OS X on x86 Prototype Boxes

[Bear]

Ignoring all the other issues raised above, you would need different binaries for different processor families.

So while source code could possibly be compiled for two different systems, it doubles testing requirements and then do people distribute one package with both versions in it? Or do you wind up with two different packages?

And what happens if a developer doesn't want to deal with a second platform?

And what if the application was written partially (or totallly) in assembler? Then It would need a re-write.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by 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?

That be a modified (Aquafied) version of Rhapsody, all I know is that the Mac OS X Server 1.0 wouldn't make the cut with users - and the developers at the time it shipped didn't want to put forth the Cocoa effort.

Classic/Carbon really made the transition easy, still made it GUI-hell for the developers. But that's a little better than a total rewrite.

 

[graydecember]

I doubt there are athlons in those boxes

Although the article seems to be specific about it being an athlon box, I wonder if that part is true.

What makes much more sense is if Apple used AMD to fabricate custom x86 *based* chips. AMD's competitve and manufacturing resources/strengths can thus be exploited, without having to thrust the OSX platform into the x86 arena.

Remember THe whole point of moving away from moto. I don't know of any reason why AMD couldn't make PPC processors of some kind, if that's what apple wants (by now though, who really believes in PPC superiority?). The bottom line is, AMD is capable of producing faster processors, at any volumes, on schedule.

So, apple can keep things so that they will be the only ones who are making OSX boxes- *easily*.

 

[AssassinOfGates]

Just curious...

Would OS X running on a x86 speed up game releases / porting? I always see the linux version of games right after the pc, THEN the mac version comes out.

It would also be nice to see OS X on a PC just for the cost possibilities if indeed it did happen (which I doubt it will). As much as I like my customed dual 867, I still think I paid too much for it

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

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!)

Um, it was a rhetorical question. Go back to my first post on the first page. To save you the trip, I said that if Apple went x86 they would keep it a closed system, just like it is now, except it would run a x86 chip and not PPC.

Yer preachin' to the choir eric_n_dfw. Now, what were you sayin' 'bout readin' the entire thread?


Lethal

Actually, I take that back. There is another thread w/this topic that I posted in and and basically said the same thing you did. Cheers.

 

[davidc2182]

hey!!

does anyone have any idea how to get their hands on marklar!!! please save me from my ibm thinkpad!!! i cant afford a new ibook yet, i'll take a crappy beta without the aqua interface anything please!!!

 

[DJ_TRicks]

dont mean to sound like a dick by mr hat would like to say

i told you so ... no no no

see i dont lie see!! i have credible info!!!
see be happy !!!

 

[davidc2182]

well!

if your so flippin credible why dont you you get a beta copy, or some kind of screen shots?

 

[G4scott]

If Apple is going to use x86 processors, they're going to make their own motherboards. They already do, so what's to keep them from making x86 mobos?

It would certainly make it easier for people to hack the system to work on any ordinary x86 processor, though.

The thing that I would like about this, is that Apple makes the mobo, so you know it works like its supposed to. Then, you can upgrade your procssor(s) easily. If it doesn't take a performance hit, then there aren't really many bad things that could happen, just more upgradeable Macs!

What would be hilarious, is if OS X ran apps a sh*t-load faster on an x86 processor than windoze microsoft would be raped!!! They would have to re-write the entire OS from the ground up to get any performance gains! Then, the DOJ would intervene, telling them to take out Explorer, and everything else that sux, leaving you with just some empty source code...

The only thing that I'm still not to sure about, is running windoze apps. What if Apple made a way to run them with Mac OS X? It seems like to get carbon or cocoa apps running, they just basically put some 'plug-ins' into the OS and maybe the kernel. It can run classic apps, just imagine if your x86 Mac could run every windoze app! That would also f*ck microsoft over big-time!

 

[blakespot]

Re: this should get all those x86 weenies going...

Originally posted by copperpipe
first post?

Oh, Arn - now we're in the big leagues.



blakespot

 

[blakespot]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
My take on all this is that apple is more than capable of keeping something a secret if they want to. Therefore, logically, if we're finding out about the x86 project it is because apple wants it leaked. Why? To put pressure on Moto to come through with some quality products or loose their business. Will it work? Who knows. But I highly doubt that Motorola would throw away the R&D already expended on the G4+ and not put out, at the very least, a process shrink of it. Therefore I have to assume that Moto is working on a 7457 or some such G4++ chip and Apple is trying to hurry them along.

Apple is done with Motorola. Doubtless, IBM's PowerPC 970 will be the "G5" we've all been waiting for. IBM makes the G3's in the latest iBook as well.


blakespot

 

[blakespot]

Re: Poor Linux

Originally posted by therandthem
One thing is for sure, if this is true, it will be a major blow to Linux. With a choice UNIX like Mac OS X the stability and anti-MS reasons for Linux will be gone.

How would it be any different for Linux than it is now with OS X on PowerPC. If Apple goes x86 they will make the boxes and they will not be PC's.


blakespot

 

[AmigaMac]

My take on the issue!

Okay I can almost guarantee that Apple won't go x86 for many reasons that most of us common sense folk already know!

Apple and IBM:

Apple will adopt IBM's new PowerPC 970 for the Power Macs... main reason will be because of an easy 32bit/64bit transition phase will be apparent. Also Pro users will be more inclined to jump onto the 64bit computing bandwagon before consumers will and these chips will be targeted at the Pro market first!

Apple and Motorola:

Apple will continue to use G4s in the consumer Macs until it becomes apparent that consumers are ready for 64bit computation. Right now there is no need for 64bit computing in the consumer world and joe/jane user doesn't need that kind of power at this point in time, but eventually it will become a market/hype thing and Apple will move the consumer Macs over when the time comes!

The above opinion is about the best marketing scheme I can see for Apple and I'm sure that will be the end result!

 

[3G4N]

down, but not out

Originally posted by blakespot
Apple is done with Motorola.

Not entirely. Like AmigaMac says, Apple
will continue to use Moto's ongoing
G4 family for some time to come.

Make no mistake about it,
Moto has definately been put on the
back burner. Moto engineers I've talked to
say that they know that Apple is pissed,
and that Moto is temporarily
conceeding to IBM. But they aren't out yet.
I've seen job postings for "high-performance"
PPC engineers, and word is that they are in
the early planning stages of the G7,
apparently planned to be a big-guns,
heavy-hittin non-embeded processor.
I too, will believe it when I see it.

Latest news is that the 7457 (aka Apollo7)
is in the fabrication plant, ramping up
production, sampling to 1.6ghz. The
engineer sounded excited. Me too.

 

[ipiloot]

G3>IBM; G4>Moto; G5>IBM; G6>?

Well, I think, that there was a kind of an agreement between members of the AIM consortioum when they departed. And it states as follows:

Both manufacturing members will concentrate on the next but one generation of the processor which will then go to the high-end Mac. Apple is responsible holding things together and taking care of continuity. The processor that is replaced by the new high-end processor goes to the low-end Mac.

That way both manufacturers get longer lifetime for their investments and Apple get's the very needed processor replacement.

Just speculating, but seems to be very likely scenario.

Right now Apple is using G3-s from IBM (low-end) and G4-s from Moto (high-end). With 970 it turns opposite.


And one more thing. What about possible Power 4+ in the XServe?

 

[benixau]

Power4 in Xserve??!??

If so it would be a kickas$ machine. 2x1.8Ghz power4 chips (or a single dual core) with hardware RAID and the possibility of fibrechannel.

Also think this - the power4 chip is a dual core chip, therefore if apple <i>really</i> wanted they could put one of these in their top of the range powerbook and sell it as a dual porcessing machine.

The power4 dual core uses 2/3 less power and produces 1/2 - 2/3 the heat of a dual processor machine. The pros would buy them like their was no tommorow. <sarcasm>Apple would have a real market</sarcsam>

 

[ipiloot]

Re: Power4 in Xserve??!??

Sorry. I didn't mean Power 4 (which is darn expencive), but Power 4+.

Read here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/28025.html

I don't think, that Apple will move in near future to the market where dual-core Power4 is needed.

 

[groov']

Originally posted by drastik
To get everything included with apple hardware on a Pc, you have to spend roughly the same amount of money.

This is not true.

I just bought a windoze XP box for as low as 1299,-- (with 19% salestax included!!!!) with the following specifications:

2,53 Ghz Pentium 4
128 MB Geforce 4 Ti 4600 videocard 8xAGP
120 GB HD 7200 rpm
16 x DVD
40x24x48 CDRW
floppydrive
V92 modem
10/100 ethernet
3xFirewire (front and back)
6xUSB 2.0 (front and back)
A/V input Composite and S-video (front)
A/V output Composite and S-video (back)
digital audio in and out (front and back)
analog audio in and out (back)
headphone jack (front and back)
surround sound with 3 different speaker-plugs on the back (front, rear and center/subwoofer)
PS/2, serial and parallel port, gameport

And it's increadibly fast...

Dreamweaver MX launches in 3 seconds, Photoshop 7 in 7 seconds.

I'd like apple to offer such configurations, but not for 2x the price!

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by groov'


This is not true.

I just bought a windoze XP box for as low as 1299,-- (with 19% salestax included!!!!) with the following specifications:

2,53 Ghz Pentium 4
128 MB Geforce 4 Ti 4600 videocard 8xAGP
120 GB HD 7200 rpm
16 x DVD
40x24x48 CDRW
floppydrive
V92 modem
10/100 ethernet
3xFirewire (front and back)
6xUSB 2.0 (front and back)
A/V input Composite and S-video (front)
A/V output Composite and S-video (back)
digital audio in and out (front and back)
analog audio in and out (back)
headphone jack (front and back)
surround sound with 3 different speaker-plugs on the back (front, rear and center/subwoofer)
PS/2, serial and parallel port, gameport

And it's increadibly fast...

Dreamweaver MX launches in 3 seconds, Photoshop 7 in 7 seconds.

I'd like apple to offer such configurations, but not for 2x the price!

Where is the 10/100/1000 Base T ethernet?

 

[raintalk]

Sun went the route of porting their excellent Solaris operating system to x86. You can pick up a copy for free from Sun if you want to give it a try. I don't mean to open a discussion of the differences between Solaris and OS-X but Solaris was never really considered an end user friendly OS.

I'm not sure of all the reasons this went sour but one is that x86 platforms are uncontrolled. You can't expect to get the same parts in a x86 computer you buy from month to month from any vendor.

Sun's current strategy seems to be you can try Solaris on x86, buy it to get some OS compatibility and lower admin costs if want to mix x86 and Sparc servers. Sun's top Sparc chip is 1Ghz, but 64 bits and it's fast.

Apple could do something similar. Try OS-X on x86, but if you want the speed, performance, reliability, predictability, get a Mac.

Apply should maybe look at Sparc technology. Naw - let's not go there.

 

[Wash!!]

How quickly we forget!!

Way back in the late 90's Apple had OS 8.6 and OS 9running on x86 back when they where looking for the a new OS to replace copland and then they got Next (OS X) instead.

There were even prototypes, they were modify LC's boxes. It worked quite well and the preformace was very good.

They have the tech to do it today and OS X been a Unix variant can run on x86 heck you can even run it on a SGI if you want, by the way the SGI machine their chips only run between 500 to 800MHz, they just have to turn on the "switch" and you will able to run all your crappy winblows programs.

they don't do it becuase the x86 tech is more than 10 years old and they are at the end of the road for these chips, in about 2-3 years or even less.

So Apple uses these machines to test for compatibility until that day.

For those who don't know PPC designs was stared in the early 80's and it was sitting on the shelf of IBM R&D collecting dust until the manufacturing tech was advance enough to make them, they have other designs that will blow your mind.
I know this because a friend of mind works for IBM R&D you should see some the stuff that is just collecting dust there.

 

[irmongoose]

Whatever...

Whatever people say, it won't happen. You know why? Because, no matter how many stupid mistakes Steve Jobs and Apple can make, they know this much... that if they release a x86 version of OS X, this is going to happen...

And if that happens, Apple will just become another OS company, and it will go slumping down the hill, past Linux, and crash into the ground, head first.




irmongoose

P.S. Sorry for the poor Photoshop work.. I couldn't find the right font...

 

[ryan]

Re: How quickly we forget!!

Originally posted by Wash!!
Way back in the late 90's Apple had OS 8.6 and OS 9running on x86 back when they where looking for the a new OS to replace copland and then they got Next (OS X) instead.

MacOS 8.x and 9.x never ran on x86 hardware, but a version of System 7 did which was part of Apple's Star Trek program. A little bit of history on the project can be found here.

 

[ryan]

Re: Re: Re: x86?

Originally posted by Sun Baked


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.

I can't comment of the Mac IIfx but having a 486 processor in the 6100 was to allow people to run Windows software natively on their Mac's, not to support some sort of client/server architecture.

 

[backdraft]

Do you know how much code would have to be re-written and recompiled in order to run OS X on an x86 chip? Imagine how long it took adobe to port Photoshop to OS X, it would take even longer to come out with an X86 OS X port, all the current apps would break A LOT of code would have to be written in many apps. Not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and that OS X would run sloooower on an X86 architecture, the underlying X86 would have to be emulated.

Bad idea = (

Not to mention that a Mac won't be a Mac anymore if were to happen.

-backdraft