Sidebar Sidebar
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

Mac OSX 4

Macosx 4.0 named Groundhog will run on an Intel/AMD processor. These new machines will be sold on Dells web site and in Gateway Country stores. Apple stores will become coffee houses w/ internet access. The Genius bar will become a standard bar with alcohol drinks. Drunks will be passed out in front of the stores

Hey this a rumors site not a FACTs site.:D
 
A store that I can get a stiff drink and buy some software. I like it!
Now they just need to make some food there. Maybe some Mac & Cheese or something.
 
I dont know if anyone will read this, but it is easy to recompile PPC apps to run on x86 (a lot easier than carbonising). Quake 3 (linux version) was converted to OS X in just 3 days. Of cource some fine tunning needed to be done after that.

Also a 3Ghz P4 would be faster at running Mac OS X PPC apps in emulation than a duel 1Ghz G4. It is because the P4 is a lot better at emulating than the G4.
 
If Apple was keeping a pc version of os x as a backup plan that would mean they were worried Apple as a hardware company was going to fail, the x86 versions of osx are not even near being a complete os they are just the backbone basically to test speed etc. As long as we have Macintosh computers the Mac OS will be just that, a Mac OS. If people want to use OS X they are going to have to buy an Apple computer, Apple makes a damn good profit of of the macs, this is not to say they don't off of a $129 OS but the hardware brings in a lot of loot.
 
Originally posted by kperry8

Do we really want to force us developers to do this all AGAIN like we did from OS 9 to OS X?
Click to expand...

Well, umm, as one of the included developers, I have to say that PPC->x86 is a minor transition compared to OS9->OSX. OS9 used a convoluted and downright ugly hodge-podge of API's to interact with teh system. OS 9 software could rely on co-op multitasking instead of "proper" multi-threading memory protections. OS 9 software not only could but often had to twiddle registers just to get stuff working right.

While all of this made OS 9 a hellacious environment to program in, it also made porting from OS 9 to anything else a painful experience. OS 9 to OS X was a true port. The system APIs changed. The entire thinking behind the system APIs changed. The UI paradigms changed. Threads could be interrupted by user-level threads at any time. Register twiddling is strongly discouraged (and unnecessary).

OS X PPC to OS X x86 would be little more than a recompile. Some file-reading code would have to deal with endian issues, and some apps have assembly-coded bottlenecks that would have to be recoded in x86 assembly, but for the most part a simple recompile is all that is needed; the compiler team does the hard work of figuring out how to use he x86 instruction set.

Don't worry about developer support, unless the apps you use are no longer supported ... or perhaps unless they're written by Microsoft, but that's another story.


I think not. Apple would have to do some real innovation in order to make an emulator of some sort to run PPC code on the x86...

Sorry... you still have to convince me. [/B][/QUOTE]
 
Originally posted by hvfsl
I dont know if anyone will read this, but it is easy to recompile PPC apps to run on x86 (a lot easier than carbonising). Quake 3 (linux version) was converted to OS X in just 3 days. Of cource some fine tunning needed to be done after that.
Click to expand...

Assuming you're not including time to put any kind of Carbon/Cocoa UI on the game, I can certainly see this. In an OSX/PPC to OSX/x86 port the recompile would be even easier, as the UI would migrate without change and the headers would all remain the same (Linux does a pretty good job of having most of the BSD headers and such, but OS X does an even better job, obviously :) ).


Also a 3Ghz P4 would be faster at running Mac OS X PPC apps in emulation than a duel 1Ghz G4. It is because the P4 is a lot better at emulating than the G4.
Click to expand...

Huh?

If you were talking about, say, a Transmeta processor, I could sorta see your point. But the P4 is absolutely no better at emulating a RISC chip than the G4 is at emulating a CISC chip! It would be in software, not hardware! True, RISC->CISC translation is conceptually simpler (for the same reason that RISC is a more scalable architecture: you can switch on the known-length instruction instead of cascading tests on a variable-length instruction), but that needn't necessarily cause that translation to happen much faster.
 
boring ....

blah blah blah blah.

Fact: Apple has had its OS running on a PC since System 7

Rumor: Apple will switch CPUs

Fact: Apple makes sexy machines

Lie: PCs are sexy machines

Fact: Mac OS X will run nativley as is on X86

Lie: Aqua will run natively as is on X86


As we can see apple has a little bit to do to get OSX to run like greased lightning on X86 but they will always make sure they can survive. And if they did move to X86, then it would not be able to load windows. You can bet the bankoon that.
 
Correct me if I am wrong...x86 is the future of processors? I would think Apple would be looking beyond PPC in the future not back to x86. If you take the x out of x86 you put in the number 4, doesn't that sound old...486? Also I always thought that a RISC processor like the PowerPC was actually a step up in technology then a CISC processor. I am not all that aware of this type of stuff, but getting a new mac with a x86 sounds like yesterday's tech to me. I would rather see Apple stay the PPC course and hook IBM on this 64bit PPC970.
 
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
If you take the x out of x86 you put in the number 4, doesn't that sound old...486?.
Click to expand...

That has always been the case. the first intel microprocessors were called 8086, then 8186. The first big one was the 80286 or 286. Todays pentium 4s are 686s at heart. 686s btw are pentiumII cores.

286
386
486
586(pentium/pentium mmx)
686(pentiumII/pentiumIII/pentium4)

x86 is backwards, but AMDs x86-64 is a pc based possibility for apple. I just hope that if they did that they would make the OS 64 bit rather than requiring apps to do it. Remember pre-OSX and dual processors.
 
Originally posted by benixau


That has always been the case. the first intel microprocessors were called 8086, then 8186. The first big one was the 80286 or 286. Todays pentium 4s are 686s at heart. 686s btw are pentiumII cores.

286
386
486
586(pentium/pentium mmx)
686(pentiumII/pentiumIII/pentium4)

x86 is backwards, but AMDs x86-64 is a pc based possibility for apple. I just hope that if they did that they would make the OS 64 bit rather than requiring apps to do it. Remember pre-OSX and dual processors.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to note that you forgor the Pentium Pro, which was the first 686. Also note that I believe the 686 core is the "true RISC" core (the 586/Pentium core was more RISC-y than anything previous, but the 686 went whole hog out and made the core pure RISC and the first stage in the pipeline a CISC-RISC translation unit).

Finally, the P4 was a fairly extensive redesign. I don't know what Intel says officially, but I'd call the P4 a 786.
 
best 64-bit processor

Apple knows that the next step in processors is 64-bit. When the time comes, they will examine the market for the best 64-bit processor and use it, but will make all their hardware completely proprietary. If MS uses the same processor, so be it, but Windows won't run on the mac machines for sho'
 
thankyou jettredmont for correcting my mistakes with regard to the pentium pro. i coudlnt include it because i never owned one to installl linux on

i would agree with you about the p4 except that if i remeber correctly, linux IDs it as 686. I was taking linux's IDing as accurate. It would only take intel 1min to change it to 786 but they have obviously left it as 686 for a reason. i dont care what intel says officially.

Thanx again regarding my mistakes.
 
Originally posted by benixau
thankyou jettredmont for correcting my mistakes with regard to the pentium pro. i coudlnt include it because i never owned one to installl linux on

i would agree with you about the p4 except that if i remeber correctly, linux IDs it as 686. I was taking linux's IDing as accurate. It would only take intel 1min to change it to 786 but they have obviously left it as 686 for a reason. i dont care what intel says officially.

Thanx again regarding my mistakes.
Click to expand...
My AMD Athlon is ID'ed as 686 yet it's technically a 786.

IIRC, Pentium 4 is still 686. The next Pentium should be 786.
 
nooooooooooo!!!...i would not like if they would have the apple os on a pc. that would sorta take away apple's unique style and creativity, and along the way it would probably create less sales for apple to the point where they will stop making hardware.:(
 
Mac x86 OS

I don't know... kinda sounds like a remake of a bad tv show. Maybe we can call it The Rhapsody of StarTrek or something.

:cool:
 
What if apple goes x86 and then it cannot control the quality of those x86 machines and the satability suffers, then apple , not the x86 machines will suffer after apple had already lost their sales to a cheaper machine.
This would be apple's death.
i din't think it will happen, if it does, going x to the x86, then , apple is going to die
 
Originally posted by macmax
What if apple goes x86 and then it cannot control the quality of those x86 machines and the satability suffers, then apple , not the x86 machines will suffer after apple had already lost their sales to a cheaper machine.
This would be apple's death.
i din't think it will happen, if it does, going x to the x86, then , apple is going to die
Click to expand...

Oh for Christ's sake did you read any of the ***** thread before you replied? Yer POV has been presented and addressed a dozne times.

Please bother reading a thread before you post, especially if it's a dead thread.


Lethal
 
Does anyone find it interesting or humorous that more and more Pc users want our OS. I love the pc aqua like skins out there. They really wish they had it so good. I think that the x86 rumors are wishful thinking on the part of PC users. I am sorry but...if you want the OS....switch to a mac. Don't switch the mac's processor to fit your needs.
 
its amazing this has stayed in the hot zone for so long

i didnt know people would countine talkign about this toppic for so long its amazing what a little info you hear from freinds in the biz can spawn in the forums
 
Major point

Steve Jobs hates Michael Dell.

I could possibly see an X86 Apple Mac, only in the most extreme case.

I could never see OS X for PC's. Too much work.

Although A Dell "Steve" commercial with Steve Jobs, would be interesting.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster

My AMD Athlon is ID'ed as 686 yet it's technically a 786.

IIRC, Pentium 4 is still 686. The next Pentium should be 786.
Click to expand...


No the P4 has a totally new core and some extensive new instructions. It is the only X86 CPU that I would call a 786. Intel is unlikely to bring out another new core in the next four years. The Athlon is most certainly of the same generation as the PPro to P3.
 
Originally posted by iJed
No the P4 has a totally new core and some extensive new instructions. It is the only X86 CPU that I would call a 786. Intel is unlikely to bring out another new core in the next four years. The Athlon is most certainly of the same generation as the PPro to P3.
Click to expand...
Athlon is a seventh-generation chip. It's an entirely different core than the 686s and quite faster.

Yes, you are correct that the Pentium 4 is 786; at the time I posted that I was unsure and couldn't find evidence but I did recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back