Osx86

[LinkDJ]

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/31/195208

It's actually a reality! I've said it before and i'll say it again, I'll be a happy guy once i can run OS X on one of my computers. I'm not saying i plan to switch, im just saying that I'd like to have it installed alongside different distros of linux on my secondary box.

[flashfire]

I would switch and pay for the priviledge :)

[Unregistered]

I dont think you'll be able to run it on a plain jane x86 if they do release it. I think most likely it will still require Apple proprietary hardware.

Some people have been thinking that if they do release x86 OS X, that it will be because they may drop PPC from motorola and instead pick up IBM's Power4 chip.

[LinkDJ]

Yeah, but i'd think it would be alot easier to edit a version of osx-86 to run on non-propriatary hardware than it would be to get osx-ppc to run on x86.

[Unregistered]

OSX-86 gotta be Apple's backup plan E, F or G. It makes no sense for Apple to port its OS to the x86 unless they are really, REALLY, REALLY desparate.

Here's why:

1. They would pissed off their core constituents, who had to already endure the 680x0 -> PPC60x -> Gx architecture. Asking them to migrate again may result in a minor mutiny and desertion.

2. They would have to write an emulation layer so older software could run on the new x86 architecture. Besides the possible performance hit, Apple would have to worry about compatibility.

3. Developers are used to the Altivec SMD instruction sets. Now they must develop their software to account for Altivec, 3DNow, 3DNow+, SSE and SSE2. You really don't want to piss off the developers.

4. Apple is a hardware company; and has always been. Their OS and other programs support the hardware, not the other way around. If they joined the X86 crowd, they will have go compete against the likes of Dells, HPaqs and IBMs. A very bad move on their part.

Personally, I think this OSX-x86 is one part emergency planning and 9 part posturing. They haven't been happy with Motorola for a long time, and wanted to send a powerful message to Motorola.

My guess is that Apple will negotiate a deal with IBM for its PPC4 desktop CPU, a 64-bit chip that will be introduced at the CPU forum in October. Apple using IBM CPU makes alot more sense than Apple using Intel/AMD chip.

[LinkDJ]

I think they should lower the price of their 23in HD Cinema displays, so, if it's slow, you get to stare at a beautiful monitor longer.

[Ioman]

Originally posted by Unregistered
OSX-86 gotta be Apple's backup plan E, F or G. It makes no sense for Apple to port its OS to the x86 unless they are really, REALLY, REALLY desparate.

Here's why:

1. They would pissed off their core constituents, who had to already endure the 680x0 -> PPC60x -> Gx architecture. Asking them to migrate again may result in a minor mutiny and desertion.

2. They would have to write an emulation layer so older software could run on the new x86 architecture. Besides the possible performance hit, Apple would have to worry about compatibility.

3. Developers are used to the Altivec SMD instruction sets. Now they must develop their software to account for Altivec, 3DNow, 3DNow+, SSE and SSE2. You really don't want to piss off the developers.

4. Apple is a hardware company; and has always been. Their OS and other programs support the hardware, not the other way around. If they joined the X86 crowd, they will have go compete against the likes of Dells, HPaqs and IBMs. A very bad move on their part.

Personally, I think this OSX-x86 is one part emergency planning and 9 part posturing. They haven't been happy with Motorola for a long time, and wanted to send a powerful message to Motorola.

My guess is that Apple will negotiate a deal with IBM for its PPC4 desktop CPU, a 64-bit chip that will be introduced at the CPU forum in October. Apple using IBM CPU makes alot more sense than Apple using Intel/AMD chip.

This is true and its sad. Apple has to rely on their core customer instead of trying to go to other platforms, they have in essence trapped themselves.

5 Years ago before the introduction of the iMac, it would have been incredibly wise for Apple to port their OS over to the X86 architecture. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Steamroller]

I still think that Apple would make money if they ported their OS over to the X86 camp anyways. I doubt that Apple I doubt that Apple zealots will leave Apples camp....there is no where else to go.

[ruri]

. I doubt that Apple I doubt that Apple zealots will leave Apples camp....there is no where else to go.

Sure there is. In the early 90s, Apple actually allowed several companies to produce Mac-clones. That lasted about 6 months until they realized the clone-makers were eating their lunch.

[rudeboy]

I guess I could be called an apple "zealot" because I have used Apple computers continuously since 1984.


These days I have been hearing murmurs from my x86 (whatever OS) usings buddies, that they would love to have a port of OSX on their x86 boxes. There seems to be MANY MANY "ifs" before that happens.

IF there were a valid version of OSX that ran on the x86 architecture.
I guess they are working on it
IF that version of OSX ran as fast as the current one.
I doubt it because of all the valid reasons outlined previously (emulation etc...)
IF Apple is willing to piss off loyal Apple users
if it means more money YES they are. Its their mission in life
IF Apple if willing to piss of loyal Apple Developers
see the answer above
IF Apple is willing to compete against the likes of Dell and such...
in my opinion, NO, Dell will always be cheaper machines. They will also be clunky looking black and grey boxes....BUT they are cheaper...

Money is a big issue when you are a starving Graphic artist. During my lean years getting my business started. If an PC could do as good a job as the Mac. I would have chosen a PC regardless of how attractive the case was. When money is an issue PCs win hands down.

These days I am still using a Mac because of a combination of Hardware and software.

MACOSX rocks. As you all know it has an beautiful GUI, AND the FreeBSD lovin. As you PC users can just IMAGINE this is a tremendous advantage. Windows has always sucked. BUT I digress.<twitch><twitch> MANY large corperations as well as open source dev companies have ported or are beginnig to port their stuff to OSX.

I agree with this individual

Personally, I think this OSX-x86 is one part emergency planning and 9 part posturing

I hate to break it down for you BUT at this point in time

If you want to use the Apple OS, you will have to spend the money for the Apple computer.
So many of you are unwilling to do that.
:cheers
cheers
rudeboy

[ECA]

Originally posted by Unregistered
OSX-86 gotta be Apple's backup plan E, F or G. It makes no sense for Apple to port its OS to the x86 unless they are really, REALLY, REALLY desparate.

Here's why:

1. They would pissed off their core constituents, who had to already endure the 680x0 -> PPC60x -> Gx architecture. Asking them to migrate again may result in a minor mutiny and desertion.

2. They would have to write an emulation layer so older software could run on the new x86 architecture. Besides the possible performance hit, Apple would have to worry about compatibility.

3. Developers are used to the Altivec SMD instruction sets. Now they must develop their software to account for Altivec, 3DNow, 3DNow+, SSE and SSE2. You really don't want to piss off the developers.

4. Apple is a hardware company; and has always been. Their OS and other programs support the hardware, not the other way around. If they joined the X86 crowd, they will have go compete against the likes of Dells, HPaqs and IBMs. A very bad move on their part.

Personally, I think this OSX-x86 is one part emergency planning and 9 part posturing. They haven't been happy with Motorola for a long time, and wanted to send a powerful message to Motorola.

My guess is that Apple will negotiate a deal with IBM for its PPC4 desktop CPU, a 64-bit chip that will be introduced at the CPU forum in October. Apple using IBM CPU makes alot more sense than Apple using Intel/AMD chip.



responce...
1. Not really. As they are aiming for x86. the cheaper computer.

2. NOPE... they wouldnt... ONLY run there software... Mean trick, but it works. they can get the cheaper machines to RUN there OWN software...MORE sales of there expensive stuff.

3. This is true. but think about it. Those companies(ATI, Matrox, others) will HAVE to make drivers to run under OSX IF they want the market...

4. they dont HAVe to compete with DELL, HP, and others... So what x86 is the cheaper machine... Maybe they want to DEAL ONLY with the OS, now.... Maybe they are concerned that they have reached the TOP of there market, and wish to expand into Others, to make MORE money.

IMHO, I think its a waste. Mac/apple has been know for there great comp, graphic, art, music... If they would make it full parrallel processed insted of FOLLOWING the Serial line up, they could make a WHOLE new market.. REALLY. there machine is know for the BEST progs(forgeting MS apple progs). they work very well, no crashes, unless you over run the RAM.

there has been ONE minus to Mac/apple... NOT manny people or comapnies make GAMES for them...

Think about a closed environment... Look at our government spending for NASA and Military... $6000 for a toilet... An airplane for $100, 000, 000, 000... Closed bidding and you PAY what they supply. IT SUCKS... they want to scare there supply companies.. they want an alternative to paying TOP price for there hardware.. IF they can get companies to DROP there prices, MORE people will BUY there computers... BUT they have to show an alternative to WHAT THEY HAVE NOW.
There alternative is "DROP the hardware, and go with X86". It probably WONt happen. But they shold get the prices down in the NEXT 6 months..

Our government wanted to get NEW comps for the IRS(those 8088's just couldnt hack it) so they requested Bids for the work. They got a bid, and had to get congress to Authorize payment(LAMO). It took 3 years to get payment.
when they were installed, the contractor STUCK to the original agreement. In that time, tech went from 386 to pentiums.. HE installed the 386's at a GREAt profit..
Then he LEFT the country. $600,000,000 richer.......
THAT is a closed system.

[choard]

Yeah, I don't think OSX will end up on an intel PC, but the thought of OSX running on a hot little Sony laptop would be the ultimate communications tool.

Intel (used to, at least) make the Sony Vaio machines; perhaps Apple is talking to Intel about customizing something for them, also? As much as I love the current Apple hardware line, you can't lag this far behind the market in hardware specs and hope to grow marketshare also. Shame on Apple for even selling a G3 chip in this day and time, especially at 700mhz! Jeez.

I see more than ever iBooks out there, as unix lovers find a machine they can call their own, even WITH the slower G3 chip.

If Apple closes their eyes and refuses to get in the game, someone with do a clean port of Darwin (or redo FreeBSD) onto a second tier Intel laptop and start eating away at marketshare. I believe the newer Cocoa apps for OSX are platform independent, so you can come out of the gate at a good clip from a software standpoint. The developers will go where the money is - write it in Cocoa and sell cross platform (Intel/PPC) on the same OS.

[ECA]

Chord:
PLEASE do not mix up MHZ with power..
This is an erronious assumption, that the HIGHER the mhz, the faster a comp is... This is a fabrication installed from Intell and MS...
There are chips on the market that do MORE instructions per sec, at about HALF the mhz then the x86 chip does. Look at the AMD chip.. Rating is 2100, and it runs at 1700mhz...

[choard]

ECA:

You have a good point, and I agree, mostly.

However the speed issues could be overcome with better and larger cache and a myriad of tricks, that have not been put in place so far. I am not comparing Intel Mhz to PPC, per se; the fact is, there are 1Gb PPC available now which would move Apple's iBook up in marketshare, fand not generate the heat issues that come with a G4, and Apple has chosen not to use them.
OSX runs faster because of the way it's coded,, but you cannot simply dismiss chip speed, that's silly. I had an imac and now have a DP 1G, and trust me you can actually feel the difference in the time it takes programs to load, and the lesser amount of beach balls.
Speed does matter.

[Ioman]

No one has really touched on the fact that the Motorola chips run off of RISC instructions versus CISC like the X86 architecture primarily does.

I agree that an 800MHz Motorola chip would easily be faster than an 800Mhz X86 chip, but that was a year or two ago. I think that you need to compare like architectures and instructions versus the MHz factor in this case. Because as it stands, Motorola simply does not produce a chip that competes with the likes of AMD or Intel, both MHz and instruction wise.

[ECA]

IO:
take a look what MAC aint doing...

http://search.motorola.com/query.html?qt=PPC&search=GO

The first file is the G3 family...There is a G6 coming out, and the G5 goes to 2+Ghz..

http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf

And Motorolla uses Linux to program the whole familly...

[llbbl]

Power PC = PPC. I have to admit it took me a min to figure out what that acronym stood for.
-------------------------------------------------------

Who would have thought that one day IBM and Apple would make a deal.

-------------------------------------------------------

I would never install OSX on anything but a Mac. You buy the computer mostly for hardware and how it looks. Now that it has a Unix Cloned OS, that is stable and looks good, then that just makes it all well and good.

Even if M$ starts that month subscription bull****, I would never install OSX. Linux would be first and formost choice for x86.

Apple could just be trying to start their own Linux distro. If that is the case then this is their thought process.

1. "Guess what? Here you go developers"
2. "Here is the source code"
3. "Do all our work and we will get all the money"

---------------------------------------------------

Windows has NOT always sucked! I happen to like win2k very much. It just took them a while. But then if you think about it OSX wasn't released that long ago either. The MacOS would crash (at school) and have problems just as much as my old win9x box.

I'm unwilling to spend the money on the Apple systems because I don't have any to spend. Plus I need at least one more high end x86 before I go and waste money on Apple.

---------------------------------------------------

I agree with IO. Apple can't compete with current x86 hardware. They don't upgrade their Mobo's or chips as often as the PC market, instead relying on fancy new plasty-metal cases....

But it looks SOOO cool mom, I just GOTTA have one ....

:P ;)

[ECA]

I agree Vin.
Devils advocate...
WHY play with perfection... When we have a STABLE environment and a Standardized archictechure.. APPLE..

But that is what APPLE is trying to do, make the HARDWARE venders DROP there prices... Its very much a monopoly to APPLE.
And APPLE is still a serial processed Machine.. LOVe to see it running DUAL or Quad processors..

[llbbl]

They have it already

Here is the article about it that mentions an important point.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/print/0,23102,749,00.html


Some industry analysts say that Apple's promotion of the Dual Processor Power Mac G4 is just a tactic to deflect scrutiny about a lag in faster processor development.

I dont' understand the apple site. They say that the computer is a Dual 1.25 GHz. Does this mean they have two 500 MHz or two 1.25 GHz chips in the computer?

http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html


The new Power Mac G4 desktop system with the dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processor configuration hits speeds of over 18 gigaflops.

To show the march of progress in processing power in real terms, we compared the new dual 1.25GHz Power Mac G4 to the original single processor 500MHz Power Mac G4:

Peak performance graph

The original single processor 500MHz Power Mac G4 had a measured peak performance of 3.7 gigaflops. Power Mac performance has increased fivefold since then. In other words, you’d need five of the original Power Mac G4 systems to get the processing power available in the new Power Mac G4. And it’s 50% faster than the dual 800MHz Power Mac G4 from just last summer.



It sure sounds like a marketing ploy.

[ECA]

2x 1,25 ghz chips...= 2.5ghz
the math 500mhzx5=2,500mhz (= 2.5 GHZ)

That aint bad..


Now the DUAL 800...2x800=1,600
and adding 50% would be =2,400

Its all true...
But there arent alot of progs that will USE it as a dual CPU system.. NOW, if this is the truth, I would like a prog to SPLIT tasking... 1 Prog use this CPU and the next prog, Use the other..

Anybody know the Flops on the Intel chip..

One thing lacking I see, as I mentioned before.... Motorolla has more chips in the G3 familly... G4, G5, and G6 is coming out..
the G5 is Over 2Ghz... It would be interesting to find out if we could SWAP the CPU's out for faster...But, Im not a MAC person...