Exactly! Really, the whole reason netbooks exist is most people (me included 90% of the time) dont use anywhere near all of the power in the CPU of their PC. So you can have a low spec CPU in a nice case and still do most of your computing from it.
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.
iPhone OS + OSX = ?
- Thread starter guycross
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly! Really, the whole reason netbooks exist is most people (me included 90% of the time) dont use anywhere near all of the power in the CPU of their PC. So you can have a low spec CPU in a nice case and still do most of your computing from it.
iPhone OS and Max OS X aren't that different - they're based on the same kernel and have a lot of the same code running underneath.
The only major differences are the shell (one designed for a mouse/keyboard combination, one designed for touches) and the API's used by developers to create applications. Both of those pieces, while important, aren't by any means the entire OS. I'd be willing to bet that there is more code in common between the two OS's than there are differences.
As for the architecture, it's not hard to compile code for different architectures. When iPhone App developers run their apps on the simulator, they have been compiled for the x86 architecture. The only real work apple would have to do to run iPhone OS on Intel processors or Mac OS on ARM processors would be to write drivers for all the hardware.
The only major differences are the shell (one designed for a mouse/keyboard combination, one designed for touches) and the API's used by developers to create applications. Both of those pieces, while important, aren't by any means the entire OS. I'd be willing to bet that there is more code in common between the two OS's than there are differences.
As for the architecture, it's not hard to compile code for different architectures. When iPhone App developers run their apps on the simulator, they have been compiled for the x86 architecture. The only real work apple would have to do to run iPhone OS on Intel processors or Mac OS on ARM processors would be to write drivers for all the hardware.
yes yes yes i know all of this gentlemen. do you think i am stupid?
i didnt just forget the PPC->Intel transition overnight haha.however logically, isnt going to recreate the low powered MBA for a 1GHz CPU.. not now anyway. the current implementation is MUCH better. as i said before, the mobile CPU company they took over is for exactly that, mobiles! not laptops..
if the time comes though, apple will most def implement their own mini laptop (netbook), but it will interfere with the iPad/MBA too much. give it 5 years.
Mac OS X on iPad and iPhone would be cool, but wouldn't work well. Snow Leopard would probably overwhelm these mobile devices. OS X 10.2 or 10.1 might be passable due to the slower processor, but they would run hot and burn your hand (like mbp burns your legs). (look at winmo6 and see how that worked) iPhone OS would underwhelm desktops and laptops like the mbp, mb and mba. (no muti-tasking, only full screen apps, closed system) However, it is conceivable could make an OS X tablet, but they didn't turn out well when Microsoft tried the same thing.
Actually the iPhone OS and Mac OS APIs are also nearly identical. The only significant difference is the use of UIKit on iPhone OS vs. AppKit on Mac OS. Of course UIKit is the part that deals with multitouch interfaces vs. standard desktop interfaces in AppKit.
OS X is variant
Mac OS has a central UNIX base, and let's not forget, is already very diversified:
full os x-desktops
laptops-os x differs slightly in some ways from desktop
OS X mobile-iPhone
OS X-tablet-iPad OS (variant of iPhone)
OS X-PDA-iPod touch OS (another variant of iPhone)
OS X media centre-apple tv
OS X music player-ipod
ipod w/video & games-classic
w/reduced size-nano
ipod w/o screen, has music-shuffle
Mac OS has a central UNIX base, and let's not forget, is already very diversified:
full os x-desktops
laptops-os x differs slightly in some ways from desktop
OS X mobile-iPhone
OS X-tablet-iPad OS (variant of iPhone)
OS X-PDA-iPod touch OS (another variant of iPhone)
OS X media centre-apple tv
OS X music player-ipod
ipod w/video & games-classic
w/reduced size-nano
ipod w/o screen, has music-shuffle
Do you know this for a fact? Because I seriously doubt that the iPods are running anything even remotely connected to OS X. In fact, I don't see any reason that e.g. the Shuffle should run any OS at all.
Yes, it does need an os. Without one it's an empty shell. If anyone could stick a flash drive in a metal case w/ earphones, people would be giving them away. Also, shuffle needs an os for features like VoiceOver and take controls from the headset.
Why? I've built a pretty similar thing (CPU, flash drive and a decoder + some analog circuitry) and couldn't come up with a single reason that I'd code an OS for it. The controls were wired to I/O posts on the CPU, it had a simple interrupt processing routine and a very basic FAT file system so that it could play a random song from the flash card when you pressed a button on the controller. I'm pretty sure that the voice over could be done rather easily as well without the need of anything else than another subroutine.
While it might not be the best choice, it is possible.
Apple has a long history of adapting their OS to different platforms. The most famous with Mac OS X is from the PPC to Intel platform.
Good point.
The response to that argument would be that at the lowest level, you have some task dispatcher that sets up the interrupt handling routines and then goes about deciding when to invoke the subroutines associated with each of your peripheral functions -- even if it's a simple while(1) loop. And that minimal loop constitutes the microkernel of a real-time operating system.
Sure, but I wouldn't call it a flavor of OS X... Now I don't know, Apple might use a really, really stripped down version of the OS X kernel as a base for whatever they run on the iPods, that's why I asked if the list presented was actually based on facts or just speculation.
EDIT: "even if it's a simple while(1) loop."
Which of course is exactly what it was. The thing started playing as soon as you turned it on, had only the one button you click to get the next song. And all this ~3 years before the Shuffle. Should've patented it...