OS X on x86 Prototype Boxes

[Padrote]

Conspiracy Theory

Steve-o would never sell out apple by offering the Mac OS to work with Pentium or x86 processors.... This may be a business, but apple is a revolution. So raise arms...!!

 

[aasmund]

The smart move her [which I think they will do] is to to give away OS X for x86. perhaps not call it os X and perhaps not add all the software in the ppc edition, but more or less. Apple has already done this, with Darwin, however that is a failure, so they have to give away more, specifically they have to give away their ui.

This will have many positive effects:

1. It will add a large amount of potential "pro" software buyers.
2. It will allow people to get acquainted with Apple without having to buy new hardware.
3. It will create a lot more potential hardware buyers.

Now, in light of this, it is probably a good idea for apple to switch to x86 as they would then spare cross platform resources. However, I doubt very much that they will do that. Apple won't make a new Architecture switch, before the rest of the PC world does, or they are forced to (i.e. ppc development slows even more down). Obviously, if we see 4 ghz x86-64 chips next christhmas, then that will happen.

Regardless the power of the megahertz myth, i doubt that Apple will be comfortable being 1/3 in mhz power for long.

 

[rigor]

Originally posted by arn
...if it gets to that. OS X will only be able to run on these Apple-branded machines.

If Apple dumped an X86 version of OS X on the world, no effort would be spared to trick it into running on commodity hardware.

As we speak, the slashdot crowd is warming up their soldering irons in the hopes that this story is true.

Nothing is impossible.

 

[ryan]

Re: x86?

Originally posted by Rocketman
If you look at the x86 rumor along with a multi-processor assumption, a box could have both a G4 and a 586 and do various tasks well.

If you repurpose it to server only tasks or application server tasks, the apps that need x86 serve off those and the apps that use G4/G5 serve off those.

It is a possible way to dominate the world.

The client-server model is back BTW.

I see this as a Phase II in the server strategy and sending test units in desktop mode is a good cover for the real purpose of the final units.

Dell could sell them because they use Intel chips and any agreement they have with M$ could be fought on the basis of the anti-trust suit.

Rocketman

The only special knowledge I have is good awareness and buddies in the biz.

You're kidding right? The idea of having two completely different processors in the same machine to support some sort of client/server model is asinine.

 

[ryan]

Originally posted by aasmund
The smart move her [which I think they will do] is to to give away OS X for x86. perhaps not call it os X and perhaps not add all the software in the ppc edition, but more or less. Apple has already done this, with Darwin, however that is a failure, so they have to give away more, specifically they have to give away their ui.

This will have many positive effects:

1. It will add a large amount of potential "pro" software buyers.
2. It will allow people to get acquainted with Apple without having to buy new hardware.
3. It will create a lot more potential hardware buyers.

Now, in light of this, it is probably a good idea for apple to switch to x86 as they would then spare cross platform resources. However, I doubt very much that they will do that. Apple won't make a new Architecture switch, before the rest of the PC world does, or they are forced to (i.e. ppc development slows even more down). Obviously, if we see 4 ghz x86-64 chips next christhmas, then that will happen.

Regardless the power of the megahertz myth, i doubt that Apple will be comfortable being 1/3 in mhz power for long.

Darwin is a failure? Umm, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[rice_web]

Why can't Apple simply license Aqua to Linux distros and make a few cents here and there? Heck, they could license Aqua to Lindows, an OS in desperate need of a better GUI.

Yeah, yeah, I haven't thought this through, don't bash me too hard.

 

[wwworry]

Originally posted by arn

it would be financial stupidity to drop all hardware.

Your right, companies don't make money just selling operating systems that can work on a bunch of different computers.

Why go to all the trouble to make it work on x86 and then not take advantage of the other box sellers? My whole point is that Apple's business model can change. The don't have as many of their own manufacturing plants and their OS is a lot more pliable than it used to be.

If they make $200 on an iMac or they can make $200 on just the cd why not sell the cd to some people and the iMac to others? At this point no one is buying towers because of the hardware. They buy them because of legacy software and the OS.

It could be a gamble or maybe not. 95% of the other boxes could be a tasty reward. As a shareholder myself, it would be nice to be able to make money on software without having to sell hardware.

The marketers know what's possible.

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by rice_web
Why can't Apple simply license Aqua to Linux distros and make a few cents here and there? Heck, they could license Aqua to Lindows, an OS in desperate need of a better GUI.

Yeah, yeah, I haven't thought this through, don't bash me too hard.

Actually, the new version of Lindows looks pretty nice.

A definate improvement over XP at least.

 

[topicolo]

I fully support this backup plan. If apple switches, it could instantly lead to them catching up to the pc hardware wise.
Apple will be going from one crappy and one decent chip supplier, both of which only really focus on markets not entirely in line with apple's market, to two large, devoted chip companies with more R&D funding.
The research and development funding that Intel puts into its chips per year alone is worth more than Apple as a company! how could you go wrong with that?
That's exactly why the pentium line of chips was able to catch up and exceed the PowerPC over all these years.

Besides, Intel will even subsidize Apple for playing that Intel Inside tune after their commercials. This = more Mac commercials.😎

 

[sparkleytone]

x86-type architecture for the desktops and PPC architecture for the laptops?? how does that sound?? i bet they could pull it off....the best of both worlds in alot of respects.

 

[arn]

Originally posted by wwworry


Your right, companies don't make money just selling operating systems that can work on a bunch of different computers.

Sarcasm noted... but if it's that easy - then why don't you go out and create an alternative OS to Windows? What? Don't have the resources?

What if a company like IBM tried? Oh wait - they did... and failed. OS/2. Why doesn't another company try? Oh wait, NeXT did... and they failed. Let's try again - BeOS. Oh wait... they failed. Linux? Well, maybe... but certainly isn't taking the consumer market by storm... so possible? perhaps... guarenteed? no.

also.. the point isn't whether it's possible. The point is APPLE currently makes it's money on hardware. To eliminate 80% of their profits by gambling on the the chance that they can sustain and make up for those profits in software alone is ridiculous. Would you rather make $6 billion this year? Or make $2 billion with an off chance that sales could pick up for x86.

It could be a gamble or maybe not.

It is a gamble. Why? Because they are profitable right now. Bird in hand...

arn

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: x86?

Originally posted by ryan

You're kidding right? The idea of having two completely different processors in the same machine to support some sort of client/server model is asinine.

Weirder things have been done, usually not managing a desktop client/server process, but

The Mac IIfx shipped with a 68030/68882 and two 6502s.

The Mac 6100/66 DOS shipped with a PPC 601 and a 486 inside.

The new Amiga has the ability to plug in the old Amiga chipset into their new PPC G3/G4 machines for times when programs need the old hardware.

And RIO is supposed to allow the connection of co-processor farms where task can be offloaded from the main CPU - but a PPC as a co-processor for a x86-64 is a bit of a stretch.

 

[ElRayOX]

Parallel Universe?

Maybe this could be a parallel universe with OS X for PPC and for Intel/AMD. If a user wants to run OS X on x86 they buy the OS and install it. If they want to run in on a Genuine Macintosh they get one at the Apple Store (or equiv).

Maybe the Genuine Mac's have a more complete feature set than the x86 versions. Since Apple would have total control over the entire box they could be more sure all of it will work. The x86 versions could maybe lack a few of the features that rely so heavily on specific hardware.

I dunno. Just a couple of thoughts. Frankly it's pretty wild to contemplate OS X on x86...

 

[MikeH]

Just because Apple make OS X run on X86 chips doesn't mean you will be able to make an Apple clone for a few hundred dollars.

If, and it's a big if, Apple do jump to X86 chips, you can bet they will need special motherboards which will not be made available to the general public or clone maunfacturers, so the chances are you would still need to buy your Mac from Apple (although in theory upgrading the CPU should be cheaper). Apple won't let go of their hardware monoply without a fight - at least, not while it's making them money.

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what chip my computer has in it so long as it does the job reliably and is competitively priced. I would prefer to see things like off the shelf graphics cards for PC's work in Mac's - that's where I think Mac users are really losing out.

 

[aasmund]

Darwin

Darwin is a failure because nobody uses darwin w/o OS X.

 

[FattyMembrane]

it makes far too little sense for apple to switch to x86 right now.
1. they've bashed it for a decade
2. they've just convinced thousands to "switch", these people will be really pissed off
3. they've just gotten all of the major developers to make carbon ports, having them turn around and do x86 ports a few months later is really going to piss them off
4. x86 is OLD! it's a feble, dying architecture. any of the new 64 bit designs (like amd's K7) would be a lot better, but a switch to a new processor (and by new i mean non-ppc compatible) should not come for several more years, if then.
5. no altivec, apple's one ace in the hole

ok, i just read the full article. first of all, it does not sound all that believeable (the journalistic style is questionable) and secondly, it does not say x86, it says amd processors, which does not mean it has to be x86 architecture.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Why would Apple release OS X so it could run on any x86 machine? It would run into the same software/hardware issues that can make Windows a nightmare. There would be no advantage. No reason to switch. People would buy OS X, find out it's no better than Windows and ditch it to go back to M$ (why bother to learn a new OS if it's no better than the OS you already know?).

OS X (and all of Apple's software in general) can't stay as stable and easy to use if it's not on an Apple branded, Apple controlled system.

As for having an x86 and a PPC version... Same problem. People buy the x86 to test if out on their PC. They find out it barely runs better than Windows. Why would they buy a $2000 Mac to run an OS that, in their experience, doesn't run any better than the one on their $999 PC?

You can't seperate Apple software from Apple hardware and expect to keep the same level of performance. It's impossible.


Lethal

 

[scem0]

Originally posted by arn


No this is illogical. Apple does do a good job at keeping secrets... but that does not mean that every leak of info is Apple approved.

arn

exactly... remember those leaked powermac pics everyone
thought were fake. Apple didn't try to leak those.

 

[sparkleytone]

Re: Darwin

Originally posted by aasmund
Darwin is a failure because nobody uses darwin w/o OS X.

darwin is not a failure. just because it runs on x86 does not mean that it is meant to be adopted.

Darwinx86 is more of a testing ground to keep options open, and also a way to make sure that implementations and applications run in many types of environments. also, it helps apple's image with the open source pundits.

darwin is not meant to be a raging success on the x86 architecture.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Why would Apple release OS X so it could run on any x86 machine? It would run into the same software/hardware issues that can make Windows a nightmare. There would be no advantage. No reason to switch. People would buy OS X, find out it's no better than Windows and ditch it to go back to M$ (why bother to learn a new OS if it's no better than the OS you already know?).

OS X (and all of Apple's software in general) can't stay as stable and easy to use if it's not on an Apple branded, Apple controlled system.

As for having an x86 and a PPC version... Same problem. People buy the x86 to test if out on their PC. They find out it barely runs better than Windows. Why would they buy a $2000 Mac to run an OS that, in their experience, doesn't run any better than the one on their $999 PC?

You can't seperate Apple software from Apple hardware and expect to keep the same level of performance. It's impossible.


Lethal

You people aren't listening, are you?

If Apple were to release an x86 based machine, it WOULD BE AN x86 MAC! It would most likely NOT be a Windows compatible PC any more than IBM PowerPC Workstations are Mac OS compatible.

Apple would still control all the hardware and the same Windows peripherals and PCI cards that don't work with Mac OS today, would continue to not work with it tomorrow. Just because their motherboard might have a P4 on it doesn't mean you would be able to throw any old Wintel PCI card in it and have it work. The PC BIOS (for one thing) would most certainly not exist as well as the fact that it would probably have some kind of Apple chip set.

With that all said, I doubt it will happen. I think either IBM will fill the gaping hole Motorola has opened or, maybe, Moto will finally get their butts in gear.

I could care less if it does, though- as long as it runs OS X, Final Cut Pro and iDVD as well as today's machines, I'd be happy.


(BTW, I'm not trying to pick on you individually, LethalWolfe, many of you are saying the same thing but are not listenting to the answers posted in the same thread! Please read the entire thread before asking questions!)

 

[aasmund]

k7 = Athlon,
k8, Hammer, etc. = x86-64
Amd does not make CPUs that are not x86
Well, I don't think they would release something they did not want people to use, so why darwin if nobody should use it [except OS X]

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by arn


No this is illogical. Apple does do a good job at keeping secrets... but that does not mean that every leak of info is Apple approved.

arn

True, but so many "slips" about the Marklar project make one suspicious. Like how it was widely reported that the OS 9 team was not let go, it was mainly shifted over to Marklar ...

OS X/Intel is not necessarily a bad thing for Apple should Apple be able to keep a tight grip on the motherboard and just switch core processor. On the other hand, I still don't see x86 as a superior architecture to PPC, and that's all that such a move would change: the underlying CPU and hence instruction set.

I, too, see Marklar as little more than a stick to hit Moto with. It's amazing how much more excited a supplier gets about satisfying your needs when they know you could switch to someone else at a moment's notice. Yeah, IBM's there too, but Apple using IBM keeps Moto in the game for future processors; an x86 switch would kill Moto's PC CPU business.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: OS X on x86 Prototype Boxes

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacEdition updates
An OS X-only browser would likely be based on Mozilla, with Chimera's creator having been hired by Apple in July.

Huh? The article said nothing about a new OS X-only browser. In fact, it says that the OS X-only browser is "popular", which would mean that it is not a new project, but an x86 port of an existing project.

Chimera might be the browser they are talking about, although I would hardly call it "popular" What about the other OS X browsers out there?

From the article, the browser statement comes as an example of software being ported over to OS X (and indicates some level of third-party involvement in the project).

Those who are once again getting their hopes up over an "iBrowse" Apple-branded surfboard, look elsewhere.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I agree with arn, and others, who conclude that Apple releasing OSX for generic x86 would be sheer lunacy, and Uncle Steve may be many thing, but a complete lunatic he is not.

But consider this scenario: a version of OSX for x86 that includes only the Cocoa APIs. Presumably, the part of OSX which would be the most difficult to port over to generic x86 would be Carbon, and Classic may well prove to be virtually impossible. For the whole tamale, you'd still need to buy a Mac, but a Cocoa-limited version of OSX, if priced right, might find some takers in the academic and development environments and might even jump-start the development of Cocoa apps.

What say?

 

[Bengt77]

Nobody seems to know about Darwin on X86...

Everyone (including the author of the MacEdition article) seems to take for granted Apple will go AMD, when choosing the X86 hardware-route, in favour of Intel. But haven't you all read the specifications of the X86 Darwin distribution? It doesn't run on AMD processors (either K6 or K7); only on Pentiums and Xeons.

So far for Apple on AMD!

Sounds quite interesting though, for Apple to go X86, although I don't think they'll do it. They have the promise of IBM of the PPC970, and reading about that processor, it seems it'll be around earlier than most would expect. That's certainly nice. I don't really know if the PPC970 will beat the X86 processors of it's time (when it comes out late next year), but it should at least be MORE in their leage than the ageing G4 is now.

I'm just very curious what Motorola is up to. Will they even bring the G5 to full desktop-blossom? Or are they only keeping it for the embedded market and continue with the G4+, G4++ (as someone called it earlier in this thread) and beyond? Who knows? I don't, but I'd sure LIKE to know, though...

And indeed, Apple would NEVER go the X86 commodity-way. They would STILL make their own boxes, even though it's a common processor instead of a PPC one. But I don't think they'll ever do it AT ALL. (But then again, never say never?!... 🙂