Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Bit of History Behind the Mac OS X on Intel Project "Marklar"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple were only a small partner for IBM. The same as Apple and FoxConn. If Apple was to leave FoxConn next week FoxConn wouldn't care much as products such as the iPhone or iPad are only low volume products to them.
Asus loosing Apple on the MacBook Air lines wouldn't be a major deal either. They still make their own Asus brand, HP and Dell computers.
Last edited:
Got to love Bertrand getting straight to the point. It wasn't: how long 'til we get this running on a HP.
It's interesting to see how much Apple really did respect Sony (the other example includes the "LWMLAF*: 70% (bye bye Vaio!)" line on the Jordan Hubbard talk slides*).
* LWMLAF = Level Windows Makes Laughable Attempts at Following.
Link
It's interesting to see how much Apple really did respect Sony (the other example includes the "LWMLAF*: 70% (bye bye Vaio!)" line on the Jordan Hubbard talk slides*).
* LWMLAF = Level Windows Makes Laughable Attempts at Following.
Link
Ha Tier 1 vendors... as of late Sony and HP in particular have shown they can't manage themselves out of a paper bag. They are two complete and utter disasters.
Apple already knows the PC is on its way out for the average consumer, why put resources and your name on the line to give OS X to incompetents that will probably be circling the bowl in a few years time?
I was actually talking timeframe wise between 1998 and 2004 the time when PPC cpu's were considered far superior to Intel and other x86 offerings. You would not have been able to run an intel version of OS X on a PC at any period during that time, since the intel switch didn't happen until 2006. The intel preview copy of Tiger was released in mid 2005 though. More specifically I was talking about the iMac G4 and Power Mac lines not the iBooks. The G5 was a screamer compared to a Pentium based PC. Dual processors made all the difference, this was proved in a number of tests both by Apple and other third parties.
I also cant imagine that you were able to run an Intel copy of OS X Tiger on Hackintosh system (laptop) that was supposedly running faster than a iBook LOL, maybe if your iBook was the old 1999 G3 model then yes, but otherwise don't think so. At the time of the first intel version of Tiger there was literally 0 drivers for anything, even today its a struggle getting updates and stuff to work xD not worth the hassle.
Last edited:
Very interesting story. But curiously enough, it totally misses the question. How they do keep secrets is mentioned only in a single sentence and it's not particularly spectacular ("I am to forget everything I know, and he will not be allowed to speak to me about it again until it is publicly announced.").
Huh, it's merely a sensationalist trumped up article.
The article makes it sound like all this Intel stuff was a shocking revelation to Serlet, Tevanian, and Jobs. OMG it runs on Intel!! Wowzers!!! Let's fly to Tokyo!!
The progenitor of OS X -- NeXTSTEP -- was ported to Intel back when Steve Jobs was running NeXT. Heck, Canon even sold a PC that was specifically designed to run NeXTSTEP (the Canon Object.station 41).
Since OS X is derived from NeXTSTEP, it's not too shocking that early iterations of OS X (aka Rhapsody) could run on Intel, and that an Intel version of OS X was always in the works.
Nobody in upper management at Apple (which was mostly ex-NeXT guys) would have been amazed at seeing OS X run on Intel.
The article makes it sound like all this Intel stuff was a shocking revelation to Serlet, Tevanian, and Jobs. OMG it runs on Intel!! Wowzers!!! Let's fly to Tokyo!!
The progenitor of OS X -- NeXTSTEP -- was ported to Intel back when Steve Jobs was running NeXT. Heck, Canon even sold a PC that was specifically designed to run NeXTSTEP (the Canon Object.station 41).
Since OS X is derived from NeXTSTEP, it's not too shocking that early iterations of OS X (aka Rhapsody) could run on Intel, and that an Intel version of OS X was always in the works.
Nobody in upper management at Apple (which was mostly ex-NeXT guys) would have been amazed at seeing OS X run on Intel.
if your sick of it, just leave I'm sure you'll get the exactly the same thing on a PC forum.
this old stuff is always fun to read and comments seem to have been far more professional and technical back then too
Dear me of the future:
lol (laugh out loud, incase thats no longer used in 10 years) i know i know we were pretty silly arguing about iPhone 5 (?) rumors and Samsung (it was the company that always "stole" from apple you remember?) fights.
is the iPhone still around? i guess not. looking forward to get a reply by myself in 10 years. till then. DONT DIE!
Dear me of the future:
lol (laugh out loud, incase thats no longer used in 10 years) i know i know we were pretty silly arguing about iPhone 5 (?) rumors and Samsung (it was the company that always "stole" from apple you remember?) fights.
is the iPhone still around? i guess not. looking forward to get a reply by myself in 10 years. till then. DONT DIE!
Last edited:
I doubt IBM were all that bothered really. They had already decided to become an IT solutions company and get out of hardware manufacturing at that stage.
+1, was thinking the same thing, the way this story is presented doesn't smell right to me at all. Steve even said it was intel compatible on stage during his first keynote after returning to Apple.
Do you actually expect the admins to subject each and every post to the logic smell test and ban posters if they fail? Seriously? I challenge you to register on any company- or product-related enthusiast forum on the web, write something critical, and see what happens. And if you really want to see irrational, offensive discussions, look at the comments sections on sites like CNN's.
At least the admins here do a good job of keeping things civil for an Internet forum.
(BTW, I agree that competition is desirable and promotes innovation. But I haven't yet seen anything that suggests that Apple has stopped innovating.)
And let's not forget the NeXT computers ...
The precursor to MacOS 10 was the NeXTOS which had been successfully ported to Intel-based PCs IN THE LATE 90's and called the MachOS. So the experience of porting the eventual MacOS 10 to Intel-based PCs is a lot deeper than many realize. Dual-boot PCs with MachOS and Windows were commercially available and often found in university computer labs. An early form of BootCamp allowed one to choose the OS. When Apple purchased NeXT and Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he brought all of that EXTENSIVE Intel-porting experience over with him. The jump to Intel was therefore a no-brainer -- and a snap -- once IBM started dragging its feet in extending the PowerPC platform.
The precursor to MacOS 10 was the NeXTOS which had been successfully ported to Intel-based PCs IN THE LATE 90's and called the MachOS. So the experience of porting the eventual MacOS 10 to Intel-based PCs is a lot deeper than many realize. Dual-boot PCs with MachOS and Windows were commercially available and often found in university computer labs. An early form of BootCamp allowed one to choose the OS. When Apple purchased NeXT and Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he brought all of that EXTENSIVE Intel-porting experience over with him. The jump to Intel was therefore a no-brainer -- and a snap -- once IBM started dragging its feet in extending the PowerPC platform.
I don't get some things here. So, in order to be able to move to the East Coast, he had to work on an independent project. But, 18 months later, he is still in his office at Apple? What was the point of the independent project if you still had to work at the Apple office? And, why was the wife in the Apple office? With Apple's secrecy, I find it strange they would let her in to see any project, especially one of this magnitude.
Apple wasn't a big partner at the time. They were a small company on their way back from a complete meltdown with a six month old music player called 'The iPod' and a stock price of less than $20.
Although the iPod halo effect was a major part of why Apple computers became viable again, I think people grossly underestimate how much the fact that a mac could run Windows influenced sales. Suddenly you could use a mac even though there were certain things you needed Windows for (such as Microsoft Office) - a major selling point.
Objective conversation in a public forum with a wide demographic is perhaps a bit optimistic and I don't think censorship is any less a blight than the fanboyism you speak of. Truth is every platform has fans and extremists with no rational thinking as much as every platform has people with the sense to make their own choices. I own Apple and Windows and Android products which I use daily. I LOVE my iPad, wouldn't live without it, I am also a fan of my Android phone and while I chomp at the bit for an iPhone that sweeps me off my feet, I realize that different products mean different things to people. The community will dictate who participates and what "behavior" is accepted or denounced, but to force censorship of a particular brand of comment or idea is precisely along the same lines as the "big brother" concept you to which you refer. (not going to lie and say I'm not sick of the useless fanboy junk too, but with each day a little BS must fall) It's the hateful or insulting jerks that I can do without, the ones that hide behind their computers and would never dare speak to anyone in public the way they do online. Those are the ones who degrade the experience. Anyway, still good points, just my 2cents.
PC's < Mac Simple, logical, and objective. :rollseyes:
Please relax, go outside, and get some fresh air.
Geeze
I'm not sure a continued relationship would have really benefited either side. Apple's volume was much lower at the time, and they would have required a lot of R&D dedicated to development for Apple. With Intel we're talking about products that they would ship in volume either way. Beyond that several of those implementations were very poor on Apple's end. The failed radiator issues and imac problems had little to do with IBM. It was how Apple wanted to implement them. It was just a doomed business relationship.
