Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple considering Marklar?

X on x86

Don’t get me wrong, I am all about Apple's closed hardware model, but to respond to all the posts about the driver war, I have had to install drivers for Mac hardware in the past. MacOS isn't all inclusive to all the hardware that is out there for our beloved Macs. I don’t think this would be such a pain as most think. I haven't really needed to look for a driver for any of my systems since w2k. Surely Apple could provide a similar level of service *IF* they decide to take a step into the valley of the dead. Options for alternative operating environments are very thin. If an end-user wants to get away from M$, the options are thin. All other x86 OS’s faces an issue with software as well as supported hardware. Apple at least has ties with the large software providers. I just hope Apple can get the hardware side of the house in line so this will never be a more that a rumor... Just my 2 cents..
 
Booya. This is my first post. It seems to me that the facts that Apple would have to do a huge amount of work to get marklar peripherals working as well as Mac peripherals do on real Macs, and the fact that Apple makes most of their money off hardware sales would balance each other out to a degree. As in "sure you can buy a $700 intel machine and run OSX on it, but we make no promises about your old-as-hell serial printer working with it. if you want promises, you shell out and get a real mac." think about it; the target market in this case for "real mac" buyers would be pretty much the same as it is now; reasonably well-to-do folks who don't mind shelling out extra for a premium product. but apple would now also have a whole other market to flog.

i think man-made limitations should be placed on marklar to keep it from cannibalizing real mac sales too badly. one good limitation is simply a side-effect of OSX being run on X86; that is, you've lost Carbon and Classic. the openstep API Cocoa is based on was designed around X86 architecture and isn't this objective C stuff supposed to be super-portable, anyway? so it shouldn't be too hard to get cocoa apps running on x86. but if you want carbon or classic (read; photoshop, quark, director, y'know the lineup...) then you're getting a real mac (or windows! but we're assuming folks are addicted enough to OSX to make it worthwhile). another limitation might be to keep marklar from using more than 2 processors. that way when IBM's extremely SMP friendly 907 processor comes out, and apple starts to support more than two procs on "real" OSX, you'll be assured that Macs will be the fastest computers running OSX, if not the fastest PCs in general.

it's easy to see how such an easily administered operating system with relatively inexpensive licensing and dirt-cheap hardware might become quite popular in business sectors where you don't need adobe software or scalable SMP.

just my two cents!
 
apple would lose sales ...

apple would loose sales


This would be true.
If apple for one releases this osx for pc's
then Apple would die.
It is not a great move unless apple sells their machines as cheap as possible, because then people would not buy another mac.

I think Apple is doing well and i think it would be a great mergegreat merge or a great deal that apple could merge with sun microsystems:)
 
Originally posted by macmax

i think it would be a great mergegreat merge or a great deal that apple could merge with sun microsystems:)
Click to expand...
Where did this come from and could you clarify why you think this would be a great merger? Thanks!
 
Originally posted by TheGreatWashu
Booya. This is my first post. It seems to me that the facts that Apple would have to do a huge amount of work to get marklar peripherals working as well as Mac peripherals do on real Macs, and the fact that Apple makes most of their money off hardware sales would balance each other out to a degree. As in "sure you can buy a $700 intel machine and run OSX on it, but we make no promises about your old-as-hell serial printer working with it. if you want promises, you shell out and get a real mac." think about it; the target market in this case for "real mac" buyers would be pretty much the same as it is now; reasonably well-to-do folks who don't mind shelling out extra for a premium product. but apple would now also have a whole other market to flog.

i think man-made limitations should be placed on marklar to keep it from cannibalizing real mac sales too badly. one good limitation is simply a side-effect of OSX being run on X86; that is, you've lost Carbon and Classic. the openstep API Cocoa is based on was designed around X86 architecture and isn't this objective C stuff supposed to be super-portable, anyway? so it shouldn't be too hard to get cocoa apps running on x86. but if you want carbon or classic (read; photoshop, quark, director, y'know the lineup...) then you're getting a real mac (or windows! but we're assuming folks are addicted enough to OSX to make it worthwhile). another limitation might be to keep marklar from using more than 2 processors. that way when IBM's extremely SMP friendly 907 processor comes out, and apple starts to support more than two procs on "real" OSX, you'll be assured that Macs will be the fastest computers running OSX, if not the fastest PCs in general.

it's easy to see how such an easily administered operating system with relatively inexpensive licensing and dirt-cheap hardware might become quite popular in business sectors where you don't need adobe software or scalable SMP.

just my two cents!
Click to expand...


The driver issue is almost trivial. USB? Standard. Nvidia Video Cards? Standard. Onboard sound? Standard. In fact, you'd find two very conssit things:

1. High end PCs share much of their hardware with Macs
2. Low end PCs share much of the same hardware- integrated video, onboard sound, realtek nics, etc.

What does thi smean? Writing drivers will be a non-issue. A usb camera on a mac is the same as on a pc- all that apple will need to do is write new chipset drivers and- *GASP*- the already have partially completed ones because Marklar already runs on X86 hardware! A video card works the exact same way- the only thing different between Apple's Geforce 4 TI and one that comes in a Dell is the bios- the calls are pretty much the same.


Secondly, Apple has made it clear that they don't support old hardware with OS X, so why would they with a PC? So, how are you floppy drives doing? Your old printers and scanners? All that apple has to do is support a majority of the standard systems and they're fine. Secondly, most of this stuff already exists for linux, and all apple has to do is get permission to bundle CUPS with it. And on that note, I'm sure it wouldn't take much for NVidia or ATI to recompile their linux drivers.

That said, I don't think this will happen in the near future. I dont't hink it would be as difficult as some of you make it out to be or want to believe, but having it technically possible and having the market accept it are two different things. While you would have a small minority convert right away, most people would stick with Windows because of the entire familarity-interoperability-my dad uses it thing.
 
great, another explosion on the macrumors forums. oh well, here's my thoughts;

osX on x86? hmmm.... well, it could work... sorta, but I don't see Apple getting to this point anytime soon. Although, I must admit that the threat of DRM and Palladium are a very tough reality that the PC market must face at some point (rumors are already pointing to some form of implementation in early 2k3), the chances of this being successful would be slim. Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken, nor does running osX on your x86 make it a mac. It reminds me of people who use BMW z3 conversion kits on their Mazdas, it may look fast, but it's still the same econo-car underneath. But on the other hand, it's one more strike against the corporations that are trying to control what I'm able to see and hear in my own home. If Apple actually (and I'm still saying it's a BIG stretch) makes this, I stand behind them 100%, simply because it's a good step towards liberating the desktop.

closing argument;
I really don't have one.
If Apple were to make this happen, I'd buy it. Beats using Linux as a Windows replacement (no offense to you Linux guys, it's a good os, but it's just not for me)
 
The driver issue is almost trivial. USB? Standard. Nvidia Video Cards? Standard. Onboard sound? Standard.
Click to expand...

certainly. but apple could not make the "it just works!" kind of promises that they can for the mac (tho technically, they shouldn't even be making those promises on the mac side... but hey, job's RDF usually makes up for any false promises he makes). apple would have to set up a Supported Hardware list for marklar that, just like any open source unix distro, says "okay, we've tested our software on this hardware, that hardware and the other hardware. we know this hardware doesn't work and that one might but we make no promises." very un-mac-like, but better than nothing from the pissed-off windows refugee's perspective. if said refugee wants a computer that "just works" he's still gotta buy a mac. or buy very specific hardware for his intel-based OSX box. should marklar be released to a receptive market, apple would suddenly find new clout in dealing with 3rd party peripheral manufacturers. this would become a whole new kind of marketing leverage for apple. so you've just released an awesome new graphics card and you want apple to stick it on their web page and say "this is a good card to use with OSX/X86." no problem, on one condition; make it run on OSX/PPC, too.

once again i'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that marklar would be extremely well recieved by hoards of pissed off windows users. based on my experiences with windows users who've used OSX and their opinions of it, i think this assumption may have some solid grounding in reality. but then, one can never be sure, ne?

speculation is fun!
 
preach on! Seriously, you raise the right points. Most Windows users are fed up with it, I myself being one of them. It wasn't any switch ads that made me do it (although I love how Apple is taking the fight straight to MS), it was how scary the thought of DRM is. Almost all of the Windows users I know love osX, but the whole "yeah, but I can't get (enter obscure pc program) for it!" always comes up. This is one thing that probably won't change, at least right away.
 
Apple and AMD/64 bit Hammer Partnership ?

What if they ported OS/X to the 64 bit AMD x86 architecture? I would buy it in a minute ! !

As a NT Engineer with over a decade of experience with Microsoft Products and intimate experience with every x86 derivitive that has ever been introduced. . . I have to say that Palladium and the Intel DRM technology scares the #$%^ out of me. The core of this technology has the ability to make the Big Brother idea look like a warm, fuzzy, loveable, gentle house pet.

Enough so to make be get a TiBook, come to know and love OS X and to run frantically from M$ and Intel.

But I have to say that Apple and the Power PC platform have fallen waaayyy behind in the performance game with Intel and the x86 world.

I find the refinement and sleekness of OS X and the Apple hardware very appealing. The Darwin core is AWESOME since I'm a Unix/Linux head too. . .You can pry my TiBook from my cold dead hands, and I dare you to try ;) . With the cross platform integration/connectivity capabilities of OS X the platform is near unbeatable for the flexability to be able to do damn near anything, anywhere, on any network, in any domain/authentication structure.

But I can still do things that require raw processing power like video rendering and audio/video encoding, etc. orders of magnitude faster on my PC. Regardless if I compare Apple laptop or Desktop to PCs.

So fast forward to my point. . . .

Imagine a Glorious looking TiBook or G4 Desktop powered by 3-4+ Ghz 64 bit based x86 AMD processor(s). . .

Talk about a very fruitful and POWERFUL partnership. . . .

OMG I don't have enough napkins to wipe up all this drool . . . .


Yeah I know but I can dream can't I . . .

=)
 
I would buy it!

I would be one of the first people in the queue to pick up my copy of this!

There are some problems and advantages Apple would get from making this release.

• Little software compatibility initially. Maybe they could fix this by doing a developer release six months early... Its basically just a recompile after all. Not counting assembler and byte order issues. These issues aren't major though.

• Lost hardware sales. Apple would certainly suffer some loss of hardware sales. I have no idea exactly what percentage it would be though. Maybe they could build stylish and cheep(ish) X86 hardware?

• They could launch a week before Longhorn and easily steal all its thunder. How interesting is a Micro$oft OS release anyway?

• Make more consumer electronic devices. If these were as high profile as iPod, and worked better on OS X, then this would almost certainly boost sales. They could even offer bundles. Mac OS X x86 + iPod or Mac OS X x86 + iPhone.

• They could try and get some PC OEMers to include X on their systems. Surely a lot of them are sick of Micro$oft and its heavy handed practices.
 
Re: Apple and AMD/64 bit Hammer Partnership ?

Originally posted by MacNTAdmin
. . . I have to say that Palladium and the Intel DRM technology scares the #$%^ out of me. The core of this technology has the ability to make the Big Brother idea look like a warm, fuzzy, loveable, gentle house pet.

Enough so to make be get a TiBook, come to know and love OS X and to run frantically from M$ and Intel.


:D right on!

I'm sick of these companies trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my data. How are we supposed to have a right or wrong if your not allowed to do the wrong?!? It's not about stopping piracy, it's about stopping choice! Software theft is a choice, it may not be the right one, but it is a choice that you should be allowed to make! Now, I'm am in NO WAY saying that piracy is cool, but it is a mistake that you should be able to make if you choose too, and pay the consequences when you are caught. This is a loss of basic decision making ability.

I'm sorry I'm turning this into a way off topic post, but this DRM stuff is just wrong...
Click to expand...
 
MacNTadmin is right about the performance gap though, it's there, nobody can deny it. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MAC IS SLOW THOUGH!!!! there, before i start a fight...

I heard that AMD can't get the speeds of the hammer chips up to par though. Wasn't the one they showed a comdex only 1800mhz? (listen to me, only:) ) I know that having a 64-bit bus would kinda make up for this, but try telling that to a world driven by more numbers means better.
 
The key being blueBomber is that 1.8 (plus the 64 bit bus) will be the initial release speed. By the time AMD and Apple could get any anything going the processor speed would be in the high 2s early 3s. . .

And no Mac's aren't slow ! ! ! =)
 
thats what i thought, but i still think people will be a little, um, non-appreciative of a supposedly faster processor that looks like it runs slower. I understand, but will joe public?
 
Re: Apple and AMD/64 bit Hammer Partnership ?

Originally posted by MacNTAdmin
Imagine a Glorious looking TiBook or G4 Desktop powered by 3-4+ Ghz 64 bit based x86 AMD processor(s). . .
Click to expand...

Yes, and all that great software that wouldn't work, and all those wonderful developers that would leave Mac OS behind in droves due to them (barely) just making the leap to OS X from Classic. "YOU WANT ME TO PORT IT AGAIN? **** YOU!"

And I'm sure companies would be first in line for these new machines! Who needs lame 3rd party software from Adobe and Macromedia when you have native apps like iPhoto and iCal running at 64bit blazing speeds!

Oh.. what's that? The finder is based on Carbon, not Cocoa? Oh well, it won't be easy to port, but people will be okay for a while without a way to navigate files, right?

Wow, this is exciting! I can hardly wait! :rolleyes:

Or, maybe we can be realistic and just wait a year for the 970.. Nah, why would we do that on a rumor site? It'd make too much sense! :eek:
 
Yeah but look at it from an Apple hardware perspective. Going from 1.25 to 1.8 and double the bus. . . . . *drool*
 
please don't start the whole "amd doing mac" rumor again. It's been beaten to death.

Yes, the 970 seems the most likely, but who knows? Maybe apple will just start selling liquid nitrogen cooled dual G4s clocked at 3ghz and coated in gold. How's that for a rumor? heh

If Steve doesn't announce either one of these on-going rumors during his next keynote, neither one is ever going to happen, at least not for another 365 days. Wait and see...
 
Re: Re: Apple and AMD/64 bit Hammer Partnership ?

Originally posted by dricci


Yes, and all that great software that wouldn't work, and all those wonderful developers that would leave Mac OS behind in droves due to them (barely) just making the leap to OS X from Classic. "YOU WANT ME TO PORT IT AGAIN? **** YOU!"
Click to expand...

That's the beautiful part about AMDs 64bit x86 architecture. . . It's backwards compatible with all 32 bit x86 code.

So no, you wouldn't have to port it again. Not immediately. . . Or even offer 2 versions. . .32 bit or 64 bit. . .

So you can still sell your 32 bit port now with an option to upgrade to a 64 bit port down the road at the OS and App level. . . . That's just more revenue for everyone. . . And it gets Apple off the proven 'lag behind the performance curve' problem with the Power PC platform even with the 970.

*Edit:
Not to mention that most of those apps you mentioned have already been ported to a x86 platform and are being sold on another OS (Hint: M$ sells it). . . so basically a large majority of the work is already done. . . just porting the code over to compile under OS X correctly. The stretch isn't as large as it looks initially.


Will it ever happen. I doubt it but like I said in my original post. . .it's nice to dream.
 
hmm...
It sounds great to have osX on intel/amd hardware, but two things come to mind.

1. How can apple assure osX compatability on hardware that they do not control.

2. With apples hardware based revenue how would this impact their bottom line.


Besides, it would be weird to have osX running on my powermac AND my dell. :confused:
 
apps

Regarding the discussion about x86 OS X Apps...

Cocoa and probably Carbon apps would likely be a simple recompile to run on x86 architecture. NeXTStep was multiplatform for some time before it became Mac OS X. In fact, Apple had originally promised cross-platform development capability with Rhapsody (OS X). I'm not sure if Carbon apps might have more baggage... but overall, it seems like it would be doable.

OS 9 Classic would be dead.... but it would open up the possilibty of Windows "Classic". The old rumor of "Red box".

arn
 
Re: Re: Re: Apple and AMD/64 bit Hammer Partnership ?

Originally posted by MacNTAdmin


That's the beautiful part about AMDs 64bit x86 architecture. . . It's backwards compatible with all 32 bit x86 code.

So no, you wouldn't have to port it again. Not immediately. . . Or even offer 2 versions. . .32 bit or 64 bit. . .

So you can still sell your 32 bit port now with an option to upgrade to a 64 bit port down the road at the OS and App level. . . . That's just more revenue for everyone. . . And it gets Apple off the proven 'lag behind the performance curve' problem with the Power PC platform even with the 970.

Will it ever happen. I doubt it but like I said in my original post. . .it's nice to dream.
Click to expand...

see, thats exactly what apple needs to avoid!!! They built their reputation as being as easy to use as possible to the consumer, what your talking about is starting to sound like more like the current PC market, which makes sense to us, but not to Apple's core customer base
 
whatever apple upgrades to needs to be as transparent as possbile to users, and easily adaptable to developers. As for the amd64 being backwards compatible; yes it is, but that doesn't make it ppc compatible. osX has deep roots in altivec, but running it on a G3 proves it's not required...EDIT *this was a thought that I didn't feel like elaborating on, it would only fuel more rumors*

porting any software to pieces of hardware that are as different as night and day is very possible, look at all the the console companies that do it with all of their games! For the record, the Nintendo Gamecube runs on a ppc, and the x86 based xbox games are ported to it rather easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back