Mac OS X on pentium and amd

[strider42]

Re: Re: Re: nope

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


'Fraid you're wrong about Apple not being able to buy Moto's semiconductor division. It's in their contract, they can buy it for (if I remember correctly) 500 million. 500 mil is a big chunk of cash, but Apple could theoretically afford it.

Sorry, you are not correct. apple has the right to buy out moto's interest in the powerPC (or it might just be int he aim alliance), NOT the semiconductor division. the fab plants alone would cost more than 500 million. 500 million is not that big a chunk of change when you are talking abuot somethign as vast as moto's semiconductor division. Its not possible. apple could never buy it, and have no right to do so. Whats more, what would they want it for. the semi conductor division does a lot more than just apple chipsets, meaning apple would get saddled with a whole bunch of stuff it doesn't want thats not even profitable.

 

[swahilibill]

Ha, Two sider

I believe that MS does need OS X, hell even Mac OS in general, To make some real software, but that is like trying to put a V8 in a 87' Oldsmobile, it just does not look or work right.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: jbouklas

Originally posted by PCUser
Well, I don't know how NeXT did it, but the only thing I could think of would be to make it so the system libraries handled every call...

Such as basic calls to add, divide, subtract, access memory, etc. The whole works. You'd have to recreate the entire Assembly language in the system libraries (no small feat).

You'd also have to write your own compiler, linker, assembler so that it compiles your code to call the system libraries for everything.

That would be a lot of time to do. And, I imagine, it would a slower then if you wrote it the standard way. It'd basically add another layer to everything. Right now, when I write a simple C++ app and compile it, it talks directly to the chip to make calls to add two numbers... if I was to recreate a system-independent system library to do the same thing, my app would get compiled to call the system library to talk to the chip to add two numbers.

I must say, when it comes to using one's own hind quarters as an information resource, you are more skilled than most.

Fat binaries work because they are nothing more complex than several different binaries joined together into one executable. There's no translating going on - each section of the binary executes native code respective to the processor on which it is being run. Any fat binary will run on any system for which a part of it has been compiled, and of course the binary will use up at least twice as much disk space as a thin binary depending on how many targets it has been compiled for. Fat binaries are no great technological feat.

As for porting to Intel: I cannot imagine any way Apple could do this successfully. Even assuming their machines remained proprietary, with a boot ROM for example, I wonder how long it would take for some bored 16 year-old kid from Hong Kong to work around that and get OS X running on all Intel machines, legal or not. Probably about three weeks.

Why would Apple WANT to take the huge step of moving to Intel, anyway? Sure 1GHz < 2.4GHz. But Apple is doing quite well and making money. Where is their incentive to switch?

I can think of one company that parallels Apple in a way: SGI. In 1997, they were doing quite well, but the MIPS R10000 was starting to fall behind Intel in terms of megahertz. Nevermind that the R10K was superior to the Pentium II in virtually every way; it was at 225MHz and Intel was at 300MHz, and that hurt SGI's sales. So SGI decided to spin off MIPS, embrace Linux, embrace Intel, and port everything on over. They helped port Linux to Itanium, and were in the process of porting IRIX as well. In the meantime, they sold proprietary x86 boxes running Linux and NT. SGI's x86 boxes completely flopped. They still sell Itanium servers running Linux, but those aren't selling either. In short, when they bowed to pressure and abandoned the great IRIX/MIPS platform, they shot themselves in the heart. SGI is now a mere shadow of its former self; it has re-embraced IRIX/MIPS, but even they know that it's too late. They would likely no longer be in business today if not for their classified sales to the U.S. Government.

Everybody who wants their next Power *MACINTOSH* to include a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with a 15,000 RPM CPU fan sucking up god knows how many watts of power and re-establishing a tired and miserable legacy architecture that should have been dead ten if not fifteen years ago, raise your hand.

Everybody who wants to essentially kick EVERY SINGLE current Mac owner in the nuts by declaring the PowerPC a "legacy architecture" as Old World Macs are now, and by abandoning approximately 90% of the current Mac-using population (because face it - this is what would have to happen if OS X were to be ported to Intel), raise your hand.

Everybody who wants to alienate current major players on the Mac scene such as Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft, etc., who make the software that makes the Mac a viable platform, by forcing them to again update the software they've just spent so much effort getting to run on OS X, raise your hand.

Everybody who wants to see all the hard work and investment Apple has put into the PowerPC architecture over the past decade thrown by the wayside in favor of a temporary and short-sighted solution to a problem that frankly is not so enormous anyway, raise your hand.

In short, everybody who wants to see the Mac platform die a slow and agonizing death, raise your hand.

Please - can the Intel talk already.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by rEd Eye
My guess is that soon enough M$ or whomever will copycat Apples idea of revamping unix into a prefab consumert os,that's just as good,if not better than os X.Then the **** will hit the fan,because Apple won't be better anymore!

Well, you could say Be already did this, or was at least close, although the only thing the "****" hit was the face of Jean-Louis Gassee and all BeOS users.

Alex

 

[PCUser]

I don't think Microsoft would ever switch to a UNIX-clone based OS... simply because that would mean they would have to admit that Window's kernel wasn't the best crap on earth. They wouldn't even have to say it, just switching to a UNIX-clone kernel would admit it.


Alex_ant, thanks for setting the record straight about NeXT. You learn something new every day!

I did not intend for anyone to think I knew what I was talking about, that's why I prefaced it with a "I think" disclaimer. I was guessing, not stating as fact. I don't think I deserved that.

I was thinking that NeXT used a thin binary that could run on multiple platforms. If it was just a fat binary, what's so special about that? Other OS's can do that too...

 

[eirik]

another knock on AMD/Intel CPU's

Someone has already pointed out that Pentiums and Athlons draw a hell of a lot more power than PPCs, generating tremendous heat.

While placing a couple slots in the tops of Pentium/Athlon units so one could toast bread, muffins, or bagels might be a novel approach that would garner tremendous free publicity (mind share is proportional to market share...generally), the maintenance would be a huge inconvenience.

With my present PC's, I seldom clean the dust off my CRT's and boxes. I can't imagine ever popping the box to empty out the crumbs.

Now, to make matters worse, some brilliant marketer might convince Apple to employ a side-loading slot with convection ducting so that one could cook small pizzas. Well, I love pizza, man do I love pizza. But now we're talking about having to clean out the grease and various nasty food spatters.

No, with the increased threat of a major energy crisis due to the problems in the Mideast, we must conserve energy. To employ Pentiums/Athlons, we would be ethically obligated to go the toaster-oven route to justify the power. As Bush Sr. used to say, "it wouldn't be prudent"!

Seriously though, I do have a practical point to make that hasn't been raised in this thread, though others. Apple is clearly strengthening its position in multimedia and scientific workstations. And I suspect, later it will muscle into Internet/Intranet servers as an industrial strength, low overhead (headcount) solution. This screams for multiple processors (and vector processing).

Not only do the Intel/AMD CPU's draw a butt-load of power but they also do not satisfy all of the MERSI criteria for optimal symmetric multiprocessing. Mind you, Intel/AMD may have improved upon this but if they have I haven't heard about it yet, which wouldn't be a shocker.

With PPC's, except for the G3, being very MERSI compliant, Apple can get much better SMP performance with PPC's than with Intel/AMD CPU's, so long as the individual CPU's are not radically disparate in performance.

With 300mm wafer production propagating through the industry, the price of CPU's will go down substantially, providing greater pressure for mainstream employment of and workstations' more extensive usage (more CPU's) of SMP.

The server market is already itching for lower power CPU's for their server blades because the Intel/AMD-based hardware requires additional expensive power supplies and cooling equipment that easily rack up an additional $15,000!

Apple enjoys some positive differentiation from the rest of the market with its reputation for quieter machines because its machines draw less power and bleed less heat.

I'm not bullish on Intel/AMD right now. However, if Moto and IBM don't get their s*** together this year, I'll start growing horns.

As for the $500 MM buyout option of Motorola's PPC interests, I agree that this does NOT include the fab assets. Apple would be extremely foolish to buy those assets. Those assets are failing to keep up with Intel/AMD manufacturing advances (I am referring to mass production of high-clock CPU's, not advanced technology such as SOI, AltiVec, and copper interconnects.). Managing them would seriously distract Apple from its core competencies. Their lower margin generation would bring down Apple's overall margins. Apple's cost of capital would go up, as well as its financial beta.

The big question that I can't answer is just exactly what would such a buyout include in the way of the intellectual property that Apple relies upon? Would it include AltiVec? SOI? Copper interconnects? Silicon Germanium compositing?

If the option would get Apple the desired technologies, Apple shouldn't hesitate to execute, even if Apple continues to source Motorola in the short term. Over time, I would expect that Apple would outsource manufacturing of its in-house designs, courtesy of this option plus Apple's existing intellectual assets and human power, to AMD, IBM, Intel, and/or some Asian fabs.

Well, there I go again. I wrote another damn novel!!!

BTW, please remember to clean out your Intel/AMD based PowerMac's periodically. It might smell nice but its a fire hazzard.

Eirik