iPhone: OS X is not Mac OS X

[Toe]

Apple chooses their words carefully.

If you look at http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html you'll notice that they repeatedly say "OS X."

If you look at any other Apple document such as http://www.apple.com/macosx you'll notice that they always call their computer operating system "Mac OS X."

My guess would be that Mac OS X is their full computer operating system, while OS X is a derivative/variant that is specifically their appliance operating system.

Only time (and an eventual whitepaper on the Developer site) will tell the true differences. But the point is that there are differences even in the name.

 

[Queso]

Yep, I read it that way too. The "OS X" on the phone is a cut-down embedded version, but as it still uses the same technologies of Mac OS X, it's easy for developers to create apps for the smaller OS.

I'm thinking the iPhone is the first of a number of embedded devices, and that we're going to see all sorts of things turn up. As an example, BMW is the obvious company that springs to mind for in-car entertainment/communication systems.

 

[goosnarrggh]

So maybe "iPhone OS X" is to "Mac OS X", as "Windows CE" is to "Win32"?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Either way, the iPhone runs a BSD-based operating system with an Aqua GUI. Which means it's essentially the same as what runs on Macs. What's the word on the CPU?

 

[bousozoku]

They don't want to scare people away, especially people who don't like Apple.

Remember that they've never been big on linking Macs to the iPod all this time? A lot of people probably wouldn't have bought an iPod if they thought you needed a Macintosh to use it. (There are still plenty of people who think you have to buy music from the online store to populate it instead of being able to use music you already have in your mp3 collection.)

They're smart to keep the association minimal and if the phone grabs a lot of people, you can be sure of more of a halo effect.

 

[robbieduncan]

Either way, the iPhone runs a BSD-based operating system with an Aqua GUI. Which means it's essentially the same as what runs on Macs. What's the word on the CPU?

Not really. It looks like there is no Carbon, no Window Server (or at least a very different one) and it's likely that some parts of the "standard" API are not present.

With regards the CPU there seem to be rumors that it's an Intel ULV x86 although it could be a custom ARM based thing...

 

[balamw]

What's the word on the CPU?

Samsung ARM. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/268340/

B

 

[vniow]

Samsung ARM. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/268340/

B

Huh.

Reuters claims its an Intel.

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...NTEL-APPLE-IPHONE-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

 

[balamw]

Huh.

Reuters claims its an Intel.

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...NTEL-APPLE-IPHONE-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

Maybe it's both

B

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Not really. It looks like there is no Carbon, no Window Server (or at least a very different one) and it's likely that some parts of the "standard" API are not present.

I doubt the lack of Carbon will ruffle too many feathers...I think the last thing that Steve and Apple care about is pre-OS X Mac software. But it will be interesting to see just what is different and what prevents people from running OS X apps on the iPhone unmodified.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Either way, the iPhone runs a BSD-based operating system with an Aqua GUI.

How did you come across this information?

Apple is calling its iPhone operating system "OS X".

So what?

Microsoft calls its embedded Windows operating system "Windows CE", and it looks a lot like regular Windows. But under the hood, it is different from the Win32 API. You simply cannot run any Win32 applications on a device running Windows CE/PocketPC/Windows Mobile.

This is not because of arbitrary limitations imposed by MS' marketing division, but because of fundamental differences in the implementation.

We need more info before we can make definitive statements like that regarding the iPhone's OS.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Fair enough, but I think it will run "real" OS X. BSD has been ported to more platforms than most OSs, and it just makes sense to use OS X, since it drastically cuts down on software devlopment.

My money is on it being the real OS X.

 

[Slipperyskates]

But would it make sense to refer to the iPhone OS as "Mac OS X," since it isn't technically running on a "Mac?" The iPhone OS is clearly going to be stripped down in some way, but my guess is that it has the same architecture.

 

[bousozoku]

I doubt the lack of Carbon will ruffle too many feathers...I think the last thing that Steve and Apple care about is pre-OS X Mac software. But it will be interesting to see just what is different and what prevents people from running OS X apps on the iPhone unmodified.

Carbon wouldn't be important on a portable platform. How often would you be running Adobe applications on a 480x320 pixel display? Not often, I'd hope, though I suppose it wouldn't be too bad on 2 MP images.

Will iPhone be unable to run Leopard-compatible, resolution-independent applications? No one here knows, do they?

 

[well-hello]

iphone OS X additional info and a question

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=16927&pagtype=allchandate

Also, could the processor be the new chip Samsung putting in its SPH-P9000 device due the same time as iphone

SPH-P9000 running Win-XP. Also, video on youtube.com indicated 8 hours of battery life (search for SPH-P9000 in youtube).

SPH-P9000 is powered by a new 1 GHz low power Transmeta chip. Their code morphing translation layer is designed for x86 translation but can be modified for OS X platform.

Any thoughts?

 

[bousozoku]

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=16927&pagtype=allchandate

Also, could the processor be the new chip Samsung putting in its SPH-P9000 device due the same time as iphone

SPH-P9000 running Win-XP. Also, video on youtube.com indicated 8 hours of battery life (search for SPH-P9000 in youtube).

SPH-P9000 is powered by a new 1 GHz low power Transmeta chip. Their code morphing translation layer is designed for x86 translation but can be modified for OS X platform.

Any thoughts?

X86 sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's the type of processors that Apple is now using for its latest machines running Mac OS X.

I don't believe that's the processor because it doesn't have a music-related core. It's more likely something from Samsung.

 

[chicagdan]

Either way, the iPhone runs a BSD-based operating system with an Aqua GUI. Which means it's essentially the same as what runs on Macs. What's the word on the CPU?

That doesn't look like Aqua to me ... it looks like what we're expecting Leopard to be, some new shiny black interface that FrontRow and Time Machine have hinted at.

 

[Counterfit]

But would it make sense to refer to the iPhone OS as "Mac OS X," since it isn't technically running on a "Mac?"

It's not a Mac, it's a phone+.

 

[stcanard]

Lets get this very, very straight.

When a company says a system runs on certain operating system they mean the kernel, and core library comes from the same code base.

OSX is the XNU kernel + libc. That's it (okay a bit simplified here, but pretty much).

Everything else you see when you turn on a Mac is value add for their computing experience.

So yes, iPhone really does run OSX. However it does not have Aqua -- Aqua is the user interface that Apple has put on top of OSX. It also likely does not have CoreVideo, or CoreImage -- these are value add libraries that are added on top of OSX. It doesn't even need Carbon or Cocoa -- these also are value adds for the computer experience.

Of course it might have these things, but none of that can be inferred from the statement that it "runs OSX". The only thing that can be inferred from that statment is that the kernel and libc share a codebase.

 

[bobber205]

Lets get this very, very straight.

When a company says a system runs on certain operating system they mean the kernel, and core library comes from the same code base.

OSX is the XNU kernel + libc. That's it (okay a bit simplified here, but pretty much).

Everything else you see when you turn on a Mac is value add for their computing experience.

So yes, iPhone really does run OSX. However it does not have Aqua -- Aqua is the user interface that Apple has put on top of OSX. It also likely does not have CoreVideo, or CoreImage -- these are value add libraries that are added on top of OSX. It doesn't even need Carbon or Cocoa -- these also are value adds for the computer experience.

Of course it might have these things, but none of that can be inferred from the statement that it "runs OSX". The only thing that can be inferred from that statment is that the kernel and libc share a codebase.

What a nice post. Thanks for the insight.

 

[a456]

I read a quote by a guy who said he would use google spreadsheets, etc. online from the iPhone which I thought was a great idea. Perhaps this is the ideal device to launch web-based office programs and storage.

 

[Killyp]

I read a quote by a guy who said he would use google spreadsheets, etc. online from the iPhone which I thought was a great idea. Perhaps this is the ideal device to launch web-based office programs and storage.

Google Docs don't yet work with Safari

They're working on it though...

 

[stcanard]

Google Docs don't yet work with Safari

They're working on it though...

With the Google CEO standing onstage at the launch, I have a feeling that's a known issue

 

[a456]

Google Docs don't yet work with Safari

They're working on it though...

Seems to work fine in Safari, although I've only opened it up, not saved etc.

 

[PygmySurfer]

Either way, the iPhone runs a BSD-based operating system with an Aqua GUI.

Mac OS X isn't a BSD-based Operating System. It's a mach-based kernel (XNU) with BSD userland. The userland stuff likely wouldn't even exist on the iPhone.

I don't think it really looks like Aqua, either.

IMHO, the iPhone is likely running a custom kernel (not XNU), with Mac OS X APIs (Core Image, Core Animation, QuickTime, etc) implemented on top. A microkernel is really not the right design for such a device. Similar to the Windows NT/2000/XP relationship to Windows CE/Windows Mobile.