Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Guess what is coming on the x86 OSX! (true news) with Aqua
- Thread starter DJ_TRicks
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
seriously...
What better way to betray those newly aquired SWITCHERS than to offer support for the PC they DIDN't buy....
I can see the new slogan now..
"Switch... or not... whatever, no biggie"
This rumor doesnt even make sense... why put all of this effort into getting them to change hardware, when that is the one thing Apple makes the least profit on? If this was in the pipeline, and they were that worried about going broke.. they would have simply released it. total bunk.
What better way to betray those newly aquired SWITCHERS than to offer support for the PC they DIDN't buy....
I can see the new slogan now..
"Switch... or not... whatever, no biggie"
This rumor doesnt even make sense... why put all of this effort into getting them to change hardware, when that is the one thing Apple makes the least profit on? If this was in the pipeline, and they were that worried about going broke.. they would have simply released it. total bunk.
If apple were to make hardware that is truely competitive with retail amd/intel offerings then it might make sence to offer OS X on x86.
If the profit margin on an iMac is $200 and you can sell an x86 copy of OS X for $200 then what's the difference? If the higher margin power macs can out perform x86 boxes then people would buy the power macs and apple keeps the higher margin.
I don't think Apple would complete abandon hardware because most of their mindshare is in their physical designs. And, once you let the cat out of the bottle...
It may be possible. The accountants and marketers will decide or it may come down to Jobs not wanting to see his beautiful OS X on an ugly AMD box.
It doesn't make too much of a difference either way to us at this point.
If the profit margin on an iMac is $200 and you can sell an x86 copy of OS X for $200 then what's the difference? If the higher margin power macs can out perform x86 boxes then people would buy the power macs and apple keeps the higher margin.
I don't think Apple would complete abandon hardware because most of their mindshare is in their physical designs. And, once you let the cat out of the bottle...
It may be possible. The accountants and marketers will decide or it may come down to Jobs not wanting to see his beautiful OS X on an ugly AMD box.
It doesn't make too much of a difference either way to us at this point.
Apple already has an in-house port of Jaguar for the x86 archetecture.
I wouldn't be surprised if they released OS X for the x86 in addition to their lineup. Cheap computers, cheaper but more stable operating system.... It'll blow open the doors for OS X program development IMHO
I wouldn't be surprised if they released OS X for the x86 in addition to their lineup. Cheap computers, cheaper but more stable operating system.... It'll blow open the doors for OS X program development IMHO
Now that we know? Know what? There are no guarantees that Apple will use this new IBM cpu or that they'll continue using the G4. Sure it sounds like it makes sense but to alot of folks there was a time when the BeOS made alot of sense in becoming the next Mac OS. The media and public were literally stunned when Apple chose NeXT over Be. The same could happen again.
Cocoa 86
While I think that a full port of OSX is highly unlikely, I can definitely see Apple porting the Cocoa environment to windows and linux to encourage their crossplatform developers to make use of cocoa. As I understand it one of the barriers to greater cocoa adoption currently is that Objective C (which Cocoa is based on) is not as well implemented on other platforms so code re-use becomes an issue.
This could also tie in with the xGrid initiative. Unless Apple plans on selling really low margin computers, which I don't think they are, I'm not sure how much benefit they'll get out of XGrid. Who's going to use expensive apple boxes in a cluster when they can use inexpensive linux boxes? But if you have cocoa for linux, developers can write the control software to run on an apple and the client to run on linux boxes (with an apple royalty for the enabling software). Thus apple sells more high margin computers for development without having to get into the quagmire of building massive volumes of low margin boxes.
While I think that a full port of OSX is highly unlikely, I can definitely see Apple porting the Cocoa environment to windows and linux to encourage their crossplatform developers to make use of cocoa. As I understand it one of the barriers to greater cocoa adoption currently is that Objective C (which Cocoa is based on) is not as well implemented on other platforms so code re-use becomes an issue.
This could also tie in with the xGrid initiative. Unless Apple plans on selling really low margin computers, which I don't think they are, I'm not sure how much benefit they'll get out of XGrid. Who's going to use expensive apple boxes in a cluster when they can use inexpensive linux boxes? But if you have cocoa for linux, developers can write the control software to run on an apple and the client to run on linux boxes (with an apple royalty for the enabling software). Thus apple sells more high margin computers for development without having to get into the quagmire of building massive volumes of low margin boxes.
i was stunned a few times in apple's recent history
the cube
lcd imac with g4 processor released in one package
ipod
Like a couple of other people have said what makes Macs so nice is the tight intergration between Apple's hardware and Apple's software. Apple might make a swtich to x86 procs (AMD or something), but they would still make their hardware and OS proprietary. That is the only way to keep the Apple quality (no BSDs, easier to use, etc.) that is there #1 selling point.
Apple just flat out releaseing an x86 OS that can be put on any machie is an idiotic idea. The OS would run into the same issues Windows has (millions of different hardware, software, and firmware configurations) and be much, much less stable than it is now.
Apple using x86 procs in the future I can see. Apple releasing an x86 OS for use on any computer I can't see.
Lethal
Apple just flat out releaseing an x86 OS that can be put on any machie is an idiotic idea. The OS would run into the same issues Windows has (millions of different hardware, software, and firmware configurations) and be much, much less stable than it is now.
Apple using x86 procs in the future I can see. Apple releasing an x86 OS for use on any computer I can't see.
Lethal
there is just too much money to pass up if apple doesn't eventually go this way with some of their operating systems for sale
staying in a bubble in the future won't work well imho
Just gave the reason...
You just gave the reason why apple could still sell OS X for PC and still sell macs...
I also think porting the dev system to linux would be a good idea, I don't know about windows, but that might be a good alternative to licensing OS X.
You just gave the reason why apple could still sell OS X for PC and still sell macs...
I also think porting the dev system to linux would be a good idea, I don't know about windows, but that might be a good alternative to licensing OS X.
NeXT OS on the X86...
... supported ONE (1) SCSI board, the Adaptec 154x, ONE (1) ethernet NIC card, and about THREE (3) different graphics boards. They didn't support all different motherboard chipsets either. There was a "certified" program which tested particular computers to run it. One of my customers who was running NeXT had to buy Digital (aka DEC) PCs at twice the price of Dells to run this OS. None of the ten or so PCs I had at the time would run it; it always crashed during installation.
If MacOS X comes out for X86, it will probably be like that too. You are not going to get it to run on your pieces-and-parts clone.
... supported ONE (1) SCSI board, the Adaptec 154x, ONE (1) ethernet NIC card, and about THREE (3) different graphics boards. They didn't support all different motherboard chipsets either. There was a "certified" program which tested particular computers to run it. One of my customers who was running NeXT had to buy Digital (aka DEC) PCs at twice the price of Dells to run this OS. None of the ten or so PCs I had at the time would run it; it always crashed during installation.
If MacOS X comes out for X86, it will probably be like that too. You are not going to get it to run on your pieces-and-parts clone.
True but they also need to do more to distinguish how different it is from a Windows machine. It'll be a tough sell. Not impossible but tough.
Think of the bigger picture. With hardware you have to worry more about inventory and costs of components along with other factors. Software doesn't have as many of those demands but there is piracy and a few other things to worry about. MS has pretty much demonstrated that software is the way to go if it's done right.
And before someone says "or done wrong" in reference to their "illegal" tactics consider that MS would still be a multibillion dollar company had they not done what they've been convicted of and Apple would still be in the minority as they are now. MS and Apple are both successful businesses but MS is the model that more people are going to follow when it comes to selling an OS platform to people.
Want to know something scary? Consider a future where Apple sells highend boxes for professionals with the Mac OS but on the lowend the Mac OS is the frontend for a major online service. This could be installed on any current x86 or PPC system. AOL would love to have something like this which would give them Quicktime as well. .Mac services would likely grow significantly. The installed base would be huge. Lots of folks I'm acquainted with don't like this idea because of a large amount of hate towards AOL(me somewhat as well) but this is the sort of thing that could backfire on Apple if AOL or even someone like Earthlink were to use Linux instead. There are some details in there to be addressed but someone like AOL would like nothing more than to take over the desktop completely. You think the Mac has a small marketshare now...watch what happens if this were to occur.
Re: NeXT OS on the X86...
a compatible os x with just about everything would be great, though
do you want them to use windows?
a compatible os x with just about everything would be great, though
do you want them to use windows?
I am not a hardware know-it-all, but think this is possible?
1) most Mac components are PC standard (hard drive, PCI, AGP, USB, etc..)
2) The BIOS in an IBM-compatible PC is what describes what & how should work - and it's the firmware on the Macs.
3) Apple builds a completely closed architecture with a closed frimware based on x86, allowing them to keep the control over hardware, but use an AMD processor (or even Intel). The user will not necessarily know what the motherboard and processor are, but everything works as a Mac, since most components are already "PC" compatible.
You won't be able to build your own PC and load OSX on it, just like you can't build a PPC machine and load MacOS on it - unless you have access to a firmware that will make it work.
Remember when you had proprietary serial ports, SCSI drives, NuBus, LocalTalk, etc? They were slowly replaced by "industry standards" - except for technologies that were pioneered by Apple and adopted by the rest.
In essence, and just to recap, one more proprietary component (PPC processor) is removed and replaced by a "standard PC" part. You will still be buying an ultimate user experience, but maybe at a lower price.
1) most Mac components are PC standard (hard drive, PCI, AGP, USB, etc..)
2) The BIOS in an IBM-compatible PC is what describes what & how should work - and it's the firmware on the Macs.
3) Apple builds a completely closed architecture with a closed frimware based on x86, allowing them to keep the control over hardware, but use an AMD processor (or even Intel). The user will not necessarily know what the motherboard and processor are, but everything works as a Mac, since most components are already "PC" compatible.
You won't be able to build your own PC and load OSX on it, just like you can't build a PPC machine and load MacOS on it - unless you have access to a firmware that will make it work.
Remember when you had proprietary serial ports, SCSI drives, NuBus, LocalTalk, etc? They were slowly replaced by "industry standards" - except for technologies that were pioneered by Apple and adopted by the rest.
In essence, and just to recap, one more proprietary component (PPC processor) is removed and replaced by a "standard PC" part. You will still be buying an ultimate user experience, but maybe at a lower price.
Au contraire! You can simply build an Amiga PPC workstation and load Linux on it instead of the AmigaOS and run Mac-on-Linux and install Mac OS X on it, no firmware/whatever needed. It's been done.
Of course, this is illegal since the computer itself is not licensed to use Mac OS X.
Re: SAY GOOD BYE WINDOWS Guess what is coming on the x86 OSX!!!! (true news) with Aqu
p.s. does anyone know what kind of filesystem apple uses for their x86 builds of os x? i'm assuming that hfs+ would work, but ufs would work if they are just using cocoa apps.
you should at least wait until there are conclusive rumors about 10.3 for ppc before you start saying stuff like that. we all know that 10.2 runs on x86, but as others have said, this is a precautionary measure. does anyone remember the "startrek" project? apple ported system 7 to the x86 and tried to have it sold by, you guessed it, dell. did that ever happen? others have made excellent arguements as to why apple will not go x86 only (or x86 at all) and while it's almost certain that 10.3 will have an x86 port, it will remain an inside deal, just like all of the rest.
p.s. does anyone know what kind of filesystem apple uses for their x86 builds of os x? i'm assuming that hfs+ would work, but ufs would work if they are just using cocoa apps.
Your right, it rules out the possibility that apple will sell OS X to
PC users, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that apple will buy
Intel or AMD processors if/when they need to. Hopefully that
will never happen, but it could happen.
PC users, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that apple will buy
Intel or AMD processors if/when they need to. Hopefully that
will never happen, but it could happen.
Um, Tricks, do you think we've never seen this before? Somebody (usually somebody young) pops up and then within a few hours starts a pile of wildly improbable rumor threads, claiming to be "connected," alluding to mysterious shadowy informants who spontaneously (and melodramatically) provide piles of information, most of which runs completely counter to conventional wisdom.
I'm going to bite the bullet here: I've seen this pattern of behavior far too often in my years online to not simply assume you are just a newbie twit who is lying his ass off to get attention, perhaps to build a "reputation" in the community. Please stop. Most of us are well past the age where you have a chance of impressing us, so all you're doing is building up bad karma that you'll have to burn off down the road before anyone will take you seriously.
I mean really. We're computer geeks. Sure there are rumors and secrets we'd like to ferret out, but there's not a lot of intrigue. When somebody's rumor starts reading like a bad spy novel, it's a big red flag. I've never seen one of them come true.
I'm going to bite the bullet here: I've seen this pattern of behavior far too often in my years online to not simply assume you are just a newbie twit who is lying his ass off to get attention, perhaps to build a "reputation" in the community. Please stop. Most of us are well past the age where you have a chance of impressing us, so all you're doing is building up bad karma that you'll have to burn off down the road before anyone will take you seriously.
I mean really. We're computer geeks. Sure there are rumors and secrets we'd like to ferret out, but there's not a lot of intrigue. When somebody's rumor starts reading like a bad spy novel, it's a big red flag. I've never seen one of them come true.
While OS X on x86 may seem like a very good fall back position, you have to look at what it would do to the developer and consumer communities in a operating system still transitioning to OS X for PPC.
Many developers are spending a lot of time moving over to Carbon, while it's rather easy for them to compile a operable app in Carbon - the time spent updating to the OS X GUI can take quite a bit of time. And many have complained that it takes far longer than Apple's claims.
Don't forget how much money consumers have spent money making the switch.
Now you want to toss in a whole new CPU and probably file structure into the mix before developers have profited from their OS X PPC versions...
Every application would need to be rewritten to be aware of the endian shift and new a binary compiled for each CPU that the developer is going to support - yeah FAT apps and smart installers make things easy, but it's still multi-platform support - even though you're using the same operating system.
Even if Carbon is also moved at the same time, and a PPC emulator used to make the transition easy - people will still want a native x86 Carbon binary.
Classic is nice, but would you rather run the Apps in classic or use a Carbonized app? The move to x86 would just throw another layer of complexity into the equation and skew what people think is OS X native.
Many developers are spending a lot of time moving over to Carbon, while it's rather easy for them to compile a operable app in Carbon - the time spent updating to the OS X GUI can take quite a bit of time. And many have complained that it takes far longer than Apple's claims.
Don't forget how much money consumers have spent money making the switch.
Now you want to toss in a whole new CPU and probably file structure into the mix before developers have profited from their OS X PPC versions...
Every application would need to be rewritten to be aware of the endian shift and new a binary compiled for each CPU that the developer is going to support - yeah FAT apps and smart installers make things easy, but it's still multi-platform support - even though you're using the same operating system.
Even if Carbon is also moved at the same time, and a PPC emulator used to make the transition easy - people will still want a native x86 Carbon binary.
Classic is nice, but would you rather run the Apps in classic or use a Carbonized app? The move to x86 would just throw another layer of complexity into the equation and skew what people think is OS X native.
Re: Re: SAY GOOD BYE WINDOWS Guess what is coming on the x86 OSX!!!! (true news) with Aqu
UFS will work well, UFS is very fast with FreeBSD, but I'm not sure about Darwin. Darwin is one slow UNIX.
HFS+ would work just fine. I've had a partition formatted as HFS+ being read/written under Linux just fine.
UFS will work well, UFS is very fast with FreeBSD, but I'm not sure about Darwin. Darwin is one slow UNIX.
i dont care what you say
i dont care what you say about me about my posts all i tell is what i hear from my freinds who work for apple and other companies that work with apple so dont bite my head off if its something you dont like to hear OK!!!
i dont care what you say about me about my posts all i tell is what i hear from my freinds who work for apple and other companies that work with apple so dont bite my head off if its something you dont like to hear OK!!!
http://www.maconlinux.org/
They recently finally got Mac OS X to work in MOL and since MOL doesn't require a Mac, you can run MOL on any PowerPC and run Mac OS X on it.
WARNING: It's illegal!
(to run Mac OS X on a non-Macintosh PowerPC computer)I'm really surprised anyone believes this.
Look at it this way, do you really think SJ would allow his prized operating system to run on beige hardware? Do you really think he would let it run on the same x86 processors he's been negatively comparing to the PPC chips? Do you really think Apple would risk destroying their brand?
Of course not.
The only reason they maintain an x86 port is in case one day they really do have to make the switch, but that seems very unlikely to me. I think these rumors have been blown far out of proportion
Look at it this way, do you really think SJ would allow his prized operating system to run on beige hardware? Do you really think he would let it run on the same x86 processors he's been negatively comparing to the PPC chips? Do you really think Apple would risk destroying their brand?
Of course not.
The only reason they maintain an x86 port is in case one day they really do have to make the switch, but that seems very unlikely to me. I think these rumors have been blown far out of proportion