OS X on x86 Prototype Boxes

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Doctor Memory
Mmmmmph. Remember what the Mac's core market is: video, sound and graphics editing. The difference between 10, 100 and 1000baseT ethernet is not so academic when you're tossing multi-gigabyte quicktime files around on a day to day basis.

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.

I think their markets are the switchers and the existing loyal Mac aficonados.

High end companies have already moved to x86 Linux clusters or the like. But realistically for most Power Mac users, gigabit isn't needed, 100 is plenty.

Comparing your LAN speed to your internet connection is apples-and-oranges: you use them for different things, and you don't need anywhere near as much performance on your WAN link as on your LAN. My company is only connected to the internet by a T1, but we most certainly use gigabit ethernet to connect our PowerMac video editing stations to the file servers, and if something faster were available we'd use that too.

That said, yeah, buying a gigabit PCI card for a Dell is only going to set you back another $75, so it's not a huge pricing issue.

Yes, apples to oranges, but directly applicable. Many people these days directly connect to the internet from the ethernet card to the cable modem.

It'd be nice for Apple to just provide 10/100MB built in and space for another card if needed, especially those higher end cards.

 

[Doctor Memory]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.

I think their markets are the switchers and the existing loyal Mac aficonados.

Uh, no.

There's this little thing called Final Cut Pro that you may have heard of? Shake? Tremor? Logic? And those are just the ones Apple owns and sells directly; we're not even including Avid, Media100, Maya, Lightwave et al.

Apple is very aggressively pursuing the high-end audio and video markets, and they're not doing a bad job of it either. (I work at one of these companies, so I get to see this directly.)

Yes, we'd all like for their boxes to be faster, but the CPU is only a small part of the equation. Software is a much larger part, and Apple is doing a bang-up job there. Until Avid cuts the price of Media Composer to be competitive with FCP3 (which is never going to happen), Apple will continue to be a force in this market.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.

Um.... no.
Why?
Go to an Apple Final Cut Pro road show if you're near any Apple sales offices and you'll see that they are SERIOUSLY marketing (and winning) in the pro video editing arena.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
...
But realistically for most Power Mac users, gigabit isn't needed, 100 is plenty.
...

Agreed. Full duplex 100 Mb switched is what I run in my house and it is more than enough for transferring large files - but if I was doing video on one box and had a large RAID rack in another room where my footage was, 1000 Mb would be mandatory.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
...
It'd be nice for Apple to just provide 10/100MB built in and space for another card if needed, especially those higher end cards.

I'm not sure I understand this part - I'm no hardware engineer, but I'd be willing to bet that the on-board 10/100/1000 Mb Ethernet controller takes up exactly the same space on the motherboard as the 10/100 one it replaced. And, because it is pretty much a standard across their pro line, I'd venture to guess that they don't pay much of a premium for the faster chips.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Doctor Memory


Uh, no.

HAHA

We said that in stereo! (or something)

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Doctor Memory
Search through the macintouch.com archives: Ric Ford nailed down the numbers pretty conclusively.

Could you post a link. I've tried searching for "clones", "cloners", "StarMax", "Power Computing", etc. but cannot seem to find the info. I'd be very interested in reading it as that is right about the time I switched to Mac.

 

[pimentoLoaf]

There's a simpler solution to all this rather than selling-out to PC hardware: Apple should buy Motorola, sell off the money-draining cellphone division to Nokia (or whoever wants it), and then roll heads in the obviously mismanaged chip division.

Alternatively, they could offer the OS distros the way Linux is distributed, so that I could buy a nice 2ghz Toshiba and have it boot to X.

 

[Cappy]

Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
There's a simpler solution to all this rather than selling-out to PC hardware: Apple should buy Motorola, sell off the money-draining cellphone division to Nokia (or whoever wants it), and then roll heads in the obviously mismanaged chip division.

Do you realize how much longer this could add to anything new or even decent being designed and manufactured? Also does anyone realize that Moto makes more money on their embedded markets which includes PPC chips than what they sell to Apple and other desktop computer companies? Apple has no experience in those markets and does not belong in those markets.

 

[tjwett]

I don't have time to read all the posts in this threads but my 2 cents is that I think we will see OS X for x86 in boxes on shelves for the masses sometime relatively soon. i could really see millions of people buying a piece of crap Gateway and bringing it home and installing OSX and loving it. this would drive people towards Apple hardware which would (hopefully) still be PPC-based and a little cheaper than now in price so that it could compete with the beige boxes. Apple's prices and people's misconceptions are what keep people from "switching". clever commercials won't do the trick but i bet folks are willing to spend $100 on OS X to get a taste and would eventually start using Macs excusively when they realize the quality of Apple products. maybe a slow, methodic transition of "switchers" would be better than trying to do it with quirky advertising. just my opinion.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by tjwett
I don't have time to read all the posts in this threads but my 2 cents is that I think we will see OS X for x86 in boxes on shelves for the masses sometime relatively soon. i could really see millions of people buying a piece of crap Gateway and bringing it home and installing OSX and loving it. this would drive people towards Apple hardware which would (hopefully) still be PPC-based and a little cheaper than now in price so that it could compete with the beige boxes. Apple's prices and people's misconceptions are what keep people from "switching". clever commercials won't do the trick but i bet folks are willing to spend $100 on OS X to get a taste and would eventually start using Macs excusively when they realize the quality of Apple products. maybe a slow, methodic transition of "switchers" would be better than trying to do it with quirky advertising. just my opinion.

eric_n_dfw relax, I got this one.

Dude, that is the dumbest thing I've read so far. Go back and read the thread to find out why.

Actually, I take that back. Yer too lazy to read the thread in the first place, no reason to think you'll start reading it now. Here is why that's the dumbest thing I've read so far. That idea has been posted, and shot down, more than a few times already. Thanks for and taking up space.



[q]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacCoaster

That's true, I'll give you that; however, I don't believe Apple is marketing to innovative video, sound, and graphics editing sects simply because the Power Mac is a joke for the most part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/q]

And this comment is dumb enough to warrent a third, "Uh, no"

Apple hardware has dominated the TV and movie industry for years, and now with FCP and DVDSP Apple software is starting to Tinsletown into Appletown. Avid, the reigning software superpower in post production, is in real danger of having it's butt kicked by FCP.


Lethal

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
...Avid, the reigning software superpower in post production, is in real danger of having it's butt kicked by FCP.

Yep, thus we now see Avid Express DV for OS X at a reasonable price. Avid sees the writing on the wall and isn't sitting on there butts while Apple eats into their market.

 

[MacCoaster]

What I meant was their niche market. Sure they got Shake, etc. But those apps Apple grabbed weren't innovated by Apple.

Yes, now Apple is getting into the market. But, IMHO, bad idea.

In fact, Apple is sounding a lot like Microsoft now. Buying up all those companies, stifling competition by making some Mac-only, etc.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
What I meant was their niche market. Sure they got Shake, etc. But those apps Apple grabbed weren't innovated by Apple.

Yes, now Apple is getting into the market. But, IMHO, bad idea.

In fact, Apple is sounding a lot like Microsoft now. Buying up all those companies, stifling competition by making some Mac-only, etc.

I'm confused, what are you refering as "their niche market" and when you said "getting into the market." which market are you talking about? No sarcasm here, I honestly don't follow that post.


Lethal

 

[Doctor Memory]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
What I meant was their niche market. Sure they got Shake, etc. But those apps Apple grabbed weren't innovated by Apple.

Yes, now Apple is getting into the market. But, IMHO, bad idea.

In fact, Apple is sounding a lot like Microsoft now. Buying up all those companies, stifling competition by making some Mac-only, etc.

Uh, you wanna try that again in English? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[AmigaMac]

Re: Re: Apple and the attack of the Mac clones!!!

Originally posted by Doctor Memory


What the hell are you talking about?

"Almost ready for primetime" doesn't cut any mustard in the real market. BeOS was a beautifully designed system, but it had no applications. People don't buy computers to beta test new OSes, they buy them to get work done. And in 1997, you simply could not do that on the BeOS. Netscape? Not available. Word? Not available. Excel? Not available. Quark XPress? Hah! Photoshop? As if.

And as it happens, PowerComputing, the largest of the clone makers, did offer machines with BeOS preinstalled. It didn't save them.

What do you mean, "What the hell am I talking about"!... Yeah applications was an issue, but developers won't build applications unless there is some kind of support from hardware manufacturers (it's the chicken versus the egg)! The applications you're naming is nothing more than a cheap shot, especially when you have no clue (nor I for that matter) of what market Be was going after...

Netscape = Net Postitive
Word/Excel = Gobe Productive
Photoshop = ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc...

Quark XPress is another story!

Be Inc. is partly to blame for not taking advantage of the situation nor strumming up support from the developer community to deliver a sound investment! As far as Power Computing is concerned, Apple pulled the plug and that idea pretty much since they had acquired the company!

Either way, the Mac clone business was a get rich quick scheme, so it doesn't matter anymore!!

 

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Doctor Memory
Uh, you wanna try that again in English? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Uh. Niche market == specific market == loyal users == users still on Mac OS 9, at least *A LOT* of creative professionals are in this niche market.

They bought those companies to 1.) speed up OS X ports 2.) kill Windows ports and restricting software to inferior Mac hardware. 3.) keep the loyal creative professors from switching to PC hardware.

That's what they're getting in the market for--trying to grab ahold of their existing share and maybe a few more, force people on inferior machines (Shake discontinued for PC), etc.

Apple isn't being innovative that much these days.

Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: Apple and the attack of the Mac clones!!!

Originally posted by AmigaMac


What do you mean, "What the hell am I talking about"!... Yeah applications was an issue, but developers won't build applications unless there is some kind of support from hardware manufacturers (it's the chicken versus the egg)! The applications you're naming is nothing more than a cheap shot, especially when you have no clue (nor I for that matter) of what market Be was going after...

Netscape = Net Postitive
Word/Excel = Gobe Productive
Photoshop = ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc...

Quark XPress is another story!

Be Inc. is partly to blame for not taking advantage of the situation nor strumming up support from the developer community to deliver a sound investment! As far as Power Computing is concerned, Apple pulled the plug and that idea pretty much since they had acquired the company!

Either way, the Mac clone business was a get rich quick scheme, so it doesn't matter anymore!!

The main problem with your argument:
Net Positive != Netscape
Gobe Productive != Word/Excel
ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc. != Photoshop

It's the same problem that Linux (and to some extent Mac) has today against Windows. Open Office/StarOffice != MS Office.
[edit](BTW - In case you're not a programmer, "!=" means "not equal" )[/edit]

Sure, feature by feature, those apps may even be better - but the sheeple out there buy whatever they KNOW - not what some fringe, geek group of us say is "as good"

By your nick' I'm asuming you are an Amiga user/ex-user (or maybe you are a female friend speaking Spanish ) I also was a big Amiga lover - even worked for Commie-Amiga for a short stint. One of the biggest reasons the Amiga didn't make it was it's lack of software. MS Word, Excell, Lotus, PageMaker, Word Perfect, etc. You needed those things to get serious attention from the pro's. They never materialized so Amiga's became a memory. (A fond one though!)

 

[AmigaMac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple and the attack of the Mac clones!!!

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

The main problem with your argument:
Net Positive != Netscape
Gobe Productive != Word/Excel
ArtPaint, Becasso, Pixel32, etc. != Photoshop

It's the same problem that Linux (and to some extent Mac) has today against Windows. Open Office/StarOffice != MS Office.
[edit](BTW - In case you're not a programmer, "!=" means "not equal" )[/edit]

Sure, feature by feature, those apps may even be better - but the sheeple out there buy whatever they KNOW - not what some fringe, geek group of us say is "as good"

By your nick' I'm asuming you are an Amiga user/ex-user (or maybe you are a female friend speaking Spanish ) I also was a big Amiga lover - even worked for Commie-Amiga for a short stint. One of the biggest reasons the Amiga didn't make it was it's lack of software. MS Word, Excell, Lotus, PageMaker, Word Perfect, etc. You needed those things to get serious attention from the pro's. They never materialized so Amiga's became a memory. (A fond one though!)

And that is the reason I stated that Be Inc. is partly to blame because they did not strum up support from the big guys... the OS had what it took, well almost, it definitely was no networking/server OS since Be Inc had the single desktop in mind, BIG MISTAKE on their part!

Now the thing with your '!=' (not equal to) is correct in someways, but it's not always the case! I had this conversation a few months ago with a friend/coworker about MS Office, and that is the usual argument that nothing stacks up, but at the end of it we came to the conclusion that the features that differentiate Office from the others, 95% of the Office users out there don't even utilize the majority of those features (if any at all)! Of course for me, I work in a cross-platform environment covering Solaris, Linux and Windows... I have a TiBook with Mac OS X that I network into this environment, I might use AppleWorks one minute, turn around and use MS Office for another and then go use StarOffice doing something else! Helk I even use just the normal text editor if it's going to be simple and I don't need anything fancy in a document (that's mostly for programming, unless I'm writing Unix scripts, then it's 'ed' and/or 'pico' for me)!

I did have BeOS on one of my work PCs at work and used it off and on for the fun of it when Windows would piss me off, but other than I do own a BeBox (Rev.6) I don't mess with it much anymore, though I am involved with OpenBeOS through the GE project, but that's on idle till R2 of OBOS is in the grinder!

As for Amiga, well they're trying to make a comeback with their new AmigaOne (PPC based) and I plan to get one for myself to have as a hobby machine. You never know what could happen with them!

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by tjwett
I don't have time to read all the posts in this threads but my 2 cents is that I think we will see OS X for x86 in boxes on shelves for the masses sometime relatively soon.

You don't have time to read the posts but you have time to post? You dolt.

i could really see millions of people buying a piece of crap Gateway and bringing it home and installing OSX and loving it.

You could see millions of people knowing what an operating system IS? Why do you think they'll love OS X?
- Because it's unfamiliar and they don't know how to do anything in it?
- Because it doesn't run any of their software?
- Because it's incompatible with half the cheap-ass hardware in their new Gateway?
- Or because nobody else they know uses it?

this would drive people towards Apple hardware which would (hopefully) still be PPC-based and a little cheaper than now in price so that it could compete with the beige boxes.

Why would it drive people towards more expensive, slower hardware? What makes you think that Macs will be dropping in price and able to compete with beige boxes anytime soon, if ever?

Apple's prices and people's misconceptions are what keep people from "switching".

And what does that have to do with OS X for x86. Absolutely nothing.

clever commercials won't do the trick but i bet folks are willing to spend $100 on OS X to get a taste and would eventually start using Macs excusively when they realize the quality of Apple products. maybe a slow, methodic transition of "switchers" would be better than trying to do it with quirky
advertising. just my opinion.

Every $100 profit Apple would make from an x86 OS X would be accompanied by a $500 loss in hardware sales. It would be like Apple holding a shotgun to its mouth and blowing its own brains all over Silicon Valley. I could see Gil Amelio doing something this monumentally stupid, but not Jobs. Jobs only does moderately stupid, non-business-threatening things, like releasing the puck mouse and the Cube. Otherwise he's a good CEO who would allow OS X for beige boxes to happen over his dead body.

 

[Sherman]

He's right, it would ruin the macintosh experience.

Also, with IBM's 970 right on the horizon apple would be crazy not to use it. Not only does it beat the crap out of any pentium with it's massive 900Mhz FSB, it also keeps the PPC architecture so apple wouldn't have to re-write any of their code, although eventually most of it would probably be ported to 64-bit.

x86, and probable all of CISC is about to hit a brick wall, really, reall hard. A 4Ghz p4 isn't any faster than a 2.8 one, and the p5, which they didn't have all those insane steps for the sake of the clock speed, only runs at, GET THIS! 1.3Ghz.

Suck it.

 

[Scottgfx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: x86?

Originally posted by ryan

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.

If I remember right, the 6502s in the IIfx were just to help some I/O tasks. (The serial ports perhaps) It wasn't some resouce available for applications to co-process Apple][ commands.

 

[Scottgfx]

Re: it's amazing how people don't study history

Originally posted by suzerain


Doctor Memory has a good memory. In fact, the first Apple G3-based machines came essentially a FULL YEAR after Motorola shipped these G3-equipped Starmax clones to Macworld.

Power Computing had also developed a G3-based machine (which I had been planning to buy) that blew the doors off its PowerTower Pro and anything Apple offered.

I had a PowerComputing PowerWave system. It used the same Tsunami chipset as the PTP and the 9500. Power, in my estimation, did some tweeks to eek out some extra speed out of their systems. I remember discussions from my Amiga days about 3rd party developers doing tweeks to make their systems faster. The problem is that the specs are then not followed and things don't always work correctly.

With my system, I had a hard time with some of the hardware I owned. I had a Miro DC30 that barely worked in the PowerWave, but was flawless in an Apple machine. I bought a 250Mhz 604e card from PowerComputing that was supposed to work in a PTP. It worked for all of a half hour in the PowerWave and would never boot again. I tried everything for weeks and finally just went back to the original processor. The same 604e card worked fine in a PM9500 for years.

Power did tricks. I do not miss them.

 

[Dj Kioto]

Altivec, vector processor units??

I got a question...

Alot of these posts fail to mention Ati-Vec, or Vecotor processors in genreal, alot of apps written for OS X which have a speed advatage over their WIN counterparts are those that have special code written for the vector processors.

I wouldn't know why they would be, but are vector processor units a propreitary technology used for RISC power PC based chips or could could a CISC x86 chip have one as well?

Is that was "MMX" technology is, what the difference between a vecotor processing unit like that in the 970 or the MotoG4 and MMX or whatever comparable technology?

One of the biggest annoyances of going to college is having to explain them to people who were oblivious to their existances...

Do they run athlons, or pentiums?... neither....
What' the speed? 450MHz...
Wow that's slow... it's got a vector processing unit and uses RISC Archetecture, Reduced Inst... nevermind, you wouldn't understand...
Does it run windows?... no, stop talking to me

Sorry, I'm ranting, but my point it, I always liked the though of a reduced instructionset chip with a vector processor... but if there were such a thing as a 3.0Ghz x86 with a vector processor unit... which would take advatage of all the "Velocity Engine" code in current OS X apps, I'd like one of those... of course I'd have to rip or saw off any "intel inside" or "AMD" insignia on the front of my mac....

Sorry if this is long, but also... the IBM 970 chip says it could run 32 bit apps on an OS modified for 64 bit operation wihtout a problem, call me a dolt, (or tired, it's almost 4am here) but could an OS run regualr cocoa or carbon apps on an OS modifed for an x86 chip?... there logic floating around my head that says it couldn't, but at this hour, I cant grasp it...

Help an iBrotha (refference intended) out, and fill me in

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: x86?

Originally posted by Scottgfx
If I remember right, the 6502s in the IIfx were just to help some I/O tasks. (The serial ports perhaps) It wasn't some resouce available for applications to co-process Apple][ commands.

Something like that.

And in the 6100 DOS the 486 was more of a co-computer. But, if those PCI cards were still around, it would be interesting to see what people would have done with them today. Now that we have alot more platform independent programs around.

Just interesting that people get up on the soapbox and spout - they'll never mix processors in the Macs, when they obviously did before.

 

[springscansing]

Re: Re: Re: Whatever...

Originally posted by szark


He altered the KDX screenshot to show a "hacked version" of OS X being distributed on KDX (first line under Server Description). That's the point he was trying to make.

Of course, it wouldn't be quite that simple. It would still only support the processor/chipset combos that Apple provided, unless the "distributors" supplied additional code to support other combinations.

His point is stupid. Hell, three of my friends downloaded Jaguar off Carracho. It's not like piracy doesn't exist now.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Uh. Niche market == specific market == loyal users == users still on Mac OS 9, at least *A LOT* of creative professionals are in this niche market.

They bought those companies to 1.) speed up OS X ports 2.) kill Windows ports and restricting software to inferior Mac hardware. 3.) keep the loyal creative professors from switching to PC hardware.

That's what they're getting in the market for--trying to grab ahold of their existing share and maybe a few more, force people on inferior machines (Shake discontinued for PC), etc.

Apple isn't being innovative that much these days.

Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?

I still don't understand which market you think they (Apple) are getting into. In the realm of TV and movies (which is my field so my comments are limited to that industry) Apple, as a company, has had a commanding presence for a long time. Apple isn't "getting in" Apple's "been in." Apple software is expanding, rapidly, into post production (if that's what you mean by "getting in"), but you do need to specify if you are talking about Apple hardware or Apple software to help keep things straight.

And in regards to your point #3 I've yet to meet one editor or go to one post facility that wants to switch from Mac to PC. Why? Because things work better on a Mac because it's a closed system. Since Apple controls it all they can make sure that the hardware and software work together better and have few conflicts and stability issues.

Now let's get to my favorite part of the thread, "[q]Besides, if Apple is so in the market, then why is Stevie's other company, Pixar, not using Macs, but rather Linux workstations?[/q]"

Do you have any idea, at all, how the industry that you are talking about works? How does Pixar, a 3D animation company, represent an entirely unrelated industry (post production)? Here is a quick and dirty Hollywood version following a fictional music video.

After the music video is shot the footage is transfered from film to DigiBeta (a digital videotape format) and is sent to a post house to be be edited. This post house has 6 off-line edit suites and 1 on-line suite. The off-line suites is where 99% of the editing is done. It is usually at a lower-res (to save HDD space) and rough graffics and effects are also done during the off-line edit. After the music video is done being edited it is sent to the on-line suite. The on-line suite imports the music video at full res, applies the final graffics and effects, and does any sort of touching up and tweaking of the music video that might be needed (color correction, etc.,). The final product is then put back on DigiBeta ready for duplication and distrobution.

The off-line suites are usually $100,000 Avid systems running on Mac hardware. But these are fairly quickly being replaced by $15,000 G4 boxes running FCP 3.

The on-line system, or finishing system, many times is an SGI box running Smoke, Flame etc.,. Altough there are some places running Avid's finishing software (Symphony or DS) on Mac or PC hardware.

So, in most cases, 90%, if not all, of the machines used in post are Macs. Odds are everything you see on TV or at the movies was edited on Apple hardware, and possibly w/Apple software. This is why "... Apple is so in the market..."


Lethal