Marklar? Pretty cool stuff.

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by coopdog, Aug 23, 2003.

  1. coopdog macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #1
    Hey I found this article about Marklar.
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

    So if this is all true about Marklar. Would you be able to run any Apps? Because wouldn't all the iapps and programs for OS X need to be ported for windows?

    I'm very surprized that a copy has not been leaked. It kinda makes me want to sneek into Apples HQ and look around. I bet there is very laxed security there :p

    Anyone ever see the movie anti-trust? It would be like that. I wonder what apple's most guarded file is? OS X source code? :)
     
  2. Mac til death macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    Memphis
    #2
    you wouldn't write your code to run on Windows... (if you're running OS X, you're not running windows...)

    You would have to recompile some application code to run on the X86 based processor...

    and no Apple's security is not lax... Think Area 51 ;)
     
  3. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #3
    this has been discussed many times over the past few months, including one thread in the past week or so.

    pnw
     
  4. maraczc macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #4
    **** man if this is so than I am selling my Mac and getting a PC. I payed way too much money for a system of these specs. I would definatly feel very betrayed by Apple if they come up with a PC version of OS X.
     
  5. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #5
    Even if it were to happen, it wouldn't run on just any PC.
     
  6. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #6
    Thats true, It'd be apple controlled if it did go x86 but it won't anyways, so Marklar is useless
     
  7. hugemullens macrumors 6502a

    hugemullens

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #7
    with the G5 released makalar is atleast 4 years away, and i PROMISE if apple did go to x86 it would still be on apple hardware and firmware/bios. Dont worry folks, the PPC is here to stay.
     
  8. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #8
    You mean Apple Hardware is here to stay. It wouldn't be PPC if it was x86.
     
  9. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #9
    i think marklar was simply a contingency plan for not getting G5's by a certain time. It had the potential to really sink the company, since they don't make chips, they're at IBM and Motorola's mercy... and motorola wasn't playing ball. So apple had to depend on the whim of IBM, not a pretty prospect. Marklar was so they could switch to x86, if it meant saving the company's life. Now that the G5 is shipping, marklar is pretty useless, so if any development remains it's residual maintenance.

    pnw
     
  10. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #10
    As you could read, this is an old article.
    Bottom line for me = what exactly is Mac OS X?
    Is it just the commercial name for Darwin? Then yeah, you can get an x86 version here.

    But if you describe Mac OS X as Darwin + Aqua (with all the stuff that goes with it).... well, then I'm pretty sure this would be the most guarded piece of software in 1 Infinite Loop! And I wonder how eweek actually knows this.
     
  11. RandomDeadHead macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    fennario
    #11

    They got their info from a rumor site.

    Go figure.
     
  12. Jesus on OSX macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    #12
    There is a preview of the x86 OSX version. It's from a reliable source within Apple Corp.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #13
    Running Aqua????
    Like Rhapsody.... with Cocoa = yellowbox? maybe even somekind of redbox aswell???

    I honestly don't know what to think about this....
     
  14. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #14
    BTW, it's OSX on x86.... NOT Mac OS X on x86. Could be a huge difference. Possibility: OS X = Darwin, Mac OS X = Darwin +, like I said before, Aqua and the rest of the goodies... :rolleyes:
     
  15. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #15
    Kill it!

    -Marklar is a technology demonstrator, and that's all it is.

    Remember, NExTStep ran on x86 hardware, and was rewritten for PPC architecture. Of course any company worth their salt would keep the technology base running - and a wise one, will continue to side-develop it.

    It's just sense. Will it be released to the public? Only economics can tell, but it's not intended to.
     
  16. Chealion macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    #16
    Apple has had Marklar for years, they keep a version that works on the x85 architecture for two reasons I can think of:

    1) In the event of something blowing up and the entire Mac line melting down and no way for Apple to continue Hardware sales, they can compete with MS on x86 architecture.

    2) Debugging, and compatability. The most bug free and stable OSes made have been made on multiple architectures at the same time. One version of Microsoft's NT in development had a version that worked on the PPC architecture, and according to my friend who used that version of NT, it was the most stable, but the next version was solely developed for the x86 architecture, and well it was major buggy. By making your software on multiple architectures, programmers are able to debug bugs, that won't even normally exist. I don't know specifics, but just the general idea :(
     

Share This Page