Mac OS X on a PC?

[RacerX]

Development on that stopped a long time ago.

So did development on Mac OS 8 and I still use it.

its not practical to work on something like that from a resource management stand point.

I work on it practically every day, maybe you could explain what you mean.

From my point of view, it is a lot closer to Mac OS X as a functioning operating system (with my collection of apps) than Darwin for x86 is.

And from a user point of view (mine ) it is closer to Mac OS X as a work environment than even OPENSTEP... as can be seen from this chart.

 

[jane doe]

OpenStep is pretty much complete. I don't understand what you mean here?
People can use OpenStep and develop for it if they want.

What I was referring to about resource management is this:

You want Apple to maintain two sets of code. 1) for PPC (Risc) and the other for X86 (32bit) and possibly X86 (64bit)

You want these to sets of code maintained concurrently, meaning you want Apple to have twice the number of programmers working on twice the amount of software?

This means that Apple now has to support both versions of OS X, test an infinite number of hardware combinations.

Also, risking developers choosing the X86 version over the PPC version for future apps?

 

[RacerX]

OpenStep is pretty much complete. I don't understand what you mean here?
People can use OpenStep and develop for it if they want.

The same is true of Rhapsody... infact more so actually. OPENSTEP (and NEXTSTEP before it) didn't come with the developer tools (they were a $5000 additional product)... Rhapsody (and later Mac OS X) did (and Rhapsody also later included a copy of WebObjects).

Also, if you buy a (legal) copy of OPENSTEP with the developer tool, the licensing restricts those tools use to the development of "freeware". Apple still views OPENSTEP (and WebObject 3.x) as competitive products to their current line.

I don't know how much more complete Rhapsody could have gotten. The Rhapsody for x86 that I use (version 5.1) was pretty much the final version. Apple made few changes after that to the end of the products life (version 5.6). The only thing is that Apple didn't release a final version of Rhapsody for x86 to the public at large.

Further, Rhapsody is version 5.x of the same operating system line as OPENSTEP (which constitutes version 4.x). It is far more advanced than OPENSTEP in many, many ways. As someone who runs both, I tend to work in Rhapsody more than OPENSTEP for this very reason.

That is what I mean.

What I was referring to about resource management is this:

You want Apple to maintain two sets of code. 1) for PPC (Risc) and the other for X86 (32bit) and possibly X86 (64bit)

You want these to sets of code maintained concurrently, meaning you want Apple to have twice the number of programmers working on twice the amount of software?

This means that Apple now has to support both versions of OS X, test an infinite number of hardware combinations.

That is understandable. But that also wasn't what we were talking about... was it? We were talking about something that was close to Mac OS X for x86, Rhapsody for x86 is about as close as you are going to see.

Also, risking developers choosing the X86 version over the PPC version for future apps?

Most of the developers for Rhapsody came from OPENSTEP using x86 hardware. By the time Apple was ready to release a final version of Rhapsody, the x86 version was facing a major deficit in applications compared to the PowerPC version. This deficit was one of the main reasons that Apple killed off the x86 version.

Some how I highly doubt that there would be much risk of developer choosing an x86 version of Mac OS X over the PowerPC version given actual historical evidence to the contrary when developers (coming from x86) were given this very same choice... and went with PowerPC.

 

[jane doe]

I that that was what we were talking about? I'm not saying that OS X for X86 could not be done, Only that it will not be done.

Apple does not see openstep as a competitor? OpenStep code is the reference to OS X. There are a lot of people I know that still use openstep and write for it.

I have two Next boxes that I still use and maintain. OS X for X86 could be done, it would not be easy and would require a lot of work on everyones part, but I don't see it happening from where I sit.

 

[RacerX]

I that that was what we were talking about? I'm not saying that OS X for X86 could not be done, Only that it will not be done.

I've said as much many times in this thread.

Apple does not see openstep as a competitor? OpenStep code is the reference to OS X. There are a lot of people I know that still use openstep and write for it.

Which is why Apple added the licensing restriction to any copies of OPENSTEP being sold currently (they started this in 2001 as I recall).

As for reference code OpenStep (which I would add is different from OPENSTEP, the operating system) was made into Yellow Box (for Rhapsody) and then Cocoa (for Mac OS X). You can't get from OPENSTEP to Mac OS X without going through Rhapsody first.

As for people still working with NeXT products, I spend a large amount of time working with and helping the NeXT community. But the fact that OPENSTEP with WebObjects is still a viable solution, makes it competition for Mac OS X with WebObjects.

I have two Next boxes that I still use and maintain. OS X for X86 could be done, it would not be easy and would require a lot of work on everyones part, but I don't see it happening from where I sit.

Again, nether do I.

If you are a NeXT user, you should take some time to join us over at openstep.se. We are always happy to have more people around who are active NeXT users.

 

[JesterJJZ]

This means that Apple now has to support both versions of OS X, test an infinite number of hardware combinations.

If it only runs on Apple PC harware it would solve that problem. And if people wanna try to get it to work on other machines...well thats their problem if they can't even get online.

 

[Mord]

apple already makes one it's called the macintosh .

apple has no reason to go x86, there is no speed gain and no price gain, spec out an entirely equal pc to a mac and see how it comes out about the same, the only places where pc's have avatages is in price points apple dose not offer like a cheap 15" notebook.

 

[shompa]

Sun has ported its UNIX/Solaris operating system fråm RISC to X86 a long time. I dont think that Apple should have any problem if they wanted to do it?

I really think Apple should port to X86 with one exeption:
The BIOS.
Apple should also have its own bootprom.

Thats how they could manage that only certified hardware is used.

There is big money in selling the OSX software.
If Dell could sell a OSX-86 computer for all the corporate users. It would be a hit. No viruses, No spyware. Easy UNIX administration for the IT staff (using rsync and NFS to share all the applications) and still be able to use MS Office.

 

[FFTT]

I can't see Apple bothering with backwards compatibility to X86
when PPC and PPC based Cell have so much more to offer >:
In fact, I doubt anyone will even be making an X86 within 24 months.

Apple IS already breaking new ground licensing large scale deployments
of XServe and XSan with the likes of Oracle and Cisco.
This is where I see a more likely licensing trend, than with personal
Wintel or AMD gear.

Apple now has the first truly affordable Mac with plenty of performance
to handle the needs of almost any office network environment.
Why should they bother supporting Dell?

IF.... I said "Screw Dell!", that might offend someone, so I won't


Apple just needs to tighten up on their quality control and continue to
offer a FULL range of systems at a reasonable price.


In less than 2 years most of the current PC users will be forced to choose between a new system running OSX, Linux or a system running Longhorn.

Competition keeps things interesting.

 

[Beeblebrox]

apple has no reason to go x86, there is no speed gain and no price gain, spec out an entirely equal pc to a mac and see how it comes out about the same

They actually don't. My 2.4 ghz, 40 GB HDD, and 256 MB of RAM cost $100 less than my 1.2 ghz Mac mini. And on the PC, the HDD is faster and all of the components are upgradeable. You have to spend $1500 to get that on the Mac (other than RAM).

On the higher end systems it isn't even that close. My laptop specs out to exactly the same as a midrange PB, but it costs about $1000 less.

I like Macs, but cheap they ain't.

 

[Mord]

but it's not the mac mini is a nano ITX computer if you compare to the equivilent pc it's cheaper.

send a link to the specs of your laptop.

 

[Beeblebrox]

but it's not the mac mini is a nano ITX computer if you compare to the equivilent pc it's cheaper.

I could just as easily say that my PC comes with 4 PCI slots and that if you compare the equivalent on the Mac (which would be the Power Mac G5), then my PC costs about a fourth of the price. We're talking about overall power and features, not pointing out one single detail.

send a link to the specs of your laptop.

My laptop has a 15" 16x9 widescreen, 2.2 ghz Athlon mobile processor, XP, 60 GB HDD, 512 megs RAM, built-in 802.11g, 3 USB ports, a firewire port, S-video, parallel and serial port, headphone jack, line in, PCI expansion slot, and a 3 hour battery. It cost $1250 retail. Of course, that was a year ago. The model up from mine has more power and actually costs less than this, about $995. The current equivalent Powerbooks start at $1999 for the 1.5 ghz.

Believe me, I shopped around very carefully before making a decision. I considered the Powerbooks but they're just too expensive.

 

[BenRoethig]

I could just as easily say that my PC comes with 4 PCI slots and that if you compare the equivalent on the Mac (which would be the Power Mac G5), then my PC costs about a fourth of the price. We're talking about overall power and features, not pointing out one single detail..

The PC equivalent to to a G5 tower are Opteron/Xenon based workstations. Apple doesn't make a consumer tower. The closest thing they have is the iMac.

 

[cr2sh]

The PC equivalent to to a G5 tower are Opteron/Xenon based workstations. Apple doesn't make a consumer tower. The closest thing they have is the iMac.

Actually, the single 1.8 is a consumer tower...

 

[BenRoethig]

Actually, the single 1.8 is a consumer tower...

Its still a pro model, its just being used as a comsumer machine because its all we got.

 

[Urban67]

do it now, before microsoft launches longhorn. When that happens apple will lose even bigger market procent and be doomed for all eternity. take this chance, NOOOOWW!!!!!!!!

 

[FFTT]

Longhorn still has it's feet stuck in a nasty pile of manure.

Unless Microsoft is willing to scrap their OS altogether and start fresh
all you'll get is another shade of lipstick on a pig.

An then, you'll still have to replace your hardware too and spend a fortune on Longorn compatible upgrades.

Remember it took many of us the better part of 3 years and considerable
expense to leave OS9 behind.

 

[kirk@kpj2.com]

OS X on Intel? Roots

Haven't there been rumors around for some time that Apple already has a version of OS X ready to run on x86 systems?

I always thought Apple makes it money on hardware by having better software. This would really change Apple into an OS/software company. They would take a huge hit on PowerMac sales especially. I think the iMac, iBook, and PowerBooks can stand on their own, but a lot of people video people would by high-end P4's and Athlon 64's instead of PowerMacs if the could run Final Cut on them.

NextStep - the core OS from which OS X was created, ran exclusively on Intel hardware. Not generic hardware, mind you, but a very specific subset of hardware that would ensure compatibility and stability. It would not be unreasonable to think that Apple kept a parallel development effort going, given that genesis.

BTW: Gigahertz is NOT a uniform comparison of speed. This is Intel marketing hype, that with the Pentium M, is coming back to bite them big time. A 1.5 ghz Pentium M is roughly equivalent to a 3 ghz Pentium 4, which is equivalent to a 1.6 ghz PowerPC (G5 from Apple, not the new Power5 architecture from IBM), which is a 1 ghz Sparc, which is a 1.8 ghz AMD Sempron (2800+) - you get the drift. Real world performance is far more than just processor clock rates - hell, it is far more than even instructions-per-second rates.

I'll take stability, at a [perceived] premium on a Mac. (compare feature to feature - Mac acquisition costs are lower, and TCO (operational costs) are WAY, WAY lower) I'll also take a Power architecture processor that has years of headroom left in it, to an Intel path that is almost end-of-life, from a performance standpoint. CISC (Complex instruction Set Computing - Intel) is running up against insurmountable obstacles. RISC (reduced instruction set computing) still offers significant performance headroom, and the new Power5 architecture is light years ahead of the alternatives.

Personally, I can't afford the time it takes to manage a Windows platform. I don't get paid to be constantly tinkering with the carberator in order to keep the car running - I get paid to drive the car to get the job done. Windows reminds me of the older Harley-Davidson's where you had to bring your mechanic and tools along on any trip longer than around the block.

... and this is from a guy that was part of the development team for the original IBM PC, circa 1980!

 

[Jo-Kun]

for a second just think about it...

OSX on onything other than a mac with working hardware???

hmmmz there are so many different cards/drives/add-ons available for PC so this would result in the need of getting specific drivers for everything...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh this takes me back to my PC days when a friend and I sometimes spend an entire weekend on getting his new card to work by looking for updated drivers, find out in wich slot it works without rendering other cards KO... no way this sounds like hell to me (and common issues for PC users) apple is fine in its current form...

Maybe in the future with the succes of Mac mini, iMac, eMac, iBook for general use the prices might drop and PC people will more easily step up to using macOSX & Hardware...

Professionails will still get Apple anyway ;-)
I love it, my G5 has to work every day, rarely crashes, and unlike my old PC I don't need to reinstall the lot every 6months because its soooo ****** -up

 

[RacerX]

NextStep - the core OS from which OS X was created, ran exclusively on Intel hardware. Not generic hardware, mind you, but a very specific subset of hardware that would ensure compatibility and stability. It would not be unreasonable to think that Apple kept a parallel development effort going, given that genesis.

NEXTSTEP 0.8 to 3.0 was exclusively for NeXT 68k hardware. The first version for Intel hardware was NEXTSTEP 3.1 (May 25, 1993) . With NEXTSTEP 3.2 they added support for HP's Pa-RISC systems and with NEXTSTEP 3.3 support for Sun's SPARC systems.

And All the while keeping support for the NeXT 68k hardware.

Yes, there was a subset of PC hardware that NEXTSTEP (and later OPENSTEP) could run on. I keep the compatibility lists on my site for those who are interested in that type of stuff (here).

It should be noted that that by 1995 NeXT was getting tired of maintaining compatibility with PCs in their operating systems. They had made a deal with Sun to move the NEXTSTEP GUI and APIs to Solaris (in what was known as Solaris OpenStep) and were planning on dropping the operating system from their business as soon as Sun had a workable system.

This did not come to pass as Apple acquired NeXT before Sun had finished (Solaris OpenStep 1.0 and 1.1 were released for Solaris 2.4/2.4) and Apple had no interest in Sun using NeXT technology so the project died.

Had Apple not bought NeXT, the odds are that other than old versions of NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, the only NeXT like OS would have been Solaris running on SPARC systems (Sun had no plans for Solaris OpenStep to run on x86 as I recall).

 

[Beeblebrox]

The PC equivalent to to a G5 tower are Opteron/Xenon based workstations. Apple doesn't make a consumer tower. The closest thing they have is the iMac.

Again, that's not necessarily a plus on Apple's side. The iMacs start at $1299 and do not have the exandability of even a PC half that price. On the plus side, they do come with a monitor, which adds considerably to the value.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I love it, my G5 has to work every day, rarely crashes, and unlike my old PC I don't need to reinstall the lot every 6months because its soooo ****** -up

Comparing apples to apples (so to speak), XP rarely crashes, and those hardware issues of mostly a thing of the past, particularly for common add ons like video and sound cards.

Granted, Apple would run into those problems because of the relative inexperience on the PC platform, but I don't think it's anything they couldn't get through eventually.

 

[Mord]

I could just as easily say that my PC comes with 4 PCI slots and that if you compare the equivalent on the Mac (which would be the Power Mac G5), then my PC costs about a fourth of the price. We're talking about overall power and features, not pointing out one single detail.



My laptop has a 15" 16x9 widescreen, 2.2 ghz Athlon mobile processor, XP, 60 GB HDD, 512 megs RAM, built-in 802.11g, 3 USB ports, a firewire port, S-video, parallel and serial port, headphone jack, line in, PCI expansion slot, and a 3 hour battery. It cost $1250 retail. Of course, that was a year ago. The model up from mine has more power and actually costs less than this, about $995. The current equivalent Powerbooks start at $1999 for the 1.5 ghz.

Believe me, I shopped around very carefully before making a decision. I considered the Powerbooks but they're just too expensive.

is that an 2200+ or a 3000+ which is 2.2GHz?, 3 hours battery is a joke, what gpu dose it use?, how thick is it and how much dose it weigh?

as i said the only place apple falls down in are categories they do not enter like a low end the mac mini ic cheaper compared to other mini ITX pc's and the high end powermacs (duals) are about the same as dual xeon or dual opteron pc's of the same speed, there is nothing that compares to the 12" ibook and powerbook at the price-points with comparable specs, (i;m not just speaking about cpu speed i'm talking about battery life gpu, weight size and ports.

i'm not pointing out single details, it seems you are, if you compare to pc's with every spec equal possible only one mac comes under par and thats the single 1.8GHz powermac.

 

[BenRoethig]

Again, that's not necessarily a plus on Apple's side. The iMacs start at $1299 and do not have the exandability of even a PC half that price. On the plus side, they do come with a monitor, which adds considerably to the value.

Didn't say it was. If anything, the large hole it Apple's lineup is their biggest minus.

 

[Mord]

BTW: Gigahertz is NOT a uniform comparison of speed. This is Intel marketing hype, that with the Pentium M, is coming back to bite them big time. A 1.5 ghz Pentium M is roughly equivalent to a 3 ghz Pentium 4, which is equivalent to a 1.6 ghz PowerPC (G5 from Apple, not the new Power5 architecture from IBM), which is a 1 ghz Sparc, which is a 1.8 ghz AMD Sempron (2800+)

it's more like 1.8GHz pentium M = 3GHz P4 = AMD64 3000+ = 1.8GHz G5 = 1GHz Sparc