PDA

View Full Version : Macintosh OSX for x86


Array
09-01-2002, 01:27 AM
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

I would buy it.

lildragon
09-01-2002, 01:51 AM
interesting...

Malameel
09-01-2002, 02:42 AM
It is interesting, but Apple does not have to necessarily completly switch, but just release the software as being now for Macs and PCs, and during that time they can sort out any hidden bugs that creep up, as well as see how the market reacts.

Of course it would kill the marketing of the recent "switch" commercials. What would be Apple's next campaign? "I switch Back, but still here!"

What would be interesting is why would "MOST" people want two OSes on thier systems? I am sure a bunch of you guys will not fully read my post and will say "hey I have a dual boot system," but "MOST" people will just want the best all around system... and that is still Windows. I would buy it, but more out of curiousty.

dwkim
09-01-2002, 03:22 AM
Apple's new slogan for Intel Macs could be:

"The same, but different..."

Grey
09-01-2002, 04:49 AM
It's new slogan could also be:

"We blow the lid off STUPID Government Monopoly Cases against Microsoft"

Malameel, OSX being based on UNIX, that may not be true... OSX could very well be a better all around operating system.

blankslatejoe
09-01-2002, 05:05 AM
i dunno..... weird stuff man... weird stuff...

visualboo
09-01-2002, 05:18 AM
shhhhh.... keep this on the down low ;)

I might have a little something up my sleeve :bounce:

Malameel
09-01-2002, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Grey
Malameel, OSX being based on UNIX, that may not be true... OSX could very well be a better all around operating system.
Unfortunetly a technologocaly better OS may not be a better OS all around... For most it is about compatability with the other computer users they now. If all my friends use Macs, maybe a Mac is better, but if the situation was reversed, then the PC wins and it has nothing to do with technology. Maybe I am a hardcore gamer... or maybe I work for a company that doesn't use graphics programs and wants a single platform across the board for simplicity in everything like training...

Anyway, I think computer companies should have a common base to build upon, unless they are able to show a significant increase by not doing so. Intell and AMD have a great war going on. Why not tape into that growth? Apple has great stuff, but not enough to pull me over to Motorola. Unix is only a start, it what you do with it.

IMHO Apple is different for the sake of just being different, not because they are better or simplier.

Grey
09-01-2002, 05:51 PM
that used to be true. But a UNIX based operating system is not very "different".

I think you're missing the point, BTW, this report is about OSX supporting Intel type chips, as in OSX would run on your PC.

Linux, IRIX, Unix, (what's the name of the one used by SUN?), Programers have wanted UNIX to be popular since it was conceived.

Windows has a lot in it that's both invasive and unnecessary, and I'd dump it in a heartbeat if I thought all my software would run on another OS that was better. Rhino will keep me from doing that, it's too important to me to ditch the windows OS.

You may very well be right that OSX is not as good as Windows. But it's not for the reasons you state.

I'll be the very last person on earth to use the vastly inferior, hugely overpriced hardware that Apple makes.

MCronin
09-01-2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Grey
I think you're missing the point, BTW, this report is about OSX supporting Intel type chips, as in OSX would run on your PC.


Not necessarily. OSX may run on Intel and AMD processors, but Apple could easily egineer it so that OSX86 or whatever you want to call it, only ran on hardware supplied by Apple. I'd love to see Apple throw out a version of OSX that ran on any PC I could cobble together, but I'm pretty sure they won't do it.

thinKer3D
09-01-2002, 06:56 PM
:: Good luck to Apple on their quest, but the PC world is a very different world from the Mac world.

Technically I see one big problem among others. While OS X to x86 is technically possible, building an OS that is dependant on another OS is OLD/OUT DATED technology. Apple, from the begining had an approach of building a GUI based OS that ran as is without the need of a dependant (ex. like Windows 3.1 on DOS). MS broke aways from this horrible technique with flying colors with their first release of NT. It is ironic that Apple has ditched this excellent method of OS development and decided to go backwards. In my opnion, OS X running on X86 will never be as fast as true Windows XP (NT 5.1), Unix or Linux running on AMD or Intel processors. ::

:: Whether an application or OS, ports are never good enough. So building from scratch and supporting natively is the only way to go. Leave all this port crap to application leve and middleware development. Not OS!

I don't get it! :surprised

As a developer, Apple has their work cutout in convincing me and millions of dedicated Windows developers to use this OS! The only way to do this is to show how technically, under the hood how much more superior it is to Windows. Otherwise, this is just another fly-by news that raises 2 minutes of hype and dies AGAIN! :annoyed:

::

MCronin
09-01-2002, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by thinKer3D
:: Good luck to Apple on their quest, but the PC world is a very different world from the Mac world.

Technically I see one big problem among others. While OS X to x86 is technically possible, building an OS that is dependant on another OS is OLD/OUT DATED technology. Apple, from the begining had an approach of building a GUI based OS that ran as is without the need of a dependant (ex. like Windows 3.1 on DOS). MS broke aways from this horrible technique with flying colors with their first release of NT. It is ironic that Apple has ditched this excellent method of OS development and decided to go backwards. In my opnion, OS X running on X86 will never be as fast as true Windows XP (NT 5.1), Unix or Linux running on AMD or Intel processors. ::

:: Whether an application or OS, ports are never good enough. So building from scratch and supporting natively is the only way to go. Leave all this port crap to application leve and middleware development. Not OS!

I don't get it! :surprised

As a developer, Apple has their work cutout in convincing me and millions of dedicated Windows developers to use this OS! The only way to do this is to show how technically, under the hood how much more superior it is to Windows. Otherwise, this is just another fly-by news that raises 2 minutes of hype and dies AGAIN! :annoyed:

::

Apple's OS is not dependent on Unix, it is Unix with a GUI. Is Unix old and outdated? I don't think so. Does XP do anything under the hood that's significantly better or more advanced than a Unix operating system? You could make a Unix OS with no GUI to speak of, that was functionally identical to XP or whatever in the way that it handles data and interacts with hardware. Just because there is a command line, doesn't mean it's outdated. You can rewrite OSes to scale with hardware. There's no reason why a Unix OS can't be made to take advantage of new hardware models and still be Unix.

Apple doesn't need to convince developers that OSX is better. The majority of real developers are not developing for MS because of some love affair they have with Windows, they do it because that's where the money is. OSX could be the biggest piece of crap OS ever made and developers would flock to it if 90 percent of all desktops were running it. What Apple needs to do is steadily build an install base, which will attract developers, and the new software these developers write will attract new users. It's cyclical.

I'd like to see Apple make a multiplatform version of OSX that could complete with Windows and Linux, but then they risk losing their cache with their current users, run into the myriad of compatability and stability problems Linux and Windows users face, and they risk losing their coporate idenity in favor of becoming just another software company. It's a lot to gamble, if they fail, not only do they not gain new users, but they may lose their current users. Once they release a version of OSX that runs everywhere, there is no going back to their cureent business model.

Goon
09-01-2002, 08:47 PM
So is apple continuously developing a x86 OS because their hardware is constantly getting farther and farther behind? Is this something they'll pull out when they get too far behind, and simply become another software company while dropping the hardware line?

MCronin
09-01-2002, 08:50 PM
It sounds like it's just research, and maybe Plan B. They are giving themselves an option if Motorola continues to struggle with foward development on processors. It gives Apple the option of going to faster AMD or Intel solutions if Motorola can't keep up.

Malameel
09-01-2002, 09:00 PM
I would buy Apple hardware if the heart of the system was a PC. For instance, the latest iMac... If it was a PC that was able to run both OSX and XP... I would buy it, and several for my business. At least Gateways new Profile machine is just a good enough alternative.

Xilica
09-01-2002, 09:21 PM
I hope this comes out. I love the OSX icons and buttons. :D

visualboo
09-01-2002, 10:03 PM
xilica: If you're using XP then try this>

Download StyleXP (http://www.tgtsoft.com) and get this theme> Xport (http://www.visualboo.com/misc/xport FINAL.zip) Not perfect but damn close.

If you want to change the boot screen... DL this> Logon Loader (http://www.radfiles.com/logonloader/) ... then this logon screen> Xport Logon screen (http://www.visualboo.com/misc/xport logonui.zip)

Or go to www.themexp.org (http://www.themexp.org) and download a theme you like.

:thumbsup:

http://www.visualboo.com/misc/screen_grab_xport.jpg

UrbanFuturistic
09-01-2002, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by thinKer3D
Technically I see one big problem among others. While OS X to x86 is technically possible, building an OS that is dependant on another OS is OLD/OUT DATED technology. Apple, from the begining had an approach of building a GUI based OS that ran as is without the need of a dependant (ex. like Windows 3.1 on DOS). MS broke aways from this horrible technique with flying colors with their first release of NT. It is ironic that Apple has ditched this excellent method of OS development and decided to go backwards. In my opnion, OS X running on X86 will never be as fast as true Windows XP (NT 5.1), Unix or Linux running on AMD or Intel processors. ...and once again Thinker3D shows how little he knows about any OS compared to Windows

OS X, GNU/Linux and any *IX OS other than Sun Solaris is natively unshelled and has to have a shell executed.

As an example, let's take the GNU/Linux structure. The base system program (or process as they're called in the *ix world) is init which is what get's the ball rolling, after kernel loading, by executing all the bootup scripts. After all the base system scripts, which ensure the computer can work, have loaded then the runlevel specific commands are executed.

Runlevel 3 is the standard for running a text based interface with the login interface being handle by login :p which then launches a text shell. Usually this is bash but others are available including tsch, tclsh, ash, bsh, ksh and sh.

Runlevel 5 is the standard for running a GUI shell with a login shell loaded on top of X Windows (whichever variant is installed, most commonly XFree86, based on X11 Release 6.3 and currently on revision 4.2.0(1)). The login shell is most commonly gdm or kdm on modern GNU/Linux distros but could also be xdm and is most often configured to launch the window manager, file manager, OE shell and anything else you may have going... or is may just run Gnome or KDE.

Both runlevels run different shells and the GUI and command line can be run independently of each other, on top of each other, under each other, XFree86 can be the child of bash (with xinit or startx) while bash is often the child of xterm which itself is always the child of XFree86. I could even go to runlevel 5, and run a completely seperate X-Server from xterm. None of these systems, however, have to go through each other to communicate with other processes..

This is how *IX systems usually work as it's the most powerful and flexible way to work. It's also how OS X works.
regards, Paulhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/odubtaig/smilies/coffee.gif

(1)X-Windows traditionally handles video settings and output and input devices, XFree86 now also handles Mesa/OpenGL and font rendering including with anti-aliasing

PS, The main reason for Win3.1 NT being better than Win 3.1 was Win3.1 NT being the first 32Bit OS Microsoft ever produced, with both MS-DOS (all versions) and Win1-3.1 being 16Bit

thinKer3D
09-02-2002, 02:09 AM
::
It is obvious that Apple's implementation and execution of OS X isn't good enough yet.


The majority of real developers are not developing for MS because of some love affair they have with Windows, they do it because that's where the money is.

WHAT? Only if you knew. It is very much a love affair for developers. The Windows love affair is strong and alive. I don't think you understand just how massive the Windows development community is. We are talking millions of developer who have a passion for the OS's rich development features and capability backed with unmatched commitment to developers. It is very much a love affair! Don't flatter yourself. We all know that the market share is also part of it but it's not the ONLY reason. There's BIG LOVE behind Windows and you can take that to the bank or your nearest Windows hating forum!

I didn't get that quote! :surprised
::

Mechaman
09-02-2002, 04:07 AM
Normally I don't advocate slashdot as a source of reliable comments, but it's one of those exceptions.

Basically, a straight OSX-to-x86-architecture port will never happen. This kills Apple's entire market within one quarter.
However, OSX is already very cross-platform, as are most Unices. It's fairly trivial to keep most of the libraries cross-compatible(with the possible exception of the Quartz system). So they don't lose anything by keeping it current--in fact, this becomes their ace in the hole if their current architecture falls too far behind. Motorola has pretty much subtly declared "we're not in the desktop market anymore", and they've dragged their heels on each succeeding PPC generation. What's far more likely is IBM creating a version of the POWER4 for the desktop--this gives Apple hardware a shot in the arm if they ditch Motorola and go with IBM.
If Apple did decide to go x86, it'd be more likely that they'd build a new platform/architecture around the x86 itself, rather than maintain the cruft and hacks that've been lying in the PC architecture since the 80's. This way they can keep their hardware market, and even offer something similar to WINE if they want to lure more PC users to switch.
:shrug:

Grey
09-02-2002, 04:25 AM
Doesn't sound very wise. Especially considering that video card realtime raytrace rendering is right around the corner, and Apple would have to convince nVidia et. al. that it's worth millions of dollars to tool up to make cards speciffically for their new machines that have all but Zero installed base.

And we all know that Steve Jobs wants that after effects/hollywood high end market so bad he can taste it.

If they go x86, it's all the way or not at all.

Array
09-02-2002, 04:40 AM
both ATI and Nvidia make cards for Apple's computers.

Grey
09-02-2002, 04:42 AM
yes, but will they invest in a completely new, unproven motherboard created by Apple and priced at god knows how much?

Array
09-02-2002, 04:54 AM
well, if apple goes x86, there wont be a new motherboard, theyll just use existing VIA or Nforce boards.

Malameel
09-02-2002, 06:35 AM
I doubt that Apple would go doen this road only to shoot themselves in the foot by making the motherboard proprietary. I am sure they would offer an Apple approved board, but if its has to work with intel systems, the intel would have a say in the motherboards its being used in. I do not think Apple wants to become the next VIA after a big switch in processors. Of course AMD is a possibility, but I am sure if they choose one, it would work with both, and for market share they would start with Intel.

playmesumch00ns
09-02-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by odubtaig
init[/i] which is what get's the ball rolling, after kernel loading, by executing all the bootup scripts. After all the base system scripts, which ensure the computer can work, have loaded then the runlevel specific commands are executed.

Runlevel 3 is the standard for running a text based interface with the login interface being handle by login :p which then launches a text shell. Usually this is bash but others are available including tsch, tclsh, ash, bsh, ksh and sh.

Runlevel 5 is the standard for running a GUI shell with a login shell loaded on top of X Windows (whichever variant is installed, most commonly XFree86, based on X11 Release 6.3 and currently on revision 4.2.0(1)). The login shell is most commonly gdm or kdm on modern GNU/Linux distros but could also be xdm and is most often configured to launch the window manager, file manager, OE shell and anything else you may have going... or is may just run Gnome or KDE.

Both runlevels run different shells and the GUI and command line can be run independently of each other, on top of each other, under each other, XFree86 can be the child of bash (with xinit or startx) while bash is often the child of xterm which itself is always the child of XFree86. I could even go to runlevel 5, and run a completely seperate X-Server from xterm. None of these systems, however, have to go through each other to communicate with other processes..

This is how *IX systems usually work as it's the most powerful and flexible way to work. It's also how OS X works.
regards, Paulhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/odubtaig/smilies/coffee.gif

(1)X-Windows traditionally handles video settings and output and input devices, XFree86 now also handles Mesa/OpenGL and font rendering including with anti-aliasing

PS, The main reason for Win3.1 NT being better than Win 3.1 was Win3.1 NT being the first 32Bit OS Microsoft ever produced, with both MS-DOS (all versions) and Win1-3.1 being 16Bit

...not to mention better stability, memory management and file system.

Doesn't OSX add a huge amount of crap on top of the *ix base tho?

himizu
09-05-2002, 04:18 AM
visualBOO: Ah! Self advertisement at it's best!

And on to the main subject. There's alot more of a difference than just the base of the OS. It also uses a different binary system than most x86 systems. Where most x86 systems use base 10, Unix systems use base 16 (hex). That's an issue in itself. You'd have to go through every line of code and change the memory accesses from hex to base 10. That's alot of work!

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 03:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.