A new spin on Mac OS X for Intel

[wrldwzrd89]

I think that the day we see two editions of Mac OS X: PowerPC Edition and x86 Edition, is the day the same thing happens to MS Windows.

Therefore, we'll go from 2 major operating systems to 4:

-Before-
Mac OS X (for PPC)
Windows (for x86)

-After-
Mac OS X/PPC
Mac OS X/x86
Windows/x86
Windows/PPC

[inziga]

Are you ok?

[AmigoMac]

LOL

http://homepage.mac.com/munnoz/Macros/lol.jpg

[Darwin]

Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us :D

Is there a point to this thread? :confused:

[iMeowbot]

Windows/PPC
I think we can tell what the demand for such a product would be by the fact that it was available for at least two years and no one seems to have noticed.

[wrldwzrd89]

Hello everyone -

Sorry for the confusion as to the purpose of this thread.

I just think that it would make sense for Windows to go PPC if Mac OS X goes x86. That way, the people clamoring to try Mac OS X on their x86 hardware can do so, and the people who can't stand Mac OS X, but still want to keep their Apple Mac can do so as well. The reason for the simultaneous release (if it happens) is so that neither side (Apple/Microsoft) thinks they're favored.

[5300cs]

Hello everyone -

Sorry for the confusion as to the purpose of this thread.

I just think that it would make sense for Windows to go PPC if Mac OS X goes x86.

This has been discussed to utter DEATH. Porting OS X to (crappy) x86 would undermine Apple's hardware sales and eventually kill the company. Porting windows to PPC? Well, http://homepage.mac.com/time_pilot/rollinglaugh.gif is really all I can say

[oingoboingo]

This has been discussed to utter DEATH. Porting OS X to (crappy) x86 would undermine Apple's hardware sales and eventually kill the company. Porting windows to PPC? Well, http://homepage.mac.com/time_pilot/rollinglaugh.gif is really all I can say

Windows was already on PowerPC until Windows 2000, and then Microsoft discontinued support for it. Grab a Windows NT 4 CD-ROM and take a look at the supported hardware. You can install it on DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC and x86. One of the most heavily touted features of Windows NT back in the day was its' Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL), and the ease with which this allowed it to be ported to different architectures and machines.

Of course Microsoft lost interest somewhere along the way, but the fact remains that Windows NT already runs on PowerPC.

[5300cs]

Windows was already on PowerPC until Windows 2000, and then Microsoft discontinued support for it.

:rolleyes: Ok, read my last message as XP for ppc... better?

[MisterMe]

Hello everyone -

Sorry for the confusion as to the purpose of this thread.

I just think that it would make sense for Windows to go PPC if Mac OS X goes x86. That way, the people clamoring to try Mac OS X on their x86 hardware can do so, and the people who can't stand Mac OS X, but still want to keep their Apple Mac can do so as well. The reason for the simultaneous release (if it happens) is so that neither side (Apple/Microsoft) thinks they're favored.What do you know about the market prospects of Win XP on PPC that Microsoft doesn't know?

[wrldwzrd89]

What do you know about the market prospects of Win XP on PPC that Microsoft doesn't know?
Uh...nothing :o

[yellow]

Windows was already on PowerPC until Windows 2000, and then Microsoft discontinued support for it.

Just to clarify for someone else who might read this, this was not a PowerPC used in Apple computers. It has never been possible to install Windows on a Mac without 3rd party hardware/software.

[iMeowbot]

I'd be happy enough to see the Yellow Box product revived and released.

[oingoboingo]

Just to clarify for someone else who might read this, this was not a PowerPC used in Apple computers. It has never been possible to install Windows on a Mac without 3rd party hardware/software.

I think it was aimed at CHRP systems, wasn't it? I don't think Apple ever got around to releasing anything which was CHRP, but IBM did (from memory, could be wrong).

[yellow]

I believe that is correct..

[Mantat]

I would just like to point out that Apple is already developping a x86 version of OSX and has since the begining. This is not a rumor but a known fact admited by Apple.

This version will probably never be released, it is ment as a "plan B" in case the PPC procs production would stall as in the G4 era. With the G5 availlability, it just confirms that this code will never be released.

My guess is that MS does the same and has a PPC version of window, 'just in case'...

[oingoboingo]

:rolleyes: Ok, read my last message as XP for ppc... better?

Yes, thankyou :)

Still, there isn't a huge amount of difference between NT 4 and XP under the hood. Remember that the current rumours for the Xbox2 involve a PowerPC processor and a Windows OS. Windows XP for PowerPC really isn't all that ridiculously far fetched in a technical sense.

And not that this is really directed at anyone in particular, but also remember that NeXTSTEP (which Mac OS X is a direct descendent of) was available for multiple platforms, including Intel. Early developer releases of Rhapsody were available for both PPC and x86, and there are persistent stories of 'Marklar', a variant of OS X which is maintained for x86. I'm not saying for one moment that Apple is going to release OS X for x86 (I agree with everyone who says that releasing for x86 would eventually kill Apple), but multi-CPU platform OS support is the actually the norm rather than the exception in the IT world. It's usually for a marketing/financial/resource reason that an OS is not multiplatform, rather than a technical one.

[5300cs]

...remember that NeXTSTEP (which Mac OS X is a direct descendent of) was available for multiple platforms, including Intel. ...

Did not know that. Don't know too much about NeXTSTEP, except the clone window manager WindowMaker which I used to use in/on/under(??) Linux.

[Zaty]

One important thing to keep in mind: Should Apple ever decide to leave the PPC platform and use x86 cpus instead, this doesn't mean that you can run Windwos on those Macs unless MS writes a Windows version that supports all hardware components (e.g. chipset controllers, which are still designed by Apple).

[oingoboingo]

Did not know that. Don't know too much about NeXTSTEP, except the clone window manager WindowMaker which I used to use in/on/under(??) Linux.

NeXTSTEP was available on Motorola 68030/68040 (the hardware that powered the original black magnesium NeXT Cube and later designs), x86, and also Sun SPARC I believe. I'm not to hot on NeXT history, but I think OpenStep evolved from that, and was also available on HP PA-RISC and PowerPC. Someone who knows more about the sordid past of Mr. Jobs might want to 'step' in here and help out...but anyway...the point is that NeXTSTEP and in fact Apple's Rhapsody were both available on x86.

[iMeowbot]

A very brief history of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Cocoa lives here.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaOverview/Articles/CocoaHistory.html

[wrldwzrd89]

NeXTSTEP was available on Motorola 68030/68040 (the hardware that powered the original black magnesium NeXT Cube and later designs), x86, and also Sun SPARC I believe. I'm not to hot on NeXT history, but I think OpenStep evolved from that, and was also available on HP PA-RISC and PowerPC. Someone who knows more about the sordid past of Mr. Jobs might want to 'step' in here and help out...but anyway...the point is that NeXTSTEP and in fact Apple's Rhapsody were both available on x86.
I knew someone would post that both Windows for PPC and Mac OS X for x86 either exist or are rumored to exist...I'm just wondering if both will ever be widely released and marketed. I suppose Microsoft's monopoly position could be a factor in this.

[oingoboingo]

A very brief history of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Cocoa lives here.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaOverview/Articles/CocoaHistory.html

Thanks, that was very useful.

[yellow]

.I'm just wondering if both will ever be widely released and marketed.

Apple's won't. They are a hardware company first and foremost. That is their source of revenue. If they started selling OSX for the x86 architecture, why buy a Mac when you can build a cheap, crappy, IntelThon? There goes Apple's source of income. I guess they could fall back on OSXx86 if worse came to worse, but I doubt that would keep them afloat.

[wrldwzrd89]

Apple's won't. They are a hardware company first and foremost. That is their source of revenue. If they started selling OSX for the x86 architecture, why buy a Mac when you can build a cheap, crappy, IntelThon? There goes Apple's source of income. I guess they could fall back on OSXx86 if worse came to worse, but I doubt that would keep them afloat.
You're right - with IBM doing what they're doing with the PPC architecture, this issue shouldn't ever come up.

[oingoboingo]

You're right - with IBM doing what they're doing with the PPC architecture, this issue shouldn't ever come up.

Uhhh...getting crappy yields and not getting to 3GHz on schedule? <drum roll/cymbal splash>

[wrldwzrd89]

Uhhh...getting crappy yields and not getting to 3GHz on schedule? <drum roll/cymbal splash>
As far as not reaching 3 GHz when expected is concerned, it isn't really IBM's fault - the blame lies on all the physical problems EVERYONE encountered when switching to the 90nm manufacturing process. The yield problems are partly due to the previously-mentioned 90nm difficulties and partly due to internal issues at IBM's manufacturing plants.

[MisterMe]

Just to clarify for someone else who might read this, this was not a PowerPC used in Apple computers. It has never been possible to install Windows on a Mac without 3rd party hardware/software.PPC-based Windows NT computers were not Macs, but they used they used PPC 604e processors, the same chips used by IBM RS/6000 and the PowerMac 8500/8600/9500/9600. Read and be wise (http://www.winnetmag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/2247/2247.html).
I think it was aimed at CHRP systems, wasn't it? I don't think Apple ever got around to releasing anything which was CHRP, but IBM did (from memory, could be wrong).Actually, Apple did release computers based on CHRP. You might try starting your MacOS X computer in single-user mode to see if you have one.

[weldon]

I know the PPC vs Intel debate has been raging forever, but I still have to jump in and point out that a Macintosh with "Intel Inside" (or AMD for that matter) does not equate to Mac OS X running on any old PC from Dell, HP, whatever. That's my biggest beef with people that are against the x86 architecture for Mac. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I totally support Apple in killing the clone market. Let's face it, 5% (or whatever) is not a big enough market to share with anyone else in this day and age. I don't want them to support Mac OS X on other hardware. I absolutely want Apple to stay in the hardware business and continue making "insanely great" computers for the rest of us. The new iMac G5 is great. Not without flaws, but great nonetheless.

However, I think that Apple would get a lot more "bang for the buck" if they were to use AMD processors with HyperTransport, etc. on their own proprietary motherboards that they design to only work with their OS.

I also think there would also be a huge benefit in designing Virtual PC to run with "native" hardware underneath. You couldn't install Windows on a Macintosh, and you couldn't install OS X on a PC, but you could install Virtual PC on a Macintosh to run Windows at near native speeds. Apple could withold the secret sauce to prevent anyone from creating a Virtual Machine that would make a PC look like an x86-based Macintosh.