OS X on x86 Prototype Boxes [Archive]

MacCoaster

Nov 12, 2002, 04:09 PM

My take on this is:

- Apple probably has Mac OS X running on their specialized Athlon motherboards made by another company (ASUS, perhaps?) including the latest and greatest (8x AGP, dual channel DDR, dual Athlon MP, whatever) based Power Mac XX and is seriously considering it when they think is time to move to Mac OS X completely. Sure the developers might be pissed off since they moved from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, but Apple should provide some tool to run through the source codes to find Altivec optimizations and convert them to x86/SSE/SSE2/3DNow! at least most--might need some manual tweaking, but would make recompiling quicker and getting the updated product quicker.

Maybe the rumored "FAT" technologies are going to be in use, that'd be cool.

- About that Mac OS X-only browser. Could it be OmniWeb? It's popular. Chimera is more likely, but Internet Explorer isn't done by Apple, is it? Doesn't rule out OmniWeb.

Cela donne à réfléchir. :D

MacCoaster

Nov 12, 2002, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by therandthem
One thing is for sure, if this is true, it will be a major blow to Linux. With a choice UNIX like Mac OS X the stability and anti-MS reasons for Linux will be gone.
Linux and the other various flavors of UNIX available for x86 is still the world's choice for relatively cheap, high margin profit server software.

I don't think Linux and the others will ever go away, just in the desktop, then again, Linux was never for the desktop.

When I mean "desktop," I mean being able to plug in a firewire device, autoconfigure it or follow some dialog boxes, and voilà. Same with USB, etc. In Linux, this 99.9% never happens. Therefore, I believe it's an inferior desktop OS, no matter how stable it is.

D*I*S_Frontman

Nov 12, 2002, 04:12 PM

..yawn...

Here's the last OS X-on-x86 thread:

same lame topic (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14107)

As long as IBM and Motorola do not go completely under, this WILL NEVER HAPPEN. With the latest very strong indications of the modified Power4 from IBM being the future of high-end Apple offerings and continuing incremental improvements by Motorola to what will most certainly become the consumer market G4, Apple will never have to swallow this poison pill.

OS X running on a cobbled x86 system techies can throw together for a few hundred bucks--that is a fantasy you can all jog yourselves awake from. Apple will go BELLY UP before it ever happens.

Apple exists on the strength of its marketing. They die overnight the very instant they say:

"Oh, I guess mhz DOES matter and AMD and Intel ARE great processors--and we've been overcharging you all for our slower, closed architecture systems all this time! Sorry about that--we'll immediately become a commodity sales company like the rest so you can have your faster bus speeds, quicker RAM, and the entire host of crappy PC peripherals out there. This will mean your likelihood of software and hardware incompatabilities will instantly increase a thousandfold and you'll spend half your waking hours hacking through the mess--which we promised you wouldn't have to do with Apple systems--but at least you'll be running Quake 50 fps faster on your x86-based system. Yahoo. Great for us, too--we'll sell ten times the systems...of course, well make 20 times less net profit per machine and be filing Chapter 11 within 18 months... but you'll be able to run OS X on a Gateway, which is all that matters, right?"

Wake up. The US government probably has a Pentagon contingency for nuking the entire Eastern Hemisphere--that doesn't mean they are EVER going to do it. For all we know, Apple's R&D lab has OS X running on Crays, high-end Sun systems, and on TI pocket calulators. I doubt any of the three are slated to replace the G4, or whatever the next Moto/IBM offering is.

I would love to see an Apple browser, however. IE is the only program on my system (Pismo running 10.1.5) that crashes with any kind of frequency.

wwworry

Nov 12, 2002, 04:15 PM

If I remember correctly, the Mac cloners did not want to pay for the real costs of the operating system and they did not want to pay to have their machines "certified" to run the Mac OS. The true cost of the operating system sold at this volume may be $250 or more per box. As we all know, OS X development is funded by hardware sales.

Another thing to remember is that at that point a lot less of their manufacturing was outsourced. Now apple is becoming more and more of a design and software company. Also, OS X is a lot more modular so it can handle a lot more hardware variations, maybe.

It seems quite plausible to me technologically and economically but who knows. They could just as easily make a monitorless entry level computer but they don't. Ford could make hybrid cars but they don't.

MacCoaster

Nov 12, 2002, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
As long as IBM and Motorola do not go completely under, this WILL NEVER HAPPEN. With the latest very strong indications of the modified Power4 from IBM being the future of high-end Apple offerings and continuing incremental improvements by Motorola to what will most certainly become the consumer market G4, Apple will never have to swallow this poison pill.
Where did you read that the PowerPC 970 is 100% confirmed to be in Apple's future?

Exactly. There's no confirmation. It is just purely logical inference.

For that reason, *MAYBE* Apple is actually going x86-64 by late next year.

We just have to wait and see. Don't discount OS X on x86 because it is a possibility, whether you like it or not; Apple is a business, it can't afford to lose customers due to slow processors, etc. Therefore, they will take actions to counter this.

PowerPC 970 might as well be the action, but the 8th Generation Athlon and Opteron is a very viable option.

Edit: Oh, by the way. Never say never. :p

Doctor Memory

Nov 12, 2002, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
If I remember correctly, the Mac cloners did not want to pay for the real costs of the operating system and they did not want to pay to have their machines "certified" to run the Mac OS.

No. That is more or less what Steve Jobs claimed was the case when they killed off the cloners by refusing to license MacOS 8, but it was a lie, pure and simple.

Ric Ford debunked this claim thoroughly on macintouch.com (and got several personal nasty emails from Steve Jobs for his troubles), and Apple never supplied any actual figures to back up the claim.

wwworry

Nov 12, 2002, 04:45 PM

Here's how they could do it:
They write a free downloadable program that analyses the users computer that would test compatibility with your existing x86 box. Then you would know what you would have to upgrade to switch.
New boxes would have to be certified by the manufacturer to ship with OS X.

If Apple wants to stay in the hardware business they would have to start selling headless entry level computers. The pro-line would have to be competitive with AMD and new p4s in terms of speed and price. Their laptops seem fine the way they are.

The question is whether OS X and the bundled iApps are competitive with windows and can Apple make money selling software alone.

wwworry

Nov 12, 2002, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory

No. That is more or less what Steve Jobs claimed was the case when they killed off the cloners by refusing to license MacOS 8, but it was a lie, pure and simple.

Ric Ford debunked this claim thoroughly on macintouch.com (and got several personal nasty emails from Steve Jobs for his troubles), and Apple never supplied any actual figures to back up the claim.

They weren't making enough money from the clones. Why would they cut off a money making business. It could be that the hardware side was a wreak in 1996, so much so that unless the cloners were going to pay $300 per box Apple as a whole would lose money. Plus those Starmax computers sucked. Who would pay $300 for OS 7.5.5? That stunk too. Maybe Apple did not want to reveal how bad the hardware side of the business was nor did they need to reveal that.

It's much different now. Ending Quanta's contract is a lot cheaper than closing one of your own manufacturing plants.

All my numbers are guesses.

arn

Nov 12, 2002, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
Here's how they could do it:
They write a free downloadable program that analyses the users computer that would test compatibility with your existing x86 box. Then you would know what you would have to upgrade to switch.
New boxes would have to be certified by the manufacturer to ship with OS X.

No,

As this has been discussed countless times... far more likely is that Apple will create Apple branded x86 boxes if it gets to that. OS X will only be able to run on these Apple-branded machines. Apple still sells the hardware, and controls the hardware...

Apple still makes more money in hardware that in software... it would be financial stupidity to drop all hardware.

What everyone who suggests that Apple should create OS X for generic x86 boxes doesn't understand is this: Apple is a profitable company _right now_ as a hardware company. To change their entire business plan would risk all that on a gamble with poor odds. As a public company, Apple has an obligation to its shareholders.

arn

rigor

Nov 12, 2002, 05:05 PM

No hacker should be letting a little welding stop him! Saw that puppy open and take some pics :)

Rocketman

Nov 12, 2002, 05:13 PM

If you look at the x86 rumor along with a multi-processor assumption, a box could have both a G4 and a 586 and do various tasks well.

If you repurpose it to server only tasks or application server tasks, the apps that need x86 serve off those and the apps that use G4/G5 serve off those.

It is a possible way to dominate the world.

The client-server model is back BTW.

I see this as a Phase II in the server strategy and sending test units in desktop mode is a good cover for the real purpose of the final units.

Dell could sell them because they use Intel chips and any agreement they have with M$ could be fought on the basis of the anti-trust suit.

Rocketman

The only special knowledge I have is good awareness and buddies in the biz.

Padrote

Nov 12, 2002, 05:19 PM

Steve-o would never sell out apple by offering the Mac OS to work with Pentium or x86 processors.... This may be a business, but apple is a revolution. So raise arms...!!

aasmund

Nov 12, 2002, 05:24 PM

The smart move her [which I think they will do] is to to give away OS X for x86. perhaps not call it os X and perhaps not add all the software in the ppc edition, but more or less. Apple has already done this, with Darwin, however that is a failure, so they have to give away more, specifically they have to give away their ui.

This will have many positive effects:

1. It will add a large amount of potential "pro" software buyers.
2. It will allow people to get acquainted with Apple without having to buy new hardware.
3. It will create a lot more potential hardware buyers.

Now, in light of this, it is probably a good idea for apple to switch to x86 as they would then spare cross platform resources. However, I doubt very much that they will do that. Apple won't make a new Architecture switch, before the rest of the PC world does, or they are forced to (i.e. ppc development slows even more down). Obviously, if we see 4 ghz x86-64 chips next christhmas, then that will happen.

Regardless the power of the megahertz myth, i doubt that Apple will be comfortable being 1/3 in mhz power for long.

rigor

Nov 12, 2002, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by arn
...if it gets to that. OS X will only be able to run on these Apple-branded machines.

If Apple dumped an X86 version of OS X on the world, no effort would be spared to trick it into running on commodity hardware.

As we speak, the slashdot crowd is warming up their soldering irons in the hopes that this story is true.

Nothing is impossible.

ryan

Nov 12, 2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman
If you look at the x86 rumor along with a multi-processor assumption, a box could have both a G4 and a 586 and do various tasks well.

If you repurpose it to server only tasks or application server tasks, the apps that need x86 serve off those and the apps that use G4/G5 serve off those.

It is a possible way to dominate the world.

The client-server model is back BTW.

I see this as a Phase II in the server strategy and sending test units in desktop mode is a good cover for the real purpose of the final units.

Dell could sell them because they use Intel chips and any agreement they have with M$ could be fought on the basis of the anti-trust suit.

Rocketman

The only special knowledge I have is good awareness and buddies in the biz.
You're kidding right? The idea of having two completely different processors in the same machine to support some sort of client/server model is asinine.

ryan

Nov 12, 2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by aasmund
The smart move her [which I think they will do] is to to give away OS X for x86. perhaps not call it os X and perhaps not add all the software in the ppc edition, but more or less. Apple has already done this, with Darwin, however that is a failure, so they have to give away more, specifically they have to give away their ui.

This will have many positive effects:

1. It will add a large amount of potential "pro" software buyers.
2. It will allow people to get acquainted with Apple without having to buy new hardware.
3. It will create a lot more potential hardware buyers.

Now, in light of this, it is probably a good idea for apple to switch to x86 as they would then spare cross platform resources. However, I doubt very much that they will do that. Apple won't make a new Architecture switch, before the rest of the PC world does, or they are forced to (i.e. ppc development slows even more down). Obviously, if we see 4 ghz x86-64 chips next christhmas, then that will happen.

Regardless the power of the megahertz myth, i doubt that Apple will be comfortable being 1/3 in mhz power for long.
Darwin is a failure? Umm, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

rice_web

Nov 12, 2002, 05:40 PM

Why can't Apple simply license Aqua to Linux distros and make a few cents here and there? Heck, they could license Aqua to Lindows, an OS in desperate need of a better GUI.

Yeah, yeah, I haven't thought this through, don't bash me too hard.

wwworry

Nov 12, 2002, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by arn

it would be financial stupidity to drop all hardware.

Your right, companies don't make money just selling operating systems that can work on a bunch of different computers.

Why go to all the trouble to make it work on x86 and then not take advantage of the other box sellers? My whole point is that Apple's business model can change. The don't have as many of their own manufacturing plants and their OS is a lot more pliable than it used to be.

If they make $200 on an iMac or they can make $200 on just the cd why not sell the cd to some people and the iMac to others? At this point no one is buying towers because of the hardware. They buy them because of legacy software and the OS.

It could be a gamble or maybe not. 95% of the other boxes could be a tasty reward. As a shareholder myself, it would be nice to be able to make money on software without having to sell hardware.

The marketers know what's possible.

vniow

Nov 12, 2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by rice_web
Why can't Apple simply license Aqua to Linux distros and make a few cents here and there? Heck, they could license Aqua to Lindows, an OS in desperate need of a better GUI.

Yeah, yeah, I haven't thought this through, don't bash me too hard.

Actually, the new version of Lindows looks pretty nice.

A definate improvement over XP at least.

topicolo

Nov 12, 2002, 05:46 PM

I fully support this backup plan. If apple switches, it could instantly lead to them catching up to the pc hardware wise.
Apple will be going from one crappy and one decent chip supplier, both of which only really focus on markets not entirely in line with apple's market, to two large, devoted chip companies with more R&D funding.
The research and development funding that Intel puts into its chips per year alone is worth more than Apple as a company! how could you go wrong with that?
That's exactly why the pentium line of chips was able to catch up and exceed the PowerPC over all these years.

Besides, Intel will even subsidize Apple for playing that Intel Inside tune after their commercials. This = more Mac commercials.:cool:

sparkleytone

Nov 12, 2002, 05:46 PM

x86-type architecture for the desktops and PPC architecture for the laptops?? how does that sound?? i bet they could pull it off....the best of both worlds in alot of respects.

arn

Nov 12, 2002, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

Your right, companies don't make money just selling operating systems that can work on a bunch of different computers.

Sarcasm noted... but if it's that easy - then why don't you go out and create an alternative OS to Windows? What? Don't have the resources?

What if a company like IBM tried? Oh wait - they did... and failed. OS/2. Why doesn't another company try? Oh wait, NeXT did... and they failed. Let's try again - BeOS. Oh wait... they failed. Linux? Well, maybe... but certainly isn't taking the consumer market by storm... so possible? perhaps... guarenteed? no.

also.. the point isn't whether it's possible. The point is APPLE currently makes it's money on hardware. To eliminate 80% of their profits by gambling on the the chance that they can sustain and make up for those profits in software alone is ridiculous. Would you rather make $6 billion this year? Or make $2 billion with an off chance that sales could pick up for x86.

It could be a gamble or maybe not.

It is a gamble. Why? Because they are profitable right now. Bird in hand...

arn

Sun Baked

Nov 12, 2002, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by ryan

You're kidding right? The idea of having two completely different processors in the same machine to support some sort of client/server model is asinine.

Weirder things have been done, usually not managing a desktop client/server process, but

The Mac IIfx shipped with a 68030/68882 and two 6502s.

The Mac 6100/66 DOS shipped with a PPC 601 and a 486 inside.

The new Amiga has the ability to plug in the old Amiga chipset into their new PPC G3/G4 machines for times when programs need the old hardware.

And RIO is supposed to allow the connection of co-processor farms where task can be offloaded from the main CPU - but a PPC as a co-processor for a x86-64 is a bit of a stretch.

ElRayOX

Nov 12, 2002, 05:52 PM

Maybe this could be a parallel universe with OS X for PPC and for Intel/AMD. If a user wants to run OS X on x86 they buy the OS and install it. If they want to run in on a Genuine Macintosh they get one at the Apple Store (or equiv).

Maybe the Genuine Mac's have a more complete feature set than the x86 versions. Since Apple would have total control over the entire box they could be more sure all of it will work. The x86 versions could maybe lack a few of the features that rely so heavily on specific hardware.

I dunno. Just a couple of thoughts. Frankly it's pretty wild to contemplate OS X on x86...

MikeH

Nov 12, 2002, 06:02 PM

Just because Apple make OS X run on X86 chips doesn't mean you will be able to make an Apple clone for a few hundred dollars.

If, and it's a big if, Apple do jump to X86 chips, you can bet they will need special motherboards which will not be made available to the general public or clone maunfacturers, so the chances are you would still need to buy your Mac from Apple (although in theory upgrading the CPU should be cheaper). Apple won't let go of their hardware monoply without a fight - at least, not while it's making them money.

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what chip my computer has in it so long as it does the job reliably and is competitively priced. I would prefer to see things like off the shelf graphics cards for PC's work in Mac's - that's where I think Mac users are really losing out.

aasmund

Nov 12, 2002, 06:03 PM

Darwin is a failure because nobody uses darwin w/o OS X.

FattyMembrane

Nov 12, 2002, 06:06 PM

it makes far too little sense for apple to switch to x86 right now.
1. they've bashed it for a decade
2. they've just convinced thousands to "switch", these people will be really pissed off
3. they've just gotten all of the major developers to make carbon ports, having them turn around and do x86 ports a few months later is really going to piss them off
4. x86 is OLD! it's a feble, dying architecture. any of the new 64 bit designs (like amd's K7) would be a lot better, but a switch to a new processor (and by new i mean non-ppc compatible) should not come for several more years, if then.
5. no altivec, apple's one ace in the hole

ok, i just read the full article. first of all, it does not sound all that believeable (the journalistic style is questionable) and secondly, it does not say x86, it says amd processors, which does not mean it has to be x86 architecture.

LethalWolfe

Nov 12, 2002, 06:07 PM

Why would Apple release OS X so it could run on any x86 machine? It would run into the same software/hardware issues that can make Windows a nightmare. There would be no advantage. No reason to switch. People would buy OS X, find out it's no better than Windows and ditch it to go back to M$ (why bother to learn a new OS if it's no better than the OS you already know?).

OS X (and all of Apple's software in general) can't stay as stable and easy to use if it's not on an Apple branded, Apple controlled system.

As for having an x86 and a PPC version... Same problem. People buy the x86 to test if out on their PC. They find out it barely runs better than Windows. Why would they buy a $2000 Mac to run an OS that, in their experience, doesn't run any better than the one on their $999 PC?

You can't seperate Apple software from Apple hardware and expect to keep the same level of performance. It's impossible.

Lethal

scem0

Nov 12, 2002, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by arn

No this is illogical. Apple does do a good job at keeping secrets... but that does not mean that every leak of info is Apple approved.

arn

exactly... remember those leaked powermac pics everyone
thought were fake. Apple didn't try to leak those.

sparkleytone

Nov 12, 2002, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by aasmund
Darwin is a failure because nobody uses darwin w/o OS X.

darwin is not a failure. just because it runs on x86 does not mean that it is meant to be adopted.

Darwinx86 is more of a testing ground to keep options open, and also a way to make sure that implementations and applications run in many types of environments. also, it helps apple's image with the open source pundits.

darwin is not meant to be a raging success on the x86 architecture.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 12, 2002, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Why would Apple release OS X so it could run on any x86 machine? It would run into the same software/hardware issues that can make Windows a nightmare. There would be no advantage. No reason to switch. People would buy OS X, find out it's no better than Windows and ditch it to go back to M$ (why bother to learn a new OS if it's no better than the OS you already know?).

OS X (and all of Apple's software in general) can't stay as stable and easy to use if it's not on an Apple branded, Apple controlled system.

As for having an x86 and a PPC version... Same problem. People buy the x86 to test if out on their PC. They find out it barely runs better than Windows. Why would they buy a $2000 Mac to run an OS that, in their experience, doesn't run any better than the one on their $999 PC?

You can't seperate Apple software from Apple hardware and expect to keep the same level of performance. It's impossible.

Lethal
You people aren't listening, are you?

If Apple were to release an x86 based machine, it WOULD BE AN x86 MAC! It would most likely NOT be a Windows compatible PC any more than IBM PowerPC Workstations (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/) are Mac OS compatible.

Apple would still control all the hardware and the same Windows peripherals and PCI cards that don't work with Mac OS today, would continue to not work with it tomorrow. Just because their motherboard might have a P4 on it doesn't mean you would be able to throw any old Wintel PCI card in it and have it work. The PC BIOS (for one thing) would most certainly not exist as well as the fact that it would probably have some kind of Apple chip set.

With that all said, I doubt it will happen. I think either IBM will fill the gaping hole Motorola has opened or, maybe, Moto will finally get their butts in gear.

I could care less if it does, though- as long as it runs OS X, Final Cut Pro and iDVD as well as today's machines, I'd be happy.

(BTW, I'm not trying to pick on you individually, LethalWolfe, many of you are saying the same thing but are not listenting to the answers posted in the same thread! Please read the entire thread before asking questions!)

aasmund

Nov 12, 2002, 07:07 PM

k7 = Athlon,
k8, Hammer, etc. = x86-64
Amd does not make CPUs that are not x86
Well, I don't think they would release something they did not want people to use, so why darwin if nobody should use it [except OS X]

jettredmont

Nov 12, 2002, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by arn

No this is illogical. Apple does do a good job at keeping secrets... but that does not mean that every leak of info is Apple approved.

arn

True, but so many "slips" about the Marklar project make one suspicious. Like how it was widely reported that the OS 9 team was not let go, it was mainly shifted over to Marklar ...

OS X/Intel is not necessarily a bad thing for Apple should Apple be able to keep a tight grip on the motherboard and just switch core processor. On the other hand, I still don't see x86 as a superior architecture to PPC, and that's all that such a move would change: the underlying CPU and hence instruction set.

I, too, see Marklar as little more than a stick to hit Moto with. It's amazing how much more excited a supplier gets about satisfying your needs when they know you could switch to someone else at a moment's notice. Yeah, IBM's there too, but Apple using IBM keeps Moto in the game for future processors; an x86 switch would kill Moto's PC CPU business.

jettredmont

Nov 12, 2002, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacEdition updates (http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20021112.php)
An OS X-only browser would likely be based on Mozilla, with Chimera's creator (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/07/20020718004211.shtml) having been hired by Apple in July.

Huh? The article said nothing about a new OS X-only browser. In fact, it says that the OS X-only browser is "popular", which would mean that it is not a new project, but an x86 port of an existing project.

Chimera might be the browser they are talking about, although I would hardly call it "popular" What about the other OS X browsers out there?

From the article, the browser statement comes as an example of software being ported over to OS X (and indicates some level of third-party involvement in the project).

Those who are once again getting their hopes up over an "iBrowse" Apple-branded surfboard, look elsewhere.

IJ Reilly

Nov 12, 2002, 07:49 PM

I agree with arn, and others, who conclude that Apple releasing OSX for generic x86 would be sheer lunacy, and Uncle Steve may be many thing, but a complete lunatic he is not.

But consider this scenario: a version of OSX for x86 that includes only the Cocoa APIs. Presumably, the part of OSX which would be the most difficult to port over to generic x86 would be Carbon, and Classic may well prove to be virtually impossible. For the whole tamale, you'd still need to buy a Mac, but a Cocoa-limited version of OSX, if priced right, might find some takers in the academic and development environments and might even jump-start the development of Cocoa apps.

What say?

Bengt77

Nov 12, 2002, 07:54 PM

Bear

Nov 12, 2002, 08:04 PM

Ignoring all the other issues raised above, you would need different binaries for different processor families.

So while source code could possibly be compiled for two different systems, it doubles testing requirements and then do people distribute one package with both versions in it? Or do you wind up with two different packages?

And what happens if a developer doesn't want to deal with a second platform?

And what if the application was written partially (or totallly) in assembler? Then It would need a re-write.

Sun Baked

Nov 12, 2002, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I agree with arn, and others, who conclude that Apple releasing OSX for generic x86 would be sheer lunacy, and Uncle Steve may be many thing, but a complete lunatic he is not.

But consider this scenario: a version of OSX for x86 that includes only the Cocoa APIs. Presumably, the part of OSX which would be the most difficult to port over to generic x86 would be Carbon, and Classic may well prove to be virtually impossible. For the whole tamale, you'd still need to buy a Mac, but a Cocoa-limited version of OSX, if priced right, might find some takers in the academic and development environments and might even jump-start the development of Cocoa apps.

What say?

That be a modified (Aquafied) version of Rhapsody, all I know is that the Mac OS X Server 1.0 wouldn't make the cut with users - and the developers at the time it shipped didn't want to put forth the Cocoa effort.

Classic/Carbon really made the transition easy, still made it GUI-hell for the developers. But that's a little better than a total rewrite.

graydecember

Nov 12, 2002, 08:07 PM

Although the article seems to be specific about it being an athlon box, I wonder if that part is true.

What makes much more sense is if Apple used AMD to fabricate custom x86 *based* chips. AMD's competitve and manufacturing resources/strengths can thus be exploited, without having to thrust the OSX platform into the x86 arena.

Remember THe whole point of moving away from moto. I don't know of any reason why AMD couldn't make PPC processors of some kind, if that's what apple wants (by now though, who really believes in PPC superiority?). The bottom line is, AMD is capable of producing faster processors, at any volumes, on schedule.

So, apple can keep things so that they will be the only ones who are making OSX boxes- *easily*.

AssassinOfGates

Nov 12, 2002, 08:11 PM

Would OS X running on a x86 speed up game releases / porting? I always see the linux version of games right after the pc, THEN the mac version comes out.

It would also be nice to see OS X on a PC just for the cost possibilities if indeed it did happen (which I doubt it will). As much as I like my customed dual 867, I still think I paid too much for it :(

LethalWolfe

Nov 12, 2002, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

You people aren't listening, are you?

If Apple were to release an x86 based machine, it WOULD BE AN x86 MAC! It would most likely NOT be a Windows compatible PC any more than IBM PowerPC Workstations (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/) are Mac OS compatible.

Apple would still control all the hardware and the same Windows peripherals and PCI cards that don't work with Mac OS today, would continue to not work with it tomorrow. Just because their motherboard might have a P4 on it doesn't mean you would be able to throw any old Wintel PCI card in it and have it work. The PC BIOS (for one thing) would most certainly not exist as well as the fact that it would probably have some kind of Apple chip set.

With that all said, I doubt it will happen. I think either IBM will fill the gaping hole Motorola has opened or, maybe, Moto will finally get their butts in gear.

I could care less if it does, though- as long as it runs OS X, Final Cut Pro and iDVD as well as today's machines, I'd be happy.

(BTW, I'm not trying to pick on you individually, LethalWolfe, many of you are saying the same thing but are not listenting to the answers posted in the same thread! Please read the entire thread before asking questions!)

Um, it was a rhetorical question. Go back to my first post on the first page. To save you the trip, I said that if Apple went x86 they would keep it a closed system, just like it is now, except it would run a x86 chip and not PPC.

Yer preachin' to the choir eric_n_dfw. Now, what were you sayin' 'bout readin' the entire thread? ;) :)

Lethal

Actually, I take that back. There is another thread w/this topic that I posted in and and basically said the same thing you did. Cheers. :)

davidc2182

Nov 12, 2002, 08:23 PM

does anyone have any idea how to get their hands on marklar!!! please save me from my ibm thinkpad!!! i cant afford a new ibook yet, i'll take a crappy beta without the aqua interface anything please!!!

DJ_TRicks

Nov 12, 2002, 08:24 PM

i told you so ... no no no

see i dont lie see!! :) i have credible info!!! :)
see be happy :)!!!

davidc2182

Nov 12, 2002, 08:41 PM

if your so flippin credible why dont you you get a beta copy, or some kind of screen shots?

G4scott

Nov 12, 2002, 10:02 PM

If Apple is going to use x86 processors, they're going to make their own motherboards. They already do, so what's to keep them from making x86 mobos?

It would certainly make it easier for people to hack the system to work on any ordinary x86 processor, though.

The thing that I would like about this, is that Apple makes the mobo, so you know it works like its supposed to. Then, you can upgrade your procssor(s) easily. If it doesn't take a performance hit, then there aren't really many bad things that could happen, just more upgradeable Macs!

What would be hilarious, is if OS X ran apps a *****-load faster on an x86 processor than windoze :D microsoft would be raped!!! They would have to re-write the entire OS from the ground up to get any performance gains! Then, the DOJ would intervene, telling them to take out Explorer, and everything else that sux, leaving you with just some empty source code...

The only thing that I'm still not to sure about, is running windoze apps. What if Apple made a way to run them with Mac OS X? It seems like to get carbon or cocoa apps running, they just basically put some 'plug-ins' into the OS and maybe the kernel. It can run classic apps, just imagine if your x86 Mac could run every windoze app! That would also ***** microsoft over big-time!

blakespot

Nov 12, 2002, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
first post?
Oh, Arn - now we're in the big leagues.

blakespot

blakespot

Nov 12, 2002, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by wrylachlan
My take on all this is that apple is more than capable of keeping something a secret if they want to. Therefore, logically, if we're finding out about the x86 project it is because apple wants it leaked. Why? To put pressure on Moto to come through with some quality products or loose their business. Will it work? Who knows. But I highly doubt that Motorola would throw away the R&D already expended on the G4+ and not put out, at the very least, a process shrink of it. Therefore I have to assume that Moto is working on a 7457 or some such G4++ chip and Apple is trying to hurry them along.
Apple is done with Motorola. Doubtless, IBM's PowerPC 970 will be the "G5" we've all been waiting for. IBM makes the G3's in the latest iBook as well.

blakespot

blakespot

Nov 12, 2002, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by therandthem
One thing is for sure, if this is true, it will be a major blow to Linux. With a choice UNIX like Mac OS X the stability and anti-MS reasons for Linux will be gone.
How would it be any different for Linux than it is now with OS X on PowerPC. If Apple goes x86 they will make the boxes and they will not be PC's.

blakespot

AmigaMac

Nov 12, 2002, 11:00 PM

Okay I can almost guarantee that Apple won't go x86 for many reasons that most of us common sense folk already know!

Apple and IBM:

Apple will adopt IBM's new PowerPC 970 for the Power Macs... main reason will be because of an easy 32bit/64bit transition phase will be apparent. Also Pro users will be more inclined to jump onto the 64bit computing bandwagon before consumers will and these chips will be targeted at the Pro market first!

Apple and Motorola:

Apple will continue to use G4s in the consumer Macs until it becomes apparent that consumers are ready for 64bit computation. Right now there is no need for 64bit computing in the consumer world and joe/jane user doesn't need that kind of power at this point in time, but eventually it will become a market/hype thing and Apple will move the consumer Macs over when the time comes!

The above opinion is about the best marketing scheme I can see for Apple and I'm sure that will be the end result!

3G4N

Nov 12, 2002, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by blakespot
Apple is done with Motorola.

Not entirely. Like AmigaMac says, Apple
will continue to use Moto's ongoing
G4 family for some time to come.

Make no mistake about it,
Moto has definately been put on the
back burner. Moto engineers I've talked to
say that they know that Apple is pissed,
and that Moto is temporarily
conceeding to IBM. But they aren't out yet.
I've seen job postings for "high-performance"
PPC engineers, and word is that they are in
the early planning stages of the G7,
apparently planned to be a big-guns,
heavy-hittin non-embeded processor.
I too, will believe it when I see it.

Latest news is that the 7457 (aka Apollo7)
is in the fabrication plant, ramping up
production, sampling to 1.6ghz. The
engineer sounded excited. Me too.

ipiloot

Nov 13, 2002, 03:03 AM

Well, I think, that there was a kind of an agreement between members of the AIM consortioum when they departed. And it states as follows:

Both manufacturing members will concentrate on the next but one generation of the processor which will then go to the high-end Mac. Apple is responsible holding things together and taking care of continuity. The processor that is replaced by the new high-end processor goes to the low-end Mac.

That way both manufacturers get longer lifetime for their investments and Apple get's the very needed processor replacement.

Just speculating, but seems to be very likely scenario.

Right now Apple is using G3-s from IBM (low-end) and G4-s from Moto (high-end). With 970 it turns opposite.

And one more thing. What about possible Power 4+ in the XServe?

benixau

Nov 13, 2002, 03:20 AM

If so it would be a kickas$ machine. 2x1.8Ghz power4 chips (or a single dual core) with hardware RAID and the possibility of fibrechannel.

Also think this - the power4 chip is a dual core chip, therefore if apple <i>really</i> wanted they could put one of these in their top of the range powerbook and sell it as a dual porcessing machine.

The power4 dual core uses 2/3 less power and produces 1/2 - 2/3 the heat of a dual processor machine. The pros would buy them like their was no tommorow. <sarcasm>Apple would have a real market</sarcsam>

ipiloot

Nov 13, 2002, 03:42 AM

Sorry. I didn't mean Power 4 (which is darn expencive), but Power 4+.

Read here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/28025.html

I don't think, that Apple will move in near future to the market where dual-core Power4 is needed.

groov'

Nov 13, 2002, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by drastik
To get everything included with apple hardware on a Pc, you have to spend roughly the same amount of money.
:D

This is not true.

I just bought a windoze XP box for as low as 1299,-- (with 19% salestax included!!!!) with the following specifications:

2,53 Ghz Pentium 4
128 MB Geforce 4 Ti 4600 videocard 8xAGP
120 GB HD 7200 rpm
16 x DVD
40x24x48 CDRW
floppydrive
V92 modem
10/100 ethernet
3xFirewire (front and back)
6xUSB 2.0 (front and back)
A/V input Composite and S-video (front)
A/V output Composite and S-video (back)
digital audio in and out (front and back)
analog audio in and out (back)
headphone jack (front and back)
surround sound with 3 different speaker-plugs on the back (front, rear and center/subwoofer)
PS/2, serial and parallel port, gameport

And it's increadibly fast...

Dreamweaver MX launches in 3 seconds, Photoshop 7 in 7 seconds.

I'd like apple to offer such configurations, but not for 2x the price!

MisterMe

Nov 13, 2002, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by groov'

This is not true.

I just bought a windoze XP box for as low as 1299,-- (with 19% salestax included!!!!) with the following specifications:

2,53 Ghz Pentium 4
128 MB Geforce 4 Ti 4600 videocard 8xAGP
120 GB HD 7200 rpm
16 x DVD
40x24x48 CDRW
floppydrive
V92 modem
10/100 ethernet
3xFirewire (front and back)
6xUSB 2.0 (front and back)
A/V input Composite and S-video (front)
A/V output Composite and S-video (back)
digital audio in and out (front and back)
analog audio in and out (back)
headphone jack (front and back)
surround sound with 3 different speaker-plugs on the back (front, rear and center/subwoofer)
PS/2, serial and parallel port, gameport

And it's increadibly fast...

Dreamweaver MX launches in 3 seconds, Photoshop 7 in 7 seconds.

I'd like apple to offer such configurations, but not for 2x the price!

Where is the 10/100/1000 Base T ethernet?

raintalk

Nov 13, 2002, 08:10 AM

Sun went the route of porting their excellent Solaris operating system to x86. You can pick up a copy for free from Sun if you want to give it a try. I don't mean to open a discussion of the differences between Solaris and OS-X but Solaris was never really considered an end user friendly OS.

I'm not sure of all the reasons this went sour but one is that x86 platforms are uncontrolled. You can't expect to get the same parts in a x86 computer you buy from month to month from any vendor.

Sun's current strategy seems to be you can try Solaris on x86, buy it to get some OS compatibility and lower admin costs if want to mix x86 and Sparc servers. Sun's top Sparc chip is 1Ghz, but 64 bits and it's fast.

Apple could do something similar. Try OS-X on x86, but if you want the speed, performance, reliability, predictability, get a Mac.

Apply should maybe look at Sparc technology. Naw - let's not go there.

Wash!!

Nov 13, 2002, 08:26 AM

Way back in the late 90's Apple had OS 8.6 and OS 9running on x86 back when they where looking for the a new OS to replace copland and then they got Next (OS X) instead.

There were even prototypes, they were modify LC's boxes. It worked quite well and the preformace was very good.

They have the tech to do it today and OS X been a Unix variant can run on x86 heck you can even run it on a SGI if you want, by the way the SGI machine their chips only run between 500 to 800MHz, they just have to turn on the "switch" and you will able to run all your crappy winblows programs.

they don't do it becuase the x86 tech is more than 10 years old and they are at the end of the road for these chips, in about 2-3 years or even less.

So Apple uses these machines to test for compatibility until that day.

For those who don't know PPC designs was stared in the early 80's and it was sitting on the shelf of IBM R&D collecting dust until the manufacturing tech was advance enough to make them, they have other designs that will blow your mind.
I know this because a friend of mind works for IBM R&D you should see some the stuff that is just collecting dust there.
;)

irmongoose

Nov 13, 2002, 08:55 AM

Whatever people say, it won't happen. You know why? Because, no matter how many stupid mistakes Steve Jobs and Apple can make, they know this much... that if they release a x86 version of OS X, this is going to happen...

http://homepage.mac.com/irmongoose/kdx-x86osx.jpg

And if that happens, Apple will just become another OS company, and it will go slumping down the hill, past Linux, and crash into the ground, head first.

irmongoose

P.S. Sorry for the poor Photoshop work.. I couldn't find the right font...

ryan

Nov 13, 2002, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Wash!!
Way back in the late 90's Apple had OS 8.6 and OS 9running on x86 back when they where looking for the a new OS to replace copland and then they got Next (OS X) instead.

MacOS 8.x and 9.x never ran on x86 hardware, but a version of System 7 did which was part of Apple's Star Trek program. A little bit of history on the project can be found here (http://www.geektimes.com/michael/techno/computing/hardware/products/apple/macintosh/misc/project-star-trek.html).

ryan

Nov 13, 2002, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Sun Baked

Weirder things have been done, usually not managing a desktop client/server process, but

The Mac IIfx shipped with a 68030/68882 and two 6502s.

The Mac 6100/66 DOS shipped with a PPC 601 and a 486 inside.

The new Amiga has the ability to plug in the old Amiga chipset into their new PPC G3/G4 machines for times when programs need the old hardware.

And RIO is supposed to allow the connection of co-processor farms where task can be offloaded from the main CPU - but a PPC as a co-processor for a x86-64 is a bit of a stretch.
I can't comment of the Mac IIfx but having a 486 processor in the 6100 was to allow people to run Windows software natively on their Mac's, not to support some sort of client/server architecture.

backdraft

Nov 13, 2002, 09:45 AM

Do you know how much code would have to be re-written and recompiled in order to run OS X on an x86 chip? Imagine how long it took adobe to port Photoshop to OS X, it would take even longer to come out with an X86 OS X port, all the current apps would break A LOT of code would have to be written in many apps. Not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and that OS X would run sloooower on an X86 architecture, the underlying X86 would have to be emulated.

Bad idea = (

Not to mention that a Mac won't be a Mac anymore if were to happen.

-backdraft

cubist

Nov 13, 2002, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by jettredmont

True, but so many "slips" about the Marklar project make one suspicious. Like how it was widely reported that the OS 9 team was not let go, it was mainly shifted over to Marklar ...

AHA! So it's really MAC OS 9 which is being ported to X86! :D

GPTurismo

Nov 13, 2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by arn
No,

As this has been discussed countless times... far more likely is that Apple will create Apple branded x86 boxes if it gets to that. OS X will only be able to run on these Apple-branded machines. Apple still sells the hardware, and controls the hardware...

Apple still makes more money in hardware that in software... it would be financial stupidity to drop all hardware.

What everyone who suggests that Apple should create OS X for generic x86 boxes doesn't understand is this: Apple is a profitable company _right now_ as a hardware company. To change their entire business plan would risk all that on a gamble with poor odds. As a public company, Apple has an obligation to its shareholders.

arn

I agree 100%.

Like it is said at MacEdition, it is purely an RnD effort to do test to make sure to have a back up plan so if moto just goes cold turkey on semiconductors, espeically since they are selling that devision anyway....

Who knows what happens.

I think apple is just using that as a plan probably to make a buffer between now and when they have full ppc970 machines shipping in case, like I said, if Moto drops the bucket.

We'll have to wait and see.

But like arn said, for apple to just allow you to download a full copy of MOSX for your x86? they would kill themselves. Just like the clone days when no one wanted to buy their cash cows, ie their hardware.

buhtman29

Nov 13, 2002, 10:16 AM

Perhaps We're missing another possiblility..... The machines wouldn't necessarily by X86 compatible. Maybe we'd be looking at Apple proprietary branded boxes, but with an Intel or AMD processor.

Also, this may be a speed and not a price issue.

Jim

Somebody

Nov 13, 2002, 10:17 AM

Everyone (including the author of the MacEdition article) seems to take for granted Apple will go AMD, when choosing the X86 hardware-route, in favour of Intel. But haven't you all read the specifications of the X86 Darwin distribution? It doesn't run on AMD processors (either K6 or K7); only on Pentiums and Xeons.

So far for Apple on AMD!

There's another reason why Apple won't go with AMD, and especially not with IA-64: AMD's future doesn't look so bright. For a while, they were beating Intel handily in the price/performance game, but lately, that's not so much the case. AMD is losing money; Intel is making it.

Why would Apple want to become dependent on yet another flaky supplier? If they do go X86, they might buy chips from AMD, but they'll be damned sure to stick to X86-32 and stay compatible with Intel's chips.

X86-32 might be an ugly architecture when measured by some theoretical computer science yardstick, but so what? In the real world, X86 chips cream everything else that's available at a price point that will make for an affordable personal computer.

My personal hope is that the 970 hits the street quickly and closes much or all of the performance gap. I can't see any scenario in which a shift to X86 (even if only in proprietary Apple boxes) is anything but terrible news for Apple, a last-ditch desperation move. The anger it's likely to inspire in developers and in many users will take a long time to heal. Even if they make the transition smooth as possible, it will make a mockery of their marketing efforts of the past several years.

Here's one other thought as to why Apple maintains a port of OS/X to X86: It's their doomsday device. If Apple's situation becomes obviously hopeless (this would be some time down the road, given the cash they have in the bank), they can open-source the whole operating system (not just Darwin). Suddenly, there's a good open source GUI available for unix to replace the ugliness that is X11, and open source unix may actually start to look like a viable competitor on the desktop. This would probably be fairly bad news for MS. Sure, at that point Apple would probably be dead, but by letting MS know that they will suffer significantly upon Apple's death, Apple has some leverage to ensure that MS continues to provide a decent level of support for the Mac platform. (e.g. They won't stop selling Office for the Mac.)

locovaca

Nov 13, 2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by backdraft
Do you know how much code would have to be re-written and recompiled in order to run OS X on an x86 chip? Imagine how long it took adobe to port Photoshop to OS X, it would take even longer to come out with an X86 OS X port, all the current apps would break A LOT of code would have to be written in many apps. Not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and that OS X would run sloooower on an X86 architecture, the underlying X86 would have to be emulated.

Bad idea = (

Not to mention that a Mac won't be a Mac anymore if were to happen.

-backdraft

Not necessarily. I'd be willing to bet that Adobe did not write very much ASM- this is what Apple has been trying to get companies (and themselves) to NOT do in order to have a recompile be simple. The reason that any port between OS's (Linux, OS X, Windows), and even games between consoles and computers, takes a long time is due to the conversion of the underlying calls to the OS. Try this: Install Linux on a PC and Linux on a Mac. Install KDE on both. Then install KDE programs. The same base code will work on both machines- programmers (unless writing ASM, which does not happen as often as you'd think it does) write for the OS, not the processor. That means they're writing C/C++ code for the KDE/Windows/OS X windowing system. If Apple were to port OS X to an Intel, all that you would need is to recompile it and change any ASM that was in X (which has been kept to a minimum). Then just recompile PS7 for an X86- the compiler, not the programmer, deals with the changes in stuff like Endiness, SSE/Altivec extensions, etc. I guarantee you, if you look at software that is cross platform the only differences you'll find are the OS calls, not the main code. When the OS stays the same, the OS functions are the same- it's up to the OS to account for differences in how a video card is addressed.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Um, it was a rhetorical question. Go back to my first post on the first page. To save you the trip, I said that if Apple went x86 they would keep it a closed system, just like it is now, except it would run a x86 chip and not PPC.

Yer preachin' to the choir eric_n_dfw. Now, what were you sayin' 'bout readin' the entire thread? ;) :)

Lethal

Actually, I take that back. There is another thread w/this topic that I posted in and and basically said the same thing you did. Cheers. :)
A thousand pardons to Leathal here - I missed your name on your prior post. But my comments are still aimed at the other people here who are fixated on Intel == Windows == PC. The x86 chip in the box doesn't mean Windows will run on it.

In response to another comment that someone said about x86 being technoligically about to hit a wall, I used to think the same thing. www.mackido.com was stating it years ago. But Intel and AMD seem to keep being able to stretch more and more life out of that dog. Apple cannot (and, most likely IS not) burry it's head in the sand hoping that the x86 will finally run out of gas and Mototolla (or IBM) will speed past them due to the better scalability of their PowerPC's.

Frobozz

Nov 13, 2002, 10:59 AM

Apple will never switch to x86 based processors when there is life in their IBM 970's and the new G4's. New macs aren't THAT much slower than PC's.

Apple is much better off siding with the linux/unix geeks at IBM and using the 970's architecture to change their mobo's. Why change the mobo's, and require a recompile to run ANY app on a x86 chip? At least with the 970, it will run any existing PowerPC based app. Sure, unless it's recompiled it won't run as fast or efficiently as it can, but it'd RUN. Apple is in too precarious a situation with developers right now to force them to change their apps a second time. I know some people may say that they could run hardware emulation of the PowerPC on an Athlon, but that ain't viable-- they're already losing the speed war and that won't help.

They also don't want to lose face with their Velocity Engine marketing. The 970 has an AltiVec compatible processing unit-- which Apple smartly marketed and abstracted to be the "Velocity Engine." So no marketing changes are required. They also want to maintain the MHz myth marketing, too. At 1.8 GHz the 970 will scream. Keep in mind that by that time the Wintel world will be dealing with MHz woes-- their new chips will only run at 1 GHz.

When the 970 goes into the pro line, the faster G4's will go in the iMac, iBook, and TiBook. It will all come together nicely and Apple will have a 2 processor family of machines again (G4 and G5). I know some state that the 970 rumors are just rumors right now. Well, yes, perhaps. But I'd bet the farm it's a certainty. In fact, I'll be much more shocked if anything else but a 970 based Mac occured by mid/late 2003.

If Apple ever had to resort to their 11th hour, x86 option, it will only work on proprietary Apple enabled hardware that only Apple sells. People need to get it out of their head that you will be able to buy a crappy $600 machine and load OS X on it. That will never happen. Apple will just switch their mobo's, add some proprietary firmware, and slap dual Athlons in a Quicksilver case. Apple's main selling point is ease of use-- they would lose ALL differentiation if the comsumer had to deal with mismatched 3rd party core components and low-end, poorly constructed hardware.

Lastly, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, is OS X. OS X is the future on the desktop. While there are speed issues with existing apps and existing builds of OS X, things will get better soon. Chimera on a DP machine screams compared to IE or Mozilla. A lot of the perceived slowdown is due to software not being written for the core competancies of OS X. Additionally, the basic features of OS X that redraw the screen and resize windows are currenly undergoing optimization. What does all of this mean?

The 970 will come out about the same time as OS 10.3.5 or 10.4... which will have marked speed improvement in core areas. It will be a speed-mature build. The 970 will also have raw performace well in excess of 5x the current capabilities. Couple these two designs together and Apple will have completed their software and hardware design paradigm.

Rocketman

Nov 13, 2002, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by ElRayOX
Maybe this could be a parallel universe with OS X for PPC and for Intel/AMD. If a user wants to run OS X on x86 they buy the OS and install it. If they want to run in on a Genuine Macintosh they get one at the Apple Store (or equiv).

Maybe the Genuine Mac's have a more complete feature set than the x86 versions. Since Apple would have total control over the entire box they could be more sure all of it will work. The x86 versions could maybe lack a few of the features that rely so heavily on specific hardware.

I dunno. Just a couple of thoughts. Frankly it's pretty wild to contemplate OS X on x86...

An Apple server based on OSX and x86 processors exists and is practical now. The main benefit is it can run vertical market apps with no recompiling.

No reason why Apple could not make such a beast that cannot run other OS's at all or that only runs OSX if an Apple custom chip is present.

If the servers with G4/osx are any indication of future trends an x86 server could take significant market share in markets with an x86 bias based on practical reasons not religious zealotry.

Rocketman

I doubt Steve would do it though.

IJ Reilly

Nov 13, 2002, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Sun Baked

That be a modified (Aquafied) version of Rhapsody, all I know is that the Mac OS X Server 1.0 wouldn't make the cut with users - and the developers at the time it shipped didn't want to put forth the Cocoa effort.

Classic/Carbon really made the transition easy, still made it GUI-hell for the developers. But that's a little better than a total rewrite.

That's almost precisely what I have in mind. Technical issues aside, Apple's biggest problem with releasing OSX for generic Intel is the economy of lost hardware sales. Okay then, how about a "limited" version of OSX with just the Cocoa APIs? This would be a relatively low-risk proposition: hardware sales would be protected, and it and might create a small base of OSX on x86 users -- developers who'd be new to the Mac, I would think, mainly.

Given the limited nature of the product, Apple could downplay the importance of the initiative, so it could disappear quietly if it didn't succeed.

I keep hearing people moan about how they'd try OSX "if only it was available for x86." This is a way for Apple to test those waters without all the potential downsides of releasing a complete version OSX for generic Intel. Hey, the tech press would eat it up!

jadariv

Nov 13, 2002, 11:37 AM

I may be wrong. But the first post said something about OS X and Final Cut Pro running on a x86 system. Maybe all this stuff is for editing systems in the TV and Movie industry. Apple has been making a big push into this industry with some big software buys. I think that they might be putting together mid and high end editing boxes that can be used on PC's and Mac's to compete with AVID technologies. Just a guess though.

jettredmont

Nov 13, 2002, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by G4scott
The only thing that I'm still not to sure about, is running windoze apps. What if Apple made a way to run them with Mac OS X? It seems like to get carbon or cocoa apps running, they just basically put some 'plug-ins' into the OS and maybe the kernel. It can run classic apps, just imagine if your x86 Mac could run every windoze app! That would also ***** microsoft over big-time!

Ref: OS/2

Seamless Windows compatibility invites developers (or, more precisely, the upper management that determine where developer resources go) to ignore your platform altogether.

blakespot

Nov 13, 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by irmongoose
Whatever people say, it won't happen. You know why? Because, no matter how many stupid mistakes Steve Jobs and Apple can make, they know this much... that if they release a x86 version of OS X, this is going to happen...

-- KDX screenshot --

What is going to happen? Someone might also install Linux on their x86 Mac, or an X Server on their Mac and run KDX?

I don't follow.

blakespot

szark

Nov 13, 2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by blakespot

What is going to happen? Someone might also install Linux on their x86 Mac, or an X Server on their Mac and run KDX?

I don't follow.

blakespot

He altered the KDX screenshot to show a "hacked version" of OS X being distributed on KDX (first line under Server Description). That's the point he was trying to make.

Of course, it wouldn't be quite that simple. It would still only support the processor/chipset combos that Apple provided, unless the "distributors" supplied additional code to support other combinations.

LethalWolfe

Nov 13, 2002, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by jadariv
I may be wrong. But the first post said something about OS X and Final Cut Pro running on a x86 system. Maybe all this stuff is for editing systems in the TV and Movie industry. Apple has been making a big push into this industry with some big software buys. I think that they might be putting together mid and high end editing boxes that can be used on PC's and Mac's to compete with AVID technologies. Just a guess though.

Apple is already a staple in the TV and Movie industry. At least in hardware. FCP and DVDSP are starting to make a software staple too.

For post production moving to PCs is a step backwards, IMO. Even when you have an IBM workstation that is certified to by Avid it will still tank on you more than a 6 year old Mac running 6 year old software.

Lethal

Doctor Memory

Nov 13, 2002, 01:18 PM

They weren't making enough money from the clones. Why would they cut off a money making business. It could be that the hardware side was a wreak in 1996, so much so that unless the cloners were going to pay $300 per box Apple as a whole would lose money. Plus those Starmax computers sucked.

Apple was making plenty of money from the OS licensees. Search through the macintouch.com archives: Ric Ford nailed down the numbers pretty conclusively.

The problem was that the cloners tuned out to be much, much better at getting new hardware out the door than Apple was. It's ironic that you mentioned the StarMax sucking, because it was in fact the StarMax line that forced the issue: Motorola was ready to ship the StarMax 6000, their first G3-powered machine, months before Apple's PowerMac G3 (the original beige one) was going to be ready, and it was a faster machine with more PCI slots to boot. And PowerComputing and Daystar weren't far behind.

(Motorola shipped a bunch of final pre-release SM6000s to MacWorld magazine and other reviewers before Apple pulled the plug; I often wonder if there wasn't a whole warehouse of them that got dropped into a landfill, and if any managed to filter out into collectors' hands.)

Apple's own hardware division could only earn money in the absence of any competition. Nobody was going to buy an Apple PowerMac 9600 in favor of a StarMax 6000 no matter how much Motorola paid for an OS license. So, faced with a choice between closing down their hardware division (which up until that point had been the primary revenue source for the company) and killing the cloners, Apple killed the cloners.

Now, this may have been the right decision for Apple in the long run: it would have been exponentially more difficult to pull of the migration to OSX when they weren't in charge of the hardware platform, and had to convince a dozen licensees to make the change. But that doesn't change the fact that Apple's stated reasons for ending OS licensing were nothing but lies.

suzerain

Nov 13, 2002, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory

Apple was making plenty of money from the OS licensees. Search through the macintouch.com archives: Ric Ford nailed down the numbers pretty conclusively.

The problem was that the cloners tuned out to be much, much better at getting new hardware out the door than Apple was. It's ironic that you mentioned the StarMax sucking, because it was in fact the StarMax line that forced the issue: Motorola was ready to ship the StarMax 6000, their first G3-powered machine, months before Apple's PowerMac G3 (the original beige one) was going to be ready, and it was a faster machine with more PCI slots to boot. And PowerComputing and Daystar weren't far behind.

Doctor Memory has a good memory. In fact, the first Apple G3-based machines came essentially a FULL YEAR after Motorola shipped these G3-equipped Starmax clones to Macworld.

Power Computing had also developed a G3-based machine (which I had been planning to buy) that blew the doors off its PowerTower Pro and anything Apple offered.

The PowerTower Pro was the Power Computing equivalent of the 9600, and it outperformed it. Ditto the top end Starmax.

The real reason Apple killed clones was loss of revenue. Now, the real reason they lost revenue is: They couldn't ****ing compete with other computers on hardware.

Basically, this goes back to Steve Jobs in general; he's pathetic at actually competing with other companies. He is brilliant at coming up with visionary ideas, but he leads the company into this culture of isolation that is unhealthy for Apple's long-term competitiveness. The last numbers I saw were that the clone makers (in aggregate, including Power Computing, APS, UMAX, Motorola, DayStar and the smaller ones) had managed to capture 10-15% of Apple's hardware market. (And rightly so; they were shipping superior products.)

The *real* reason Motorola has "dropped the ball", IMO, is because Steve Jobs ****ed them over. I think Motorola is just handing his ass back to him, and I think he deserves it. (He ****ed over Power Computing customers (like me), too, by buying the company and then disbanding support for their machines.)

The problem is, it's us who get screwed in the end.

The only reason I have continued to use Apple's products over the years is OS 9 and, now, OS X. Software has always been Apple's real strength, though you can make a great case for design and durability of their products, too. Therefore, I'd be happy to see Apple return to the "limited cloning" arrangements like they had. Clearly, other companies were better at milking the PowerPC architecture's performance.

Now, to X86: Clearly, from these lessons, you can deduce that Apple won't ship OS X for commodity hardware unless they are basically ready to go out of business and the owners want to sell their shares at a profit to shareholders. ("Apple shifting to Intel! They will surely profit now! I must buy shares!"...then, a month later: "Apple has announced that they have been acquired outright by AOL/Time Warner at a very competitive value, and all the rich people made a lot of money, while OS X development will now wither and die, because AOL will lay off half of the workers and restructure the company.")

(I think Steve Jobs will do this once he's bored with running Apple, and finished running it into the ground. He's more concerned with his personal legacy than Apple, IMO.)

But, I'd still wager on the 970 as the next CPU for Macs. I think maintaining a current X86 build is just good business sense in case there is some radical shift in the computing landscape...(like, say, if current X86 CPUs were suddenly available for like $20 apiece or something, thus radically shifting the economies of scale in the marketplace).

It's called "hedging your bets", and it's what Microsoft has done brilliantly over the years.

macmax

Nov 13, 2002, 01:43 PM

if apple makes an os for the pc, apple is dead.
The only thing apple needs is good marketing and a good campaign to instruct people, thou this would be very expensive, let us think of a way of helping,hehhehe,do you think we could find an answer?

Let this be our assingment this weekend.

AmigaMac

Nov 13, 2002, 01:57 PM

Though Apple is partly to blame on killing the Mac clones, I feel that old excuse is somewhat lame... all those clone makers could have easily licensed BeOS from Be Inc. which was running exclusively on PowerPC at the time and well almost ready for primetime, so the clone makers are as much to blame for being stupid with their get rich quick scheme, instead of working for the market (idiots)!

Doctor Memory

Nov 13, 2002, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by AmigaMac
Though Apple is partly to blame on killing the Mac clones, I feel that old excuse is somewhat lame... all those clone makers could have easily licensed BeOS from Be Inc. which was running exclusively on PowerPC at the time and well almost ready for primetime, so the clone makers are as much to blame for being stupid with their get rich quick scheme, instead of working for the market (idiots)!

What the hell are you talking about?

"Almost ready for primetime" doesn't cut any mustard in the real market. BeOS was a beautifully designed system, but it had no applications. People don't buy computers to beta test new OSes, they buy them to get work done. And in 1997, you simply could not do that on the BeOS. Netscape? Not available. Word? Not available. Excel? Not available. Quark XPress? Hah! Photoshop? As if.

And as it happens, PowerComputing, the largest of the clone makers, did offer machines with BeOS preinstalled. It didn't save them.

pretentious

Nov 13, 2002, 02:26 PM

My 2¢...I think Apple has been moving themselves in to a platform non-chip specific since SJ has came into office. However, in order to move the entire community he had to make it a viable platform in the first place, and to move the developers and the users to this platform w/o ripping to shreds AAPL. That had to take a lot of time, money, secrecy, and an iron grip on the community in order to do this, that is why they killed off the clones, and why we are only now seeing the spoils of there work after so many years.
SJ even at time said that "Rhapsody" (the OS X codeword at that time) was going to work on the Itanium, as said in a scene by ATAT (http://www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=95),
This movement had to be done slowly and in many steps...
First, all the apps would have to written in a language that would be OS specific, rather than OS and hardware specific. This would also have to be intriguing and palpable to the developers, enter Cocoa.
Second the current Apps that are in development would have to be able to work in the same environment as the new Cocoa language and the very new environment that will move to a non specific hardware environment, and all done w/o breaking the apps and pissing off the developers in the process, all done with less than 20% of their current code would have to change, enter Carbon.
Thirdly this OS that would have to be portable, the portable part would be threw the open-sourced kernel, the kernel would fetch instructions given out by the corresponding layer on top that will not be hardware specific but rather to the kernel that can be changed to suit to the hardware necessities. Open sourced so a computer maker can use this OS threw the fastest, coolest, and cheapest, hardware be it x86, PPC, x86-64, PPC-64... ect. , And the shell on top would be something sold threw Apple, enter Darwin and its shell Aqua.
All of this would have to be done, while continuing relationships w/ companies, such as that in Redmond to continue the development of Office: Mac. Apple is also welcoming the communities that are still growing such as that from the Linux and Open source movements to be able to easily port over their projects to Apple's software, such as Apache.

I think most of this has played out very well; all of the developers have taken the road path that Apple has set out, all writing in to the Carbon language for OS X. Now Apple is telling them to take the next logical step, which would be for them to write into Cocoa and be fully OS X specific, and most developers should be on this path by now. I think this why Quark decided at the last minute of changing all its code to Cocoa to suit this, and why it is taking so long for a port of their software. Once most of the big apps start coming out into Cocoa then they can bring out OS X for everybody. The only problem would be that the Carbon apps that are out now, are still requesting PPC specific hardware, and they will not be able to work or at least not as well as Cocoa apps, being that it might not be a PPC chip inside the computer the OS is on.
Nevertheless, I don't think that an x86 port is going to happen with in '03. It’s more likely in '04, by then a lot of Cocoa third party apps will be out, OS X will be more of a main stay in the computer community, the Macintoshes will be looking a lot more tasty w/ the possibility of the PPC 970, and Apple will be looking less like they are running away from the PPC. Even in ’04 though I think they will first just call it something like…”OS X x86 Server”, so it won’t scare the be-jesus out of MS enough to drop Mac-BU and lose the number one reasons why people can switch to Mac, namely Office.
This is of course IMHO, and I could be just drinking too much coffee, but I think this they way Apple has been moving. Apple loves the PPC, they have even said this in a interview lately (I can’t find it right now), and it allows them to have the best and fastest Laptops and the coolest form-factors for their computers, but the real speed and money is threw third party computer dealers and the biggest chip makers. Apple can continue to make money on the hardware side of things threw people wanting to use legacy software on new computers that won’t work on the x86, from making really cool looking computers, and the fastest Laptops from using PPCs, and by saleing great software to more than just 5% of the market, and even might pull some of the big cash from MS by getting in the pants of corporations.

agreenster

Nov 13, 2002, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by buhtman29
Perhaps We're missing another possiblility..... The machines wouldn't necessarily by X86 compatible. Maybe we'd be looking at Apple proprietary branded boxes, but with an Intel or AMD processor.

Also, this may be a speed and not a price issue.

Jim

YES! Ive been thinking this ALL ALONG! Im glad someone posted it. Let me second this opinion.

MacCoaster

Nov 13, 2002, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by MisterMe
Where is the 10/100/1000 Base T ethernet?
For most professionals, 10 is enough. Hell, T1 isn't even close to 10, only at 1.544Mbps.

What the hell do you need 1000Mbps for? If you're a regular home user, you won't have anything above 1.5Mbps on cable/DSL, so it doesn't frickin matter. It's just a showoff/marketing thing.

100Mbps is also plenty for most corporate networks.

Besides, you can simply pop in a PCI gigabit ethernet for a couple more bucks, not a big deal.

Come on, be realistic. Why waste on gigabit ethernet when it' not needed.

MacCoaster

Nov 13, 2002, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by macmax
if apple makes an os for the pc, apple is dead.
The only thing apple needs is good marketing and a good campaign to instruct people, thou this would be very expensive, let us think of a way of helping,hehhehe,do you think we could find an answer?

Let this be our assingment this weekend.
By the way, they already made OSes for the PC. Darwin, Mac OS (Startrek or whatever), Rhapsody (early Mac OS X), and finally Mac OS X (as far as we've heard). If you count NeXT, count NeXT OS.

Also, the Macintosh *is* a PC--personal computer, isn't that what Apple sparked the revolution of anyway. :rolleyes:

Doctor Memory

Nov 13, 2002, 02:42 PM

For most professionals, 10 is enough. Hell, T1 isn't even close to 10, only at 1.544Mbps.

What the hell do you need 1000Mbps for?

Mmmmmph. Remember what the Mac's core market is: video, sound and graphics editing. The difference between 10, 100 and 1000baseT ethernet is not so academic when you're tossing multi-gigabyte quicktime files around on a day to day basis.

Comparing your LAN speed to your internet connection is apples-and-oranges: you use them for different things, and you don't need anywhere near as much performance on your WAN link as on your LAN. My company is only connected to the internet by a T1, but we most certainly use gigabit ethernet to connect our PowerMac video editing stations to the file servers, and if something faster were available we'd use that too.

That said, yeah, buying a gigabit PCI card for a Dell is only going to set you back another $75, so it's not a huge pricing issue.

shem

Nov 13, 2002, 03:17 PM

I just checked out the OS today and have one thing to say.
If they make it, I will come...

MacCoaster

Nov 13, 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory
Mmmmmph. Remember what the Mac's core market is: video, sound and graphics editing. The difference between 10, 100 and 1000baseT ethernet is not so academic when you're tossing multi-gigabyte quicktime files around on a day to day basis.
That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.

I think their markets are the switchers and the existing loyal Mac aficonados.

High end companies have already moved to x86 Linux clusters or the like. But realistically for most Power Mac users, gigabit isn't needed, 100 is plenty.

Comparing your LAN speed to your internet connection is apples-and-oranges: you use them for different things, and you don't need anywhere near as much performance on your WAN link as on your LAN. My company is only connected to the internet by a T1, but we most certainly use gigabit ethernet to connect our PowerMac video editing stations to the file servers, and if something faster were available we'd use that too.

That said, yeah, buying a gigabit PCI card for a Dell is only going to set you back another $75, so it's not a huge pricing issue.
Yes, apples to oranges, but directly applicable. Many people these days directly connect to the internet from the ethernet card to the cable modem.

It'd be nice for Apple to just provide 10/100MB built in and space for another card if needed, especially those higher end cards.

Doctor Memory

Nov 13, 2002, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.

I think their markets are the switchers and the existing loyal Mac aficonados.

Uh, no.

There's this little thing called Final Cut Pro that you may have heard of? Shake? Tremor? Logic? And those are just the ones Apple owns and sells directly; we're not even including Avid, Media100, Maya, Lightwave et al.

Apple is very aggressively pursuing the high-end audio and video markets, and they're not doing a bad job of it either. (I work at one of these companies, so I get to see this directly.)

Yes, we'd all like for their boxes to be faster, but the CPU is only a small part of the equation. Software is a much larger part, and Apple is doing a bang-up job there. Until Avid cuts the price of Media Composer to be competitive with FCP3 (which is never going to happen), Apple will continue to be a force in this market.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.
Um.... no.
Why?
Go to an Apple Final Cut Pro road show if you're near any Apple sales offices and you'll see that they are SERIOUSLY marketing (and winning) in the pro video editing arena.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
...
But realistically for most Power Mac users, gigabit isn't needed, 100 is plenty.
...
Agreed. Full duplex 100 Mb switched is what I run in my house and it is more than enough for transferring large files - but if I was doing video on one box and had a large RAID rack in another room where my footage was, 1000 Mb would be mandatory.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
...
It'd be nice for Apple to just provide 10/100MB built in and space for another card if needed, especially those higher end cards.
I'm not sure I understand this part - I'm no hardware engineer, but I'd be willing to bet that the on-board 10/100/1000 Mb Ethernet controller takes up exactly the same space on the motherboard as the 10/100 one it replaced. And, because it is pretty much a standard across their pro line, I'd venture to guess that they don't pay much of a premium for the faster chips.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory

Uh, no.

HAHA :D

We said that in stereo! (or something)

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory
Search through the macintouch.com archives: Ric Ford nailed down the numbers pretty conclusively.
Could you post a link. I've tried searching for "clones", "cloners", "StarMax", "Power Computing", etc. but cannot seem to find the info. I'd be very interested in reading it as that is right about the time I switched to Mac.

pimentoLoaf

Nov 13, 2002, 06:15 PM

There's a simpler solution to all this rather than selling-out to PC hardware: Apple should buy Motorola, sell off the money-draining cellphone division to Nokia (or whoever wants it), and then roll heads in the obviously mismanaged chip division.

Alternatively, they could offer the OS distros the way Linux is distributed, so that I could buy a nice 2ghz Toshiba and have it boot to X.

Cappy

Nov 13, 2002, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
There's a simpler solution to all this rather than selling-out to PC hardware: Apple should buy Motorola, sell off the money-draining cellphone division to Nokia (or whoever wants it), and then roll heads in the obviously mismanaged chip division.

Do you realize how much longer this could add to anything new or even decent being designed and manufactured? Also does anyone realize that Moto makes more money on their embedded markets which includes PPC chips than what they sell to Apple and other desktop computer companies? Apple has no experience in those markets and does not belong in those markets.

tjwett

Nov 13, 2002, 08:06 PM

I don't have time to read all the posts in this threads but my 2 cents is that I think we will see OS X for x86 in boxes on shelves for the masses sometime relatively soon. i could really see millions of people buying a piece of crap Gateway and bringing it home and installing OSX and loving it. this would drive people towards Apple hardware which would (hopefully) still be PPC-based and a little cheaper than now in price so that it could compete with the beige boxes. Apple's prices and people's misconceptions are what keep people from "switching". clever commercials won't do the trick but i bet folks are willing to spend $100 on OS X to get a taste and would eventually start using Macs excusively when they realize the quality of Apple products. maybe a slow, methodic transition of "switchers" would be better than trying to do it with quirky advertising. just my opinion.

LethalWolfe

Nov 13, 2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by tjwett
I don't have time to read all the posts in this threads but my 2 cents is that I think we will see OS X for x86 in boxes on shelves for the masses sometime relatively soon. i could really see millions of people buying a piece of crap Gateway and bringing it home and installing OSX and loving it. this would drive people towards Apple hardware which would (hopefully) still be PPC-based and a little cheaper than now in price so that it could compete with the beige boxes. Apple's prices and people's misconceptions are what keep people from "switching". clever commercials won't do the trick but i bet folks are willing to spend $100 on OS X to get a taste and would eventually start using Macs excusively when they realize the quality of Apple products. maybe a slow, methodic transition of "switchers" would be better than trying to do it with quirky advertising. just my opinion.

eric_n_dfw relax, I got this one. :D

Dude, that is the dumbest thing I've read so far. Go back and read the thread to find out why.

Actually, I take that back. Yer too lazy to read the thread in the first place, no reason to think you'll start reading it now. Here is why that's the dumbest thing I've read so far. That idea has been posted, and shot down, more than a few times already. Thanks for and taking up space.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacCoaster

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this comment is dumb enough to warrent a third, "Uh, no"

Apple hardware has dominated the TV and movie industry for years, and now with FCP and DVDSP Apple software is starting to Tinsletown into Appletown. Avid, the reigning software superpower in post production, is in real danger of having it's butt kicked by FCP.

Lethal

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
...Avid, the reigning software superpower in post production, is in real danger of having it's butt kicked by FCP.
Yep, thus we now see Avid Express DV for OS X at a reasonable price. Avid sees the writing on the wall and isn't sitting on there butts while Apple eats into their market.

MacCoaster

Nov 13, 2002, 09:11 PM

What I meant was their niche market. Sure they got Shake, etc. But those apps Apple grabbed weren't innovated by Apple.

Yes, now Apple is getting into the market. But, IMHO, bad idea.

In fact, Apple is sounding a lot like Microsoft now. Buying up all those companies, stifling competition by making some Mac-only, etc.

LethalWolfe

Nov 13, 2002, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
What I meant was their niche market. Sure they got Shake, etc. But those apps Apple grabbed weren't innovated by Apple.

Yes, now Apple is getting into the market. But, IMHO, bad idea.

In fact, Apple is sounding a lot like Microsoft now. Buying up all those companies, stifling competition by making some Mac-only, etc.

I'm confused, what are you refering as "their niche market" and when you said "getting into the market." which market are you talking about? No sarcasm here, I honestly don't follow that post.

Lethal

Doctor Memory

Nov 13, 2002, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
What I meant was their niche market. Sure they got Shake, etc. But those apps Apple grabbed weren't innovated by Apple.

Yes, now Apple is getting into the market. But, IMHO, bad idea.

In fact, Apple is sounding a lot like Microsoft now. Buying up all those companies, stifling competition by making some Mac-only, etc.

Uh, you wanna try that again in English? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

AmigaMac

Nov 13, 2002, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory

What the hell are you talking about?

"Almost ready for primetime" doesn't cut any mustard in the real market. BeOS was a beautifully designed system, but it had no applications. People don't buy computers to beta test new OSes, they buy them to get work done. And in 1997, you simply could not do that on the BeOS. Netscape? Not available. Word? Not available. Excel? Not available. Quark XPress? Hah! Photoshop? As if.

And as it happens, PowerComputing, the largest of the clone makers, did offer machines with BeOS preinstalled. It didn't save them.

What do you mean, "What the hell am I talking about"!... Yeah applications was an issue, but developers won't build applications unless there is some kind of support from hardware manufacturers (it's the chicken versus the egg)! The applications you're naming is nothing more than a cheap shot, especially when you have no clue (nor I for that matter) of what market Be was going after...

Netscape = Net Postitive
Word/Excel = Gobe Productive
Photoshop = ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc...

Quark XPress is another story!

Be Inc. is partly to blame for not taking advantage of the situation nor strumming up support from the developer community to deliver a sound investment! As far as Power Computing is concerned, Apple pulled the plug and that idea pretty much since they had acquired the company!

Either way, the Mac clone business was a get rich quick scheme, so it doesn't matter anymore!!

MacCoaster

Nov 13, 2002, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Memory
Uh, you wanna try that again in English? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Uh. Niche market == specific market == loyal users == users still on Mac OS 9, at least *A LOT* of creative professionals are in this niche market.

They bought those companies to 1.) speed up OS X ports 2.) kill Windows ports and restricting software to inferior Mac hardware. 3.) keep the loyal creative professors from switching to PC hardware.

That's what they're getting in the market for--trying to grab ahold of their existing share and maybe a few more, force people on inferior machines (Shake discontinued for PC), etc.

Apple isn't being innovative that much these days.

Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by AmigaMac

What do you mean, "What the hell am I talking about"!... Yeah applications was an issue, but developers won't build applications unless there is some kind of support from hardware manufacturers (it's the chicken versus the egg)! The applications you're naming is nothing more than a cheap shot, especially when you have no clue (nor I for that matter) of what market Be was going after...

Netscape = Net Postitive
Word/Excel = Gobe Productive
Photoshop = ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc...

Quark XPress is another story!

Be Inc. is partly to blame for not taking advantage of the situation nor strumming up support from the developer community to deliver a sound investment! As far as Power Computing is concerned, Apple pulled the plug and that idea pretty much since they had acquired the company!

Either way, the Mac clone business was a get rich quick scheme, so it doesn't matter anymore!!
The main problem with your argument:
Net Positive != Netscape
Gobe Productive != Word/Excel
ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc. != Photoshop

It's the same problem that Linux (and to some extent Mac) has today against Windows. Open Office/StarOffice != MS Office.
(BTW - In case you're not a programmer, "!=" means "not equal" :) )

Sure, feature by feature, those apps may even be better - but the sheeple out there buy whatever they KNOW - not what some fringe, geek group of us say is "as good"

By your nick' I'm asuming you are an Amiga user/ex-user (or maybe you are a female friend speaking Spanish :) ) I also was a big Amiga lover - even worked for Commie-Amiga for a short stint. One of the biggest reasons the Amiga didn't make it was it's lack of software. MS Word, Excell, Lotus, PageMaker, Word Perfect, etc. You needed those things to get serious attention from the pro's. They never materialized so Amiga's became a memory. (A fond one though!)

AmigaMac

Nov 13, 2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

The main problem with your argument:
Net Positive != Netscape
Gobe Productive != Word/Excel
ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc. != Photoshop

It's the same problem that Linux (and to some extent Mac) has today against Windows. Open Office/StarOffice != MS Office.
(BTW - In case you're not a programmer, "!=" means "not equal" :) )

Sure, feature by feature, those apps may even be better - but the sheeple out there buy whatever they KNOW - not what some fringe, geek group of us say is "as good"

By your nick' I'm asuming you are an Amiga user/ex-user (or maybe you are a female friend speaking Spanish :) ) I also was a big Amiga lover - even worked for Commie-Amiga for a short stint. One of the biggest reasons the Amiga didn't make it was it's lack of software. MS Word, Excell, Lotus, PageMaker, Word Perfect, etc. You needed those things to get serious attention from the pro's. They never materialized so Amiga's became a memory. (A fond one though!)

And that is the reason I stated that Be Inc. is partly to blame because they did not strum up support from the big guys... the OS had what it took, well almost, it definitely was no networking/server OS since Be Inc had the single desktop in mind, BIG MISTAKE on their part!

Now the thing with your '!=' (not equal to) is correct in someways, but it's not always the case! I had this conversation a few months ago with a friend/coworker about MS Office, and that is the usual argument that nothing stacks up, but at the end of it we came to the conclusion that the features that differentiate Office from the others, 95% of the Office users out there don't even utilize the majority of those features (if any at all)! Of course for me, I work in a cross-platform environment covering Solaris, Linux and Windows... I have a TiBook with Mac OS X that I network into this environment, I might use AppleWorks one minute, turn around and use MS Office for another and then go use StarOffice doing something else! Helk I even use just the normal text editor if it's going to be simple and I don't need anything fancy in a document (that's mostly for programming, unless I'm writing Unix scripts, then it's 'ed' and/or 'pico' for me)!

I did have BeOS on one of my work PCs at work and used it off and on for the fun of it when Windows would piss me off, but other than I do own a BeBox (Rev.6) I don't mess with it much anymore, though I am involved with OpenBeOS through the GE project, but that's on idle till R2 of OBOS is in the grinder!

As for Amiga, well they're trying to make a comeback with their new AmigaOne (PPC based) and I plan to get one for myself to have as a hobby machine. You never know what could happen with them!

alex_ant

Nov 13, 2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by tjwett
I don't have time to read all the posts in this threads but my 2 cents is that I think we will see OS X for x86 in boxes on shelves for the masses sometime relatively soon.
You don't have time to read the posts but you have time to post? You dolt.
i could really see millions of people buying a piece of crap Gateway and bringing it home and installing OSX and loving it.
You could see millions of people knowing what an operating system IS? Why do you think they'll love OS X?
- Because it's unfamiliar and they don't know how to do anything in it?
- Because it doesn't run any of their software?
- Because it's incompatible with half the cheap-ass hardware in their new Gateway?
- Or because nobody else they know uses it?
this would drive people towards Apple hardware which would (hopefully) still be PPC-based and a little cheaper than now in price so that it could compete with the beige boxes.
Why would it drive people towards more expensive, slower hardware? What makes you think that Macs will be dropping in price and able to compete with beige boxes anytime soon, if ever?
Apple's prices and people's misconceptions are what keep people from "switching".
And what does that have to do with OS X for x86. Absolutely nothing.
clever commercials won't do the trick but i bet folks are willing to spend $100 on OS X to get a taste and would eventually start using Macs excusively when they realize the quality of Apple products. maybe a slow, methodic transition of "switchers" would be better than trying to do it with quirky
advertising. just my opinion.
Every $100 profit Apple would make from an x86 OS X would be accompanied by a $500 loss in hardware sales. It would be like Apple holding a shotgun to its mouth and blowing its own brains all over Silicon Valley. I could see Gil Amelio doing something this monumentally stupid, but not Jobs. Jobs only does moderately stupid, non-business-threatening things, like releasing the puck mouse and the Cube. Otherwise he's a good CEO who would allow OS X for beige boxes to happen over his dead body.

Sherman

Nov 14, 2002, 01:06 AM

He's right, it would ruin the macintosh experience.

Also, with IBM's 970 right on the horizon apple would be crazy not to use it. Not only does it beat the crap out of any pentium with it's massive 900Mhz FSB, it also keeps the PPC architecture so apple wouldn't have to re-write any of their code, although eventually most of it would probably be ported to 64-bit.

x86, and probable all of CISC is about to hit a brick wall, really, reall hard. A 4Ghz p4 isn't any faster than a 2.8 one, and the p5, which they didn't have all those insane steps for the sake of the clock speed, only runs at, GET THIS! 1.3Ghz.

Suck it.

Scottgfx

Nov 14, 2002, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by ryan

I can't comment of the Mac IIfx but having a 486 processor in the 6100 was to allow people to run Windows software natively on their Mac's, not to support some sort of client/server architecture.

If I remember right, the 6502s in the IIfx were just to help some I/O tasks. (The serial ports perhaps) It wasn't some resouce available for applications to co-process Apple][ commands. :)

Scottgfx

Nov 14, 2002, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by suzerain

Doctor Memory has a good memory. In fact, the first Apple G3-based machines came essentially a FULL YEAR after Motorola shipped these G3-equipped Starmax clones to Macworld.

Power Computing had also developed a G3-based machine (which I had been planning to buy) that blew the doors off its PowerTower Pro and anything Apple offered.

I had a PowerComputing PowerWave system. It used the same Tsunami chipset as the PTP and the 9500. Power, in my estimation, did some tweeks to eek out some extra speed out of their systems. I remember discussions from my Amiga days about 3rd party developers doing tweeks to make their systems faster. The problem is that the specs are then not followed and things don't always work correctly.

With my system, I had a hard time with some of the hardware I owned. I had a Miro DC30 that barely worked in the PowerWave, but was flawless in an Apple machine. I bought a 250Mhz 604e card from PowerComputing that was supposed to work in a PTP. It worked for all of a half hour in the PowerWave and would never boot again. I tried everything for weeks and finally just went back to the original processor. The same 604e card worked fine in a PM9500 for years.

Power did tricks. I do not miss them.

Dj Kioto

Nov 14, 2002, 03:10 AM

I got a question...

Alot of these posts fail to mention Ati-Vec, or Vecotor processors in genreal, alot of apps written for OS X which have a speed advatage over their WIN counterparts are those that have special code written for the vector processors.

I wouldn't know why they would be, but are vector processor units a propreitary technology used for RISC power PC based chips or could could a CISC x86 chip have one as well?

Is that was "MMX" technology is, what the difference between a vecotor processing unit like that in the 970 or the MotoG4 and MMX or whatever comparable technology?

One of the biggest annoyances of going to college is having to explain them to people who were oblivious to their existances...

Do they run athlons, or pentiums?... neither....
What' the speed? 450MHz...
Wow that's slow... it's got a vector processing unit and uses RISC Archetecture, Reduced Inst... nevermind, you wouldn't understand...
Does it run windows?... no, stop talking to me

Sorry, I'm ranting, but my point it, I always liked the though of a reduced instructionset chip with a vector processor... but if there were such a thing as a 3.0Ghz x86 with a vector processor unit... which would take advatage of all the "Velocity Engine" code in current OS X apps, I'd like one of those... of course I'd have to rip or saw off any "intel inside" or "AMD" insignia on the front of my mac....

Sorry if this is long, but also... the IBM 970 chip says it could run 32 bit apps on an OS modified for 64 bit operation wihtout a problem, call me a dolt, (or tired, it's almost 4am here) but could an OS run regualr cocoa or carbon apps on an OS modifed for an x86 chip?... there logic floating around my head that says it couldn't, but at this hour, I cant grasp it...

Help an iBrotha (refference intended) out, and fill me in :confused:

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2002, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Scottgfx
If I remember right, the 6502s in the IIfx were just to help some I/O tasks. (The serial ports perhaps) It wasn't some resouce available for applications to co-process Apple][ commands. :)
Something like that.

And in the 6100 DOS the 486 was more of a co-computer. But, if those PCI cards were still around, it would be interesting to see what people would have done with them today. Now that we have alot more platform independent programs around.

Just interesting that people get up on the soapbox and spout - they'll never mix processors in the Macs, when they obviously did before. ;)

springscansing

Nov 14, 2002, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by szark

He altered the KDX screenshot to show a "hacked version" of OS X being distributed on KDX (first line under Server Description). That's the point he was trying to make.

Of course, it wouldn't be quite that simple. It would still only support the processor/chipset combos that Apple provided, unless the "distributors" supplied additional code to support other combinations.

His point is stupid. Hell, three of my friends downloaded Jaguar off Carracho. It's not like piracy doesn't exist now.

LethalWolfe

Nov 14, 2002, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Uh. Niche market == specific market == loyal users == users still on Mac OS 9, at least *A LOT* of creative professionals are in this niche market.

They bought those companies to 1.) speed up OS X ports 2.) kill Windows ports and restricting software to inferior Mac hardware. 3.) keep the loyal creative professors from switching to PC hardware.

That's what they're getting in the market for--trying to grab ahold of their existing share and maybe a few more, force people on inferior machines (Shake discontinued for PC), etc.

Apple isn't being innovative that much these days.

Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?

I still don't understand which market you think they (Apple) are getting into. In the realm of TV and movies (which is my field so my comments are limited to that industry) Apple, as a company, has had a commanding presence for a long time. Apple isn't "getting in" Apple's "been in." Apple software is expanding, rapidly, into post production (if that's what you mean by "getting in"), but you do need to specify if you are talking about Apple hardware or Apple software to help keep things straight.

And in regards to your point #3 I've yet to meet one editor or go to one post facility that wants to switch from Mac to PC. Why? Because things work better on a Mac because it's a closed system. Since Apple controls it all they can make sure that the hardware and software work together better and have few conflicts and stability issues.

Now let's get to my favorite part of the thread, "Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?"

Do you have any idea, at all, how the industry that you are talking about works? How does Pixar, a 3D animation company, represent an entirely unrelated industry (post production)? Here is a quick and dirty Hollywood version following a fictional music video.

After the music video is shot the footage is transfered from film to DigiBeta (a digital videotape format) and is sent to a post house to be be edited. This post house has 6 off-line edit suites and 1 on-line suite. The off-line suites is where 99% of the editing is done. It is usually at a lower-res (to save HDD space) and rough graffics and effects are also done during the off-line edit. After the music video is done being edited it is sent to the on-line suite. The on-line suite imports the music video at full res, applies the final graffics and effects, and does any sort of touching up and tweaking of the music video that might be needed (color correction, etc.,). The final product is then put back on DigiBeta ready for duplication and distrobution.

The off-line suites are usually $100,000 Avid systems running on Mac hardware. But these are fairly quickly being replaced by $15,000 G4 boxes running FCP 3.

The on-line system, or finishing system, many times is an SGI box running Smoke, Flame etc.,. Altough there are some places running Avid's finishing software (Symphony or DS) on Mac or PC hardware.

So, in most cases, 90%, if not all, of the machines used in post are Macs. Odds are everything you see on TV or at the movies was edited on Apple hardware, and possibly w/Apple software. This is why "... Apple is so in the market..."

Lethal

Wash!!

Nov 14, 2002, 09:27 AM

I agree you 100% I couldn't say it better my self!!
Cheers:D

sturm375

Nov 14, 2002, 09:52 AM

One good reason Apple needs to keep the OSX on x86 alive, is that if they don't, and they achieve a more signifigant market share, they will be in danger of the monopoly rules in the US.

As it is now, if you want to run Mac OS, you must buy Apple Hardware. And if you want Apple Hardware to run fully, you must by Mac OS. This is called a monopoly. The only reason Apple hasn't been called on it, it that they have too small of the market share in PCs. Now I realize that some Linux Distros can run Apple Hardware, however they are still only partially functional when it comes to new hardware. Also, Apple does it's level best to defeat this approach.

Now there is talk of an iBrowser? Isn't that what got MS in trouble? What about all the Free Built in iApps, could that not hinder compitition in the software market?

Again, Apple fits the textbook definition of an economic monopoly, only they don't have the market share. If Apple did ever grow, as we would all like it to, they would have to open up some things, or risk a lawsuit.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 14, 2002, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by springscansing

His point is stupid. Hell, three of my friends downloaded Jaguar off Carracho. It's not like piracy doesn't exist now.
But they still had to buy Apple hardware at some point to run it on. If, (or when) hackers found a way to make an x86 version of OS X run on Wintel hardware Apple might as well fold up their hardware shop.

Somebody

Nov 14, 2002, 10:46 AM

x86, and probable all of CISC is about to hit a brick wall, really, reall hard. A 4Ghz p4 isn't any faster than a 2.8 one, and the p5, which they didn't have all those insane steps for the sake of the clock speed, only runs at, GET THIS! 1.3Ghz.
Mac/RISC fans have been saying "CISC will hit a wall" for *years*. Still hasn't happened. Meanwhile, the G4 was stalled at some pretty pathetic clock rates for quite some time. Maybe this time you're right, and Intel will hit a wall. But I wouldn't count on it, judging by their past performance.

Also, there is no such thing as the P5. The chip you're thinking of is the Itanium, and it's not a CISC chip. Intel might be mucking up the transition to 64 bits pretty badly, and PPC might be able to pick up some market share via a smoother transition plan, but that remains to be seen; The advantages of going to 64 bit are not nearly as great for most users as the advantages of going to 32 bit were, and it may be the case that only users with certain applications (think large datasets) move to 64 bit in any hurry.

Somebody

Nov 14, 2002, 10:57 AM

As it is now, if you want to run Mac OS, you must buy Apple Hardware. And if you want Apple Hardware to run fully, you must by Mac OS. This is called a monopoly. The only reason Apple hasn't been called on it, it that they have too small of the market share in PCs.

No. What you're describing is product bundling. While product bundling might be used as a tactic by someone who has a monopoly in one area to (illegally) acquire a monopoly in another, it does not, by itself, make anyone a monopoly.

To have a monopoly, Apple would need to have either the vast majority of the personal computer hardware market, or the vast majority of the personal computer operating system market. They have only a small fraction of each.

sturm375

Nov 14, 2002, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Somebody

No. What you're describing is product bundling. While product bundling might be used as a tactic by someone who has a monopoly in one area to (illegally) acquire a monopoly in another, it does not, by itself, make anyone a monopoly.

To have a monopoly, Apple would need to have either the vast majority of the personal computer hardware market, or the vast majority of the personal computer operating system market. They have only a small fraction of each.

Didn't I say that in my post?

One good reason Apple needs to keep the OSX on x86 alive, is that if they don't, and they achieve a more signifigant market share, they will be in danger of the monopoly rules in the US.

and

Again, Apple fits the textbook definition of an economic monopoly, only they don't have the market share. If Apple did ever grow, as we would all like it to, they would have to open up some things, or risk a lawsuit.

Please read the whole post before you make comments like that.

Somebody

Nov 14, 2002, 11:58 AM

I read the whole post. You wrote:

As it is now, if you want to run Mac OS, you must buy Apple Hardware. And if you want Apple Hardware to run fully, you must by Mac OS. This is called a monopoly. The only reason Apple hasn't been called on it, it that they have too small of the market share in PCs.

Apple is already a monopoly, you said, you said, by virtue of the fact that you need Apple hardware to run MacOS. This is simply wrong. The fact that you later said that they might be sued as a monopoly if they gain significant market share doesn't change the fact that you were wrong to characterize them as a monopoly in the present.

sturm375

Nov 14, 2002, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Somebody
I read the whole post. You wrote:

Apple is already a monopoly, you said, you said, by virtue of the fact that you need Apple hardware to run MacOS. This is simply wrong. The fact that you later said that they might be sued as a monopoly if they gain significant market share doesn't change the fact that you were wrong to characterize them as a monopoly in the present.

From Dictionary.com

monopoly

n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like" 2: exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence" 3: (trademark) a board game in which players try to gain a monopoly on real estate as pieces advance around the board according to the throw of a die [syn: Monopoly]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

There is only 1 seller of Apple Hardware, and OS. While there are distributers, they all get thier stuff from Apple. Again, you want to run an Apple computer, you must us a Mac OS. You want to run a Mac OS, you must have Apple hardware. With the notable exception of some talented programers that have disected Apple hardware so they can run Linux on it. This is actively discouraged by Apple.

To get back to the topic:
If [and that is a big if] Apple does resort to running on x86 processors, and opens up the market, say taking 25-50%, they might be open to litigation. If they maintain, in the background, a project allowing OS X to run on a non-propriatory Intel/AMD box, they can always release it and aleviat their legal questionability.

jettredmont

Nov 14, 2002, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Dj Kioto
I wouldn't know why they would be, but are vector processor units a propreitary technology used for RISC power PC based chips or could could a CISC x86 chip have one as well?

No, they are not RISC-only. Intel has MMX and SSE and SSE2, and AMD has 3d-Now! and 3D-Now XP or Pro or something like that, all of which are vector processing instruction sets (aka SIMD, for "Single Instruction, Multiple Data").

But, like with processors in general, there are useful/fast SIMD's and there are less useful/less fast SIMDs. If I remember correctly the Intel/AMD SIMD sets all share processor registers (AltiVec has a dedicated set of registers and cache) and have generally higher latencies than AltiVec.

Sorry, I'm ranting, but my point it, I always liked the though of a reduced instructionset chip with a vector processor... but if there were such a thing as a 3.0Ghz x86 with a vector processor unit... which would take advatage of all the "Velocity Engine" code in current OS X apps, I'd like one of those... of course I'd have to rip or saw off any "intel inside" or "AMD" insignia on the front of my mac....

Sorry if this is long, but also... the IBM 970 chip says it could run 32 bit apps on an OS modified for 64 bit operation wihtout a problem, call me a dolt, (or tired, it's almost 4am here) but could an OS run regualr cocoa or carbon apps on an OS modifed for an x86 chip?... there logic floating around my head that says it couldn't, but at this hour, I cant grasp it...

Help an iBrotha (refference intended) out, and fill me in :confused:

An application ships in machine code (aka binary). This is specific to the specific processor family for which it was compiled, and sometimes to a specific processor within that family. None of the PPC instructions will work on an x86 without a performance-sucking translation layer (which, to be quite frank, would be silly ... P4s already have a hardware translation layer (in-chip) from the old x86 instruction hodge-podge to an internal RISC instruction set (which, of course, is not the same as the PPC instruction set, so you would never be able to use PPC instructions on a P4 core directly, but if Apple were to do this they might be able to talk Intel or AMD into adding a PPC translation unit in hardware ... I know, dreaming ... :) ) )

Sorry, got off on a tangent within a tangent. In any case, you could do instruction set translation in software, but that's quite expensive. I'd be very surprised if a 3GHz P4 could software-translate+execute PPC instructions faster than a 1GHz G4.

Moving to an x86 or x86-64 (AMD Hammer) architecture would require a long-term shift to using those native instructions. A software instruction translation layer would ease the transition, but you'd see performance skyrocket when you upgrade each application from PPC to native code.

Apple has in place the framework to handle another machine binary within an app package (and to selectively install such a machine's executable in the installer package). But, of course, "legacy" apps might never be recompiled for the x86 architecture.

If it's that easy to switch from one architecture to the next, why do companies spend so much money porting applications over? Because "porting" is not so much dealing with the underlying CPU instructions (your compiler takes care of that in 99% of the code), but dealing with different APIs, libraries, and UI paradigms. This is why a Windows app will not run on Linux without a large reverse-engineered support library system (Wine), and why Linux x86 apps will not run under Windows, even though both OS's use the same underlying processor. It is also why moving an app from Linux x86 to Solaris SPARQ to Linux PPC is little more than a reconfig/recompile, despite the different underlying CPUs.

So, four things should be clear:

1) Will I run Windows apps on an x86 Mac: No. At least not without a third party solution like Wine (Virtual PC would also work, but 90% of its complexity - the software instruction translation - would be thrown in the trash).

2) Will I run OS X apps in Windows: No.

3) Will I run OS X PPC apps on an x86 Mac: Possibly, if Apple puts in a software instruction translation layer for legacy apps.

4) Will the "switch" be incredibly expensive, far more so than what I'll save in hardware: Undoubtably. You'll have to replace all your software, and possibly throw away a bit of no-longer-supported hardware (which will have Windows/x86 drivers and OS9/PPC drivers and OSX/PPC drivers, but not OSX/x86 drivers). If we imagine we might save $250 in hardware costs (which is debatable), we can equally well imagine having to spend at least twice that in software upgrades. Assuming such upgrades are available.

jettredmont

Nov 14, 2002, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Somebody

Also, there is no such thing as the P5. The chip you're thinking of is the Itanium, and it's not a CISC chip.

Or, he could be thinking of Banias, a mobile chip that runs in the 1.5GHz range.

There is, however, a real P5 in development, and it does have a starting clock rate reportedly slightly lower (like 2.5GHz when P4 was at 2.8) than the high-end P4, although that may change by release time. Per cycle, it is more efficient than the P4. However, Intel to my knowledge has never released a new x86 flagship that ran at a lower clock speed than the previous iteration. I may be wrong in the 486/DX2 - to - Pentium transition (the DX2's clocked up to 100MHz and the Pentium started at 60 ... not sure of the order of release though). But that's reach awayback in the Intel memory. Doing that with the P5 will cause a bit of marketing counter-spin if it indeed does happen.

As for the Banias: It is not the flagship. It can be slower. Why is it slower? It is a mobile chip, not a desktop chip.

As for Itanium: It is a server-class chip, not a desktop chip. It uses a completely different architecture and instruction set. It does more per cycle than the P4 could dream of doing (3x as much, in fact). It competes quite well in its marketplace, which buyers have both the training and the time to understand that GHz is not a valid measure of cross-architecture performance.

Problem: Deerfield, which is the Itanium-for-Desktop effort at Intel. Release date: Q4, 2003 (same as 970!). Intel might be able to churn up the clock rate on this 64-bit processor, but it's in for a whole lot of re-educating to get people to throw away everything they have to buy their 64-bit dreamship at home. Of course, the plan is that Itanium has become well established by then and the marketing, as always, is "Server power. On your desktop." But that assumes Itanium does better than it has, and that consumers really care enough about 64-bit computing to justify a wholesale switchover.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 14, 2002, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
2) Will I run OS X apps in Windows: No.

Actually it would be relatively trivial for OS X Cocoa apps to run on Windows.
Remember the "Yellow Box" libraries?
Before NeXT was bought by Apple, their OPENSTEP for Windows product had Win32 compiled libraries that provided all of what is the ancestor of todays "Cocoa" frameworks, including the Objective C runtime environment and a Display Postscript engine, all running on top of Windows.
I'd venture to bet that some group, deep in the bowels of Apple has kept those "Yellow Box for Win32" libraries up to date and, probably, has made a DisplayPDF engine for Win32 as well. Just in case...

alex_ant

Nov 14, 2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by springscansing
His point is stupid. Hell, three of my friends downloaded Jaguar off Carracho. It's not like piracy doesn't exist now.
And run it on their PC so they don't have to buy a Mac?

alex_ant

Nov 14, 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
One good reason Apple needs to keep the OSX on x86 alive, is that if they don't, and they achieve a more signifigant market share, they will be in danger of the monopoly rules in the US.

As it is now, if you want to run Mac OS, you must buy Apple Hardware. And if you want Apple Hardware to run fully, you must by Mac OS. This is called a monopoly. The only reason Apple hasn't been called on it, it that they have too small of the market share in PCs.

...

Again, Apple fits the textbook definition of an economic monopoly, only they don't have the market share. If Apple did ever grow, as we would all like it to, they would have to open up some things, or risk a lawsuit.
You are wrong. A monopoly by definition is having 100% (or virtually 100%) market share. Apple is not a monopoly and is not even close. It follows then that you're saying is that Apple is a monopoly but has not been called on it because it is not a monopoly. In which case you are very confused. Find a different textbook, because the one you're pulling your facts out of is dead wrong.

jettredmont

Nov 14, 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

From Dictionary.com

There is only 1 seller of Apple Hardware, and OS. While there are distributers, they all get thier stuff from Apple. Again, you want to run an Apple computer, you must us a Mac OS. You want to run a Mac OS, you must have Apple hardware. With the notable exception of some talented programers that have disected Apple hardware so they can run Linux on it. This is actively discouraged by Apple.

By which definition Sony has a monopoly of Sony Diskmen and Ford has a monopoly on Tauruses. And, yes, the laser pickup of a Sony Diskman might not work in a Philips player, and the gearshift of the Taurus probably won't shift the gears of a Celica.

The marketplace is not and never can be defined as "category of dvice + manufacturer". Every manufacturer would then have a monopoly, and the term is meaningless.

On the other hand, yes, things like Apple bundling Sherlock which looks amazingly like Watson would get them in trouble if they owned more of the marketplace. But they don't.

OS X for x86 would not help in this situation, just like Windows for Alpha and IE for Solaris did not help Microsoft.

alex_ant

Nov 14, 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
There is only 1 seller of Apple Hardware, and OS. While there are distributers, they all get thier stuff from Apple. Again, you want to run an Apple computer, you must us a Mac OS. You want to run a Mac OS, you must have Apple hardware. With the notable exception of some talented programers that have disected Apple hardware so they can run Linux on it. This is actively discouraged by Apple.
So Pizza Hut is a monopoly because you can only get Pizza Hut pizza from Pizza Hut? And Chevrolet is a monopoly because you can only buy Chevrolet cars from Chevrolet? You're an idiot. There is NO legal questionability here whatsoever.

jettredmont

Nov 14, 2002, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont

OS X for x86 would not help in this situation, just like Windows for Alpha and IE for Solaris did not help Microsoft.

Actually, OS X for x86, sold at retail, might put Apple more in legal trouble if they continued selling their PPC-based hardware with OS X locked to it.

Right now, Apple claims that the Mac hardware and the OS X operating system are a single salable unit. If one of the two is available separately, then the most convincing defense gets thrown out.

Doctor Memory

Nov 14, 2002, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by AmigaMac
The applications you're naming is nothing more than a cheap shot,
Cheap shot? Those applications are the reason people bought macs in 1997 (and largely still today).
especially when you have no clue (nor I for that matter) of what market Be was going after...
I think that the problem is that Be had no idea what their market was supposed to be.
Netscape = Net Postitive
I'm pretty sure NetPositive was not available in 1997.
Word/Excel = Gobe Productive
Photoshop = ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc...
I'm 100% certain that most of those were not available in 1997.
Quark XPress is another story!
Indeed it is.
Either way, the Mac clone business was a get rich quick scheme, so it doesn't matter anymore!!
You keep saying that. It keeps being stupid and unsupported. Please explain to me how Motorola (a multi-billion dollar company), APC (ditto) and UMAX (ditto) were going to "get rich quick" by selling Mac clones.

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2002, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant
You are wrong. A monopoly by definition is having 100% (or virtually 100%) market share. Apple is not a monopoly and is not even close. It follows then that you're saying is that Apple is a monopoly but has not been called on it because it is not a monopoly. In which case you are very confused. Find a different textbook, because the one you're pulling your facts out of is dead wrong.
I agree, monopolies are based on the market share of the "entire" market - not a small segment of it.

Otherwise McDonald's can be considered as having a monopoly of Big Macs, VW a monopoly on diesel cars, IBM for their PPC-based AIX workstations, and Ford would have a monopoly on Ford vehicles, plus all the other examples already given and more.

Apple does not have a monopoly because you have to buy from Apple to get an Apple or even run Apple software.

You have to buy and Apple to run Apple software because of protections granted to companies under US law, that protect companies from cheap knock-offs that would erode their image in the marketplace.

Apple has not had a big enough market share for people to really care about making clones that get around patent protections like they did in the IBM PC case - plus it's a little different since IBM didn't own the operating system in the first place, which allowed MS to modify it to run on clones.

Somehow I don't see Apple doing that if they don't have a contract with the cloner.

agreenster

Nov 14, 2002, 02:39 PM

Just STOP already!

First off, this is AAAALLLLLLL speculation!

Besides, even if ANY of this is true, it isnt because Apple is going to make OSX for PC's, but instead reconfigure their hardware to work with a x86 processor.

It will still be a Mac, just like it is now, but it will just have an "AMD" stamp on the processor instead of "Motorola."

Somebody

Nov 14, 2002, 02:40 PM

There is only 1 seller of Apple Hardware, and OS. While there are distributers, they all get thier stuff from Apple. Again, you want to run an Apple computer, you must us a Mac OS. You want to run a Mac OS, you must have Apple hardware.

Oh, great, now you're quoting dictionary definitions. The only part of the quoted definition that is relevant is the first one; The second one is so vague and broad that you could use it to characterize just about any company as a monopoly, and has nothing to do with whether or not a company fits the legal definition of a monopoly, anyways. And I'm pretty sure that when you called Apple a monopoly, you didn't mean the board game.

So let's look at that first definition: "a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller". Is there a market in which Apple is the only seller? No. Because the primary market in which Apple competes is not "Computer hardware that runs MacOS", or "Operating systems which run on Macintosh hardware", but rather: "Personal computer systems". There are plenty of providers of such things besides Apple. Saying that Apple is a monopoly because they're the only company that competes in the "hardware that runs MacOS" market is about like saying that Ford is a monopoly because they are the only company that competes in the "Ford Mustang" market.

Doctor Memory

Nov 14, 2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Uh. Niche market == specific market == loyal users == users still on Mac OS 9, at least *A LOT* of creative professionals are in this niche market.
You are, honestly, not getting any more comprehensible here.

But okay, I think what you're trying to say here is that Apple isn't in the Audio/Visual market as a whole, they're only in the part of the AV market that uses Macs. That, friend, is what is called a tautology. Look it up.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer: I work at a video production company. (www.feedroom.com if you feel like taking a look. I do not speak for them and what I say here is on my own time and my own dollar.) I have many friends working at other AV production/editing/compositing companies. Apple is a force in this industry, in the same way that Avid, Microsoft, NewTek etc are.

You should really stop trying to talk authoritatively about an industry you apparently know little or nothing about.

They bought those companies to 1.) speed up OS X ports 2.) kill Windows ports and restricting software to inferior Mac hardware. 3.) keep the loyal creative professors from switching to PC hardware.
And from this you gather that Apple is not pursuing the A/V market? Kid, when you spend millions of dollars to buy a company like Nothing Real (makers of Shake and Tremor), it's not because you're hoping not to make any return on the investment.
That's what they're getting in the market for--trying to grab ahold of their existing share and maybe a few more, force people on inferior machines (Shake discontinued for PC), etc.
"Trying to keep ahold of your existing share and pursuing new customers" is the definition of courting a market.
Apple isn't being innovative that much these days.
Oh christ, whatever. I'll remember how innovative Apple is failing to be every time one of our editors fires up Final Cut Pro, okay?
Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?
Actually, Pixar uses both of the above, plus Windows, SGI and Sun hardware. (Who do you think the Xserve was specced out for, anyway?)

Fins160

Nov 14, 2002, 03:00 PM

Check out this recent benchmark test:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

Motorola is getting smoked, and Intel is only using a single processor. Apple may be forced to use an Intel Processor to stay competetive. For now people buy mac's because they are mac's, independent of speed claims. But if it takes twice as long to do something on a mac for twice the price, they are going to lost all their business no matter how pretty or easy to use their computers are. Apple is a smarter company than this. If motorola doesn't develop a serious G4++ / G5 within the first half of 2003, expect to see that "Intel Inside" sticker on the blue handle of your favorite mac.

Doctor Memory

Nov 14, 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Somebody
Mac/RISC fans have been saying "CISC will hit a wall" for *years*. Still hasn't happened.

Actually, it happened years ago, circa the 486.

What nobody in the RISC camp expected, however, was that Intel (and later NexGen/AMD and Via) would be able to bolt the x86's CISC instruction set on top of a RISC-ish core and a translation layer, and make it go faster than most pure-RISC chips. Ooops. :)

Booga

Nov 14, 2002, 03:33 PM

Not to interject intelligent discussion into an otherwise fun conversation, but I was reading about Intel's new 3GHz chip today. It seems *perfectly* suited to MacOS X due to its "hyperthreading" technology. Basically, it improves performance and avoids pipeline stalls by running multiple processes simultaneously, using multiple register files and program counters. If you consider that no instruction from one process depends on the outcome of one from another process, you've cut the pipeline stalls significantly.

What does this mean? It means that the new Intel x86 chip can execute two segments of code at the same time faster than it could execute one, followed by the other. Up until now, all mass market chips still held on to the concept of running one program at a time, and switching between them really fast. Although I've seen papers on it a decade ago, this is the first time anyone's actually released a core that significantly improves performance specifically for the case of multiple tasks running concurrently. It's kind of halfway between a single processor and a multi processor system.

Why would this be great for MacOS X? MOSX's kernelized design offloads a lot of work onto user-level tasks. While it is not a true "microkernel", running quite a bit of code in the kernel itself, it still depends on good performance from a handful of tasks that work together in order to accomplish its operating system duties. Moreso than other operating systems, it will be running many tasks at the same time and would benefit from any processor that can speed up this behavior.

My suspicion? An Apple box using this chip would leave all current Apple hardware in the dust. I would be surprised if, come WWDC in May, Apple didn't offer some sort of cross-compiler and courses on developing for an x86 version of MacOS X Server. I'm still skeptical of MacOS X running on x86, but MOSX Server seems natural, almost obvious.

orinoco

Nov 14, 2002, 03:34 PM

>> faster bus speeds, quicker RAM, and the entire host of crappy PC peripherals out there.<<

isn't the mac, especially the new G4s, moving towards faster bus speeds, quicker RAM, and utilizing a host of "crappy PC peripherals out there" (ie. ATA100/133 drives, DDR RAM, etc.) already?

it's not the crappy PC or Mac hardware (granted a bad piece of RAM will cause your system to not boot up at all), that causes system crashes but lousy, poorly written drivers or extensions. a system's stabilty doesn't just rely on a solid OS and solid hardware but solid drivers and extensions support as well.

sturm375

Nov 14, 2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Somebody

Oh, great, now you're quoting dictionary definitions. The only part of the quoted definition that is relevant is the first one; The second one is so vague and broad that you could use it to characterize just about any company as a monopoly, and has nothing to do with whether or not a company fits the legal definition of a monopoly, anyways. And I'm pretty sure that when you called Apple a monopoly, you didn't mean the board game.

So let's look at that first definition: "a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller". Is there a market in which Apple is the only seller? No. Because the primary market in which Apple competes is not "Computer hardware that runs MacOS", or "Operating systems which run on Macintosh hardware", but rather: "Personal computer systems". There are plenty of providers of such things besides Apple. Saying that Apple is a monopoly because they're the only company that competes in the "hardware that runs MacOS" market is about like saying that Ford is a monopoly because they are the only company that competes in the "Ford Mustang" market.

What good is computer hardware without an OS? What good is an OS without computer hardware to run it on? They are the only company that puts out an OS that runs their hardware, unless you count the attempt by linux distros.

It would be like if Ford would sell a Mustang, but dictate that in order to operate it, you must buy the authorized Ford Driver.

Aside from the OS matters, what about the iApps? If I am not mistaken Apple was named as a plantif on the litigation of MS. The main reason: MS gave away a free browser (Internet Explorer), which drove Netscape, and other compitition out of buisness. Now were advocationg an iBrowser? Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

chioti

Nov 14, 2002, 03:40 PM

Cappy

Nov 14, 2002, 03:50 PM

How about some of us cool down and stop the personal insults? The only idiots here are the ones who are making such insults. No one here knows everything. It's ok to argue and comment but the personal attacks are just immature. Sure it's frustrating to see many of these posts...especially the ones who repeat the same thing over and over that's been hashed out but unless there's a policy against, they're entitled so get a grip.

And for what it's worth it is ok to be a monopoly(depends on how you define it of course). The problem that people are trying to identify with the recent MS issues is that you cannot use illegal means to gain or maintain a monopoly.

You also cannot compare the Mac platform with the PC platform on this issue anyways due to the fact that Apple controls both the hardware and software. It is their product. The PC is not MS's product. It is essentially an open platform hence the clones.

The last thing to add is what has already been stated and that is it has to impact a significant number of people in the US for the US government to be involved on this issue. This is why there has not really been many such cases held in the history of the country.

Alright now for some reason this is a sensitive issue(OSX on x86) to some of the folks here. Why? Who the hell knows. If Apple can build a decent platform for a decent price that does little to affect the developers negatively, what is so wrong with that? If it does affect any of the factors I mentioned, sure, go crazy but for now no one knows. Try to remember that.

Somebody

Nov 14, 2002, 04:00 PM

Actually, it happened years ago, circa the 486.

What nobody in the RISC camp expected, however, was that Intel (and later NexGen/AMD and Via) would be able to bolt the x86's CISC instruction set on top of a RISC-ish core and a translation layer, and make it go faster than most pure-RISC chips. Ooops.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the design route Intel has taken with its more recent chips. Whether or not this constitutes CISC hitting a wall is a semantic debate: What makes a chip 'CISC'? The internal design approach, or the external instruction set that it implements? Personally, I vote for the latter. Certainly, that's the definition that makes the most sense here. Generally, when people have spoken of CISC 'hitting the wall' in the context of a Mac vs. PC performance competition, they mean that Intel will be unable to continue increasing their chips' performance while maintaining backwards compatibility with older software. That hasn't happened.

It's interesting to note that the IBM 970 that we're all hoping will restore some sort of performance parity to the Mac uses a translation scheme not dissimilar to that used by the Pentium -- though, most x86 instructions get translated into 2 or 3 'micro-ops', whereas most PPC instructions will translate to a single internal op in the 970. It's worth reading the Ars Technica article on the 970 if you haven't already. Neat stuff.

Somebody

Nov 14, 2002, 04:11 PM

It would be like if Ford would sell a Mustang, but dictate that in order to operate it, you must buy the authorized Ford Driver.

Ford *does* dictate that in order to operate a Mustang, you must buy a Ford engine with it. Why isn't there a problem with that?

If I am not mistaken Apple was named as a plantif on the litigation of MS. The main reason: MS gave away a free browser (Internet Explorer), which drove Netscape, and other compitition out of buisness. Now were advocationg an iBrowser? Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

The difference is that Apple is not in a position to drive a browser competitor out of business like MS did, because unlike MS, Apple is not a monopoly.

Mudbug

Nov 14, 2002, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Somebody

Ford *does* dictate that in order to operate a Mustang, you must buy a Ford engine with it. Why isn't there a problem with that?[/i].

What Ford doesn't do is tell you that you have to leave that Ford engine in that Ford car. If you feel like it and have the resources, you'll fully capable of putting someone else's engine in that car. All you have to do is undo some USER ACCESSIBLE bolts and remove the semi-proprietary engine from the car.

In MS's case, they made the car and the engine, but welded the engine in place with some sort of mostly unbreakable metal. You can put another engine in the back and use it instead, but the front engine will always be there weighting you down. :rolleyes:

bdkennedy1

Nov 14, 2002, 05:59 PM

This is probably a big reason why Apple is putting the final nails in OS 9's coffin because it won't run on x86, and why they're making people get used to not booting into OS 9 anymore.

videoguy

Nov 14, 2002, 07:25 PM

Lets all face it OS X works so well and dosn't crash (as much)because Apple makes the hardware. PCs suck because Windoze allows anyone to make hardware so you have all these crappy 3rd party drivers running everything. It's suprising Windoze works at all. If Apple made a OS X that worked on other hardware it would destroy their entire "user friendly, never crashes" image. It would be utterly stupid. On the other hand ... 4 Pentiums liquid cooled and true DDR memory on one board running OS X would be somthing I would like to see. ;)

naschbac

Nov 14, 2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by bryank1
This is probably a big reason why Apple is putting the final nails in OS 9's coffin because it won't run on x86, and why they're making people get used to not booting into OS 9 anymore.

Ugh... I don't know why so many of you people see the term x86 and then lump it in with "IBM PC Compatible" x86.

There's a lot more in the design and operation of a computer than the CPU's ISA. There is literally no reason why Apple couldn't continue to be the only supplier of hardware that can run MacOS X if they moved to x86 CPU's. They don't have to build an x86 PC that uses the PC BIOS architecture, they could build x86 computers that required an OpenFirmware architecture to be compatible and capable of booting the MacOS. There are hundreds of routes they could take to prevent generic PC systems from being able to run the MacOS, while still getting the performance and cost savings of using commodity components for CPU's and chipsets.

IBM makes RS/6000 machines with PowerPC 604e's in them, can you run MacOS 9 on them?

-Nathan

biscuit

Nov 15, 2002, 04:57 AM

Actually, this could still be a reason for them to encourage the dropping of OS9. I see your point Nathan, but the other thing to consider is that Apple just don't want to put resources into making OS9 work with this new system. So they want us to drop it, which is just fine and dandy by me.

Personally, I don't think we'll see an x86 Mac anyime soon. This would be a big shake-up and comes too soon after the OSX transition. Apple have been getting by on the G4 for a while now, they can get by until the 970.

This x86 build of OSX is a backup for lots of reasons already mentioned (I like the doomsday idea one!). To be a valid backup it needs to be up to date and tested.

biscuit

eric_n_dfw

Nov 15, 2002, 09:15 AM

This thread has turned into a broken record:
Troll: "Windows PC hardware sucks, Apple shouldn't go there"
Response: "X86 doesn't == Windows PC"
Troll 2: "Windows PC hardware sucks, Apple shouldn't go there"
...
:rolleyes:

jettredmont

Nov 15, 2002, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by naschbac

Ugh... I don't know why so many of you people see the term x86 and then lump it in with "IBM PC Compatible" x86.

There's a lot more in the design and operation of a computer than the CPU's ISA. There is literally no reason why Apple couldn't continue to be the only supplier of hardware that can run MacOS X if they moved to x86 CPU's. They don't have to build an x86 PC that uses the PC BIOS architecture, they could build x86 computers that required an OpenFirmware architecture to be compatible and capable of booting the MacOS. There are hundreds of routes they could take to prevent generic PC systems from being able to run the MacOS, while still getting the performance and cost savings of using commodity components for CPU's and chipsets.

Quite true, however, Apple needs to be cautious here. Remember, it was IBM that last thought it could create "the only IBM PC" by creating a special BIOS chip. Compaq cleanroom reimplemented the chip, which was later deemed legal, and the "IBM Compatible" industry was born.

That is not to say that Apple will follow the same route. But it's getting dangerously close. Perhaps someone more educated in the specifics of the Compaq coupe could shed some light on what Apple could do differently to maintain a "separate but equal" Mac line of hardware/software on x86?

jettredmont

Nov 15, 2002, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Troll 2: "Windows PC hardware sucks, Apple shouldn't go there"
...
:rolleyes:

Which I find hilarious, considering Windows hardware == Mac hardware in all respects except:

1) the CPU
2) the Motherboard (incl chipset)
3) the power supply and case

Changing the CPU to x86 doesn't mean that the Mac would have to support any more hardware or software than it currently does, just that the underlying CPU would come from Intel instead of Moto/IBM.

Still, I don't see the PPC architecture as having problems. And that's all that a switch to x86 would buy you: an x86 architecture instead of a PPC architecture. Macs would still not run Windows and you'd still not be able to "build your own" Mac any more than you can today and you'd still not be able to buy a Mac from Dell. Your apps would just be passing along outdated and kludgy instructions to the CPU instead of PPC instructions.

tYNS

Nov 15, 2002, 12:29 PM

Again this is all speculation.

But from a marketing point of view.. PC's sales are down. Apple obviously realizes this with their Digital Hub approach. How did they approach the Digital hub strategy? By writing software they thought people would find useful. Not to mention an entirely new operating system.

Apple has never been more active in the Software aspect of their computer.

I do agree that making a flat out x86 conversion of OS X for any PC user to install on their desktop would be shooting their own hardware sales foot.

I have a lot of friends itching to switch to OS X. Some for Java Developement (despite Sun's lack of implement the latest revisions of JDK to OS X on time), some just because they prefer the lack annoying security flaws.

What I do believe is that Apple may be trying to reduce cost of hardware. Hardware is "hard" (pardon the pun) to sell these days for Computer manufacturers. The ability for apple to reduce the cost of hardware is essential. It is the next logical step for them to do.. They have the OS, they have the software... They are getting the developers. It is now time to get the users over.

What we may see? Apple switching to x86 "lower-end" computers. Manufactured by Apple themselves . While higher end machine will stick with the latest Flavour of higher-end Motorola Processors. Apple has the ability to control which machine OS X (x86) versions could be installed on via the MAC ROM. Apple owns the rights to the information on this chip. As such controls the installation of OS X to their own brand of machine.

Why i believe they may be switching processors... Reduce costs of average machines. Reduce costs of Server Hardware (Apple obviously wants to get into this market).

What may be an indicator? Apple is completely dropping Classic support for new "machines". Why? obviously to push and allow vendors to focus on one "NEW" operating system.

or

Could it mean that the next generation Computers simply will not be able to run Classic mode? ie. x86 processors? is this an indication of what apple is planning to do?

It is all specualtion, but I believe it to be a smart turn for Apple to reduce costs for average users, and open up the market to allow apple to focus on new software developement and focus for their wonderful OS.

Only time will tell though..

Fins160

Nov 15, 2002, 01:41 PM

I have just done a price comparison between the Apple Powerbook G4 Ti Ultimate w/ DVD-R that I just purchased :-) and the Sony Vaio GRX600 w/ DVD-R that I almost purchased. Turns out that with the fastest configurations (1Ghz apple vs 2Ghz Intel), max ram, HD, and all the goodies, plus a wireless card, wireless access point, extra battery and 3 year warranty, the prices are identical - $4085 apple versus $4089 Sony. Because both are multimedia-intensive they compare nicely. Just an interesting point for everyone who says macs are so expensive - you get what you pay for. If you want a POS dell go for it, but if you want a sweet apple or Sony, you're gonna have to pay.

agreenster

Nov 15, 2002, 04:01 PM

Thats for portables. Check the same thing for desktops, and you will find a drastic difference.

The top end PowerMac is pushing 4000.00 while the same config in PC's is around 2500.00

tjwett

Nov 15, 2002, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
[B]

eric_n_dfw relax, I got this one. :D

Dude, that is the dumbest thing I've read so far. Go back and read the thread to find out why.

Actually, I take that back. Yer too lazy to read the thread in the first place, no reason to think you'll start reading it now. Here is why that's the dumbest thing I've read so far. That idea has been posted, and shot down, more than a few times already. Thanks for and taking up space.

dear rod,
eat me. no, wait. now eat me. good job. thanks.

Kid Red

Nov 15, 2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
[B]

From Dictionary.com

There is only 1 seller of Apple Hardware, and OS. While there are distributers, they all get thier stuff from Apple. Again, you want to run an Apple computer, you must us a Mac OS. You want to run a Mac OS, you must have Apple hardware. With the notable exception of some talented programers that have disected Apple hardware so they can run Linux on it.

So Epson, HP, Lexmark, and others are monopolies because you have to use their ink. Texas insruments is a monopoly because I can't run anything else on their stupid calculators. Mercedes, Volkswagon and a few others are monopolies because you can't start their cars without using their keys. I can come up with more, but they'd be as ridiculuos as your Apple/OS/monopoly statement.

Scottgfx

Nov 16, 2002, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by tjwett

dear rod,
eat me. no, wait. now eat me. good job. thanks.

Yeah, that's a lot more intelligent. Earning that macrumors respect I see. Have you read the entire thread yet?

Sun Baked

Nov 16, 2002, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by tjwett
dear rod,
eat me. no, wait. now eat me. good job. thanks.
It would be more fun watching them beat each other with rubber chickens.

And it would take a lot of beer to make that fun.

:rolleyes:

Tall Guy

Nov 16, 2002, 01:34 PM

A while ago, I remember doing some research about video compositing software. One company I looked into was Nothing Real, this was before the Apple days. Nothing Real had two products in those days: Shake and Tremor.

The day Apple bought Nothing Real, the Nothing Real website went offline for a few days and when it came back, any mention of Tremor had vanished.

Tremor was their latest product,still version 1.0, and unlike Shake, it was an integrated hardware/software solution. This made for superior speed. You had to buy the box and the software together, the software would only run on that one configuration.

I believe this hardware was a custom-made windows 2000 box with lots of extras added, and I'm not just talking about one or two PCI cards here.

If Apple would want to bring Tremor back, they would need:

1 - A RAID, which is about to appear
2 - A server: X-serve
3 - A custom-made computer, seriously optimised for video-editing and compositing, running OS X. If this specialised Mac would run faster with an AMD (and the reports suggest just that, FCP seems "to fly" on these machines) why not put an AMD chip in it ? Video editing/compositing stations are notoriously allergic to lots of software, they only need to run the editing software (FCP) compositing system(Tremor) and a webbrowser to allow for communication. So no need to worry about "all software companies having to re-write for x86", you wouldn't want to run their software on these boxes anyway.

Why would Apple want to bring out a Tremor type of system ?
The margins are very, very high for high-end systems that allow for that sort of real-time editing/compositing at HD-resolution.
It also would add a lot of credibility to Apple's efforts to enter the pro-video market, the sort of credibility that you can't get thru advertising, which will feed into the not-so-pro market. Apple wants you think video+computer=Apple Mac. 10 years ago it was graphics+computer=Apple Mac, and lets face it, that reputation has served them well.

That's my guess

LethalWolfe

Nov 16, 2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Tall Guy
It also would add a lot of credibility to Apple's efforts to enter the pro-video market, the sort of credibility that you can't get thru advertising, which will feed into the not-so-pro market. Apple wants you think video+computer=Apple Mac. 10 years ago it was graphics+computer=Apple Mac, and lets face it, that reputation has served them well.

That's my guess

I agree w/the all of yer post but this part. Apple already owns the pro video market. The post production industry runs on Apple hardware, and Apple software is gaining ground everyday. Does Apple have a finishing/compositing setup to rival Avid's Symphony, or an SGI box running Smoke/flame? Not yet. But I do agree that's why they bought Nothing Real.

Lethal

D*I*S_Frontman

Nov 16, 2002, 06:04 PM

As far as the $2500 vs $4000 comparison goes, here again we have to keep in mind the TCO when pricing machines.

Yes, all of us will have to grant you that top-of-the-line PowerMacs are not quite equal to but very close to the best performance-wise to some of the best AMD/Intel systems--and still initially cost more. On the face of it this seems like either a rip-off or a status symbol chic premium for a slower yet glitzier machine.

But look three years down the road and what will your system have cost you. I worked in a small-scale publishing house that dumped all of their Macs for PCs in 1998-99. The systems they bought to replace them were cheap HPs or occasionally Vaio desktop units, along with 1 Compaq laptop for me (BEGGED them for a Pismo--no dice). What do you supposed happened?

My compaq laptop had to be shipped to Texas and have its defective mobo replaced, which still didn't cure the persisting HD problem it was sent in for. The HP system driver for one of the Pavillions did not even recognize the sound card it SHIPPED WITH. Just in lost labor revenues with those two systems the company probably ate $2000-2500 over the course of one year. Forget about the technical support onsite for various probelms @ $75-90/hr. Yikes! And of course, the 45 known Mac viruses vs the 50,000+ known PC bugs and the long line of security patches for XP come into play as well.

A bulletproof, crashproof, more intuitive computing environment is WAY less expensive in the long run than a rocket fast but less reliable and less user-friendly one. Yes, I know Windows XP gets closer and closer to a "Mac-like" experience, but Apple keeps moving the bar up on ol' MS. Unless you are rendering video 24/7 and need absolute speed above all else, it doesn't make sense to not use a Mac if the criteria is COST. Macs are CHEAPER in the long run.

I ended up buying the exact Pismo my company refused me. Guess how many times I've had it in for service? ZERO. My wife even dropped it from waist high onto a hardwood floor--not even a scratch. My Compaq's latching mechanism didn't last a week.

As far as this actually pertains to the argument on this thread, I would say that Apple does not need to be the absolute fastest, just the best (highest quality, cheapest in the long run, user-friendliest, most secure). As much as we may hate it, Apple can afford to wait out the development cycles of both Moto and IBM until the next generations of better CPUs reach mass production.

Apple no longer cares to be the fastest. They want to be the best. Seeing that most modern computing horsepower is 100-fold overkill for the average user, their strategy makes sense. Once Moto and IBM deliver the goods, Apple will give the pro user a solid-performing system near the top of the heap. But fastest? For Apple, that's just not the most important factor anymore. I for one prefer near-the-top speed with completely unparalleled user friendliness, security, hardware quality, OS, and hardware/software compatability and intergration. I want a worry-free computing experience with no downtime. And I'm willing to pay extra for it up front because I'll make it back and then some in the long run.

But that's me. The thing isn't a toy--I don't own a single game. I don't give a rat's rectum how many frames per second Quake runs on my Pismo. It's a communications tool and an audio/visual arts creativity platform for me, and for those things it is fine. If I get the PowerLogix upgrade it will run FCP same as a 667 TiBook.

Apple is in no hurry to change horses to x86. No reason to. If it weren't for some non-recurring losses that they wrote off this quarter, Apple would have netted $7 milion in a bear market tech-slamming economy. Not bad. Certainly they are not about to make a move of desperation like switching to AMD/Intel chips. WHERE'S THE FIRE?

MacAztec

Nov 17, 2002, 12:42 AM

Instead of you all talking about apple having an OS X that you can install on a PC and blah blah blah, Apple switches to AMD Motherboards.

Think guys, an AMD 2600+ at 2.6 with 2GB DDR, GeForce 8x AGP, USB 2, all the xtras.

That would be such a nice speed....

Scottgfx

Nov 17, 2002, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by MacAztec
Instead of you all talking about apple having an OS X that you can install on a PC and blah blah blah, Apple switches to AMD Motherboards.

Think guys, an AMD 2600+ at 2.6 with 2GB DDR, GeForce 8x AGP, USB 2, all the xtras.

That would be such a nice speed....

Ahhh, you do know that a AMD Athlon 2600 runs at 2.13 Ghz and not 2.6, right? 2600 is a performance rating. If I add my two 1.25Ghz G4s, I think I'm a little ahead. :) USB2? Not interested. Faster AGP would be nice, but I'm familiar with what the 8X spec would provide.

Tall Guy

Nov 17, 2002, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I agree w/the all of yer post but this part. Apple already owns the pro video market. The post production industry runs on Apple hardware, and Apple software is gaining ground everyday. Does Apple have a finishing/compositing setup to rival Avid's Symphony, or an SGI box running Smoke/flame? Not yet. But I do agree that's why they bought Nothing Real.

Lethal

Over here in the UK I hardly see any Apple based video editing systems. When I look at any magazines about video editing, the windows based systems always get more coverage = more people use them. If I look at the number of video editing programs out there for windows and compare it with the number available for the Mac, the conclusion has to be that the market for windows based editing systems is bigger than the one for Apple based systems. I'm not discussing quality, just quantity.

Having said that, I sincerely hope Apple will continue to gain ground in the pro video market and a Tremor type of system which could compete directly with Symphony or Flame would be essential in that sort of strategy.

MacAztec

Nov 17, 2002, 01:19 PM

Somebody

Nov 17, 2002, 02:25 PM

Instead of you all talking about apple having an OS X that you can install on a PC and blah blah blah, Apple switches to AMD Motherboards.

Wow! What an amazing new idea! I'm sure nobody here ever thought of that before! It couldn't possibly be the case that this solution has already been brought up and discussed and had its flaws pointed out, right here in this very topic...

LethalWolfe

Nov 17, 2002, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Tall Guy

Over here in the UK I hardly see any Apple based video editing systems. When I look at any magazines about video editing, the windows based systems always get more coverage = more people use them. If I look at the number of video editing programs out there for windows and compare it with the number available for the Mac, the conclusion has to be that the market for windows based editing systems is bigger than the one for Apple based systems. I'm not discussing quality, just quantity.

Having said that, I sincerely hope Apple will continue to gain ground in the pro video market and a Tremor type of system which could compete directly with Symphony or Flame would be essential in that sort of strategy.

:eek: Really? I didn't know that.

Here in the states there are more editing apps for PCs than Macs, but they are all low-end consumer/home user (w/the exception of Vegas Video 3 and Premiere which hit the prosumer market), but no one looks at you seriously unless you are using a Mac and FCP or Avid. Since Avid starting going to the PC more I'm starting to see a PC here and a PC there as finishing stations but thats it. People who do corporate work and event (wedding) videographers tend to use Premiere on the PC, but anything having to do w/broadcast or film is, for all intents and purposes, Mac only (sans the finishing suites of course).

Lethal

vniow

Nov 17, 2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Scottgfx

Ahhh, you do know that a AMD Athlon 2600 runs at 2.13 Ghz and not 2.6, right? 2600 is a performance rating. If I add my two 1.25Ghz G4s, I think I'm a little ahead. :) USB2? Not interested. Faster AGP would be nice, but I'm familiar with what the 8X spec would provide.

Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right? If I can get a chip at a lower clockspeed that outperforms supposedly faster CPUs at a lower price, I'd buy it.
Your dual 1.25 G4s may be ahead of one 2600+ AMD chip but not by much and definately not by price.
Believe it or not, PC hardware doesn't suck so bad anymore, it's cheap, fast, and suprisigly reliable and long lasting.
Macs and PCs almost use the exact same parts already, save for MB, CPU and video card.

The TCO may have been more for a PC a couple years ago, but that price is lowering fast.

The lines aren't so clear anymore.

Tall Guy

Nov 17, 2002, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

:eek: Really? I didn't know that.

Here in the states there are more editing apps for PCs than Macs, but they are all low-end consumer/home user (w/the exception of Vegas Video 3 and Premiere which hit the prosumer market), but no one looks at you seriously unless you are using a Mac and FCP or Avid. Since Avid starting going to the PC more I'm starting to see a PC here and a PC there as finishing stations but thats it. People who do corporate work and event (wedding) videographers tend to use Premiere on the PC, but anything having to do w/broadcast or film is, for all intents and purposes, Mac only (sans the finishing suites of course).

Lethal

Yeah, I've noticed that the perception of Apple is very different in the States compared to Europe. Maybe it has something to do with the price difference, Apple mac's are perceived as an unnecessary luxury by many people here. On the US Apple website, the top G4 at this moment costs around 4600 dollars, that same machine will sell here for the equivalent of a bit more than 6000 dollars, 30% more. And no, we don't earn more than you. I once worked with an American production company on some commercials, they brought all their kit over here and I was surprised at how Apple oriented they were, and how willing they were to buy all the best stuff, not constantly go for second-best or "good enough". It was the only time I've worked on a production where they used FCP. They even used such outrageous luxuries like AirPorts ! Which was quite a difference from one of the next companies I worked for. They would let their Dell's communicate with each other by burning CD's. They didn't know how to network their computers (sigh).

MacAztec

Nov 17, 2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by edvniow

Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right?

Yes we all know that. But you probly know from bench marks and stuff that practically any new AMD or Intel chip will beat Apples chip, without Dual.

So if you got a Dual Xeon, or a Dual P4 2.8GHz, or Dual AMD 2600+ 2.2GHz, and compared it to a Dual 1.25GHz from Apple, you would know that the PC Chips ARE faster.

heck, for the price of a Dual 1.25 from Apple, you could get Dual AMD with 2GB DDR, 80GB HD, 17in LCD, Wireless KB and Mouse, NICE graphics, Sound Card, Speakers, and STILL have money left over.

vniow

Nov 17, 2002, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by MacAztec

heck, for the price of a Dual 1.25 from Apple, you could get Dual AMD with 2GB DDR, 80GB HD, 17in LCD, Wireless KB and Mouse, NICE graphics, Sound Card, Speakers, and STILL have money left over.

And that's Apple's problem. It's partially their fault that they have slower chips than the competition and it's partially Moto's.
For the consumer, they're pretty competively priced, compare the specs of the 'i' line to any Dell and the Macs can usually match it. But move on up to the 'pro' line and the price/performance difference increases dramacally.

naschbac

Nov 17, 2002, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
Perhaps someone more educated in the specifics of the Compaq coupe could shed some light on what Apple could do differently to maintain a "separate but equal" Mac line of hardware/software on x86?

The difference is that Apple is also the software vendor. Apple has license control and intellectual property rights to not only portions of their hardware, but also their software.

IBM simply made some hardware that could run Microsoft's DOS. Had Microsoft been in contract with IBM to only produce versions of DOS capable of running on IBM branded hardware, or had IBM been the primary OS provider and followed such a distribution model then it would have been legal for Compaq to make "IBM PC compatible" computers, but it would have been illegal for them to use DOS on them.

-Nathan

Scottgfx

Nov 17, 2002, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by edvniow

Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right? If I can get a chip at a lower clockspeed that outperforms supposedly faster CPUs at a lower price, I'd buy it.
Your dual 1.25 G4s may be ahead of one 2600+ AMD chip but not by much and definately not by price.
Believe it or not, PC hardware doesn't suck so bad anymore,

Ahhhhhh... I own a dual Athlon 1.2Ghz that I built myself last year. I'm very familiar with them. I almost never boot that thing. I still prefer to use my 733Mhz SINGLE PROCESSOR machine at home.

The new 1.25Ghz G4 dual is at work.

The 733 is older than the Athlon, but I bet you it's got a higher resale value. I just saw in the J&R catalog, a 733 G4 for $1100. I'd probably be lucky to get $500 for the athlon.

Scottgfx

Nov 18, 2002, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by edvniow

Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right? If I can get a chip at a lower clockspeed that outperforms supposedly faster CPUs at a lower price, I'd buy it.
Your dual 1.25 G4s may be ahead of one 2600+ AMD chip but not by much and definately not by price.

BTW, if you had taked the time to read the message I was replying to, the writer was trying to say that a XP2600+ processor actually ran at 2.6Ghz or was at least thinking about the possibility. And by the very fact that I brought up the term "Performance Rating" Don't you think I already know about "Megahertz Myth"? *Sigh*

Pepzhez

Nov 18, 2002, 06:15 AM

Sonic Foundry will be releasing Vegas Video for Linux in December/January. This will actually be quite a big deal, as it makes people like me actually consider buying one of the new Dell boxes which do smoke the current top of the line Power Mac. (Video rendering times cut in HALF!) Much as I hate to admit it, Apple just keeps getting farther and farther behind. I've long been holding out, hoping for a G5 or whatever miracle solution from Apple, but it increasingly looks like it's never going to happen. What I do know - and, again, it really pains me to say this because I do love Macs and I love OS X - is that that Dell box will be even cheaper and probably faster in six months time, while Apple will still be languishing with faux-DDR and miniscule G4 overclocking. A year ago I'd say that Apple was going to be playing catch up for a while to come, but at this point they don't even seem to be in the race. I hope this changes, but does anyone really see any indication that it will?

Believe me, in the video world right now, platform/hardware preference has less to do with Apple loyalty than it does to (understandable) anti-Windows sentiment. Many people have expressed a desire for the best of both worlds, viz. FCP for Linux, running on an ultra-fast (and affordable) Dell box. Of course no one expects Apple to ever make FCP available for anything but Mac OS, but now that Sonic Foundry has taken the plunge, I think we will see some interesting changes very quickly. Vegas Video is an evolving NLE app that, while not possessing as nice of an interface as FCP, it is constantly improving. (It's a hell of a lot better than Premiere, that's for sure). Running any flavor of Windows has always been out of the question, but running Vegas Video (stupid name, really) on ultra-stable (and free) Linux is one hell of an incentive for production houses and individuals to step away from Apple.

Like it or not, this is going to be a HUGE boost for Linux at the expense of Macs in the video industry, and even more so in university production labs.

I'm still sticking with my Macs and OS X, but I can also envision a Linux-based Dell box crunching numbers in no time flat happily churning away on the desk beside my Macs.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to see what impact the Vegas Video/Linux marriage will have on things - and what Apple's response to it will be.