OS X Is Holding Back the Mac

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. Lacero macrumors 604


    Jan 20, 2005
    Interesting article, although there's more to OSX than the Mach microkernel that's supposedly keeping the Mac slower than it should be. Linux would be nice, only if were for bragging rights so PC users will stand up and take notice.

    Here's to the Crazy Ones [​IMG]
  3. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Aug 5, 2005
    It could be better, but at least it plays at all, unlike Windows.

    Good find
  4. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Jul 5, 2004
    If Apple can switch to x86, have stuff like Rosetta and fat binaries, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they changed the core of the OS to something else. After all, it's all supposed to be system calls and such, isn't it?

    As long as it's transparent to everyone (including developpers), I wouldn't mind.

    If it changes anything for users and program developpers, however, it's a bad thing (the x86 transition is already enough, we need at least another 5 years after that before they can do something else).
  5. x86isslow macrumors 6502a

    Aug 10, 2003
    i think the linux kernel's license would be an obstacle, apple's choice of bsd was because they could sell things they made based on it. if they went with linux, they'd have to make their OS free.
  6. dashiel macrumors 6502a

    Nov 12, 2003
    exactly who is complaining about OS speed on any apple modern apple hardware? this strikes me as a fanboy wet dream that has very little upside and loads of headaches.
  7. mduser63 macrumors 68040


    Nov 9, 2004
    Salt Lake City, UT
    RedHat (and many other companies) seem to do just fine selling Linux. RedHat offers Fedora Core Linux free, but Apple has offered Darwin for both x86 and PPC free for a long time.
  8. arkmannj macrumors 65816


    Oct 1, 2003
    Wouldn't they choose the overall best for teh job, not just based on speed?

    I don't know enough about the intricacies of Kernel's, other than a general knowledge.
    However, I do have to think that Apple likely weighed out the pro's and Con's of various solutions, and the Mach microkernel that they use likely hit the most of their intended goals.
    (maximum speed possible only being one of those goals)

    I have to think that they chose the "overall best" solution.
    maybe the Mach microkernel Apple chose does hold back some of the speed
    but what are other benefits we enjoy, and what potential does it have ?

    Like I said, I'm not a kernel guru, maybe someone can help me understand that better ? but I do think I understand that Apple wouldn't arbitrarily choose a setup without some plan, goals, etc.
  9. CanadaRAM macrumors G5


    Oct 11, 2004
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    OSX Server has fundamental issues that makes it terribly inefficient as a multiuser server.
  10. longofest Editor emeritus


    Jul 10, 2003
    Falls Church, VA
    The guy goes on and on about Mach's weaknesses, but doesn't talk about its strengths, like the security benefit of only having necessary processes running in the kernel, etc...

    Apple has done a great job I think of toning down Mach's weaknesses.

    By the way... for those who think that the kernel in OSX is BSD... nope. It's Mach. OSX is a hybrid between Mach and BSD, where the kernel is Mach which handles IPC and memory management, etc, and BSD handles system calls and other user-level functionality.
  11. macjunkie82 macrumors member


    Oct 8, 2005
    Iowa, USA
    The site is called "Low End Mac". I'm using a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I can relate to some of what he's talking about. But, I do think his argument is flawed as others have pointed out. :)

    Plus the title of the article seems a bit dramatic, perhaps to get hits?
  12. Fiveos22 macrumors 65816


    Nov 20, 2003
    Really? After nearly a decade of tweaks for PowerPC architecture, will the twisted and strained underpinnings just nicely unwind and smooth out? He mentions that the NeXT PowerPC port was scrapped when NeXT 486 was released, but perhaps that material, or at least their plans, can be adapted to the OSX86 transformation.

    Perhaps this is a moot point already, because it appears that we already have a working (and working well) edition of OSX86.

    Can someone explain where the Darwin foundation fits into this? In relation to the Mach microkernel, is Darwin on top or underneath, and is Darwin compatable with the Linux monolithic kernel?
  13. otter-boy macrumors regular

    Jun 21, 2003
    Fort Worth, TX

    RedHat charges for support of RHEL and also includes customizations that run on top of the OS.

    RedHat could sell Linux, but it is compelled by the GPL to give away any contributions to the Linux OS itself (i.e. provide source code free of charge)

    RedHat does not charge for Fedora because Fedora is not eligible for support.
  14. Stella macrumors 604


    Apr 21, 2003
    Personally, OSX is *why* i got a Mac. I used to use Linux but got fed up with the maintenance. Don't like Windows. OSX it was - it had a good GUI ( I loved the original Aqua look ) plus Unix under the hood.

    It would be a long time before I start using Linux again as my main OS - though I use Linux for my servers - cheap old hardware runs fine ( P1 at 120Mhz).
  15. Photorun macrumors 65816


    Sep 1, 2003
    Whoever upthread used "fanboy" hit the nail on the head. The guy seemed to, between the lines, be whining (or should I say pining?) for Classic 9.2 to rear it's (ugly 32 color) head again. Classic was good, but Classic is dead, long live Classic... on outdated machines.

    And why should Macs play well with Windows? I get tired of this argument, how about Windows playing nice with Macs... or hell, Windows playing nice with ANYONE! They're the closed-source knuckleheads keeping the computing world kicking and screaming barely out of the DOS era but you don't see people pointing figures that direction.
  16. Analog Kid macrumors 68040

    Analog Kid

    Mar 4, 2003
    Oh man... OS X built on a Linux kernel?

    Can you imagine size of the explosion when one camp disagreed with the other about some little detail?! A nuclear bomb doesn't go off because part of the mass necessary to go critical is kept separately from the bulk of the uranium. Bring them together and BOOM! Kinda like what would happen if you brought Torvalds ego together with Job's...

    No, thank you. I'll limp along on the microkernel...
  17. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Feb 12, 2005
    ugh, I always dread seeing the lowendmac domain pop up on good websites devoted to the Mac. I've reviewed the site extensively in the past; it's filled with inaccuracies and amateurish writing skills. And as such, I stay away from it whenever I need information on something Mac-related.

    Outward appearances seem to suggest the author thinks he knows about the virtues of monolithic kernels and why they are better than microkernels, except he doesn't explain what exactly makes them better and simply regurgitates some vague explanation he read in the wikipedia. I certainly don't know the difference between kernels, and I don't think he does either.

    It's a shame the garbage over on that site made it's way over here. :rolleyes:
  18. rei1974 macrumors newbie

    Dec 15, 2005
    Hehe a bit harsh judgement but I agree. I really hope that the new Intel Mac won't make life even more difficult for us developers :(
    Is already a pain the incompatibilities between 10.3 and 10.4 and now they even put a Intel processor inside the mac? it's too much... :(
  19. Paul O'Keefe macrumors regular

    Paul O'Keefe

    Jan 23, 2005
    Lowendmac is an extremely good resource. It's one that I call on often. This article, however, is probably out of their element and knowledge area. I think it came out of a recent bunch of stories dealling with linux experiences on older mac hardware.
  20. gregnacu macrumors member

    Jul 19, 2002
    Microkernels have other strengths.

    Microkernels have other strengths that monolithic kernels don't. Such as Extreme Dynamicism. At the cost of effeciency, but because, all work except memory management (and interprocess communication, as someone already mentioned), is done in seperate processes, they can be stopped and started and added to on the fly. I've worked with microkernels on a low level and at a low level, and they kick @ss. They are ultimately better for the single end user system. They fall down most in massively multi user servers that require the maximum effeciency and throughput possible, and don't NEED to change. I think apple (and perhaps Avie) cares more about the aspects that make microkernels good, than they care about the server market. Objective-C's Extreme object orientation, coupled with a microkernel makes for an inefficient OS that is capable of doing more flexible and more powerful things than Linux or Windows people have probably ever conceived of. As CPUs get faster, and the code gets tighter, the inefficiencies of the microkernel will become less important, and we'll be glad we've got it.
  21. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Jul 1, 2004
    Couldn't it be a possibility that we will see a different kernel in OS XI? I don't know a lot about Unix or what's under the hood in any OS really. But if Jobs wants to keep using the title of "World's most advanced operating system" (which I think is true having used Windows, OS X and various linux distros), then he should really keep his options open when developing the OS. What was good back when OS X came out isn't necessarily the best way of doing things now. Technologically, we are a lot more advanced and may require new software technologies to keep up with where we are on the hardware. Plus, by OS XI, I believe that we will be completely 64-bit in nature (OS X supports 64 bit, but has the issue of having to support 32-bit as well). It seems like a reasonable transition in 5-7 years, as OS X will be 10-12 years old.
  22. Sunrunner macrumors 6502a


    Nov 27, 2003

    Apple made a smart decision by chosing a secure and efficient kernal. Mach is time-tested and robust, and that is a BIG plus for any system engineer. I would rather have a high degree of stability and very few vulnerabilities over a 5% speed bump any day.
  23. Sunrunner macrumors 6502a


    Nov 27, 2003
    Perhaps, but it seems more like a Linux fanboy wrote it more than anything....
  24. Peace macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    Linux is so far behind OSX it's not even worth discussing:cool:
  25. 123 macrumors 6502

    Mar 3, 2002
    There's a lot more in OS X's kernel space than Mach these days. It's actually wrong to call this a Microkernel. It doesn't have a microkernel's strengths but also doesn't have its weaknesses. However, the BSD/Mach hack certainly isn't the cleanest architecture, and not the fastest either.

Share This Page