behavior far too often in my years online to not simply assume you are just a newbie twit who is lying his ass off to get attention, perhaps to build a "reputation" in the community. Please stop. Most of us are well past the age where you have a chance of impressing us, so all you're doing is building up bad karma that you'll have to burn off down the road before anyone will take you seriously.

I mean really. We're computer geeks. Sure there are rumors and secrets we'd like to ferret out, but there's not a lot of intrigue. When somebody's rumor starts reading like a bad spy novel, it's a big red flag. I've never seen one of them come true.

[Sun Baked]

While OS X on x86 may seem like a very good fall back position, you have to look at what it would do to the developer and consumer communities in a operating system still transitioning to OS X for PPC.

Many developers are spending a lot of time moving over to Carbon, while it's rather easy for them to compile a operable app in Carbon - the time spent updating to the OS X GUI can take quite a bit of time. And many have complained that it takes far longer than Apple's claims.

Don't forget how much money consumers have spent money making the switch.

Now you want to toss in a whole new CPU and probably file structure into the mix before developers have profited from their OS X PPC versions...

Every application would need to be rewritten to be aware of the endian shift and new a binary compiled for each CPU that the developer is going to support - yeah FAT apps and smart installers make things easy, but it's still multi-platform support - even though you're using the same operating system.

Even if Carbon is also moved at the same time, and a PPC emulator used to make the transition easy - people will still want a native x86 Carbon binary.

Classic is nice, but would you rather run the Apps in classic or use a Carbonized app? The move to x86 would just throw another layer of complexity into the equation and skew what people think is OS X native.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
p.s. does anyone know what kind of filesystem apple uses for their x86 builds of os x? i'm assuming that hfs+ would work, but ufs would work if they are just using cocoa apps.
HFS+ would work just fine. I've had a partition formatted as HFS+ being read/written under Linux just fine.

UFS will work well, UFS is very fast with FreeBSD, but I'm not sure about Darwin. Darwin is one slow UNIX.

[DJ_TRicks]

i dont care what you say about me about my posts all i tell is what i hear from my freinds who work for apple and other companies that work with apple so dont bite my head off if its something you dont like to hear OK!!!

[springscansing]

Originally posted by robbieduncan


How would x86 OSX enable you to remove Windows? Would you not still need it for the same reason as you need it now? You would still need to check that your websites look OK on Windows.

uh.. he said he'd keep a windows partition.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Au contraire! You can simply build an Amiga PPC workstation and load Linux on it instead of the AmigaOS and run Mac-on-Linux and install Mac OS X on it, no firmware/whatever needed. It's been done.

Of course, this is illegal since the computer itself is not licensed to use Mac OS X.

Er... *glows* That sounds crazy go sweet!

Anywhere that I can get more info on doing this?

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by springscansing
Er... *glows* That sounds crazy go sweet!

Anywhere that I can get more info on doing this?
http://www.maconlinux.org/

They recently finally got Mac OS X to work in MOL and since MOL doesn't require a Mac, you can run MOL on any PowerPC and run Mac OS X on it.

WARNING: It's illegal! :p (to run Mac OS X on a non-Macintosh PowerPC computer)

[gorman]

I'm really surprised anyone believes this.

Look at it this way, do you really think SJ would allow his prized operating system to run on beige hardware? Do you really think he would let it run on the same x86 processors he's been negatively comparing to the PPC chips? Do you really think Apple would risk destroying their brand?

Of course not.

The only reason they maintain an x86 port is in case one day they really do have to make the switch, but that seems very unlikely to me. I think these rumors have been blown far out of proportion :)

[macsurfer]

bW@iginally posted by D*I*S_Frontman [/i]
This is ridiculous.
PC fantasy indulgence now officially over. [/QUOTE]

Amen! Sheesh....

[solvs]

This would be cool if it were true, but it probably isn't.

And the name "Project Marklar" was a joke (see South Park).

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by solvs
This would be cool if it were true, but it probably isn't.

And the name "Project Marklar" was a joke (see South Park).

Get a clue kids... Where did X come from to begin with?!?!?! Answer that and it'll give you ****CONFIRMATION**** as to X running on x86. :rolleyes:

Marklar *IS* real and if anything X running on PPC should have been called Marklar since the PPC *IS* the "ALIEN" (not x86).

[vniow]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm........................X is the Roman numeral for 10.................

[ja0912]

Originally posted by edvniow
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm........................X is the Roman numeral for 10.................

thanks, i didn't have the heart. :p

EDIT: or was it sarcasm? i'm confused now.

[solvs]

Originally posted by DaveGee


Get a clue kids... Where did X come from to begin with?!?!?! Answer that and it'll give you ****CONFIRMATION**** as to X running on x86. :rolleyes:

Marklar *IS* real and if anything X running on PPC should have been called Marklar since the PPC *IS* the "ALIEN" (not x86).

Um, yer kidding right?

X = 10 (though I see now Ed beat me to it). NeXT was x86 compatible, and so is OS X's Unix underpinning, but OS X.x itself is specifically built on PPC hardware. I'm sure "Marklar" (though I doubt it's called that. Sheesh one web site makes up a name, suddenly it's fact. Do the research) exists in some form or another, but X for x86 would require a bit of a software recompile.

Do you really think they can just sell a version of OS X to be installed on any Intel/AMD computer? Hey, they can even make it as a Windows upgrade, keeps all your settings and programs (that was sarcasm BTW). Which version of Photoshop would you use? Mac or PC? Or would they have to do a whole recompile, making everyone have to upgrade their hardware AND software all over again? Would be nice, but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

You were kidding, right?

[kperry8]

OK, one thing that I would have to hear be resolved before I really believe that OSX may really be coming to the x86 platform.

ALL current Mac applications run with PPC binaries, NOT X86!! ALL software that currently runs in OSX would have to be recompiled from the original source or else it's useless, and there are probably a bunch of other changes that would be necessary to make in the code to make it work as well as it does on the PPC.

Do we really want to force us developers to do this all AGAIN like we did from OS 9 to OS X? I think not. Apple would have to do some real innovation in order to make an emulator of some sort to run PPC code on the x86...

Sorry... you still have to convince me.

[bigtex34]

Is it me or does it sound like this DJ_TRicks just read a bunch of old threads and re-hashed them. I was really hoping that these rumors were dead and buried! He even mentioned lalal or something as a possible program to allow syncing this PDA, then why did apple spend so much time developing iSync!? If nothing else this should shoot his rumors in the foot, stop the madness! Don't fight over some mundane rumor that someone started, I'm sick and tired of coming into threads where someone posts TRUE STORY or something just to read the same old meekrop. Do us all a favor, unless your friend is Steve Jobs, don't post the same old rumors again!

[Cappy]

Just to play devils advocate...those arguing that Apple probably has an x86 port as a fallback plan, wouldn't you think they would be smart enough to implement the same on the software side for/with the larger developers when they got rolling on carbon and cocoa for X? They do have a number of patents on FAT binary technologies from both Apple of old and NeXT. That's not to say that some things wouldn't need serious attention.

An x86 port as a fallback plan would be a horrible fallback plan if the software side was not addressed along with it. Many developers with eggs in both Windows and Mac baskets would likely drop the Mac version if there is no safety net. I can see the x86 port as more of a technological demo than fallback plan.

I'd say that the day that Apple buys Adobe will signal the coming of the x86 Mac within a year of that. Not necessarily for the highend as I still think Apple could stay PPC on the high end if IBM holds up their end of the bargain. Apple would simply kill off the Windows versions of the Adobe products and transition their consumer market to be x86 based. I don't believe merging with or buying anyone else will accomplish the same results needed...not Macromedia, Corel, etc. Adobe is just too important to Apple.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by bigtex34
Is it me or does it sound like this DJ_TRicks just read a bunch of old threads and re-hashed them. I was really hoping that these rumors were dead and buried! He even mentioned lalal or something as a possible program to allow syncing this PDA, then why did apple spend so much time developing iSync!? If nothing else this should shoot his rumors in the foot, stop the madness! Don't fight over some mundane rumor that someone started, I'm sick and tired of coming into threads where someone posts TRUE STORY or something just to read the same old meekrop. Do us all a favor, unless your friend is Steve Jobs, don't post the same old rumors again!

two dumbest rumors...a mac shaped like a cube

a sphere shaped mac...well, we got half that;)

[shadowfax0]

...I think everyone is missing the point here. They don't have this so they can one day move OS X over, it's there so they can compare performance between a G4 and a P4 (or a Clawhammer and a PPC 970, or whatever)...using the same OS. Windows (no pun intended) are a bit sluggish on OS X...are they sluggish on a 3 GHz P4? How the heck else are you going to test somehting like that...?

[BenderBot1138]

Has anyone heard that DJ_Tricks is trying to port OSX to his car radio? Imagine! a Car Radio that works on OSX!!! I can hardly wait...

-------------------
... there is no dark side of the moon, matter-of-fact its all dark.
PinkFloyd

[FattyMembrane]

even if apple were going to drop the ppc (which it almost certainly will not) it would not waste it's time building computers around the x86 architecture. x86 is is old and dying, apple would build machines based on something like amd's 64 bit chips. anyway... this entire thread is giving dj_tricks what he wants, a lot of attention to his posts, the best way to discourage the resurgence of "g5 sphere" and "apple pda" and "osx to intel" threads is to ignore them. maybe tricks is right, and if he is, he'll gain instant credibility in the community and will have every right to say "i told you so". but i dont believe it, so lets stop wasting time on this thread.

[idoru1135]

I wouldn't be surprised if a version of OS-X exists ported to Intel. If you were in charge of a company as large as Apple, you would be an IDIOT if you didn't have some insurance. No company can allow a vendor (Motorola, IBM) to hold them "hostage", with their entire survival in their hands. IF- Apple were to have NO CHOICE, I'm sure they would port to another chipset. However, I have no doubt they would design/produce their own motherboard and other chipsets necessary to ensure hardware/software compatibility. If that were to happen, there would be 2 sets of OS-X (older/new) and that would suck, but it would suck a lot less than being out of business. I would expect Mr. Jobs to explore (and continue to update/support) these options.

As long as their is a viable "G5" or next generation chipset however, they will not release an Intel/Athlon alternative. Apples are not hardware or software, they are the INTEGRATION of the two.

[FattyMembrane]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
maybe tricks is right, and if he is, he'll gain instant credibility in the community and will have every right to say "i told you so". but i dont believe it, so lets stop wasting time on this thread.
and now i see this http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=14233
it looks like the time for me to eat crow has arrived. it remains to be seen what this all means, but it looks like tricks was more right than wrong. sorry for the flaming dj_tricks.

[DJ_TRicks]

thank you very much for the post you dont know how much i ment to me :)
i just want people to understand that even though my posts might have errors in the spelling its not because i dont spell check them or i dont research my info

the x86 OSX is not just a backup to let you all know as apple might want you to think its a way that apple might make grid computing and clustering over intel and PPC easier

further knowledge i have gotten points to a recent test in apple labs that put 5 Dell Servers with OSX Panther and 2 beta test 64 bit PPC chip systems with the help of ibm to push the technology of the new PPC Chip. Well anyway the test was to make a cluster that dosnt require identical hardware and it worked. Something with a new coding in the OS allows for standardized Wintel boxes and PPC systems to work together with a stanard system where its kinda a updated driver list on what to do for each task and stuff well anyway the idea blew me away when my freind told me cuz the cluster was able to compile both the PPC and the x86 systems by switching who was the master of the cluster and dropping all the compiled info on to two of the new fiber apple raid drives for the x serves.

my freind was very very vague when he told me this but from the way he puts it it would be like compiling your kernel for a 86 chip set by making a basic skimatic of what your system is then though some im taking a wild guess some sort of emulation level allowing the compiling of the system on another chip system

anyway its to complex even for my brain to fully understand....
can anyone tell me if this is possible?

With the growing power we as computer geeks shall rule the world!!!

[DJ_TRicks]

im not trying to do any like conpirsity stuff but the way it sounded just remined me of the new amiga system that allows for live emulation on any platform for their games and auto screen scaling as well .... did anyone see it on tech tv or read the article on slashdot.org anyway if apple could do something like that so you could compile cross system imagine the power you could do by taking chips and presetalbe system specs and cross platforming them into a cluster or grid system ........ *shivers* oh the power

[timbloom]

Apple always has things in development, most of which never will see the light of day. I wouldn't doubt that Apple has a version of OS X to run on an x86 chip. Apple relies on 2 companies to currently make chips for them. IBM and Motorola, of course. But in this industry & economy, what would happen if one of those companies decided to drop development of PPC chips to pinch some pennies? Or, what if they just stopped meeting the standards mac users demand? Not likely right now, but if it were to happen Apple would completely have to turn it's own development around for a different chip. This takes a LONG time and a lot of money. If this were to happen, Apple would be in big trouble. Having this very logical backup plan would surely come to the rescue. OF COURSE it would all be proprietary. This is Apple. Running OSX on any run-of-the-mill PC made in your basement would sure be one crazy support nightmare. I don't see Apple as a company changing in any respect other than what chip they use in their machines. I am sure the proprietary boot rom will still be there, you probably won't see it as any easier to make PC equipment work on the mac. But you will have a machine that is still competitive and cheaper than today. Personally, I am really looking forward to seeing the PPC 970 in my next mac. But if somthing should happen, Apple has their arse covered.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by DJ_TRicks
im not trying to do any like conpirsity stuff but the way it sounded just remined me of the new amiga system that allows for live emulation on any platform for their games and auto screen scaling as well .... did anyone see it on tech tv or read the article on slashdot.org anyway if apple could do something like that so you could compile cross system imagine the power you could do by taking chips and presetalbe system specs and cross platforming them into a cluster or grid system ........ *shivers* oh the power

Watch out, Amiga has a contract with the devil (MS) on some sort of development project.

Can't remember what it was, something about games or such ...

Oh well, it's probably in their news at www.amiga.com or in their forum (click through OS).

Add - was the Amiga Anywhere Content Engine and their new "App Pak" - and the first fruits of the devils works in for the Windows Powered Pocket PC and Windows Smartphones.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by timbloom
Running OSX on any run-of-the-mill PC made in your basement would sure be one crazy support nightmare.

it never stopped microsoft

they could have said, "oh well, we finally have a secure os with windows nt but not a very compatible one...let's just give up"

ms went with windows 2000 which was supposed to be their be all end all system and it didn't make the mark

did ms give up then?

no, now they have xp and it meets the security standards of an nt os and the muldimedia standards of a windows 98

apple needs to have growth and innovation on their menu at all times and they can't exist forever in a closed bubble

they are the only company left with this model and slowly, they have taken on more common standard's like the pc world's uma, tcp/ip, and intel's usb

apple is not stupid and they will hopefully always keep quality as their top priority for us

[gopher]

Mac OS on PCs is nothing new...

The common hardware reference platform that barely got off the ground was supposed to make this a reality 7 years ago. Still I sincerely doubt Apple would do it so that it could run on any PC clone. Apple is first and foremost a hardware manufacturer and makes most of their sales on hardware. It would take a huge effort to become software only. They have a hard enough time supporting their own hardware with software, and is the only company to even do that on the scale that Apple does. Imagine how difficult it would be if Apple didn't control the making of the hardware or at least its specs. We'd see the problems of the Mac clones all over again.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by gopher
Mac OS on PCs is nothing new...

The common hardware reference platform that barely got off the ground was supposed to make this a reality 7 years ago. Still I sincerely doubt Apple would do it so that it could run on any PC clone. Apple is first and foremost a hardware manufacturer and makes most of their sales on hardware. It would take a huge effort to become software only. They have a hard enough time supporting their own hardware with software, and is the only company to even do that on the scale that Apple does. Imagine how difficult it would be if Apple didn't control the making of the hardware or at least its specs. We'd see the problems of the Mac clones all over again.

what problems with clones?

...except for not handling the financial side of the licensing agreement and really cashing in on it...if any other company who is successful now did it, they would have likely cashed in

it is apple's financial failure with the clone debacle

if ms can make an os that works for many machines, why can't apple? i trust apple's os dev people more than ms os people

[timbloom]

Apple does not have the resources to support running an OS on the generic PC. Although it would save many of the PC users that are too ignorant to just by an Apple computer, but are completely fed up with windows. Apple will not die if they do not make a x86 OS. They are very successful as it is. What set's Apple apart from the rest of this industry is that it makes it's own hardware and has to spend less of it's time and money fixing and working around compatibility issues. That=more R&D time and money=better computer. There are a few places macs are lacking which i wouldnt necessarily say speed but the overwhelming crush factor we were used to a few years ago. Right now the OS is the best OS around. A little bloated, but my computer handles is extremely well and it is only a dual 533. Running this OS on a x86 chip won't change anything but some code and possibly the price of the machine. Apple would still have hardware and their OS proprietary. I am sure someone will then hack OS X to run on other, non-authorized boxes, but those won't be supported by Apple. You guys should know how these things go by now. Apple is not making an os for every pc, so don't get your hopes up.

[jefhatfield]

apple is doing well?

on what planet?:p ;)

[timbloom]

They are doing well, it is just a bad economy, and they have held out well.

[groundhog troll]

Macosx 4.0 named Groundhog will run on an Intel/AMD processor. These new machines will be sold on Dells web site and in Gateway Country stores. Apple stores will become coffee houses w/ internet access. The Genius bar will become a standard bar with alcohol drinks. Drunks will be passed out in front of the stores

Hey this a rumors site not a FACTs site.:D

[timbloom]

A store that I can get a stiff drink and buy some software. I like it!
Now they just need to make some food there. Maybe some Mac & Cheese or something.

[hvfsl]

I dont know if anyone will read this, but it is easy to recompile PPC apps to run on x86 (a lot easier than carbonising). Quake 3 (linux version) was converted to OS X in just 3 days. Of cource some fine tunning needed to be done after that.

Also a 3Ghz P4 would be faster at running Mac OS X PPC apps in emulation than a duel 1Ghz G4. It is because the P4 is a lot better at emulating than the G4.

[medea]

If Apple was keeping a pc version of os x as a backup plan that would mean they were worried Apple as a hardware company was going to fail, the x86 versions of osx are not even near being a complete os they are just the backbone basically to test speed etc. As long as we have Macintosh computers the Mac OS will be just that, a Mac OS. If people want to use OS X they are going to have to buy an Apple computer, Apple makes a damn good profit of of the macs, this is not to say they don't off of a $129 OS but the hardware brings in a lot of loot.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by kperry8

Do we really want to force us developers to do this all AGAIN like we did from OS 9 to OS X?


Well, umm, as one of the included developers, I have to say that PPC->x86 is a minor transition compared to OS9->OSX. OS9 used a convoluted and downright ugly hodge-podge of API's to interact with teh system. OS 9 software could rely on co-op multitasking instead of "proper" multi-threading memory protections. OS 9 software not only could but often had to twiddle registers just to get stuff working right.

While all of this made OS 9 a hellacious environment to program in, it also made porting from OS 9 to anything else a painful experience. OS 9 to OS X was a true port. The system APIs changed. The entire thinking behind the system APIs changed. The UI paradigms changed. Threads could be interrupted by user-level threads at any time. Register twiddling is strongly discouraged (and unnecessary).

OS X PPC to OS X x86 would be little more than a recompile. Some file-reading code would have to deal with endian issues, and some apps have assembly-coded bottlenecks that would have to be recoded in x86 assembly, but for the most part a simple recompile is all that is needed; the compiler team does the hard work of figuring out how to use he x86 instruction set.

Don't worry about developer support, unless the apps you use are no longer supported ... or perhaps unless they're written by Microsoft, but that's another story.


I think not. Apple would have to do some real innovation in order to make an emulator of some sort to run PPC code on the x86...

Sorry... you still have to convince me. [/B][/QUOTE]

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by hvfsl
I dont know if anyone will read this, but it is easy to recompile PPC apps to run on x86 (a lot easier than carbonising). Quake 3 (linux version) was converted to OS X in just 3 days. Of cource some fine tunning needed to be done after that.


Assuming you're not including time to put any kind of Carbon/Cocoa UI on the game, I can certainly see this. In an OSX/PPC to OSX/x86 port the recompile would be even easier, as the UI would migrate without change and the headers would all remain the same (Linux does a pretty good job of having most of the BSD headers and such, but OS X does an even better job, obviously :) ).


Also a 3Ghz P4 would be faster at running Mac OS X PPC apps in emulation than a duel 1Ghz G4. It is because the P4 is a lot better at emulating than the G4.

Huh?

If you were talking about, say, a Transmeta processor, I could sorta see your point. But the P4 is absolutely no better at emulating a RISC chip than the G4 is at emulating a CISC chip! It would be in software, not hardware! True, RISC->CISC translation is conceptually simpler (for the same reason that RISC is a more scalable architecture: you can switch on the known-length instruction instead of cascading tests on a variable-length instruction), but that needn't necessarily cause that translation to happen much faster.

[benixau]

blah blah blah blah.

Fact: Apple has had its OS running on a PC since System 7

Rumor: Apple will switch CPUs

Fact: Apple makes sexy machines

Lie: PCs are sexy machines

Fact: Mac OS X will run nativley as is on X86

Lie: Aqua will run natively as is on X86


As we can see apple has a little bit to do to get OSX to run like greased lightning on X86 but they will always make sure they can survive. And if they did move to X86, then it would not be able to load windows. You can bet the bankoon that.

[DakotaGuy]

Correct me if I am wrong...x86 is the future of processors? I would think Apple would be looking beyond PPC in the future not back to x86. If you take the x out of x86 you put in the number 4, doesn't that sound old...486? Also I always thought that a RISC processor like the PowerPC was actually a step up in technology then a CISC processor. I am not all that aware of this type of stuff, but getting a new mac with a x86 sounds like yesterday's tech to me. I would rather see Apple stay the PPC course and hook IBM on this 64bit PPC970.

[benixau]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
If you take the x out of x86 you put in the number 4, doesn't that sound old...486?.

That has always been the case. the first intel microprocessors were called 8086, then 8186. The first big one was the 80286 or 286. Todays pentium 4s are 686s at heart. 686s btw are pentiumII cores.

286
386
486
586(pentium/pentium mmx)
686(pentiumII/pentiumIII/pentium4)

x86 is backwards, but AMDs x86-64 is a pc based possibility for apple. I just hope that if they did that they would make the OS 64 bit rather than requiring apps to do it. Remember pre-OSX and dual processors.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by benixau


That has always been the case. the first intel microprocessors were called 8086, then 8186. The first big one was the 80286 or 286. Todays pentium 4s are 686s at heart. 686s btw are pentiumII cores.

286
386
486
586(pentium/pentium mmx)
686(pentiumII/pentiumIII/pentium4)

x86 is backwards, but AMDs x86-64 is a pc based possibility for apple. I just hope that if they did that they would make the OS 64 bit rather than requiring apps to do it. Remember pre-OSX and dual processors.

Just wanted to note that you forgor the Pentium Pro, which was the first 686. Also note that I believe the 686 core is the "true RISC" core (the 586/Pentium core was more RISC-y than anything previous, but the 686 went whole hog out and made the core pure RISC and the first stage in the pipeline a CISC-RISC translation unit).

Finally, the P4 was a fairly extensive redesign. I don't know what Intel says officially, but I'd call the P4 a 786.

[Fins160]

Apple knows that the next step in processors is 64-bit. When the time comes, they will examine the market for the best 64-bit processor and use it, but will make all their hardware completely proprietary. If MS uses the same processor, so be it, but Windows won't run on the mac machines for sho'

[benixau]

thankyou jettredmont for correcting my mistakes with regard to the pentium pro. i coudlnt include it because i never owned one to installl linux on

i would agree with you about the p4 except that if i remeber correctly, linux IDs it as 686. I was taking linux's IDing as accurate. It would only take intel 1min to change it to 786 but they have obviously left it as 686 for a reason. i dont care what intel says officially.

Thanx again regarding my mistakes.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by benixau
thankyou jettredmont for correcting my mistakes with regard to the pentium pro. i coudlnt include it because i never owned one to installl linux on

i would agree with you about the p4 except that if i remeber correctly, linux IDs it as 686. I was taking linux's IDing as accurate. It would only take intel 1min to change it to 786 but they have obviously left it as 686 for a reason. i dont care what intel says officially.

Thanx again regarding my mistakes.
My AMD Athlon is ID'ed as 686 yet it's technically a 786.

IIRC, Pentium 4 is still 686. The next Pentium should be 786.

[Wano]

nooooooooooo!!!...i would not like if they would have the apple os on a pc. that would sorta take away apple's unique style and creativity, and along the way it would probably create less sales for apple to the point where they will stop making hardware.:(

[BenderBot1138]

I don't know... kinda sounds like a remake of a bad tv show. Maybe we can call it The Rhapsody of StarTrek or something.

:cool:

[deejemon]

*

[Phil Of Mac]

StarTrek: The NeXT Generation?

[macmax]

What if apple goes x86 and then it cannot control the quality of those x86 machines and the satability suffers, then apple , not the x86 machines will suffer after apple had already lost their sales to a cheaper machine.
This would be apple's death.
i din't think it will happen, if it does, going x to the x86, then , apple is going to die

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by macmax
What if apple goes x86 and then it cannot control the quality of those x86 machines and the satability suffers, then apple , not the x86 machines will suffer after apple had already lost their sales to a cheaper machine.
This would be apple's death.
i din't think it will happen, if it does, going x to the x86, then , apple is going to die

Oh for Christ's sake did you read any of the ***** thread before you replied? Yer POV has been presented and addressed a dozne times.

Please bother reading a thread before you post, especially if it's a dead thread.


Lethal

[Coca-Cola]

Does anyone find it interesting or humorous that more and more Pc users want our OS. I love the pc aqua like skins out there. They really wish they had it so good. I think that the x86 rumors are wishful thinking on the part of PC users. I am sorry but...if you want the OS....switch to a mac. Don't switch the mac's processor to fit your needs.

[DJ_TRicks]

i didnt know people would countine talkign about this toppic for so long its amazing what a little info you hear from freinds in the biz can spawn in the forums

[Thoth]

Steve Jobs hates Michael Dell.

I could possibly see an X86 Apple Mac, only in the most extreme case.

I could never see OS X for PC's. Too much work.

Although A Dell "Steve" commercial with Steve Jobs, would be interesting.

[iJed]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

My AMD Athlon is ID'ed as 686 yet it's technically a 786.

IIRC, Pentium 4 is still 686. The next Pentium should be 786.


No the P4 has a totally new core and some extensive new instructions. It is the only X86 CPU that I would call a 786. Intel is unlikely to bring out another new core in the next four years. The Athlon is most certainly of the same generation as the PPro to P3.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by iJed
No the P4 has a totally new core and some extensive new instructions. It is the only X86 CPU that I would call a 786. Intel is unlikely to bring out another new core in the next four years. The Athlon is most certainly of the same generation as the PPro to P3.
Athlon is a seventh-generation chip. It's an entirely different core than the 686s and quite faster.

Yes, you are correct that the Pentium 4 is 786; at the time I posted that I was unsure and couldn't find evidence but I did recently.

[firewire2001]

[edited]

[LimeiBook86]

So is there anyway to run OS X on Linux or Windows? There was a site about Linux on a Mac, and said u could run OS X on Linux, here is the link: http://www.maconlinux.org Me and my friend tried to get it to work but we couldn't maybe you guys can help us? We have a GateWay Astro running Linux (Redmond I think) We wanna run OS X :-D Although my friend is planning on getting a Mac in Feb 03, see yah

[ExoticFish]

maconlinux let you run OS 9 and OS X on Linux PPC, that is, if you have Linux installed on your Mac you can run OS X in a window because it's not emulating anything like VMWare or Virtual PC, it lets OS X talk directly to your hardware. But there is no way to run OS X on X86 at the moment.

[Sol]

I am sure that Apple could support multiple OSs on different platforms. They allready do support two, with OS X & OS X Server. If they do release OS X for x86 they will no doubt provide a recommended set-up that would include amongst other things FireWire & USB ports. Many PCs would be unsupported. A Windows layer would also be possible, much like the Classic layer used in the current OS X for running OS 9.2 applications.

It would be good to have OS X for x86 because it could attract a lot more software developers to the platform. I doubt Carbon applications would run on x86 but Cocoa would work on both. Developers might even stop supporting Windows because an OS X application would be running on a much more stable enviroment on the same hardware.

I think it could be done but only if Apple is willing to make sacrifices. Some Macs might have to be dropped all-together and I think that the towers would be first to go. After all from their whole line these have had the most dissapointing sales recently. The noise issue was also a big dissapointment for many users.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Sol
I am sure that Apple could support multiple OSs on different platforms. They allready do support two, with OS X & OS X Server. If they do release OS X for x86 they will no doubt provide a recommended set-up that would include amongst other things FireWire & USB ports. Many PCs would be unsupported. A Windows layer would also be possible, much like the Classic layer used in the current OS X for running OS 9.2 applications.

It would be good to have OS X for x86 because it could attract a lot more software developers to the platform. I doubt Carbon applications would run on x86 but Cocoa would work on both. Developers might even stop supporting Windows because an OS X application would be running on a much more stable enviroment on the same hardware.Actually the opposite would most likely happen, the corps. put all the dev. dollars into Windows if the platform supports use of both OS at the same time.

It's that stupid economic formula used by the bean counters that get you, they tend to make decisions based on the best use of limited dev. funds.

In the end the Windows support layer would most likely be the killer of the OS in this example.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Sol


It would be good to have OS X for x86 because it could attract a lot more software developers to the platform.

Oh goodie...the true news forum is back from the dead!

Ever notice how Linux can do everything Windows can shortly after it is announced for Windows?

Ever notice how Linux is a slightly bastardized UNIX like OS?

Ever wonder who develops these Linux apps?

The magical answer is that the really good developers (eg. the ones who write a PVR program in their spare time instead of buying a Tivo/Replay, the ones who connect SAP to Oracle to POS to management) use(d) either UNIX or Linux. These people are migrating towards OS X. This is the future of OS X. When a enterprise developer can sport an iBook with all the crap the Office tells him he needs, sitting on top of FreeBSD, said developer doesn't have to dual boot. Said developer is happy.

I pray that the horde of untrained sloppy Windows developers NEVER get the chance to muck up our little slice of the OS world!

[GeneR]

Honesty, I'm stumped when I read all the back and forth on this bulletin thread. Will it go to x86? I dunno. I do know that if Apple has a better plan of building market share (e.g. better processors, better productivity tools), I sure hope it happens soon.

:D