Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by gopher, Nov 13, 2002.
Interesting food for thought.
Is this Mac OS X on x86 week or something?
What disturbs me is the part where they say that final cut pro is so much faster on the Athlon....
Unfortunately i must attest that some programs seem faster and more responsive on new pc's. My girlfriend just got a cheapo HP for $800 to replace an 8 year old compaq, and even though it doesnt have the best hardware, the 2ghz P4 in this thing is FAST. I installed PS7 on there so i could do some of my graphics work at her house, and i got to say, PS 7 is very fast and responsive, seems to be more so than on any of the macs i used.
Of course the user experience as a whole is lacking on windows and multitasking(which is an absolute must for me, i have at least 5 high powered graphics and web design programs open at once) is a joke on the pc.
Maybe i just need a new 1ghz dp powermac......<sigh> if only i could buy one....
Its faster because the machine is faster, faster bus, faster memory, etc.
If the Power4 comes through that just might be enough, maybe. I don't like the idea of going with an Athlon though, it just doesn't seem right.
How to make MacOS X86 Work for Apple
Apple might do the following:
Push the PowerMac up to dual and quad PowerPC cpu's, especially with the IBM PowerPC 970.
Maintain the Xserve as a PowerPC 970 and successor architecture.
Intro a mid-range single processor Athlon Desktop Mac. 1 PCI slot/ CD-RW only. Make it cheap and fast. Boots MacOS X (x86) and can boot Windows.
Offer iMac in PowerPC and Athlon editions, again single processor.
Maintain PowerPC for PowerBook and iBook and eMac.
Release MacOS X (x86) to retail ($130 + $100 for iApps bundle).
Disallow PC manufacturers from selling MacOS X (x86) pre-installed, but support upgrading existing Windows machines to MacOS X.
Allow Dell to sell a single model, limited config options machine with MacOS X (x86) pre-installed.
Apple may have some trick up their sleeve that allows them to run x86 macs without OSX being able to be installed on a non-mac... I think thats what would be best for Apple, if its possible
Of course thats posisble, thats exactly what they do right now. You can buy other powerPC computers without being able to install Mac OS on them, becaue of the hardware rom, and how the OS is specifically written for the architecture. That part is no problem.
What is a problem is figuring out how to integrate an x86 processor into their current or future designs. Heat dissipation and things like that are a big concern to apple. Also, you have to port the OS and make it easy to port programs as well.
And all that assumes they want to move to x86, whcih I don't think they do unless they have to.
In before lock!
Oh wait, that's appleinsider.
Re: How to make MacOS X86 Work for Apple
If they let it boot into Windows too, then that would make Apple a box manufacturer, would it not?
If Apple could make it work, Id buy one!
Could you imagine a dual AMD Apple running OSX?
AMD's are fast, arguably faster than any pentium chip.
If it just comes down to who manufactures Apple's chip, then who cares if its AMD? As long as its really fast and has an Apple logo on it, Ill buy it.
However, I dont like the idea of it booting Windows.....why would it have to? I dont see the point. Just maintain OSX, convert people to it, offer a fast computer, and let Windows die.
On my post in http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14107&perpage=25&pagenumber=2 would like to counter your point. It is possible.
Actually, you can buy other PowerPC computers and run Mac OS on them under Linux with "Mac on Linux."
No ROM required, etc. Buy your $1000 800MHz G4 Amiga workstation and load it up with Linux, then install Mac OS X to see for yourself. But, of course, this is illegal.
Just wanted to make sure it's clear it's possible and it's inevitable. There have always been workarounds and there will always be workarounds.
Do you mean Avid?
Amiga. They're taking preorders for a true PowerPC 7451 powered 800MHz motherboard that is standard ATX.
They're around $1,000, or so I hear. Maybe just the mobo + processor == less than $1,000. Who knows.
Since Amiga PPCs do run Linux, therefore, it can run Mac OS X under Mac-on-Linux.
Isn't there a better mac-linux conversion?
Last time I checked (about 4 seconds ago) there was THIS
lol, or are you talking about something else...?
If apple goes XP and other processors that is a good thing cause everything will run better.
Apple needs to spread out, not thin itself but increase market share and everything.
No, I'm not talking about Linux on a Mac, in fact, the opposite. Mac-on-Linux is a "virtual" Macintosh emulator (emulates Apple ROMs, whatever needed to boot Mac OS) but uses the current PowerPC processor to power the Mac OS X running under Linux.
Here's a picture.
that's a bold statement. your inability to multitask on a pc doesn't mean the os is flawed. you're kinda insulting yourself when you say you have problems, because it's done everyday by 'average' computer users.
There comes a point where us mac users need to pull our heads out of our... stovepipes... AMD is past 2 ghz and still rolling around and we are sitting at 1.25. I've used some of these fast machines and I hate to break it to ya'll but in EVERY program they are zippier and more responsive.. you can't lay under the big apple sheet for long.. apple is a company and its their costumers needs that drive them.. if we say hey were fine with 1.25 when my neighbor goes out and buys a 3 ghz pc machine we have another thing coming... I have heard it all before.. the megahertz myth.. but when it comes to it.. everything my friends 2 ghz machine does .. does it quicker than my machine.. the people that push apple are us. don't be satisfied.. i commend apple with their rumored investment into AMD.. AMD is a GREAT company.. hey atleast its not intel..
and think the next time your at a LAN party with all your PC friends and you walk in with your 2004 mac in hand.. you can finally know that your not going to have to defend yourself.. because under the hood is the same processor as theirs.. but in a sleeker sexier case.. and a heck of a lot better OS.. ahhh the future is soo bright.
Didn't catch your post here, but I'll comment on the multitasking thing.
What the hell?
It's a joke? Have you tried Windows XP? It has multitasking just like Mac OS X. In fact, Microsoft had true multitasking (preemptive) before Apple starting with Windows NT's first version. When was that? 1993?
At least five high powered graphics and web design programs open at once? Easily done. I've got 512MB PC2100 DDR (soon to upgrade to 1GB) and I usually have three copies of Visual Studio.NET open, Trillian, Outlook XP, 30 Internet Explorer windows, 10 Mozilla windows, two or three Access copies, full version Microsoft SQL Server 2000, Folding@home, Norton, QuickTime, Dreamweaver MX, Photoshop 7.0, Opera, and so much more open all the time.
Yet, it's truly responsive, no latency, none, zip.  Oh, did I mention it's a single processor AMD Athlon 1.4GHz? Not even dual processor.
So, therefore, no it's not a joke. It's a reality.
 Please, everyone, DON'T equate PC with Windows. Linux runs on PCs, BSD runs on PCs. Even Mac OS runs on PCs. I'd imagine those to be a MUCH better implemented UNIX system than Mac OS X (not to mention, performance absolutely kills the Macs, especially on x86 versions of UNICES. PC is a computer. Windows is an operating system that you are trying to compare to.
Actually Apple had A/UX, a true multitasking environment before Windows NT. 1992 according to this link here:
And all Mac users used A/UX. A/UX never got popular, they still used Mac System Software 7.x for your regular Joe. Windows NT was just fine for your regular Joe and they had it since 1993. It wasn't until Mac OS X that Apple produced a true multitasking environment for your regular Joe.
I apologize for not making this point clear in my post.
Funny how Window NT wasn't really forced onto the average Joe until Window XP.
I was a regular joe back then but used Windows NT 4.0.
Remember, many corporations used Windows NT 4.0 as their workstations instead of Windows 95, and regular Joes were already working/familiar with Windows NT family.
Point is, Microsoft already had one widely used by regular Joes. It was not Microsoft's job to make sure everyone ran Windows NT. Businesses simply chose to because of NT's better stability over 9x line.
Best of all, Microsoft didn't need an emulation layer to run classic applications ("9x"), they ran natively. Thus corporations could use existing applications with no speed loss, no hardware loss, etc. I don't see Apple doing this. Sure, Classic "environment" but that's not the same thing, that's just an emulator à la Mac-on-Linux but limits hardware access, limits software compatibility, etc.
The hard part isn't making it work...
The hard part for Apple isn't making OS X run on x86. That's the *EASY PART*.
These are the hard parts...
1) Convincing users to buy new software because their old software (compiled for PPC) won't run on the new machines
2) Convincing software developers to re-write their Altivec and other PPC-specific code to work under x86
3) Getting over the initial heat from:
"Oh, btw, x86 actually is faster... Sorry we overcharged you for all that PPC stuff"
i heard rumors that they'll be using the AMD hammer processors and not Athlon XP's...since the XP's wont be staying around for much longer probably....(half a year probably at tops)