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.
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windows Apps on OS X
Why not use this technology to run Windows apps in OS X? Sounds like it would be faster than Virtual PC.
Why not use this technology to run Windows apps in OS X? Sounds like it would be faster than Virtual PC.
MacVault said:
might be a bit faster, but lets say that it is really fast, almost complete emulation, then why should a company port their app to OS X? you dont want an extremely fast emulator, as that will kill products from being made, ones that OS X still needs to survive
the Rebel said:
Sorta like the ipod, when i had my ipod for my windoze computer it sucked but now with it running native on the Mac format it great.
I hope apple doesn't do this, people will turn those ungly PC cases into a Mac
I'll stick with what its now, mac OS on a Apple computer - the way it should be 
BWhaler said:
If you looked carfully at the page, you would have noticed this disclaimer:
"Page 2: Uncertain news and links"
In other words, in the main page, there at least some reason to give the rumor a hint of credibility. For Page 2 rumors, that "hint of credibility" has been taken to the homeopathic level. After that comes Page 3.
On a different note, having Apple include Transitive's tech into OS X would be good if for no other reason than this: Microsoft owns Virtual PC. Having a pc emulator built into OS X eliminates another dependence on Microsoft. And it doesn't have to be a great emulator, just better than Virtual PC.
Or look at it this way:
What if Tiger supports G5 processors only?
Maybe adding Transitive's tech to Tiger then allows it to run on G4s and G3s (i.e. G3s & G4s emulating a G5--Classic mode II anyone?)
Maybe OS X 10.5 will only support Cell processors, and adding Transitive's tech would allow it to run on G5s, G4s, and G3s (i.e. G3s, G4s, & G5s emulating a Cell Processor--Classic mode III?)
It could be a viable way to support legacy hardware without having to stress as much about migration issues. Hopefully that would reduce the likelyhood of another Quark happening.
There is only one thing that makes sense, and even that's unsure:
An x86 Mac mini that runs Cocoa, Java and the iApps, and can run Longhorn or XP if you change your mind.
This might swing some corporates to take the plunge who just won't risk it now, and who will be targeted by MS when Longhorn ships.
An x86 Mac mini that runs Cocoa, Java and the iApps, and can run Longhorn or XP if you change your mind.
This might swing some corporates to take the plunge who just won't risk it now, and who will be targeted by MS when Longhorn ships.
Cell?
I admittedly don't know very much about computer OS/processors, but I have a less dire possibility for this thread.
Would this product work to somehow recompile OSX and the iApps etc so they work on a Cell processor?
I admittedly don't know very much about computer OS/processors, but I have a less dire possibility for this thread.
Would this product work to somehow recompile OSX and the iApps etc so they work on a Cell processor?
It's all about the Cell Processor
It's all about the Cell Processor
The Cell (joint venture of Sony/IBM/Motorola) uses different architecture than the PowerPC chipset. If Apple wants to use the Cell as the G6, they will have to have some way of running apps on it without asking companies to, for a second time since the OS 9 -> OS X move, port their apps (and have to support two versions of the app for all the G4's and G5's out there).
It's all about the Cell Processor
The Cell (joint venture of Sony/IBM/Motorola) uses different architecture than the PowerPC chipset. If Apple wants to use the Cell as the G6, they will have to have some way of running apps on it without asking companies to, for a second time since the OS 9 -> OS X move, port their apps (and have to support two versions of the app for all the G4's and G5's out there).
possibilities
There are lots of good reasons to be skeptical about this rumor, but I'm astonished that no one even seems to think that this would be a good idea. The computer landscape has changed enormously just in the last year, and with Tiger and Longhorn on the horizon, there are ways to think about licensing OSX that are both exciting and reasonable. And a version of OSX running on x86 hardware might be the perfect plan.
Virus/spyware problems have become increasingly significant in the minds of both consumers and buisnesses. The success of the ipod, the advent of the G5, the introduction of the Mini, and the continual flow of good press, have made Apple not merely cool, but tempting. OSX matures while XP stagnates. Longhorn is two years off and the initial release is likely to be fraught with issues, especially issues of backwards compatibility with both hardware and software. All these things together give Apple a real opportunity to change the balance of power. But I don't think Apple can do this on its own.
Imagine that HP had an inexpensive machine with an intel processor that ran OSX. It wouldn't be a graphics power house, or a game machine, it would be a bare bones box, easy to use, even easier to maintain, and probably even cheaper to own than a Microsoft box if Apple doesn't gouge on licensing. It would be a fantastic machine for the tens of miilions of offices around the world. And it wouldn't even need drivers for all the myriad hardware products out there.
Should Apple make a machine like this themselves? Haven't they already made something similar in the Mini? It doesn't really matter what Apple makes, because Apple does not currently have the right channels to sell to business, and building these channels takes years and huge effort. But if they partner with HP, then they're in the door already. Moreover, these machines don't have to hurt Apple hardware sales at all. It's a totally different market. And the beauty of a version of OSX on x86 would be that Apple could license this while maintaining a monopoly on OSX on PPC, insuring their hold on high end machines.
This strategy is potentially brilliant for HP, make tons of money for Apple, and I don't see any downside. Not only should this not hurt Apple's own hardware, but it would expose business users to Mac, who would then buy Macs for their own use at home.
But you worry, what would keep HP from selling these cheap boxes to consumers and stealing all of Apple's sales? Again, potentially that's a nice thing about licensing a x86 version of OSX. One reason to buy Apple would be to get PPC. (I'm assuming that even with excellent emulation, PPC would be faster, and I'm also assuming that IBM will continue to make good progress.) Indeed, even if HP sold millions of low cost machines to consumers I don't see why that would hurt Apple at this point in time, when Apple's users are by and large those who are already willing to pay a little extra for Apple excellence. On the contrary, this strategy would allow Apple to focus on the high end. Steve really only enjoys making insanely great luxury computers anyway. Let HP, or somebody else, deliver the commodity boxes.
If this sort of licensing happens soon, then Apple would be fully prepared when Longhorn finally makes it way to market. Two years from now there will be uncountably many articles with titles like "Lion trounces Longhorn." (I'm speculating that OSX 10.5 will be called Lion, and that Jobs will time its appearance to coincide with the release of Longhorn.) After this point in time, every current Windows user who buys a new machine will have to make a choice: do I get a new Longhorn machine and buy all new software and hardware to match, or, if I've got to upgrade everything anyway, shouldn't I buy Mac, which all the press reports tell me is better.
Apple has a "window" of opportunity, but they will need support from HP and others to take advantage of it.
There are lots of good reasons to be skeptical about this rumor, but I'm astonished that no one even seems to think that this would be a good idea. The computer landscape has changed enormously just in the last year, and with Tiger and Longhorn on the horizon, there are ways to think about licensing OSX that are both exciting and reasonable. And a version of OSX running on x86 hardware might be the perfect plan.
Virus/spyware problems have become increasingly significant in the minds of both consumers and buisnesses. The success of the ipod, the advent of the G5, the introduction of the Mini, and the continual flow of good press, have made Apple not merely cool, but tempting. OSX matures while XP stagnates. Longhorn is two years off and the initial release is likely to be fraught with issues, especially issues of backwards compatibility with both hardware and software. All these things together give Apple a real opportunity to change the balance of power. But I don't think Apple can do this on its own.
Imagine that HP had an inexpensive machine with an intel processor that ran OSX. It wouldn't be a graphics power house, or a game machine, it would be a bare bones box, easy to use, even easier to maintain, and probably even cheaper to own than a Microsoft box if Apple doesn't gouge on licensing. It would be a fantastic machine for the tens of miilions of offices around the world. And it wouldn't even need drivers for all the myriad hardware products out there.
Should Apple make a machine like this themselves? Haven't they already made something similar in the Mini? It doesn't really matter what Apple makes, because Apple does not currently have the right channels to sell to business, and building these channels takes years and huge effort. But if they partner with HP, then they're in the door already. Moreover, these machines don't have to hurt Apple hardware sales at all. It's a totally different market. And the beauty of a version of OSX on x86 would be that Apple could license this while maintaining a monopoly on OSX on PPC, insuring their hold on high end machines.
This strategy is potentially brilliant for HP, make tons of money for Apple, and I don't see any downside. Not only should this not hurt Apple's own hardware, but it would expose business users to Mac, who would then buy Macs for their own use at home.
But you worry, what would keep HP from selling these cheap boxes to consumers and stealing all of Apple's sales? Again, potentially that's a nice thing about licensing a x86 version of OSX. One reason to buy Apple would be to get PPC. (I'm assuming that even with excellent emulation, PPC would be faster, and I'm also assuming that IBM will continue to make good progress.) Indeed, even if HP sold millions of low cost machines to consumers I don't see why that would hurt Apple at this point in time, when Apple's users are by and large those who are already willing to pay a little extra for Apple excellence. On the contrary, this strategy would allow Apple to focus on the high end. Steve really only enjoys making insanely great luxury computers anyway. Let HP, or somebody else, deliver the commodity boxes.
If this sort of licensing happens soon, then Apple would be fully prepared when Longhorn finally makes it way to market. Two years from now there will be uncountably many articles with titles like "Lion trounces Longhorn." (I'm speculating that OSX 10.5 will be called Lion, and that Jobs will time its appearance to coincide with the release of Longhorn.) After this point in time, every current Windows user who buys a new machine will have to make a choice: do I get a new Longhorn machine and buy all new software and hardware to match, or, if I've got to upgrade everything anyway, shouldn't I buy Mac, which all the press reports tell me is better.
Apple has a "window" of opportunity, but they will need support from HP and others to take advantage of it.
I like this idea. However, it all hinges on what Apple decides to do as far as Mac OS X on x86 goes - and that is far from certain. I just realized that if Apple executed your idea and everything went according to your plan, Microsoft would be shocked, to say the least - that Apple found a way to compete with them in a way they can't counter. Consider that for a moment...goodjello said:
dont forget to keep in mind that no matter how much Apple charges for their software, its not pure profit. Like if OS X 10.4 was $129, a lot of that money would go to R&D, and then whatever's left would be profit.
Apple's hardware produces most of Apple's profit, so I doubt Apple's going to release any software (non iLife-ish like iTunes and QuickTime), let alone their operating system, for x86 anytime soon. Yes, I know they already ported Darwin to x86, but that's Darwin. Not Aqua and everything else that makes the OS what it is.
Nobody's going to buy a Mac if you can run the same software on the PC you already have, plus it would screw all Mac users because Apple would have to implenent an anti-piracy protection scheme due to an increased number of users and eventually an increased number of pirates. Not that Mac users do something like that already...
Trust me, Apple would be better off being smaller in this area. Let them dominate all they want in the media player stuff, but not here.
Apple's hardware produces most of Apple's profit, so I doubt Apple's going to release any software (non iLife-ish like iTunes and QuickTime), let alone their operating system, for x86 anytime soon. Yes, I know they already ported Darwin to x86, but that's Darwin. Not Aqua and everything else that makes the OS what it is.
Nobody's going to buy a Mac if you can run the same software on the PC you already have, plus it would screw all Mac users because Apple would have to implenent an anti-piracy protection scheme due to an increased number of users and eventually an increased number of pirates. Not that Mac users do something like that already...
Trust me, Apple would be better off being smaller in this area. Let them dominate all they want in the media player stuff, but not here.
Yes and no. The Cell's auxiliary vector processors are different, but the core processor uses the PowerPC instruction set including Altivec. Getting OS X running on a Cell shouldn't be any harder than going from a G4 to G5. Taking full advantage of the Cell's vector processors is another matter, and that requires rewriting code; no compiler or translation engine is anywhere close to being able to parallelize code on the fly. (And it's interesting that CoreImage and CoreVideo look very well suited for a Cell-like architecture...)amichalo said:
amichalo said:
The Cell actually does have a PPC core. What it doesn't have is the same vector instruction set (Altivec). So, I could see this as a nice transition system for running Altivec code on one or more of those 8 vector units on each Cell CPU.
Again, to reiterate the reasons for believing the Cell rumor:
1. Already PPC (one PPC core per chip)
2. _Starts_ at 4.6 GHz
3. Should be cheap (so many will be made for the Sony PS3, etc.)
4. Each CPU has 8 (EIGHT!) vector processors (around that PPC core), running a simplified vector instruction set
5. Only hurdle so far has been the altivec instructions...
Oh I'm a happy camper... Sooo happy.
I do not know of one Mac user that would trade there mac for a PC. No matter what OS it is running. Even if I could get OS X Tiger to run on a PC I wouldn't touch it. I'm never going back. Never.
Kirbdog said:
Spoken like a true zealot.
Seriously. If PC hardware is faster, esp most PC laptops, there really is no reason not to.
Fools, all of you...
...ok, well, not all of you. Believe me no PC would be able to run certain mac optimized software ant anywhere near native speeds. And furthermore, most PC laptops, expecially those with the elegance and form of apple laptops may advertize stratospheric clock speeds, but in truth, they are choked to a speed equal to, or lower than the Mac Laptops. Another VERY interesting point to make is about something like a G5 2.5 running a windows app. In pure processing power, G5's absolutely trounce the Pentium 4, something on the order of 170% for equal clock speed. SO, a pentium 4 3.6 GHz could, in theory, be emulated by a dual processor 2.5Ghz mac at a faster speed that the Top of the line P4. That would rock the boat, eh? All those Alienware lamers buying G5's to EMULATE PC games cause they run faster. Just a theory tho, based on what Transitive and others have said about the performance of quicktransit.
SiliconAddict said:Spoken like a true zealot.
Seriously. If PC hardware is faster, esp most PC laptops, there really is no reason not to.
...ok, well, not all of you. Believe me no PC would be able to run certain mac optimized software ant anywhere near native speeds. And furthermore, most PC laptops, expecially those with the elegance and form of apple laptops may advertize stratospheric clock speeds, but in truth, they are choked to a speed equal to, or lower than the Mac Laptops. Another VERY interesting point to make is about something like a G5 2.5 running a windows app. In pure processing power, G5's absolutely trounce the Pentium 4, something on the order of 170% for equal clock speed. SO, a pentium 4 3.6 GHz could, in theory, be emulated by a dual processor 2.5Ghz mac at a faster speed that the Top of the line P4. That would rock the boat, eh? All those Alienware lamers buying G5's to EMULATE PC games cause they run faster. Just a theory tho, based on what Transitive and others have said about the performance of quicktransit.
Booga said:
The key question here is why does everyone assume if os x was availible on x86, it would be availible for everything. Apple has absolute control over the hardware/software package from macs to ipods. This would carry overt if os x ran on x86. Apple would determine which cd drives, which processors and which configurations would be availible for this. Most likely Apple would license os x to a Sony or HP for on or specific models, it probablly wouldn't be a retail box.
The Cell: check out eweeks report from last week. The Cell would be gorribel for normal computer processes. The PS3 version would not be great for a G^, we need to wait until rev 2 or 3 for this to make sense.
Profit margins: it is a no brainner, software has much higher profits than hardware. Each copy of OS X apple sells is about 70-85% profit, depending on thhhe point in its life cycle. The R&D costs make up very little of the retail costs. And software inventory is very easy to correct. The box and CD cost $5 max. The R&D costs maybe $20, leaving apple with $1000 per box or 80%. After 6 months the R&D cost factor has increased significantly and Apple will make in excess of 85% Microsoft is a software company, and I do not see their margins hurting all that much.
Sorry neoelectronaut, your are sadly mistaken, it doesn't take long for a software company to recoup their development costs, provided they sell a few copies.
I would like to see Tiger out for the x86 chips. It make good businesses scene to get it out there and try to get a bigger market share well they have a good chances to get it. In a few years, Apple might not be in a place were they could even get a good market share.
The R&D cost cant be all that high on the new Tiger OS. It just Panther tweak out with some new add ons to it, issuing it. Getting back too cost, if Apple sells 200,000 new copies of Tiger OS a week for 4 weeks when Tiger come out. In one mouth at $129, they would make $103,200,000.00 in the first mouth off the sell of the Tiger. I would think that they might have spent 20 million to 40 million on R&D for Tiger, plus maybe 30 million on marketing to get it off going. Do the math, that really makes for a good quarter. Plus add on that for some x86 chips, and you could see Apple moving from mostly Hardware to Mostly a software in a couple of years. I cant see Apple making a lot of money on the sales of hardware with all the cost that go in to Mac.
By the way, the G3 & G4 PowerPc CPU are a x86 chip.
The R&D cost cant be all that high on the new Tiger OS. It just Panther tweak out with some new add ons to it, issuing it. Getting back too cost, if Apple sells 200,000 new copies of Tiger OS a week for 4 weeks when Tiger come out. In one mouth at $129, they would make $103,200,000.00 in the first mouth off the sell of the Tiger. I would think that they might have spent 20 million to 40 million on R&D for Tiger, plus maybe 30 million on marketing to get it off going. Do the math, that really makes for a good quarter. Plus add on that for some x86 chips, and you could see Apple moving from mostly Hardware to Mostly a software in a couple of years. I cant see Apple making a lot of money on the sales of hardware with all the cost that go in to Mac.
By the way, the G3 & G4 PowerPc CPU are a x86 chip.
windows for Mac
How about this for an idea, Apple do a deal with transitive.com to build QuickTransit into OS X, Then tell the world that OS X can run windows' apps.
How many people would switch? alot would because how many people say that they won't buy Mac cause they would have to buy new software.
well it's just my two cents.
Ax
Macrumors said:
How about this for an idea, Apple do a deal with transitive.com to build QuickTransit into OS X, Then tell the world that OS X can run windows' apps.
How many people would switch? alot would because how many people say that they won't buy Mac cause they would have to buy new software.
well it's just my two cents.
Ax