wdlove said:
If done quickly (and correctly) it could be a year before Longhorn, and I do believe that Rosetta will emulate Wintel apps at 100% on Apple OS X Intel boxes...
...Now wouldn't that be something !
Dick
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.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If done quickly (and correctly) it could be a year before Longhorn, and I do believe that Rosetta will emulate Wintel apps at 100% on Apple OS X Intel boxes...
...Now wouldn't that be something !
Dick
dicklacara said:
No, it won't. The developer documentation says that the application must be able to run on a G3 for Rosetta to emulate it, among other qualifications. And see my other post about Apple not wanting to support execution of Windows applications due to interface differences.
Hello all,
Just a quick question, and I am sorry in advance if it has been asked/mentioned already. Yet I was wondering when the next MacWorld is going to be held? I looked on Apple's website and did not see it. Also is it going to be MacWorld Paris 2005 (although I still would not know the date)?
Thanks!
Just a quick question, and I am sorry in advance if it has been asked/mentioned already. Yet I was wondering when the next MacWorld is going to be held? I looked on Apple's website and did not see it. Also is it going to be MacWorld Paris 2005 (although I still would not know the date)?
Thanks!
MacTruck said:
Nice thought, but many of us make our living by planning for the future in the computer industry. I've been at this professionally for 17+ years, and I cut my teeth on Apple hardware in 1981. Now, what do I do? I can't tell people "go out and buy an EOL system".
Plus, guess what? In addition to the Apple stating that the IntelMac will not have Open Firmware (welcome to the PeeCee world, folks!), a friend sent this along:
-----
This is all from the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, the
document describing the transition from PPC/PPC64 -> IA32.
Regarding Rosetta (which is a JIT recompiler):
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X.
Rosetta does not run the following:
* Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
* Code written specifically for AltiVec
* Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
* Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
* Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
* Kernel extensions
....Aaaaaand!
The ABI is strict IA32, not AMD64.
So, all those companies that paid big bucks to port their applications to 64-bit Mac OS (Oracle, Wolfram, IBM) just bought into a platform that's going to be dead in 2 years with no backwards-compatibility.
Something is seriously rotten here.
-----
...and this is why I didn't hear the words "64 bit" at all today.
Apple, the next SGI.
Just watched the keynote. Very interesting. If Steve's claims about relatively easy porting are correct, then a lot of the pissing-n-moaning I've heard about doing such ports will be laid to rest once and for all.
I'm not a programmer, so I wouldn't pretend to understand or speak with authority on such porting. All I can do is hope, from my vantage point as a user, that Steve's correct. It didn't look like he white-washed it. Some things are simple, some things are hard, and some stuff is in between.
As someone else said, it's not about the hardware as such. I think what we all want is bigger, better, faster Macs. I hope this achieves that goal...
Mike
I'm not a programmer, so I wouldn't pretend to understand or speak with authority on such porting. All I can do is hope, from my vantage point as a user, that Steve's correct. It didn't look like he white-washed it. Some things are simple, some things are hard, and some stuff is in between.
As someone else said, it's not about the hardware as such. I think what we all want is bigger, better, faster Macs. I hope this achieves that goal...
Mike
kcmac said:I think a few people in this thread are up past their bedtime. I hate when school is out for the summer...
Really. Relax. Get a good nights sleep. Read. Think. Quit blabbering for just a little bit and you may learn something. Wait for a few developers and other people that really know about these things to have a chance to look into it and report some of their findings to us. Maybe some of what you say will be correct. But I doubt you have better info than Apple. I doubt your livelihood is as directly connected as those making these decisions.
This decision took balls. Five years of planning has gone into this very situation. The livelihood of the mac depends on it. Would you rather that
Apple didn't compile all versions of OS X for Intel along the way? And then IBM dumps Apple or leaves them in limbo forever with no hope of getting a G5 or anything better for the laptops? Or stuck forever under 3 Ghz. While MS gets dual 3+ gigs for the yet to be released XBox? Don't you remember Motorola?
Really. Just sit back for awhile. Nothing will happen to you or the Mac you have now or may get soon.
Good night.
Hear Hear. Nighty Nite from my end too. Sorry MacTruck, i give up. You win. This sucks, Apple blows, Steve is an idiot, the company will not exist a year from now and this is the end of the rebel fight against the empire. Darth Vader - or is it the Sith dude (i don't keep up with what seems to be essential terminology in owning a computer
wins.I, every user on this board, Steve Jobs, the BOD at the Apple Corporation, every analyst on Wall Street and .... why stop there ... the computing industry as a whole will bemoan the loss of your patronage to the Apple line. Your 13 computers will forever be hailed as the most important loss in the history of this computer and your decision will undoubtably be viewed as more visionary than the guy who created the PC and reinvented Apple.
Yup, you win. Our loss.
*and in case it isn't clear, since you don't seem to read these posts of mine, what I'm saying ... albeit long windedly .. is don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.*
Freeeeeeedooooom .. you win, you were right ... let us know which PC's you end up buying, ok? We will await your purchasing decision .. no doubt accentuated by your keen insight .... with bated breath.
Sweet Dreams,
eV
After watching the keynote I have come to the conclusion that Apple is indeed moving in the direction of liscensing OSX to pc distributors. Steve even ended saying that the heart of a mac is not the hardware but OSX. I really think this is a smart move to compete head on with microsoft. In a few years we will see select pc distributors running mac osx. I'd say Sony
I like this. This is good for Apple, we are coming back to the mainstream and we need to accept that our exclusivity is not going to exist much longer.
I like this. This is good for Apple, we are coming back to the mainstream and we need to accept that our exclusivity is not going to exist much longer.
Hate to add to this thread but Apple said they wouldn't prevent users from installing Windows which would subsequently mean there is no need for VPC, we run Windows natively. Also, Apple would block users via chips or something from installing OSX onto a non-Apple machine. Get a grip, Apple is way ahead of us.
Some thoughts....
- Mac on Linux should take an interesting turn... Wine running Windows Apps alongside MOL OS X86 session all running on a Dell.
- I guess my expensive SATA RAID Controller will quickly become obsolete, since Device drivers are always a huge problem for any new OS, which in this case, OS X86 is. I wonder if I will finally have a decent selection of video cards?
- I have cancelled my plans for replacing an iMac 400, TiBook 550, and a PM DA 733 over the next year. I will replace my iBook 600, but only because I need a bigger laptop. I have cancelled an upgrade for the FCP Production suite, and I wonder if I will still be able to use my copy of iLife in the near future?
- I still cannot believe that Apple didn't try to partner with AMD as well. Opteron PowerMacs, and Centrino PowerBooks. Best of Both worlds.
- The PC world is going 64-bit dual core, Apple is moving from 64-bit to
32-bit single core, and non-SIMD ( Altivec ) at that...
- I guess Virtual PC should now match the Windows version in performance..
Hmmmmm.... Has the world gone truly mad?? Viva La G3!!!!
Max.
- Mac on Linux should take an interesting turn... Wine running Windows Apps alongside MOL OS X86 session all running on a Dell.
- I guess my expensive SATA RAID Controller will quickly become obsolete, since Device drivers are always a huge problem for any new OS, which in this case, OS X86 is. I wonder if I will finally have a decent selection of video cards?
- I have cancelled my plans for replacing an iMac 400, TiBook 550, and a PM DA 733 over the next year. I will replace my iBook 600, but only because I need a bigger laptop. I have cancelled an upgrade for the FCP Production suite, and I wonder if I will still be able to use my copy of iLife in the near future?
- I still cannot believe that Apple didn't try to partner with AMD as well. Opteron PowerMacs, and Centrino PowerBooks. Best of Both worlds.
- The PC world is going 64-bit dual core, Apple is moving from 64-bit to
32-bit single core, and non-SIMD ( Altivec ) at that...
- I guess Virtual PC should now match the Windows version in performance..
Hmmmmm.... Has the world gone truly mad?? Viva La G3!!!!
Max.
LaMerVipere said:Steve said pretty clearly in the Keynote that there's a lot of work to do and they should have the first Macs running on Intel by June 6, 2006 @ WWDC 2006, a year from now.
He's been wrong before...and you never know what might change in their plans because of lack of computer sales.
cgc said:
You could dual-boot with OS X and Windows on a Mac, which means only running one at a time. This isn't quite the same experience as running Windows within OS X a la Virtual PC- just to clarify. So whether there is still a need for virtual PC is unclear (but obviously Virtual PC would no longer have to emulate x86).
I'd also point out that existing virtual environments like Mac-on-Linux and PearPC still don't work 100 per cent, and Linux on Mac is still missing some hardware support, so I don't think Apple are too worried. The same issues would need to be overcome to get OS X to run on a generic PC.admanimal said:
OS X isn't going to be anywhere near as appealing if all the nice little things like sleep, sound, networking etc. don't quite work right. That's what's going to ultimately keep OS X from becoming mainstream on non-Apple hardware.
leftbanke7 said:
1. no
2. they wil run on PPC and be converted/tweaked on Intel (maybe not as well)
3. No, every OS X PPC will run on OS Z Intel, without change-- Rosetta/QuickTransit
4) NO-- less expensive, but not cheaper... but they will prolly cost more and at the same time, less than the Dell equivalent... kinda' like things are today!
Enjoy!
iMeowbot said:
That is a very good point. A lot of the power management features that Apple has so tightly integrated into its OS only work so well because they are also tightly integrated with the hardware.
When I used to put my Windows PC to sleep, half the time it wouldn't wake up, and another quarter of the time it thought I meant I wanted to restart it.
you know after mulling over this I've come to the conclusion that this is probaly a good thing. I mean the fact of the matter is apple is still going to produce great hardware and software.
Even if it get's to the point that OS X can be installed on any old x86 box(unlikly but I'm just saying IF) the fact of the matter is apple powerbooks/powermacs are still going to be MUCH nicer than any PC counterpart.
Maby if I see the HP PowerMac I'll feel different but for now I don't see this as being a bad thing. Although even the HP iPod is simply a regular iPod with an HP logo on it.
Even if it get's to the point that OS X can be installed on any old x86 box(unlikly but I'm just saying IF) the fact of the matter is apple powerbooks/powermacs are still going to be MUCH nicer than any PC counterpart.
Maby if I see the HP PowerMac I'll feel different but for now I don't see this as being a bad thing. Although even the HP iPod is simply a regular iPod with an HP logo on it.
freebird said:
But Steve made a big point in his Keynote to say "We promised 3GHz two years ago but haven't hit it, I know a lot of you would like a G5 in a PowerBook but that's not possible." (not quoting exactly but it was something to that effect)
So obviously it is an IBM problem.
PCMacUser said:
Why?
Why not just the ability to run Wintel apps at 100% on OS X Intel?
Isn't that what you really want?
No mal-ware!
Dick
- Status