PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X on PC platform


ryanweb
Aug 8, 2001, 08:36 AM
Will it be possible someday to use Mac OS X on PC hardware?

I think this could be a big boost for Apple and nice alternative to Windows.

blakespot
Aug 8, 2001, 08:51 AM
This will never happen. Yes, you can run Darwin, the core kernel BSD distribution of OS X on the PC, but you will never be able to run OS X. Apple's profits are tied to hardware more than the OS at this point, and they seem to be having some success at it.

I feel this is the way it will remain for the forseeable future.


blakespot

blakespot
Aug 8, 2001, 08:52 AM
...and a large part of the OS X advantage is and will continue to be the fact that Apple is spec'ing the hardware and software--they are the only mainstream vendor who controls both sides of the coin. This puts them into a unique position.


blakespot

macaddict123k
Aug 8, 2001, 08:55 AM
This wouldn't be to smart, because even though mac software might get a boost, it wouldn't be enough to combat the hardware loss.

menoinjun
Aug 8, 2001, 12:03 PM
eventually it might prove to be beneficial for Apple to release OS X for the PC. First off, us diehard fans will never deal with PC hardware ever again. But a lot of us aren't diehards. Apple would lose a lot of money if they did it now. But...when Intel releases the Itanium, it's clock speeds are much much lower than the P4, therefore they will have to deal with the megahertz myth crap. Right now I read that they are stuck at 800mhz on their Itanuim, whereas Motorola is rumored to already have 1Ghz PPC chips. If in maybe 6 months to a year, Apple is competing against hardware that is at a slower clock speed than G4 machines, AND they release OS X for the PC, then that might attract enough potential buyers to make it beneficial. The public is dumb, and a nice NON Microsoft, easy to use, stable, fast operating system on a faster chip in a mac would be a big seller.

We have to realize though, that Apple might not have the resources or connections to make it happen. The big thing would be supporting hardware. Right now basically a very small percentage of upgrade cards come with mac drivers, and that means that either Apple will have to set out making a driver for each possible card (making OS X much like windows), or each card manufacturer would have to package OS X drivers themselves. Either way, this is VERY doubtfull. It think that for now we should forget it, unless a G4 card is made to run mac software on a PC without slowing anything down.

-Pete

thinmann
Aug 8, 2001, 05:17 PM
Why would you want to?

evildead
Aug 8, 2001, 05:27 PM
Why would you want to do that? Part of the reason that Apple software runs so well beause it runs on Apple hardware. Windows has to run on all kinds of configurations. MS has no controle over the hardware they run on so most of the time it fails. I knew a guy that put a Porcha engin in to a VW beetle. Why?

MrMacMan
Aug 8, 2001, 05:56 PM
Mac fans buying a PC.. Am I the only one who things that isn't a good idea?

evildead
Aug 8, 2001, 06:28 PM
I am a geek.... true I have a prefrence for the Mac and the Apple OS but I due ues other platforms. UNIX, Solaris, Linux, Windows. I do have a winBox that I have to use some times. And it is not a bad idea to have muliple CPUs with mulitple OS's. But I would never want to put Mac OS on a PC. Just would seem wrong.

MrMacMan
Aug 8, 2001, 08:16 PM
Both would suffer. Sure I would like multiple OS on my Hd but it's not coming very soon. And if a company did switch then who would make the mac Os come to the PC ?

Kela
Aug 9, 2001, 02:30 AM
I will one day make a NeutralOS called (Neutrino) which will be like Universal donor blood type and can run all pc files and mac files. Ofcourse it will take the best features of OSX and Windows. It will be the ultimate piece of programming and I ask you people, will you join me? We will begin this project after 4 years. LETS DO IT!! Whos in= (im not kidding)

- an ambitious Kela

ryanweb
Aug 9, 2001, 08:44 AM
The idea is not to move Mac fans to PC hardware, but to expand Apple presence on the market.
Most people don't care about the platform, they just want to buy a computer, and right now it will be the PC with Windows most of the times. That's bad!
So may be Apple should give people at least a choice?

bobky
Aug 9, 2001, 11:12 AM
surely Apple could expand their presence when the itanium comes out. reverse the mhz myth, why would u ever want osX running on a beige block, does seem right...

bobky
Aug 9, 2001, 11:13 AM
Doh
doesn't seem right
(see above message)

ryanweb
Aug 9, 2001, 11:16 AM
The reason is simple: to shrink Windows domination as much as possible!

MrMacMan
Aug 9, 2001, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Kela
I will one day make a NeutralOS called (Neutrino) which will be like Universal donor blood type and can run all pc files and mac files. Ofcourse it will take the best features of OSX and Windows. It will be the ultimate piece of programming and I ask you people, will you join me? We will begin this project after 4 years. LETS DO IT!! Whos in= (im not kidding)

- an ambitious Kela
There is no Good features about Windows. What that it is Slow? No, that's bad. ah, I need help, what good features. Oh I know the many useless program's made for only Windows. There. And I'll help you Kela. It will eat you Hd and will have many problems, But Lets try!

Kela
Aug 10, 2001, 07:43 AM
Yess!! Thats two people including me. So who else is in. We need OS programmers thats it. I know you guys think im kiddin but im not. Let me finish my university then im all set. Macman are you studyin too?

flag4
Aug 10, 2001, 10:35 AM
Yes it has been done, back in 92 Apple had a secret project to port OS 7 to run on a 486. It was successful, an engineering triumph, but they decided to shelve the project as to not snuff Motorola who was then preparing the Power PC chip. .
Controlling both hardware and OS is a double edged sword. Right from the beginning, with the Apple II, the focus has always been hardware first. Providing much success initially, but hurting them in the long run.
If they licensed the Mac OS back in the 80's what a different story this may have been !

mischief
Aug 10, 2001, 10:54 AM
It's inevitable, the market power of wintel boxes is in the fluidity of elements. All hardware is being driven the same direction. All software is likewise being driven towards BSD. The possibility of OS X on wintel boxes is not aimed at Hardcore Macfans like us but at the PC consumer that's gotten used to getting screwed. OS X has no drivers in the traditional sense so that's a non-issue. The mac-hardware advantage will make itself apparent when it becomes obvious that even the Mhz myth has come back to slap intel in the face when Itanium is overshadowed by G5@ 1+ Ghz with more similar stats (shorter pipeline, etc.)

Besides, there's a more tantalizing (or frightening) bit of evidence: X Windows. Hello, two OS's from two companies that have never been as adversarial as their customers, that have only gotten closer with time(you'll notice Apple had nothing to say about the Antitrust case) coming out with two BSD based OS's with freaky-similar features just when Intel's going RISC???

Has it occured to anyone like there may BE a universal OS already? Doesn't anyone realize that Microsoft has been using Macs in house FOR YEARS because they actually WORK. Never assume that your disdain for a **** OS carries into Apple's corporate relationship with Gates land.

MrMacMan
Aug 10, 2001, 11:01 AM
If we what this thing done before i'm sixty then we need more then one Os programmer, and what is ur Specialty? I can test it I have nothing to do most days. I have nothing to help out on a New Os. Sorry. If you can think of a pesion then e-mail me.

Scab Cake
Aug 10, 2001, 01:25 PM
Ever hear of the BeOS? Okay, so there was a x86 version and PPC version, big deal. It was pretty close to what you're talking about and it was awesome. Throw a dock in there, the aqua interface, and voila. Unfortunately, there'd be no UNIX kernel, but still, it worked.

mischief
Aug 10, 2001, 03:01 PM
I came up with an idea for an OS a while back: Real simple, no jargon, no error messages, an OS for Kiosks, Morons, Drunks, non-geeks, technophobes, etc. I called it Cider (Apple for drunks). HUGE buttons on a desktop with no other features, buttons like:Do Stuff, Look Up Stuff, Games, Go Shopping, etc.

I was selling to the public and the Imac drive of 2000 was into the spring and sucking the dead pondscum off the bottom of the market. Most persistent user errors?:

Not Quitting applications (I'm serious, people would crash their machines or load them to the point where they'd function at half speed or worse)

Not trashing or failing to empty the trash for months on end.

re-installing the system with the "save and install" option and getting lost. Resulting in a schitzoid, nearly unrecoverable mess.

The thing that makes OS's such a pain in the ass is the average IQ of a consumer when you take culture and Dialect shock JUST USING THE MACHINE into account. Otherwise intelligent folk would do stupid things because they're neither Geek or Academic. The "Killer OS" will have to be self-repairing/restarting and rediculously simple. OS X is close but still too full of jargon for the poor average (Make it go) schmuck who buys (say) a cube.

Case in Point: one (otherwise intelligent ) couple bought a cube and didn't take off the scratch-film packing material because IT WASN"T SPECIFICALLY IN THE UNPACKING INSTRUCTIONS!!!!!!!
the poor little cube was stuck in a restart loop because the film of plastic was setting off the power button on both the machine and 15" LCD. I removed the film and discovered that they had fried it's start-board into that loop. Our store had to eat 1200.00+ for their idiocy. Any technophile would know better, but you have to keep in mind, not everybody is and, The average idiot is now using one of the most convoluted, evil OS's ever devised .

Mac OS for the PC would really give Bill a run of it. Market analists be damned.

MrMacMan
Aug 11, 2001, 09:10 PM
Telling me where to buy this os? Please, I have newbie Parent's Friend so I would like to install this to help them.

spikey
Aug 13, 2001, 09:10 AM
Come on people, think about it. It makes sense to port OSX to the PC. So roll a spliff, take a vodka & orange, and hang on with me on this rollercoaster tour.

It makes sense to port OSX to the PC because it would allow apple to put their foot in the door of the PC market (which is what they have being dying to do).
Personally i believe this port would succeed even if it wasnt as good as the mac OSX, just because of the extreme "anti-microsoft" attitude every1 has right now.
Also if they made OSX a stable, powerful and user friendly OS on the PC, businesses would ditch their ****** windows and go for OSX, and who follows what businesses do? yes u guessed it my chums the "PC user" and the "PC using family".
And thats all very lardy dar, a bit like a green matt grape really.
More to the point though is, once OSX has put apples foot in the door then PC users will realise (after much masturbation) that OSX on the mac is so much faster than OSX on the PC, so they will start to buy mac hardware aswell as software.
I think that if apple is going to make a move on the PC market then it has to be now just because Intel and Microsoft are producing **** and people have just realised that, also in a few years AMD will have conquered the PC market....right now though they aint got the publicity.
So strike while the iron is hot and mind your testacles, do let me know wot u think of my take on it.
Im off to smooth coloured water.

mischief
Aug 13, 2001, 10:54 AM
Yeah, that's it Spikey, exactly. Bill has proved that oppression builds Empires, but he has forgotten that Oppressed people eventually revolt. OS X for the PC could change the market the way a mass press and Telegraph network changed the political climate between 1700 and 1920. 600+ for Office, are they nuts? No, says Bill: let them eat cake. Tyrants rarely see it coming. The public rarely sees it either.

bobky
Aug 13, 2001, 12:48 PM
Do you really think people will eventually buys apple hardware? even if it does run a little faster, (yet cost alot more)

mischief
Aug 13, 2001, 02:34 PM
cost, schmost. Why expect the Mercedes of the computer market compete in price with the Yugo's and Daiwoo's? The idea is to provide an alternative. Evolution is about environmental wedgies, those who survive continue. Those who just wear tighter underwear get lower spermcounts and die out.

Curiousstrngmint
Aug 13, 2001, 07:28 PM
I think recent years' crops of Apple hardware have been damn cool but I'm not particularly attached to the hardware. I would run OS X on a loaf of pumpernickel if I could and it were cheaper. I'm not quite sure how Apple could make it pay, though.

MrMacMan
Aug 13, 2001, 08:35 PM
I heard from the deep source in the pit that Omni Group's plan is to get people to love their port's and then MAKE THEM USE A PC FOR THE PC VERSION OF OS X!!!!!!
______________________________________________
A person who took over macman's computer!!!
HA-HA U'll never get it back!!!!

mischief
Aug 14, 2001, 12:06 PM
Unfortunately, I'm not a coder. I'm an artist. I could provide a dumbass proof concept with good flow designed for Joe User but don't expect me to code or compile it. I like the Idea of a mass-processing, logged-user concept that shares the power of all available machines to crunch Data in disgusting quantities. How about Napster-like file sharing for searching and high bandwidth user rings for serious packeted parallel processing.

If the Idea isn't sound it should be good for a laugh. Cider OS could be a Killer OS for the Web Appliance Market . It's not a whole OS but rather an alternate face to the standard Aqua.

mischief
Aug 14, 2001, 12:10 PM
Don't forget to vacuum out yer Mac every QP or so after all that Ganja. Smoke Dust kills HD's and internal components pretty good. If you haven't yet: just think about how much like the inside of a post-dorm Bong it'll look. Ick.

spikey
Aug 14, 2001, 12:53 PM
Will do, my 70s voodoo child.
though my imac dont smoke, it likes morphing.
I was thinking of using my vaccuum to overclock my pc.

How u guess i am a student anyway?

i luuurrrve crackle vision.

mischief
Aug 14, 2001, 01:48 PM
Eek. I was actually listening to that very Hendrix piece when I checked back and refreshed the page. Yer Imac smokes just as much as the average non-california waitress- twice as much as you. Though it may not have a fan to pull it through it still gathers dust. Lucky Guess: very few folks will speak of such things after college openly.

Caution: Extended use of Itunes visuals with max RAM allocated while Baqued may result in Vertigo and/or Ben and Jerry's fixation.
The Sturgeon General recomends the Exclusive use of Glass whenever possible to avoid Aluminum Oxide inhalation.

mischief
Aug 14, 2001, 01:56 PM
You could build in a Substance and desease index from the CDC to allow private consultation in just how suicidal some common mixes of prescription, elicit, and legal substances actually are. For the portable version you could have GPS and Cellular built into the hardware so if you wander aimlessly at three in the morning it'll call a cab. Add a new button to the desktop then: Brain Alteration Guide.

spikey
Aug 15, 2001, 07:53 AM
thanx 4 v advice......i couldnt imagine that if i smoked amsterdam.
I think i will settle with listening to radiohead, wearing an atari t-shirt and overclocking my pc in a fridge whilst shoving windows up billy butt****s arse.
But i love imac and i would never do anything to hurt its feelings, not even all the pot in soho is worth that.
Anywayz this is straying from the subject
Im off to a mates house cos i need sum fun and hopefully a floating **** ;)



[Edited by spikey on 08-15-2001 at 09:02 AM]

mischief
Aug 15, 2001, 03:13 PM
what if XP and OS X are basically the same OS?

mnkeybsness
Aug 15, 2001, 08:27 PM
they won't because XP is ugly and made for the computer-retarded, it's so simplified that it's pathetic, you can't do anything to it (icons and such)

trust me, XP will make the pcs explode into a million pieces and die and everyone will be forced to use macs.

MrMacMan
Aug 15, 2001, 09:15 PM
Anybody Have any knowledge on Codeing?

MrMacMan
Aug 15, 2001, 09:17 PM
Window’s not a Virus

Viruses destroy your hard drive. . . wait, Windows does that.

Viruses eat up all your system resources. . . Windows does that, too.

Viruses destroy your valuable data. . . DAMN! Windows does that, too!

Maybe it is a virus. . . Oh! Wait! Viruses are small and efficient, viruses are written by talented people, and viruses eventually get more
advanced.

I guess that is proof that Windows is not a virus.

I got this somewhere...

mischief
Aug 16, 2001, 11:03 AM
Both BSD, Both using a similar enough title that you'd expect one or the other to get uptight about it. Both scheduled to hit the mass market in the same 6-month window. Both moving away from Icons on the desktop. Apple still hasn't said ANYTHING about the anti-trust case, even though they'd be the lynchpin. I'm sure that Aqua and XP are different but I want to know about the rest.

MrMacMan
Aug 16, 2001, 09:30 PM
Apple has it's name in the lawsuit. Of coase the case will now be destroyed, one reason. Bush, he will tell the Supreme Court to thrugh away that case and Mircosoft will continue to gobble up companies. IS YOUR BUISNESS NEXT???

thecube84
Sep 12, 2001, 04:50 PM
Why are we talking about PC hardware?? We are all mac fans and PC hardware SHOULDn't ever enter our house. Why? Why? I have an old 486 BUT ONLY FOR MY electrical engineering stuff. Anyway I dont like windows and I dont think we should be putting OS X on pc machines.

That's like asking bill gates to live in a cardboard box.

mnkeybsness
Sep 12, 2001, 08:51 PM
because pc hardware is a valuable compare and contrast for mac users, especially if you read the rest of this discussion.

Walla
Sep 19, 2001, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Kela
I will one day make a NeutralOS called (Neutrino)

Look out! QNX Real Time OS graphic interface is named "Neutrino": somebody already used that name.

can run all pc files and mac files. Ofcourse it will take the best features of OSX and Windows.

Without the brandname Micro$ozz nobody in the wintel world will be ever buying it.

It will be the ultimate piece of programming and I ask you people, will you join me? We will begin this project after 4 years. LETS DO IT!! Whos in= (im not kidding)

Don't dream, Kela.

Ciao!
Walla

Kela
Sep 19, 2001, 02:46 PM
Also, you sound like a freakin gothic church that told pioneers like galelio, "dont dream" But we now know how right he was. You are the kind of person who would have sided the flat world advocates.THINK DIFFERENT or succumb to the power of Microsoot.

spikey
Sep 20, 2001, 10:58 AM
ctgyC......ilhoho.......uyfvi;gfyoug...........hukivfikuvfikuvf...................io;uhfvv;ohsfpoivg nhfsvoihnafvoi............................O;DHBSOUJBVSJDLKBVs;ajbvksdjBVKSJ;DBv;dskbksjdbv.......... .................................................................................................... ....................................................KIBGDFHIOHBGELJEWIRHBGPIAHGFNPINREGQOE'GJEBIPONH LN;SHBOQ'EIRT35807UJFOIJREWBBNTHHH[N2INFOI[N0OIF2PUY4F[NHJ2222RF0INRFIONFOI2[NFOINHF23OI[NFOHO4Y[NB5807UJFOIJREWBBNTHHH[N2INFOI[N0OIF2PUY4F[NHJ2222RF0INRFIONFOI2[NFOINHF23OI[NFOHO4Y[NB

Yay, spikey is back

spikey
Sep 20, 2001, 11:05 AM
So, after being banned because u ppl cant accept the english language is developing i am now back.
I am not a more politer spikey, i am just one that doesnt use such creative language any more.
I woiuld also like to say that i am not at all sorry for posting swears on the forums, and to all u who got insulted well hahaha.

Kela
Sep 20, 2001, 11:46 AM
Nice to hae ya back spikey. Wonder how come I didnt get banned. How did you get on again? Let me guess, you are a honorary member of board?? In the mean time you were gone, many othre discussions have sparked up serious attitudes. Funnily enough I refrained from indulging.

spikey
Sep 20, 2001, 12:01 PM
nah, wish i was but there is alot of ageism among us geeks.
i emailed arn to get reinstated, quite a nice guy really. seems very pleasant
Anyway, yeah i missed the debate with the racist fu***rs. damn shame that.

Space Donkey
Sep 20, 2001, 03:07 PM
That's like asking bill gates to live in a cardboard box.

Ok da cube 84 said
"I dont think we should be putting OS X on pc machines."
I agree if you want windows go PC if you want mac os X get a mac but dont be hypacritical plz..

Thats like cross breeding dogz and cats. (Bad Idea)

MrMacMan
Oct 2, 2001, 07:54 PM
Xp is Mac X OMG look
IT IS A HUGE COPY!!!!!! LOOK OMG IT IS SO SCARY!!

Classic
Oct 2, 2001, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I'm back since 10/2/01 my imac is fixed


And their goes that brief but cherished moment of not having to sift through Mr. Macman's 15+ irrelevant messages a day. :(

MrMacMan
Oct 5, 2001, 10:13 PM
Go screw your self! I mean would you rather nor hear my opinion, then go to another mac rumors fourms. (By the way I haven't see any around other then this one.) But thank you for your opinion. :)

Classic
Oct 6, 2001, 03:49 AM
Opinions are fine. Even a heated argument is ok. It's just the random posts that lack both content and opinions that I find tedious and a waste of time to sift through.

spikey
Oct 6, 2001, 08:31 AM
no.

Classic
Oct 6, 2001, 10:46 AM
Now that posting I find particularly funny a pleasure to read.

Microsoft_Windows_Hater
Oct 6, 2001, 10:58 PM
OS X has the potential to become the Ultimate OS, why? Because it is so configureable.

Look, as a third party you can basically add any code that you want to OS X. Want to add more support for files? Replace the components of OS X with you own. (That would be Darwin that you replace). Make any changes that you want, add a new GUI for instance, but the most important part is Darwin which i say is perfect.

If you want to build an OS look at Darwin. that code is amazing. It has been refined so many times that it is not funny. Here is the basic list:

Unix came from the basic coding that DOS came from, the original power OS's. This then was added to, much like DOS for many years by many individuals.

FreeBSD was the next step. It was a complete revision of the Unix code. Everything that was good was kept. Everything that was bad was remade.

Next was NEXT software that starting making Rhapsody. This again was a complete revision, of course with new goals, but it made the OS that more stable and reliable, of course with the added bonus of a GUI.

The last step was OS X. The final revision, with the most changes but with the best engineers.

This process has taken a long time with many different individuals which means that making a super-os what take at least that much effort and probably just as long as the process (15 years+).

Dont port OS X. Thats the only reason i bought a mac, for the OS. I knew when i saw the stats that it was fantastic. Remember also that mac hardware is generally of a much higher quality than PC's. They also last much longer.

Cryptnotic
Oct 7, 2001, 01:15 AM
Microsoft would never allow Apple to release a competing OS for generic Intel PC's. Remember what Microsoft did to BeOS? You may not, but Apple sure does.

Microsoft would revoke the system OS vendor licences from any PC maker (such as Dell or Gateway or Compaq or IBM) who tried to sell PC's without Windows installed. The only people selling pre-built Mac OS X86 machines would only be small systems vendors. And why should Apple bother, when they can just make those systems themselves.

Steve Jobs also remembers the nightmare that was NeXTSTeP-x86 and its (ill-)supported hardware list.

Now, you could argue that Apple is a big company that could succeed where NeXT and Be failed. However, Microsoft is a much bigger, more powerful, more evil company. The only reason Microsoft allows Apple to exist is because they play on a completely different playing field.

So how could it possibly work? Well, Apple could create a subsidiary, possibly jointly with a Taiwanese motherboard manufacturer who has no worries about losing a Microsoft contract. This subsidiary company could make PC's that would be MacOS X86 compatible. They would probably have a nicer BIOS than ordinary PC's. OpenFirmware for x86 would be cool, by the way. So anyway, you'd then be able to buy an x86 motherboard that could boot Mac OS X86. And Apple would still make money since they'd own (at least partially) the motherboard company.

This way, you'd still be able to buy your own case, power supply, dvd-rom, dvd-r, hard drives, compatible video card, memory, etc.

I think this would be very popular, since people could keep some of their components and still put together a Mac system.

Would this anger Microsoft? Maybe, but certainly less than if Apple were to make a completely compatible-with-everything OS.

Cryptnotic

Cryptnotic
Oct 7, 2001, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Microsoft_Windows_Hater

Unix came from the basic coding that DOS came from, the original power OS's. This then was added to, much like DOS for many years by many individuals.

FreeBSD was the next step. It was a complete revision of the Unix code. Everything that was good was kept. Everything that was bad was remade.

Next was NEXT software that starting making Rhapsody. This again was a complete revision, of course with new goals, but it made the OS that more stable and reliable, of course with the added bonus of a GUI.

The last step was OS X. The final revision, with the most changes but with the best engineers.



You're mostly wrong. DOS was a cheap, pathetic UNIX shell clone. UNIX systems had been doing multi-tasking, multi-user, protected memory, virtual memory, etc LONG before DOS (and its single task, no memory protection, no virtual memory, single user system) came around.
FreeBSD is descended from BSD4.4Lite. Essentially it's an x86 port of BSD4.4Lite with some other stuff added on. FreeBSD development started AFTER NeXTSTeP if I recall correctly.

By the way, the "Lite" part of 4.4BSDLite only means that it had the proprietary AT&T things stripped out of it and replaced with things that are now much more standard.
NeXTSTeP was 4.4BSDLite ported to on Carnegie Melon's Mach micro-kernel running on a Motorola 68000 series machine. The Objective C language system and the GUI system (Display Postscript, etc) were the foundation of the new user interface. This was probably the most important feat of OS and GUI system engineering ever. NeXTSTeP was so ahead of its time, it's not even funny.
Mac OS X is basically NeXTSTeP ported to PowerPC with a new style MacOS lookalike GUI, DisplayPostscript replaced with DisplayPDF (Quartz, as they call it now), some extra new graphical interface ideas allowing for transparencies and other things, and an emulation layer for Mac OS 9 ("Classic").

So you're correct in that Mac OS X is the most advanced OS ever created. However, please don't compare it to DOS, as they really have absolutely nothing in common.
Cryptnotic

Microsoft_Windows_Hater
Oct 7, 2001, 02:31 AM
I wasnt comparing to dos, i was saying that basically they both appeared at the same time, and were similiar to each other for a while in terms of use and power. After that it was a one horse race.

MrMacMan
Oct 16, 2001, 08:24 PM
True true

Crathar
Dec 7, 2001, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Cryptnotic
Microsoft would never allow Apple to release a competing OS for generic Intel PC's. Remember what Microsoft did to BeOS? You may not, but Apple sure does.

MS is definitely guilty of playing dirty pool, but they did NOT sink BeOS.
Did you ever try to install BeOS on an x86 box?
I've installed each of the last 3 releases of BeOS on at least 5 different boxes. It was, to put it mildly, finicky when it came to hardware. I have some boxes (and not non-standard relics) it refused to install on at all.
Did you ever try to get BeOS to play nice with other boxes on a network?
To me, a box is useless if it can't be networked. In the last release they finally provided some support for additional NICs, but the prior release only had official support of a couple 3COMs (and not the most common types), a generic NE2000 driver would work on only one of the various (10 or so) generic NE2000 clones I had floating around.

In addition, a multiple user file system was never fully implemented.

BeOS knocked themselves out of the game.

Microsoft would revoke the system OS vendor licences from any PC maker (such as Dell or Gateway or Compaq or IBM) who tried to sell PC's without Windows installed.
Forced licence payment for every PC sold, regardless of OS, was one of MS's slimier tactics, and they were called on it. Who knows what happens behind closed doors, but this was supposedly remedied in the previous (not current) anti trust action.

I personally would love to see an OS X port to the PC. I've run BSD on and off for years and would really like to play with a gui front end that is a little cleaner than X.

I seem to recall that there _was_ so sort of MacOS cli only port to the PC.

Bill.Data
Dec 11, 2001, 05:21 PM
Apple could never put there OS on a PC, they are not allowed to. M$ would have the right ( contractually ) to pull all products that they currently provide to the Mac world.
It will never happen because M$ has all of the legal cards to play against Apple. Apple thought it was worth giving away at the time ( 1981 ).

mischief
Dec 13, 2001, 06:53 PM
After deeper research: Apple needn't attack MS yet, China's 3 largest PC makers just got Vendor rights. Correcting earlier posts: Apple HAS been in the 'Suit, just relatively quietly......untill Bill went for the Ed market.
If China gets Windows MS can kiss it's ass goodbye.

jefhatfield
Dec 14, 2001, 12:45 AM
glad to see you back, macman

i love this topic because it brings in the topic of business and making money which posting os x to pcs can do, it also brings to the table raw emotion where many mac users want to stay exclusive and not give into a giant like the pc world in general, and it also brings in the technical side with knowledgeable techie people on both sides of this age old argument of porting the superior mac operating system to a pc box

i believe in porting os x to the pc side to show them that os x beats windows and for apple simply making a buck like microsoft has been doing for so long

i don't buy the argument that it cannot be done technically and respect the opinion much more that one would simply like to see apple a more small and down to earth personal company which microsoft and hp-compac definitely are not these days

but when i see the crassness of the pc world and some of the shoddy products that hit the shelves, i do see the charm in apple staying small for the sake of being small where it is safe to cater to a small but reliable market share since apple buyers are more likely to buy apple again where almost every pc user i have seen have no particular brand loyalty (with exception of pc sony users which are almost as loyal and fanatic as us macfolk)

[Edited by jefhatfield on 12-14-2001 at 01:48 AM]

stereoboy20
Jan 14, 2002, 04:35 AM
I have been a user of windows (9x, NT4.x, W2k and XP), BeOS (R5), MacOS (6.x through 9.x), Mac OSX (10.1.x and Server 10.1.x) and Linux (SuSE 6 or 5, don't remember, Mandrake 7.2 and 8.1). And I have a couple of things to say about all this.

1. Mac OS X is the best OS ever. It has everything, and I would love to see it ported to x86, since it would kick ass Windows and all Microshit products. I guess that it wouldn't be difficult for apple to develop an Office suite far better than MSOffice, since Cocoa is so versatile and easy to program at the same time. It's just they don't want to. They're bussiness has NEVER been software. I mean, they charge money for their os's, but it's merely symbolic. Most people haven't bought their current MacOS.

2. BeOS was good. And I say was, because it was when it was born. It has been abandoned since then. I know there have been five major releases, but, take an example: BeOS was ready for multi-user support, it just hadn't been implemented, but nobody did it. That's what I mean. They didn't care. Just take a look to http://open-beos.sourceforge.net to see what devoted users want to do of it.

3. Windows is the only modern OS not to have OOP deep into its APIs. Programming BeOS or NeXTStep/OpenStep/MacOSX is just as easy as "I want an App that displays a window in which a button makes the caption of the window become 'Hello'". No worry about drawing windows or controls. They are already done, all you have to do is setting the properties.

Thus, we'll never see MacOSX on x86 (unless somebody clones it using Darwin/x86 + a modified GNUStep) because Steve doesn't want to sell mac-os-x. He wants to sell iMacs. That's his business.

Ossa
Jan 14, 2002, 09:04 AM
Apple has been a "beyond-the-box" company from the very beginning and feels no pressure to reinvent its business model to fit into the so-called post-PC era bearing down upon us. In recent years it's been easy to forget that Apple,unlike the other PC vendors, is a software developer too. But now, with OS X, pundits will argue persuasively that Apple, at its foundation, is primarily an OS company since everything else Apple does depends upon the Mac OS.

Hardware is where the vast majority of Apple's revenue and profits comes from, but Apple's soul has always resided in the Mac OS, that's what truly sets Macs apart from the PC herd. The Mac OS is variously a religion, a franchise, a philosophy, a secret code, an open code, a way of seeing, an abused minority platform, a vision of the future, a legacy of the past, and ultimately The GUI That Changed The World, even if it didn't conquer it. For much of Apple's history hardware has taken a back seat to the Mac OS as the expressive DNA of Apple, even while doing most of the cash-flow heavy lifting.

So let the Mac OS X metamorphosis begin and we can all caterwaul over whether Apple's insanely great hardware is a match for the insanely great paradigm shift OS X will present the industry with. Already, financial analysts realize they underestimated the positive double whammy effect a postmodern, semi-open source OS combined with Apple prescient hardware designs would have on the stock price. Investors love to invest in the future, and Apple has that in spades.

Microsoft is slowly decaying; the open source tribes already occupy the frontier. The Mac tribe, at least partly sympathetic with the open source religion, is more than likely to expand its domain as the decline and fall of Windows progresses towards its inevitable fate. Some day soon we won't be able to tout AAPL's stock as the most chronically undervalued in the PC industry. Of course, Apple's stock price could double and still be below the price valuation assigned to Dell, Compaq and Gateway.

Keep OS X on the Mac, where it belongs!

atlascott
Jan 14, 2002, 10:49 AM
What the hell, I am in.

I am a novice programmer (still learning C/C++) but are you guys aware of how much knowledge you gotta have to program an OS? I mean, you gotta know hardware, file types, networking, etc.

So far it looks like you got a student programmer, a retired tester, and a graphic artist on the "team". Not exactly an OS designing "dream team."

My advice would be to design just the interface part of the OS and make use of BSD/ Unix core (which is a free download, from what I understand), which is stable and fast. Another STRONG bit of advice--demand certain hardware profiles in order to support the OS. Otherwise, your OS has to support a 300 MHz K6-2, a P4 2.2 GHz, a PowerPC G5, etc., etc. I deally, we should standardize on a particular architecture, but if you want this OS to run on PC processors and Apple processors, you got your work cut out...

The problem here is to get a Unix-core OS to run Windows or Mac OS software, you either have to run it in emulation and pay M$ (and convince Apple to licence their OS to you--aint gonna happen) OR the much more daunting task of reverse-engineering Apple OS and M$ OS so that your OS can run their apps. This would be really, really, REALLY difficult to do. And it would result in a MONSTER OS--probably on the order of 10 GB, for all the hardware profiles and software translators.

Another problem is divergence. As different as Unix and DOS are (which form the core of Windows and Mac OS X), remember that we would have NO CONTROL over where the dominant OS companies go with their products, and to remain viable (until we get a certain percent of the market share) we would have to follow them and ensure compatibility.

To combat this reality, I suggest standardizing on OSX and Windows 98SE. In other words, we can run apps written for our OS, apps written for OS X (no Classic support) or Windows 98SE (No XP/NT support). This would ensure legacy compatibility (most people still run Win98SE) and give us a future (Mac OS X is generally regarded as the best new OS to ever come out--even David Coursey,a M$ syncophant, admits that OS X is an amazing achievement).

Thoughts? Our first step has to be deciding these basic issues. We need to recruit a Unix guy and a DOS/98SE guy to help plan and code.

Should we exchange email addresses?

JonesBonk
Jan 14, 2002, 11:04 AM
There are a thousand reasons why Apple wouldn't want to port X to Intel - the most significant of which is that they would cannibalize hardware sales, thereby eliminating the most profitable aspect of their business. In many ways. Apple's hardware symbolizes the innovation on which Steve has rebuilt the company. Granted, they could build Intel machines themselves, but the fact that, for all intents and purposes, their machines would no longer be 'different' from Dell's or Gateway's means that the premium price they would likely command would be less palatable to customers from either MacOS or Windows. That simply can not happen.

There is, however, an alternative.

What if Apple could continue to develop OSX in a way that allows them to run Windows applications on mac hardware? I'm not talking about Vitual PC - unless they miraculously find a way to improve performance. Perhaps they should acquire Transitive Technologies (http://www.transitivetechnologies.com/) and incorporate Dynamite (their emulation software layer) directly into X. It would likely have to run on a separate software layer, like Classic, but at near native speed. In the end though, the application runs vitually transparently in X – without having to run windows at all. They might not be able to take the same advantage of OSX's protected memory, multitasking, mutiprocessing et al, until they upgarde to a native version of the software.

The implications of this are remarkable: Everyone has to update hardware sooner or later. With USB and Firewire, peripheral compatibility is no longer an issue, so Windows users looking to move to MacOS without tossing out all of their software could run their apps on superior hardware. Hardware sales would actually increase - as would OSX licenses. Ultimately, that is what would prompt developers to write more titles for X.

Any thoughts on this?

stereoboy20
Jan 15, 2002, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by atlascott
I am a novice programmer (still learning C/C++) but are you guys aware of how much knowledge you gotta have to program an OS? I mean, you gotta know hardware, file types, networking, etc.

Let me tell you something. You CAN'T do that. It's as simple as that. Be productive and join a team in OpenBeOS or FreeBSD or anything like that, they need people. But four guys cannot do it.
You just can't. Besides, the TOTAL COMPATIBILITY OS you wan't wouldn't work. Reading filesystems is damned easy: MkLinux, for example, reads and writes FAT, FAT32, ext2, HFS and HFS+. Guess that all it does with NTFS is reading: that's whate everybody does, but windows. By the way, and talking about windows: don't be compatible with 98SE, it's a DOS-legacy OS, nothing good in it, unstable, and DEAD. Use NT4, or 2000, or XP, this is, REAL OPERATING SYSTEMS. Being compatible with windows on a PPC implies emulating not only the system, but also the x86. And that's a lot. Seriously. You could try and use Wine+Dosemu but I will tell you the results: ABSOLUTE DISASTER!!!!

Catfish_Man
Jan 17, 2002, 09:35 PM
..., I can think of two ways of pulling it off (one of which I know nothing about). One is to run a dual processor machine with one x86 chip and one PPC chip. The other, is to run some sort of emulation, I vaguely remember that Transmeta had some sort of code morphing technology to make their Crusoe x86 compatible. Other than that, all we need to do is get Apple to let us build a transparent Windows app layer into OSX, kinda like cl***ic.

Also, this anti swearing thing is getting annoying. I can't type b***, cr***, gr***, anything with a s s in it.

stereoboy20
Jan 18, 2002, 04:36 AM
That dual x86/PPC computer gets us to the point: the best OSs always run in proprietary hardware. BeOS did, NeXTSTEP did, MacOSX does. So, why building another OS with weird hardware things (BeOS's dual PPC and geekport, NeXTSTEP's funny optical disks) when, after apple, nobody has been able to make a profit out of that? And, I talk about profit because since you start talking of funny hardware, specially designed for you, you have to sell it. If you give it away, poof. Probably poof even if yyou sell it ;)

nrkn
May 15, 2002, 06:48 PM
A crusoe provides code morphing to translate x86 commands to it's native format, right? What would be nice is if you could stick a crusoe chip somewhere in your iMac and have it tranperantly provide x86 services to any software which wanted it... have MacOsX detect when you are trying to launch an x86 program and let the crusoe take over, redirecting the output to either the screen or a window or whatever. It could even be an external device, made by a 3rd party. I mean, anyone who says that every single x86 app has a just-as-good alternative on Mac is dreaming (where is fruityloops for mac, huh?), I prefer the OS on Mac but way prefer using PCs on account of the fact that it limits me less in the range of software I can run. I would like to be able to run it all (Mac, x86)from one machine and use OsX as my OS. Also, have a look at www.oqo.com, I would love one of these, and at the moment I would have to run Xp on it if I wanted one... ewww.