OSX on x86 Codenamed Marklar?

[Ash]

eWeek just came out with an article claiming that Apple has a feature-complete version of OS X running on x86 architecture that is codenamed Marklar.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

It pulls together a lot of older rumors and Star Trek history, but has a few new interesting tidbits.

- Ash

[mnkeybsness]

so basically all i got from this is that it's a "fall-back plan" if motorola and ibm refuse to make chips for apple and they can't find anyone else to do it either.

[MacCoaster]

And Nick de Plume is a reliable source since when? :rolleyes:

[tortus]

So I will be 40 when Apple decides to release OS 11 according to Jobs who says that OS X is the OS for the next 15 years. A lot can happen in that time. This would definitely allow enough time to develop a commercial release of OS X for the x86 if Motorola and/or IBM fail to deliver for Apple. Though they have a version of OS X running on an x86 platform, the article makes the point of mentioning the amount of effort it would take by 3rd party vendors to rebuild software and hardware for Mac OS X running on x86. Also, Apple would have to figure out their closed architecture on the x86 platform if they opted to maintain their closed archictecture model. We won't see it any time soon, but maybe in a couple of years.

Now all they have to do is sell empty PowerMac towers.

[alex_ant]

"Marklar" must be Klingon for "Isn't gonna happen."

[kishba]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
And Nick de Plume is a reliable source since when? :rolleyes:

i personally do not know nick de plume, but i do read thinksecret regularly... i have to say most of the stuff he writes (rumor-wise) is reliable

his site seems to be one of the more respectable rumors sites (besides MR of course :))

[Dr. Distortion]

from http://www.slangsite.com/slang/M.html :

marklar:
A noun standing in place of any noun you have temporarily forgotten. Synonym of thingy, thingumbob, whatsit. Also may be used deliberately when the meaning is abundantly clear anyway. Derived from its use by space aliens in an episode of South Park
Example: On Marklar, everyone and every thing is referred to as marklar. We come in marklar. Take us to your marklar.

[dongmin]

Not a bad little article but seems like all they did in the way of research is look through a bunch of rumors sites.

There's one bit that I found interesting:

Apple would have to also coax most of its third-party developers to rewrite their applications from the ground up in the company's Cocoa application environment.

If that's all that it takes to make an app x86-compatible, then the whole switching-over-to-Intel thing doesn't seem so farfetched. Yes, most OS X apps now are Carbon but won't developers be switching to Cocoa anyways as they introduce new apps? I've only dabbled with the development tools but Cocoa seems to be the way to go if you're writing a brand new app for OS X.

[snoopy]

Originally posted by dongmin
... Yes, most OS X apps now are Carbon but won't developers be switching to Cocoa anyways as they introduce new apps? ...


When they write an application in Cocoa, it will only run on OS X, not on a classic Mac OS. That might cut out half their customers today. I think Carbon will be around for several years, in the consumer applications. Now high end products are a different story. Nobody would want to run Shake on OS 9 anyway.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by snoopy

When they write an application in Cocoa, it will only run on OS X, not on a classic Mac OS. That might cut out half their customers today. I think Carbon will be around for several years, in the consumer applications. Now high end products are a different story. Nobody would want to run Shake on OS 9 anyway.


I didn't mean now, obviously, as the great majority of Mac users still boot off OS 9. But in 3 years let's say, I would think that 90% or more would be running OS X.

[iJed]

I don't see why a Carbon app could not be recompiled for OS X x86 just like a Cocoa app. Carbon wraps to exactly the same low level APIs as Cocoa does. Therefore, as far as I can see, this claim is simply not true. Classic would be the problem not Carbon.

[Durandal7]

Is anyone really surprised by this?

It's Apple's life preserver, if bankruptcy becomes imminent they will release something like this to either save the company or at least spite MS before fading away.

[rigor]

Originally NextStep only ran on m68k based black hardware. At its peak, it ran on 5 different architectures. In the end, they just kept the black hardware and Intel versions alive. Today its called OS X and its only sold for a single architecture. One can only wonder what the future will bring..

[G4scott]

Maybe this is a hint to motorola (and somewhat to IBM) to get a good desktop PowerPC chip out on the market :D

I think this would be a desperate act for Apple, designed only to be used when they're on their death bed :eek:

Of course, I doubt that will happen any time soon ;)

[FattyMembrane]

you'll have to pardon my ignorance about intel processors as i probably dont know what i'm talking about... but why would apple expend so many resources building osx for x86? we're all waiting for the 32-bit ppc to die in hopes of the G5 and it would seem rather counter-intuitive of apple to focus on what many of us agree is an inferior structure. i had heard somewhere that amd chips use an x86 emulator but that athlon was some different type of processor which was more powerful (i am probably totaly wrong but i have a friend who swears by the speed advantage of amd over intel). why isnt apple focusing on this architecture or some of the other 64 bit processors that are already in production? if its mhz that is the major concern, the newest breed of 68k chips are getting close to 2ghz, but i dont see anyone rushing to port operating systems back to that architecture.

[vniow]

If they were ever to port OSX over to any version of the x86 platform, it would be 64-bit. The Itanic2 and the AMD Clawhammer will be the x86 variations of the future. The chips that they ported OSX to were most likely 32-bit, but porting it to 64-bit shoudn't be to difficult. I have to agree with everybody else that it probably won't happen. x86 is a dying architecture. Intel has pipelined the P4 to hell, the Itanic isn't even x86, and the AMD chips are more RISC than x86. This is only a last-resort option, and there's about a 99.98% chance of this actually happening, so I wouldn't worry.:)

[Arcady]

Originally posted by dongmin
I didn't mean now, obviously, as the great majority of Mac users still boot off OS 9. But in 3 years let's say, I would think that 90% or more would be running OS X.

I bet 90% aren't running OS 9 and OS X combined. The majority of Mac users are probably running OS 7-8, because there are millions of Quadras and old PowerMacs (not to mention Mac II's and 68k LC/Performas) still out there being used by people who are oblivious to OS upgrades or anything beyond Word 5.1. I run across these people almost daily.

[tortus]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
you'll have to pardon my ignorance about intel processors as i probably dont know what i'm talking about... but why would apple expend so many resources building osx for x86? we're all waiting for the 32-bit ppc to die in hopes of the G5 and it would seem rather counter-intuitive of apple to focus on what many of us agree is an inferior structure. i had heard somewhere that amd chips use an x86 emulator but that athlon was some different type of processor which was more powerful (i am probably totaly wrong but i have a friend who swears by the speed advantage of amd over intel). why isnt apple focusing on this architecture or some of the other 64 bit processors that are already in production? if its mhz that is the major concern, the newest breed of 68k chips are getting close to 2ghz, but i dont see anyone rushing to port operating systems back to that architecture.

OS X is based on BSD. Apple either began development on the x86 platform then migrated over to PowerPC, they did it for the hell of it, it provides them with a market beyond PowerPC, or to have a contingency plan if the PowerPC architecture no longer competes in the real world due to "whatever." I also would like to add, "Why not?" Why not port OS X to everything from Amiga to Super Sparc systems? The developers love to do it and in the end, the consumer gets a better OS.

The "hammer" 64 bit architecture from AMD will be backwards compatible with x86. I believe this is the emulator you are refering to. As far as AMD having a speed advantage over Intel, on certain bench marks they each better the other in various tests. AMD just added more pipes to the processor which has definitely boosted its perfoemance in regards to its Intel equivalent. Intel's chips, if I am not mistaken, still have better throughput and floating point performance numbers. AMD is catching up though.

Who knows what Apple is focusing on? It is a strange time for them. To be competitive in the consumer market, they need to keep costs low. In the professional market, they need to boost performance. It makes no sense for them to concentrate all energy on 64 bit chips designed for expensive servers. I would be happy to see Apple adopt an architecture that has legs and good value to boot. Whether it be Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, Samsung, or Sun that provide the chips, I just want a stable, blazing fast Mac OS X.

[theaz]

it seems to me to be good to stay diversified, and by keeping an x 86 development project going, Apple may be reducing any risk factors associated with sticking with the PowerPC.

The issues regarding Cocoa vs Carbon do seem interesting. Notably, Apple has always put a big emphasis on Cocoa. Maybe this is one reason. Considering Cocoa has its roots way back in NeXT (which as Rigor pointed out, ran on several architectures), the link seems more than coincidental.

With respect to the idea that Apple would release this only if it was on its death bed, well, I am not so sure about that. For instance, no respectable developer would spend a fortune recompiling their apps to run on a platform that was about to go wayward. Again, if Apple was down for the count, I doubt it would want to spend the massive amounts it would take to finalise and then market this product to the windows Calvinists [think of all the additional device drivers, code optimisations etc that would have to be undertaken just to make it useable. Even on Mac related hardware we are still awaiting the arrival of some driver related support]

Finally, with respect to Nick de Plume, I have found that in the murky world of apple related rumours, the info he has published in the past tends to be quite reliable. Now, the guys at MOSR on the other hand...

[snoopy]

Originally posted by tortus


... I would be happy to see Apple adopt an architecture that has legs and good value to boot. Whether it be Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, Samsung, or Sun that provide the chips, I just want a stable, blazing fast Mac OS X.



I think you might like to have an architecture that will run your existing Mac software too. I believe most people would, and that is one very good reason to stay with the PPC. Apple just made a huge change going to OS X, and to follow that with a CPU change would be the one-two punch for developers, and customers.

There is lots of discussion about the merits of the PPC vs. the X86 CPU architecture. Without bringing up the arguments, just consider two facts.

First, IBM has taken the PPC/POWER family very far. IBM has the know how to come up with something better if they believed this architecture was too limited. They chose to stick with PPC/POWER. It has potential.

Second, Intel has the know how to come up with something better if they believed the X86 was too limited. They chose to design the 64-bit Itanium processor. The X86 must not have potential, in Intel's eyes.

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by tortus
OS X is based on BSD. Apple either began development on the x86 platform then migrated over to PowerPC, they did it for the hell of it

Actually it's based on the Mach kernel, which does hardware abstraction. OS X has a BSD subsystem as well, but it's not BSD. Mach can, and does, run on a number of CPUs, so does BSD.

If you remember when Rhapsody was first unveiled, Apple talked about "Yellow Box" which was a set of APIs for use on x86 systems.

Apple talked about this, and how it would allow developers writing in Cocoa (Objective C) to write their programs once, and run anywhere, much like Java. They killed off Yellow box around the same time that they introduced Carbon.

Yellow Box applications would have had the Windows GUI, but there's no reason Apple can't get the whole OS, Aqua and all, running on x86.

At any rate, they have been working on this from the beginning.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by dongmin
If that's all that it takes to make an app x86-compatible, then the whole switching-over-to-Intel thing doesn't seem so farfetched. Yes, most OS X apps now are Carbon but won't developers be switching to Cocoa anyways as they introduce new apps? I've only dabbled with the development tools but Cocoa seems to be the way to go if you're writing a brand new app for OS X.

Ugh!

Does Nick and Mathew even know what they are talking about?!?!?

Q: What is the FINDER written in?

Dave

[ffakr]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
i had heard somewhere that amd chips use an x86 emulator but that athlon was some different type of processor which was more powerful

I think I know what you may be referring to... AMD K7s convert x86 microcode in the core of the processor into a RISC-like microcode which they work on. They may have taken this route because the leader (and other members) of the K7 team were harvested from the Alpha Processor project (a brutally fast, 64bit RISC processor). If the Alpha hadn't been bought out and killed off as a sacrafice to Intel's Merced program the next revision would probably have been released by now and it could very likely have been the the fastest chip around.


if its mhz that is the major concern, the newest breed of 68k chips are getting close to 2ghz, but i dont see anyone rushing to port operating systems back to that architecture. [/B]
Huh? Who exactly is making a 2GHz 68k processor? Last time I heard, the 68k made it to the 68060. It wasn't being used much and it was about as fast as a pentium. Check out this page for info... http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03M0ylgrpxNM934310184622
There are other processors that Motorola makes like the Dragonball and Coldfire. They have similar processor names like 68320 but I don't know to what extent they conform to the old 68k machine language. They certainly don't clock at 2GHz. Dragonball is used in PDAs and Coldfire seems to clock Up to 66MHz according to Motorola's web site.

Originally posted by edvniow
If they were ever to port OSX over to any version of the x86 platform, it would be 64-bit. The Itanic2 and the AMD Clawhammer will be the x86 variations of the future.
Itanic2 is NOT an x86 processor. It is an EPIC processor. EPIC is Intel's implementation of the VLIW processor design... (Transmeta also makes VLIW processors)
EPIC is HUGELY complicated. It doesn't implement hardware branch prediction and the compiler actually has to *guess* how the code will execute at compile time to optimise it. It has been said that it will be harder to write robust EPIC compilers than to create the processors themselves... and Intel is about 2-3 years behind their original schedule.

This is a pretty good reason NOT to port OS X to the Itanic (what a stupid name). If Apple wrote everything in C or C++ they could probably use an existing Itanic compiler. Unfortunately, there is still a big reliance on objective C in OS X. Apple would need to invest SIGNIFICANT work in order to develop a mature compiler for their development environment... a compiler that has to generate code on a processor that is radically different than anything anyone at Apple has ever worked on.

just my 2 cents... ffakr.

[snoopy]

Originally posted by DaveGee


... Q: What is the FINDER written in?




Is it still written in Carbon? Someone suggested that Apple wrote it in Carbon just to prove to developers that this is a good API. Don't know whether there is truth to that. However, it is my understanding that Cocoa makes development a little easier, and possibly better. Apple improved the Finder in Jaguar I hear. Could it be in Cocoa now? Just wondering.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by DaveGee


Ugh!

Does Nick and Mathew even know what they are talking about?!?!?

Q: What is the FINDER written in?

Dave

No, apparently they don't.:D
A: FINDER is a CARBON app. It has been said that the very OOP design of Cocoa would not serve the Finder well.

The problem is not that new application won't be written in Cocoa... they most likely will since Cocoa is a Rapid Application Development environment.
The problem is that the bread and butter apps that sell Macs (Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Office) are written in Millions upon millions of lines of Carbon (or Classic) code. Do you expect that Microsoft will rewrite a million lines of code so we can get a Cocoa version of Office? Or will they simply continue to release Carbon versions forever?

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by ffakr


No, apparently they don't.:D
A: FINDER is a CARBON app. It has been said that the very OOP design of Cocoa would not serve the Finder well.

The problem is not that new application won't be written in Cocoa... they most likely will since Cocoa is a Rapid Application Development environment.
The problem is that the bread and butter apps that sell Macs (Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Office) are written in Millions upon millions of lines of Carbon (or Classic) code. Do you expect that Microsoft will rewrite a million lines of code so we can get a Cocoa version of Office? Or will they simply continue to release Carbon versions forever?

That be my point! *IF* this rumor is true then the X is running on x86 and if X is running on x86 then the finder is running on x86 and if the finder *is* running that that means carbon is running on x86! If the finder isn't running then this story is BS since without the finder X ain't X....

Just my 2¢

D

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by VERONICA (wtf!?)
This is only a last-resort option, and there's about a 99.98% chance of this actually happening, so I wouldn't worry.:)

You have to read what you're writing, VERONICA. That means that there is a 0.02 chance of it NOT happening.. meaning that you think it's gonna happen.

Get it, VERONICA?




irmongoose

[opitz]

ever noticed that when booting into jaguar the smiling mac that showed up on every machine since the first max back in 1984 has been replaced by the new apple-logo? so jaguar isn't only for macs maybe? why not have pc osx by the end of the year?
there a serveral good reasons to think we will see the worlds best os on intel hardware:
1st
it solves any problems bill g. will have explaining that windows is not trying to monopolize the os market because osx would be the only real alternative to windows as long as one rule will not be overlooked: an os only can survive when it is able to run microsoft office (ask people at be or next)! and osx is the only os besides windows to obey that rule!!
2nd
building a compatibility-box around any older version of an os is peace of cake for apple: the have done that twice! first time when the changed 68k against ppc and now where (mostly) any old mac-app will run under osx. let's bet they will do the same with older pc-software, maybe the only thing they have to do ist talk to connectix...
3rd
it will storm the existing pcs everywhere! remember how windows grew so stong? it ran on more than one hardware and it was copied on every schoolyard. let's have that again with osx. i assume that 25 to 30% of all pc users will switch to osx especially when it will let you play with all older software as well!
4th
it will shorten development since you need only to write one code and wait for two compiler runs to reach 99,9% of all hardware

i do not agree upon that apple will loose its hardware sales when launching osx on other platforms because people will buy less expensive intel-hardware and no more expensive macs. UNTRUE because today people do not only buy macs because of the non-standard operating system only availiable on strange hardware. true apple lovers buy macs because they are macs. nothing beats osx on a mac, but those who already own a pc then will do have an alternative!

[mrwalker]

Originally posted by iJed
I don't see why a Carbon app could not be recompiled for OS X x86 just like a Cocoa app. Carbon wraps to exactly the same low level APIs as Cocoa does. Therefore, as far as I can see, this claim is simply not true. Classic would be the problem not Carbon.

Ok, so reimplementing the MacOS Toolbox (even if it's now called "Carbon") on yet another platform is no big task?

[Bear]

Originally posted by Arcady


I bet 90% aren't running OS 9 and OS X combined. The majority of Mac users are probably running OS 7-8, because there are millions of Quadras and old PowerMacs (not to mention Mac II's and 68k LC/Performas) still out there being used by people who are oblivious to OS upgrades or anything beyond Word 5.1. I run across these people almost daily.

There are many people who only started buying Macs when 10.1 of OS X became available. I have booted neither of my Macs in OS 9. And I'll only buy applications that will run under OS X.

Arcady is right about the older machines (for the ones that are still running), however, there are many new machines that people will never boot into OS 9 to counterbalance Arcady's comment.

Also, with what I know about Intel chip architecture, I wouldn't want to run any OS on it. it's an inferior architecture.

[groundhog troll]

Since they already have the Star Wars Project completed somewhere and Openstep worked on Intel, Darwin also works on Intel, shouldn't Apple just be able to "Switch" to an Intel processor without much hassel:D

[mrwalker]

TO MODERATOR: This message board does not seem to handle a browser's "Back" button well.

[pianojoe]

Originally posted by mrwalker
TO MODERATOR: This message board does not seem to handle a browser's "Back" button well.

Back buttons work fine on my 2x800 G4, my eMac, and my 600MHz iBook with IE, Opera, Chimera, and Navigator under X.1.5 and X.2.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by mrwalker


Ok, so reimplementing the MacOS Toolbox (even if it's now called "Carbon") on yet another platform is no big task?
Not a big task, no. It's been done before, granted it was with the Motorola 68k based Macs. You can run mac-m68k Macintosh programs on x86-based computers just fine if you run Executor. Executor doesn't emulate the processor, just the toolbox, IIRC.

No one apparantly has done a PowerPC toolbox reverse-engineering.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by tortus
So I will be 40 when Apple decides to release OS 11 according to Jobs who says that OS X is the OS for the next 15 years. A lot can happen in that time. This would definitely allow enough time to develop a commercial release of OS X for the x86 if Motorola and/or IBM fail to deliver for Apple.
Now all they have to do is sell empty PowerMac towers.

If you read the Darwin site they claim to be actively supporting open source x86 ports and ports to other processors. Darwin is the OSX core. If there is an active assembly programming world porting stuff to Darwin on x86 it could accelerate the effort. But as I see it OSX is so much more than Darwin that even if it were to be implemented and blessed one wonders how all the "services" would be implemented on x86. Presumably there would be a future convergence of some later version of x86 and Darwin that share more code such as an Altivec emulator for example.

It would be cool to have a computer with a x86 daughtercard so we had something akin to the Power PC 601 DOS model but with a complete parallel OS running. One wonders however what benefits that might offer over say a Ethernet 1000 networked box right next to the sweetest computer on the planet, your PowerMac DP 1000 for only $2500.

:)

Rocketman

[iJed]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Not a big task, no. It's been done before, granted it was with the Motorola 68k based Macs. You can run mac-m68k Macintosh programs on x86-based computers just fine if you run Executor. Executor doesn't emulate the processor, just the toolbox, IIRC.

No one apparantly has done a PowerPC toolbox reverse-engineering.

Its an even smaller task now. Carbon is now only a wrapper API for the core OS X APIs. These are the same APIs that Cocoa apparently wraps to. Therefore by porting these "low level" APIs to x86 you can instantly just recompile both Carbon and Cocoa on x86.

BTW Executor does emulate the CPU. It just implements its own "native" version of the Mac Toolbox ROM.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by iJed
BTW Executor does emulate the CPU. It just implements its own "native" version of the Mac Toolbox ROM.
I stand corrected.

[snoopy]

Originally posted by ffakr


This is a pretty good reason NOT to port OS X to the Itanic (what a stupid name).



Okay. Until your posting, I had no idea what Itanic was. So you mean the Itanium, yes? I think that is what it is called. Itanium comes from the word "titanium," which Intel thinks sounds cool, I guess. Itanic would come from the word "Titanic," which may be a better name if it has all the problems you suggest.

[raintalk]

Maybe Apple is porting to x86 to be able to benchmark their hardware.

The latest PCMag has a blurb on the PowerMac G4 under their "Power Workstations" article. Seems PowerMac runs about 5th compared to Xeons on some tests, but 200-300% faster on other tests. Why they can't do a real one to one comparison is because they don't have the same software benchmarks on both systems.

Maybe Apple ports to x86 so they can run a set of standard internal benchmarks - snd make sure they're on track with their hardware changes.

Note, in the PCMag article, they seem to be looking at an older G4 Dual 1Ghz, and not the new Windtunnel model. Could be that the new Windtunnel is even faster than 200-300% in some areas.

[vniow]

Originally posted by irmongoose


You have to read what you're writing, VERONICA. That means that there is a 0.02 chance of it NOT happening.. meaning that you think it's gonna happen.

Get it, VERONICA?




irmongoose



Ooops, hehehe. I meant it the other way around.. Thanx for catching it. :)

Oh, and about the name thing..... (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10418&perpage=25&pagenumber=2)

[rigor]

Just for fun...

Episode 311: Starvin’ Marvin in Space
Original Air Date: 11-17-1999
Description: Starvin' Marvin finds an alien ship and begins searching out a new home for his people. The government interrogates the boys to find out about Marvin and direct them to Sally Struthers. Marvin stops in South Park to pick up the boys and take them to the planet Marklar. The Marklarians are willing to let the Ethiopians relocate to their world and the Christian channel does all they can to stop them.

Is Apple saying Windows users are Ethiopians? Is Microsoft the Christian channel?

[AmigaMac]

""Is Microsoft the Christian channel?""

Microsoft is the DEVIL!

[ffakr]

Originally posted by snoopy


Okay. Until your posting, I had no idea what Itanic was. So you mean the Itanium, yes? I think that is what it is called. Itanium comes from the word "titanium," which Intel thinks sounds cool, I guess. Itanic would come from the word "Titanic," which may be a better name if it has all the problems you suggest.

haha, I knew I was wrong when I wrote it and I was 99% sure Itanic was just the Register's play off but I've been working so much and sleeping so little I just couldn't think straight.
You're absolutely correct... My post should have said Itanium not itanic.

[groundhog troll]

I'm using aol but for me to be able to log on to the forums I have to use Microsoft Internet Exploder why????? especially for a mac site

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by iJed
I don't see why a Carbon app could not be recompiled for OS X x86 just like a Cocoa app. Carbon wraps to exactly the same low level APIs as Cocoa does. Therefore, as far as I can see, this claim is simply not true. Classic would be the problem not Carbon.

A Carbon application which only uses Apple's libraries would be fine, especially a Mac OS X-only Carbon app. There may be instances where someone is using a shared library or resource which is not Mac OS X compatible and can't be ported at all, but Apple doesn't want people to be using resources anyway, only Nibs.

[passwordispong]

Originally posted by ffakr


Do you expect that Microsoft will rewrite a million lines of code so we can get a Cocoa version of Office? Or will they simply continue to release Carbon versions forever?

If I used microsoft office (and I dont) and I paid $500-$600 for the software then I would expect it to be written in what ever language was the best. For what microsoft charges for its software, it isn't unreasionable to expect a complete rewrite.

[Gaz]

Just a thought but given that Apple has obviously been working on this for sometime and also given that Apple are extremely secretive, is it possible that a solution for this carbon problem has been thought of.

Also if Apple is stopping supporting OS 9 then the idea of moving to a platform that doesn't support this isn't as big a deal. Obviously then the main problem from what I can see is supporting carbon.

[davidc2182]

I don't care if it doesn't run any software I want it, anyone know if there are any pirated copys of startrek or rhapsody out there? or is there a next step or openstep community of users cuz i'm sick of winblows, and linux isn't a good desktop os any reccomendations for a good desktop mac thats relatively cheap??

[bacon]

Originally posted by mrwalker


Ok, so reimplementing the MacOS Toolbox (even if it's now called "Carbon") on yet another platform is no big task?

Unless Apple didn't learn their lesson the first time, no, it won't be a big task.

Hopefully, there isn't much assembly code in Carbon. If there is, Apple did it to themselves...

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by edvniow

Oh, and about the name thing..... (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10418&perpage=25&pagenumber=2)

Ah. Okay. Guess I missed that thread. Great transcripts though! Hehehe...



irmongoose

[bidge]

Say they released it next year, then people would all think about buying it rather than the next version of Winblows. Windows on the shelf beside it will be 5 times the price, yet it will have next to no features improved over their current one.

I don't think that there would be a big problem with people not buying macs. I now have two macs and since I converted I have a PC. I would buy a copy of 10.2 for my PC but would not even think of buying another PC.

[cubist]

Microsoft won't have a 64-bit version of Windows for the Hammer anytime soon. They will expect you to run the old 32-bit XP. They may even try to slow down AMD so that the Hammer machines don't come out until they're ready; they've shown that kind of arrogance many times in the past and haven't learned a thing from their legal trouble. AMD may bend to their pressure if they back it up with money. But it'd be a long delay; Windows is such a massive mess that, even with thousands of programmers, I wouldn't expect a 64-bit Windows for at least two years.

So what can people run on an Itanic or Hammer computer when they get it? Linux or HP-UX. If Mac OS X was available for those machines, it'd sweep the field.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by passwordispong


If I used microsoft office (and I dont) and I paid $500-$600 for the software then I would expect it to be written in what ever language was the best. For what microsoft charges for its software, it isn't unreasionable to expect a complete rewrite.

What you want and what you expect don't enter into Microsoft's considerations one bit. The only consideration is, what will the cost be, will we recoup the cost, do we need to do it in order to continue selling Office versions?

MS will not make a cocoa version of Office because people will buy carbon versions of Office. They make a LOT of money by making code revisions.
MS will not invest a huge ammount of time and money into a new mac product. The market share doesn't support that type of move. They certainly won't do it in order to directly compete with Office in THEIR market (x86 PCs). releasing an office that could easily be recopiled to run on an X86 OS X version would actually push OS X into the Windows market. It would never happen.

There is no reason why MS would write a Cocoa version of Office at this point.

[passwordispong]

Originally posted by ffakr


MS will not make a cocoa version of Office because people will buy carbon versions of Office. They make a LOT of money by making code revisions.


That is exactly my point. If people pay high prices for software that isn't as good as it should be why should microsoft change? Of course if people stoped upgrading to the latest version and used the versions they already had, and demanded microsoft release a better product, then they would be forced to. Microsoft doesn't make any money if you keep using versions you have already own. Well, once they go to subscription licences then they will, but that is a different story.

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
And Nick de Plume is a reliable source since when? :rolleyes:

he got all of MWNY correct, if that's any indication.

Anyone get the feeling Nick and Matt are one and the same person?

[ffakr]

Originally posted by passwordispong


That is exactly my point. If people pay high prices for software that isn't as good as it should be why should microsoft change? Of course if people stoped upgrading to the latest version and used the versions they already had, and demanded microsoft release a better product, then they would be forced to. Microsoft doesn't make any money if you keep using versions you have already own. Well, once they go to subscription licences then they will, but that is a different story.

More likely, when people see that there is no reason to get the version of Office after Office X (Word 5 did everything I needed), then sales will die. Microsoft probably won't see this as people rejecting $200 upgrade costs for 5 new features.. they will see it as a lack of interest from Mac users and they will kill all future of versions of Office.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by cubist
Microsoft won't have a 64-bit version of Windows for the Hammer anytime soon. They will expect you to run the old 32-bit XP. They may even try to slow down AMD so that the Hammer machines don't come out until they're ready; they've shown that kind of arrogance many times in the past and haven't learned a thing from their legal trouble. AMD may bend to their pressure if they back it up with money. But it'd be a long delay; Windows is such a massive mess that, even with thousands of programmers, I wouldn't expect a 64-bit Windows for at least two years.

So what can people run on an Itanic or Hammer computer when they get it? Linux or HP-UX. If Mac OS X was available for those machines, it'd sweep the field.
While your initial statement about not having a 64bit version of Windows for the Hammer is correct, your final statement about a 64bit Windows not coming for at least two years is incorrect.

Microsoft has the 64bit version of Windows XP available for the Itanium processor.