OSX on x86 Codenamed Marklar?

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by ffakr


No, apparently they don't.
A: FINDER is a CARBON app. It has been said that the very OOP design of Cocoa would not serve the Finder well.

The problem is not that new application won't be written in Cocoa... they most likely will since Cocoa is a Rapid Application Development environment.
The problem is that the bread and butter apps that sell Macs (Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Office) are written in Millions upon millions of lines of Carbon (or Classic) code. Do you expect that Microsoft will rewrite a million lines of code so we can get a Cocoa version of Office? Or will they simply continue to release Carbon versions forever?

That be my point! *IF* this rumor is true then the X is running on x86 and if X is running on x86 then the finder is running on x86 and if the finder *is* running that that means carbon is running on x86! If the finder isn't running then this story is BS since without the finder X ain't X....

Just my 2¢

D

 

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by VERONICA (wtf!?)
This is only a last-resort option, and there's about a 99.98% chance of this actually happening, so I wouldn't worry.

You have to read what you're writing, VERONICA. That means that there is a 0.02 chance of it NOT happening.. meaning that you think it's gonna happen.

Get it, VERONICA?




irmongoose

 

[opitz]

ever noticed that when booting into jaguar the smiling mac that showed up on every machine since the first max back in 1984 has been replaced by the new apple-logo? so jaguar isn't only for macs maybe? why not have pc osx by the end of the year?
there a serveral good reasons to think we will see the worlds best os on intel hardware:
1st
it solves any problems bill g. will have explaining that windows is not trying to monopolize the os market because osx would be the only real alternative to windows as long as one rule will not be overlooked: an os only can survive when it is able to run microsoft office (ask people at be or next)! and osx is the only os besides windows to obey that rule!!
2nd
building a compatibility-box around any older version of an os is peace of cake for apple: the have done that twice! first time when the changed 68k against ppc and now where (mostly) any old mac-app will run under osx. let's bet they will do the same with older pc-software, maybe the only thing they have to do ist talk to connectix...
3rd
it will storm the existing pcs everywhere! remember how windows grew so stong? it ran on more than one hardware and it was copied on every schoolyard. let's have that again with osx. i assume that 25 to 30% of all pc users will switch to osx especially when it will let you play with all older software as well!
4th
it will shorten development since you need only to write one code and wait for two compiler runs to reach 99,9% of all hardware

i do not agree upon that apple will loose its hardware sales when launching osx on other platforms because people will buy less expensive intel-hardware and no more expensive macs. UNTRUE because today people do not only buy macs because of the non-standard operating system only availiable on strange hardware. true apple lovers buy macs because they are macs. nothing beats osx on a mac, but those who already own a pc then will do have an alternative!

 

[mrwalker]

Originally posted by iJed
I don't see why a Carbon app could not be recompiled for OS X x86 just like a Cocoa app. Carbon wraps to exactly the same low level APIs as Cocoa does. Therefore, as far as I can see, this claim is simply not true. Classic would be the problem not Carbon.

Ok, so reimplementing the MacOS Toolbox (even if it's now called "Carbon") on yet another platform is no big task?

 

[Bear]

Originally posted by Arcady


I bet 90% aren't running OS 9 and OS X combined. The majority of Mac users are probably running OS 7-8, because there are millions of Quadras and old PowerMacs (not to mention Mac II's and 68k LC/Performas) still out there being used by people who are oblivious to OS upgrades or anything beyond Word 5.1. I run across these people almost daily.

There are many people who only started buying Macs when 10.1 of OS X became available. I have booted neither of my Macs in OS 9. And I'll only buy applications that will run under OS X.

Arcady is right about the older machines (for the ones that are still running), however, there are many new machines that people will never boot into OS 9 to counterbalance Arcady's comment.

Also, with what I know about Intel chip architecture, I wouldn't want to run any OS on it. it's an inferior architecture.

 

[groundhog troll]

The "Switch"

Since they already have the Star Wars Project completed somewhere and Openstep worked on Intel, Darwin also works on Intel, shouldn't Apple just be able to "Switch" to an Intel processor without much hassel

 

[mrwalker]

TO MODERATOR: This message board does not seem to handle a browser's "Back" button well.

 

[pianojoe]

back button

Originally posted by mrwalker
TO MODERATOR: This message board does not seem to handle a browser's "Back" button well.

Back buttons work fine on my 2x800 G4, my eMac, and my 600MHz iBook with IE, Opera, Chimera, and Navigator under X.1.5 and X.2.

 

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by mrwalker


Ok, so reimplementing the MacOS Toolbox (even if it's now called "Carbon") on yet another platform is no big task?

Not a big task, no. It's been done before, granted it was with the Motorola 68k based Macs. You can run mac-m68k Macintosh programs on x86-based computers just fine if you run Executor. Executor doesn't emulate the processor, just the toolbox, IIRC.

No one apparantly has done a PowerPC toolbox reverse-engineering.

 

[Rocketman]

Re: A lot can happen in 15 years

Originally posted by tortus
So I will be 40 when Apple decides to release OS 11 according to Jobs who says that OS X is the OS for the next 15 years. A lot can happen in that time. This would definitely allow enough time to develop a commercial release of OS X for the x86 if Motorola and/or IBM fail to deliver for Apple.
Now all they have to do is sell empty PowerMac towers.

If you read the Darwin site they claim to be actively supporting open source x86 ports and ports to other processors. Darwin is the OSX core. If there is an active assembly programming world porting stuff to Darwin on x86 it could accelerate the effort. But as I see it OSX is so much more than Darwin that even if it were to be implemented and blessed one wonders how all the "services" would be implemented on x86. Presumably there would be a future convergence of some later version of x86 and Darwin that share more code such as an Altivec emulator for example.

It would be cool to have a computer with a x86 daughtercard so we had something akin to the Power PC 601 DOS model but with a complete parallel OS running. One wonders however what benefits that might offer over say a Ethernet 1000 networked box right next to the sweetest computer on the planet, your PowerMac DP 1000 for only $2500.



Rocketman

 

[iJed]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Not a big task, no. It's been done before, granted it was with the Motorola 68k based Macs. You can run mac-m68k Macintosh programs on x86-based computers just fine if you run Executor. Executor doesn't emulate the processor, just the toolbox, IIRC.

No one apparantly has done a PowerPC toolbox reverse-engineering.

Its an even smaller task now. Carbon is now only a wrapper API for the core OS X APIs. These are the same APIs that Cocoa apparently wraps to. Therefore by porting these "low level" APIs to x86 you can instantly just recompile both Carbon and Cocoa on x86.

BTW Executor does emulate the CPU. It just implements its own "native" version of the Mac Toolbox ROM.

 

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by iJed
BTW Executor does emulate the CPU. It just implements its own "native" version of the Mac Toolbox ROM.

I stand corrected.

 

[snoopy]

Originally posted by ffakr


This is a pretty good reason NOT to port OS X to the Itanic (what a stupid name).

Okay. Until your posting, I had no idea what Itanic was. So you mean the Itanium, yes? I think that is what it is called. Itanium comes from the word "titanium," which Intel thinks sounds cool, I guess. Itanic would come from the word "Titanic," which may be a better name if it has all the problems you suggest.

 

[raintalk]

Maybe Apple is porting to x86 to be able to benchmark their hardware.

The latest PCMag has a blurb on the PowerMac G4 under their "Power Workstations" article. Seems PowerMac runs about 5th compared to Xeons on some tests, but 200-300% faster on other tests. Why they can't do a real one to one comparison is because they don't have the same software benchmarks on both systems.

Maybe Apple ports to x86 so they can run a set of standard internal benchmarks - snd make sure they're on track with their hardware changes.

Note, in the PCMag article, they seem to be looking at an older G4 Dual 1Ghz, and not the new Windtunnel model. Could be that the new Windtunnel is even faster than 200-300% in some areas.

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by irmongoose


You have to read what you're writing, VERONICA. That means that there is a 0.02 chance of it NOT happening.. meaning that you think it's gonna happen.

Get it, VERONICA?




irmongoose

Ooops, hehehe. I meant it the other way around.. Thanx for catching it.

Oh, and about the name thing.....

 

[rigor]

Just for fun...

Episode 311: Starvin’ Marvin in Space
Original Air Date: 11-17-1999
Description: Starvin' Marvin finds an alien ship and begins searching out a new home for his people. The government interrogates the boys to find out about Marvin and direct them to Sally Struthers. Marvin stops in South Park to pick up the boys and take them to the planet Marklar. The Marklarians are willing to let the Ethiopians relocate to their world and the Christian channel does all they can to stop them.

Is Apple saying Windows users are Ethiopians? Is Microsoft the Christian channel?

 

[AmigaMac]

""Is Microsoft the Christian channel?""

Microsoft is the DEVIL!

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by snoopy


Okay. Until your posting, I had no idea what Itanic was. So you mean the Itanium, yes? I think that is what it is called. Itanium comes from the word "titanium," which Intel thinks sounds cool, I guess. Itanic would come from the word "Titanic," which may be a better name if it has all the problems you suggest.

haha, I knew I was wrong when I wrote it and I was 99% sure Itanic was just the Register's play off but I've been working so much and sleeping so little I just couldn't think straight.
You're absolutely correct... My post should have said Itanium not itanic.

 

[groundhog troll]

posting

I'm using aol but for me to be able to log on to the forums I have to use Microsoft Internet Exploder why????? especially for a mac site

 

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by iJed
I don't see why a Carbon app could not be recompiled for OS X x86 just like a Cocoa app. Carbon wraps to exactly the same low level APIs as Cocoa does. Therefore, as far as I can see, this claim is simply not true. Classic would be the problem not Carbon.

A Carbon application which only uses Apple's libraries would be fine, especially a Mac OS X-only Carbon app. There may be instances where someone is using a shared library or resource which is not Mac OS X compatible and can't be ported at all, but Apple doesn't want people to be using resources anyway, only Nibs.

 

[passwordispong]

Originally posted by ffakr


Do you expect that Microsoft will rewrite a million lines of code so we can get a Cocoa version of Office? Or will they simply continue to release Carbon versions forever?

If I used microsoft office (and I dont) and I paid $500-$600 for the software then I would expect it to be written in what ever language was the best. For what microsoft charges for its software, it isn't unreasionable to expect a complete rewrite.

 

[Gaz]

Just a thought but given that Apple has obviously been working on this for sometime and also given that Apple are extremely secretive, is it possible that a solution for this carbon problem has been thought of.

Also if Apple is stopping supporting OS 9 then the idea of moving to a platform that doesn't support this isn't as big a deal. Obviously then the main problem from what I can see is supporting carbon.

 

[davidc2182]

I want it!

I don't care if it doesn't run any software I want it, anyone know if there are any pirated copys of startrek or rhapsody out there? or is there a next step or openstep community of users cuz i'm sick of winblows, and linux isn't a good desktop os any reccomendations for a good desktop mac thats relatively cheap??

 

[bacon]

Originally posted by mrwalker


Ok, so reimplementing the MacOS Toolbox (even if it's now called "Carbon") on yet another platform is no big task?

Unless Apple didn't learn their lesson the first time, no, it won't be a big task.

Hopefully, there isn't much assembly code in Carbon. If there is, Apple did it to themselves...

 

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by edvniow

Oh, and about the name thing.....

Ah. Okay. Guess I missed that thread. Great transcripts though! Hehehe...



irmongoose