PDA

View Full Version : Oh NO....OSX on a dell


Jovian9
Jun 6, 2005, 10:34 PM
So if OSX is able to run on Intel and the x86 architecture.....then we will have people buying dulls and installing OSX on them. Therefore Apple will see a decrease in hardware sales d/t the fact that a lot of people who switch to Mac will no longer have to buy the hardware. We will possibly see an increase in virii(?sp?), adware, and spyware (or at least attempts) d/t this too.
So Apple might be gaining tens of millions of people spending $100+ on OSX but losing millions of people spending $500-$3000 on Mac Mini's to PowerMacs.

I like the idea that they are pursuing a reliable chip maker, but I'd still rather not have most people just using home built PC's or dulls with OSX. I'm rather attached to the idea that everyone with a Mac has a great looking, well designed machine.

Maybe I'm just missing something here.

bosrs1
Jun 6, 2005, 10:36 PM
So if OSX is able to run on Intel and the x86 architecture.....then we will have people buying dulls and installing OSX on them. Therefore Apple will see a decrease in hardware sales d/t the fact that a lot of people who switch to Mac will no longer have to buy the hardware. We will possibly see an increase in virii(?sp?), adware, and spyware (or at least attempts) d/t this too.
So Apple might be gaining tens of millions of people spending $100+ on OSX but losing millions of people spending $500-$3000 on Mac Mini's to PowerMacs.

I like the idea that they are pursuing a reliable chip maker, but I'd still rather not have most people just using home built PC's or dulls with OSX. I'm rather attached to the idea that everyone with a Mac has a great looking, well designed machine.

Maybe I'm just missing something here.
You're missing something... OSX still will be Mac only.

Duff-Man
Jun 6, 2005, 10:37 PM
Duff-Man says....PLEASE...read some of the hundred other threads and you will see that this has been talked about already in many of them. And read the press releases and info from the announcment instead of spreading more FUD....oh yeah!

IJ Reilly
Jun 6, 2005, 11:52 PM
You're missing something... OSX still will be Mac only.

BUT, the x86 Macs will run Windows. So much for VirtualPC!

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 12:05 AM
BUT, the x86 Macs will run Windows. So much for VirtualPC!
Where did you get that idea?

Apple is making Macs, not PC compatibles.

Just because they are going to use Intel processors doesn't mean that Apple is going to change everything to match the current PC hardware architecture.

At best, what we could get is a faster VirtualPC.

AdamR01
Jun 7, 2005, 12:24 AM
Where did you get that idea?

Apple is making Macs, not PC compatibles.

Just because they are going to use Intel processors doesn't mean that Apple is going to change everything to match the current PC hardware architecture.

At best, what we could get is a faster VirtualPC.

Or we could get Wine running on OS X and run Windows apps at nearly full speed and with 3d support :D.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:29 AM
Where did you get that idea?

Because Phil Schiller has said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent the x86 Macs from running Windows along side OSX. Given the choice of emulated or real Windows...

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 12:33 AM
Because Phil Schiller has said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent the x86 Macs from running Windows. Given the choice...
A special, rewritten version of Windows... but not the same Windows that runs on PC compatibles.

So that is assuming that Microsoft is going to make this version.

That is a pretty wild assumption. :eek:

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:34 AM
I'm liking this scenario better the more I think about it. In a couple of years I might be able to dump my BDU (big dumb ugly) Windows box and just reboot my Mac into Windows whenever I want to play a game or some such.

sPAULj
Jun 7, 2005, 12:35 AM
The x86 Macs will use a custom bootloader different from Windows' BIOS. OS X will only run on these PCs if they have the proper architecture. Now....Someone may work on a way to get windows running on this bootloader, but it will be a third party doing it. OS X will only run on non-authorized machines if people do it illegally, which will probably be hard to do unless they emulate all windows drivers (or make their own).

In a couple of years I might be able to dump my BDU (big dumb ugly) Windows box and just reboot my Mac into Windows whenever I want to play a game or some such.

Hopefully WINE will be able to emulate well enough that Windows apps will run fine on OSX itself....including games. It definatly is possible if it's worked on hard enough.

iMeowbot
Jun 7, 2005, 12:36 AM
Because Phil Schiller has said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent the x86 Macs from running Windows along side OSX. Given the choice of emulated or real Windows...
Apple won't stand in the way if people want to do the work to make Windows run on a Mac, but they aren't offering to help make it run either. Apple won't be writing the necessary device drivers, we can pretty much count on that.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:39 AM
A special, rewritten version of Windows... but not the same Windows that runs on PC compatibles.

So that is assuming that Microsoft is going to make this version.

That is a pretty wild assumption. :eek:

Better get on the horn and tell Phil about that then. He never said anything about a special version. He said there wasn't any reason why you couldn't do it and Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent it.

Rocksaurus
Jun 7, 2005, 12:42 AM
The x86 Macs will use a custom bootloader different from Windows' BIOS. OS X will only run on these PCs if they have the proper architecture. Now....Someone may work on a way to get windows running on this bootloader, but it will be a third party doing it. OS X will only run on non-authorized machines if people do it illegally, which will probably be hard to do unless they emulate all windows drivers (or make their own).



Hopefully WINE will be able to emulate well enough that Windows apps will run fine on OSX itself....including games. It definatly is possible if it's worked on hard enough.

So could you extract this bootloader and put it on say... an AMD? :cool:

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:44 AM
Apple won't stand in the way if people want to do the work to make Windows run on a Mac, but they aren't offering to help make it run either. Apple won't be writing the necessary device drivers, we can pretty much count on that.

I'd think the main issue would be sound subsystem drivers for Windows and a method for identifying and selecting the Windows boot volume. Not even sure you'd need to emulate the PC boot ROMs, but it's not like they're very complex. None of this is brain surgery I shouldn't think.

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 12:46 AM
Better get on the horn and tell Phil about that then. He never said anything about a special version. He said there wasn't any reason why you couldn't do it and Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent it.

He said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent it. You're reading in the rest. ;)

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:50 AM
He said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent it. You're reading in the rest. ;)

He said more than that. He also said that people probably will run Windows on them, which means Apple knows it can be done.

iMeowbot
Jun 7, 2005, 12:57 AM
I'd think the main issue would be sound subsystem drivers for Windows and a method for identifying and selecting the Windows boot volume. Not even sure you'd need to emulate the PC boot ROMs, but it's not like they're very complex. None of this is brain surgery I shouldn't think.
I don't know which of these 600 threads I mentioned this in (this place is hopping!), but the current state of Linux on Macs should give a good indication of what this will be like. Hardware support lags behind, because Apple change things from model to model. Airport Extreme still doesn't work there, power management, fan control, modems, sound are all hit or miss even on models that have been around for a while, and goes on and on. And that's with the ability to modify the base OS!

A hosted Windows is a much saner way to go.

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 12:58 AM
He said more than that. He also said that people probably will run Windows on them, which means Apple knows it can be done.

Solve this for us then... put in the exact quote.

Don't paraphrase it... the exact quote please.

x86isslow
Jun 7, 2005, 01:00 AM
Or we could get Wine running on OS X and run Windows apps at nearly full speed and with 3d support :D.

well i think we'll still have our miserable 5200-class video cards :rolleyes:

would we get windows-like 3dfx without DX9 support?

dejo
Jun 7, 2005, 01:01 AM
Solve this for us then... put in the exact quote.

Don't paraphrase it... the exact quote please.

Here's the quote I found on CNET:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 01:08 AM
Here's the quote I found on CNET:
Thanks.

I guess we'll see.

I was just talking with a friend who is no longer restricted by his NDA who has been working with this (the developer) hardware. He didn't think that plain Windows could be installed and run on it. The hardware is too different.

DakotaGuy
Jun 7, 2005, 01:19 AM
Better get on the horn and tell Phil about that then.

LMFAO!!!

DakotaGuy
Jun 7, 2005, 01:21 AM
The hardware is too different.

What is different about it? An Intel x86 PC is a Intel x86 PC whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not.

iMeowbot
Jun 7, 2005, 01:34 AM
What is different about it? An Intel x86 PC is a Intel x86 PC whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not.
Why won't SunOS boot on a Mac Color Classic? It has the same 68030 as a Sun/3.

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 01:34 AM
What is different about it? An Intel x86 PC is a Intel x86 PC whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not.Well, then a PowerPC 604e system is a PowerPC 604e system whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not... Right?

Ever try to install AIX on a PowerMacintosh 9600? Or any Mac OS on an IBM workstation... or even an Apple Workgroup Server 500/700 (they only run AIX even though they are carrying a fancy Apple logo and run on the same processors found in the Power Macintoshes of that time)

And a 68040 system is a 68040 system whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not... Right?

Ever try to install NEXTSTEP on a Quadra 950? Or System 7 on a NeXTstation?

There is a lot that is needed to make hardware compatible with these operating systems. The fact that IBM didn't lock down what was needed to make PC compatibles is why all these other companies can make them today.


Like I said, we'll see. I don't know anyone who would have an opportunity to try this currently, but I'm sure once the developer hardware starts showing up we'll start hearing reports one way or another.

Jovian9
Jun 7, 2005, 01:59 AM
Duff-Man says....PLEASE...read some of the hundred other threads and you will see that this has been talked about already in many of them. And read the press releases and info from the announcment instead of spreading more FUD....oh yeah!

Well, I have dial-up, a wife, 3 dogs, and a 60+ hour/week job so I do not have the time to read 2000+ posts....though I would love to:)


Thanks for the informative quote dejo....that's what I was hoping to find out.

Shaun.P
Jun 7, 2005, 02:01 AM
Could anybody clarify these points please?

We on the Mac platoform don't get Mac versions of a lot of Windows stuff supposedly because its too difficult to translate. But the Mathematic program was changed from PPC to x86 in 2 days! So if it takes that short a time to get programs changed why don't we have more programs getting changed from x86 to PPC?

Will it be easier for developers to change existing Windows applications to x86 for Mac than it was before? So we should be seeing more games, and programs?

And, if you were to wipe your Intel-Mac harddrive, wouldn't you be able to partition it and install Windows XP and Mac OS X on different partitions?

Sorry if these questions are stupid.

admanimal
Jun 7, 2005, 02:18 AM
Could anybody clarify these points please?

We on the Mac platoform don't get Mac versions of a lot of Windows stuff supposedly because its too difficult to translate. But the Mathematic program was changed from PPC to x86 in 2 days! So if it takes that short a time to get programs changed why don't we have more programs getting changed from x86 to PPC?

Will it be easier for developers to change existing Windows applications to x86 for Mac than it was before? So we should be seeing more games, and programs?

And, if you were to wipe your Intel-Mac harddrive, wouldn't you be able to partition it and install Windows XP and Mac OS X on different partitions?

Sorry if these questions are stupid.

Good questions, actually.

The difficulty in porting an application from Windows to Mac does not generally stem from the differences in CPU architecture. The difficulty is in the fact that Windows and OS X have 100% completely different programming interfaces and different conventions as far as the user interface and preferences, etc. go. The net result is that a lot of code needs to be rewritten in order to support the other OS- code that does not have anything to do with the architecture.

So the switch to Intel for Macs will not affect most of the work necessary to port a program from Windows to Macs.

As for the partitioning question...it's possible but we won't know until we see if Windows fully supports whatever hardware (the complete hardware, not just CPU) Apple uses in future Macs. If it does, then Apple claims they won't do anything to stop you from installing it.

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 02:53 AM
We on the Mac platoform don't get Mac versions of a lot of Windows stuff supposedly because its too difficult to translate.
True... and the reverse is also true. I use a lot of software that has no Windows versions.

But the Mathematic program was changed from PPC to x86 in 2 days! So if it takes that short a time to get programs changed why don't we have more programs getting changed from x86 to PPC?
We are talking about Mathematica* here, right?

They were taking Mathematica for Mac OS X PowerPC and porting it to Mac OS X Intel.

Will it be easier for developers to change existing Windows applications to x86 for Mac than it was before? So we should be seeing more games, and programs?
The demo had nothing to do with porting Windows apps... and no, it is not any easier.

Linux has been around on x86 since the early nineties and you don't see a lot of Windows software being ported to it... that is because it (like Mac OS X) handles applications differently.

And, if you were to wipe your Intel-Mac harddrive, wouldn't you be able to partition it and install Windows XP and Mac OS X on different partitions?
There is some debate on this issue... from what I've heard, I don't think so. :D





* The people at Wolfram Research happen to be very close to Steve Jobs. In fact every NeXT system that shipped to academic customers had Mathematica pre-installed... for free (as part of the software bundle).

This is not too surprising as Mathematica (the application name) was originally suggested by Steve Jobs.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 10:36 AM
Solve this for us then... put in the exact quote.

Don't paraphrase it... the exact quote please.

From news.com:

Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

"They probably will." Okay?

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 10:44 AM
A hosted Windows is a much saner way to go.

It might be, I don't think anybody outside of Apple can claim to know at this point. Possibly when some of these systems get into the hands of developers, we'll begin to hear about the technical issues involved with running Windows on a Mactel. Taking not such a huge flyer, I'm going to guess that any compatibility layer that will be required will be much, much lighter than the current VirtualPC. If the freeware/shareware/opensource community can come up with something as relatively sophisticated as WINE, I think they can solve this problem too.

RacerX
Jun 7, 2005, 11:01 AM
"They probably will." Okay?
:rolleyes:
I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread.

kgarner
Jun 7, 2005, 11:02 AM
Just because he says that they probably will, doesn't mean that you can go and install a retail copy of Windows on a Macintel. There are still other issues that will need to be overcome before Windows can run on the Macintel. These are all related to how will ensure that OS X cannot be installed on generic PC box (BIOS issues and so forth). I look forward to it happening, but, personally, I hope for a better emulation mode like WINE, VMWare, or VirtualPC where they only emulate the Windows code and not the hardware. Rebooting for those few occasions that I need a Windows app will be pain.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:15 PM
:rolleyes:
I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread.

I answered the question. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mandatory eye rolling to follow.







:rolleyes:

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 12:26 PM
Just because he says that they probably will, doesn't mean that you can go and install a retail copy of Windows on a Macintel.

I never said that, so you're not debating that point with me. Phil Schiller seems to be acknowledging that people will be able to run Windows on Mactel and even more to the point, that Apple won't do anything to preclude it. That's a very interesting remark in my book. Personally, I don't see the technical issues being insurmountable, and at the very least, the degree of emulation required will be far, far less than is needed today.

I think a true dual-boot Mac opens up some real possibilities for Apple and Mac owners. This entire concept bugs some people, I guess.

James Philp
Jun 7, 2005, 12:45 PM
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

The use of "they" in this context is NOT Apple. When he says "they" he means 3rd parties who have the tech savvy to do so.
He simply says that Apple will not do anything to preclude them trying (i.e. no purposely restrictive hardware etc).

so where are you getting:

He said more than that. He also said that people probably will run Windows on them, which means Apple knows it can be done.

When you say "Apple knows it can be done" - what are you basing it on? This has absolutely not been said.

I think a true dual-boot Mac opens up some real possibilities for Apple and Mac owners. This entire concept bugs some people, I guess.
Yes, it would, but Shiller has said only that it might be possible, and that Apple would not make it impossible, but he has hardly said that Macs will be "Dual-boot" with easy implementation. Why do you think this would be so simple? As has been said before, simply getting linux on a Mac has major issues, and Shiller certainly hasn't said that MS are building a version of windows for the new Macs - like that would EVER happen.
I guess what is "bugging" people is your insistence on the subject, where there is no evidence that dual-booting will ever exist, and plenty of evidence that eludes to doing this would be very technically difficult.
Phew. Essay over.

Sirus The Virus
Jun 7, 2005, 12:53 PM
What is different about it? An Intel x86 PC is a Intel x86 PC whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not.

The Apple logo is not fancy!

mac-er
Jun 7, 2005, 12:57 PM
OMG. I am getting so tired of these "the sky is falling" posts.

Get a grip.

Were you able to install Mac OS on an IBM PC after Apple started putting IBM chips in their computers?

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 01:10 PM
The use of "they" in this context is NOT Apple.

Exactly. This is what I said.

He simply says that Apple will not do anything to preclude them trying (i.e. no purposely restrictive hardware etc).

Exactly. This is what I said.

I take Schiller's remark to mean it will be possible in some way, shape or form. What this way shape or form is we don't know yet, but I suspect we'll find out pretty soon.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 01:12 PM
OMG. I am getting so tired of these "the sky is falling" posts.

The sky is falling?? Where?? When?? :)

James Philp
Jun 7, 2005, 01:15 PM
He said more than that. He also said that people probably will run Windows on them, which means Apple knows it can be done.
So where did you get this gem?
Oh, and where did you get the information that Macintels will be able to dual-boot?

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 01:24 PM
The fact that IBM didn't lock down what was needed to make PC compatibles is why all these other companies can make them today.

Actually, they tried. The IBM-PC boot ROM was proprietary, but not so complex that it couldn't be fairly readily reverse-engineered. Compaq pulled that feat off in about a year of effort. Phoenix came next. Then the cat was truly out of the bag because because IBM didn't own the OS.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 01:28 PM
So where did you get this gem?
Oh, and where did you get the information that Macintels will be able to dual-boot?

Partly a direct quote, and partly reading very minimally into what that direct quote means.

But how about this... rather than climb all over me for my interpretation of what Phil Schiller said, why not tell us what you think he meant by the statement "probably they will"?

James Philp
Jun 7, 2005, 01:33 PM
Partly a direct quote, and partly reading very minimally into what that direct quote means.
Minimally? You've been saying that the Macintels will be dual-booting, and Apple have windows running on a intel-based Mac already!But how about this... rather than climb all over me for my interpretation of what Phil Schiller said, why not tell us what you think he meant by the statement "probably they will"?Phil Shiller's not dumb; he realizes that there are smart people out there, and given a motivation they can achieve a lot. That's what he meant.

Josh
Jun 7, 2005, 01:58 PM
omg...!

Why is everyone debating the underlying meaning of what Shiller said?

People are so quick to say "I KNOW what he said...but what he really meant is this..."

Don't twist his words. He said "someone" (ie. YOU and I or ANYONE else) "would be able to and we (Apple) won't do anything to stop it".

What does that mean?

It means that people will get Windows running on a Mac, and Apple wont try to stop it. Nothing more, nothing less.

He didnt say "Third-party devlopers...", nor "Microsoft...", he said "Someone..."

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 02:04 PM
Minimally? You've been saying that the Macintels will be dual-booting, and Apple have windows running on a intel-based Mac already!

Okay, call it an excess of enthusiasm for the possibility if it makes you happy. My reading of Schiller's remark is that he knows it's possible because Apple has already done it. He didn't say, "Gee, I don't know."

Don't forget, Apple's been running OSX on Intel hardware for five years now. Do you think it's unreasonable to suppose that they've tried installing Windows on it at least once in all that time?

Phil Shiller's not dumb; he realizes that there are smart people out there, and given a motivation they can achieve a lot. That's what he meant.

In a way, that's what I meant too (as you can tell by reading my other posts on this topic). My prediction, if I might be permitted to make one, is that the level of effort which will be required to cause this to be a reality is not very great, which is to say, much less than is required to make Windows run on a Mac today. Not a very controversial prediction I would have thought.

IJ Reilly
Jun 7, 2005, 07:07 PM
I picked up another interesting tidbit that might be quite relevant in the "will Mactel be able to run Windows?" debate:

Open Firmware
Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary_tips/chapter_5_section_18.html

So, if Mactel machines don't boot into Open Firmware, then what kind of boot ROMS are they using? If they're generic PC boot ROMS...