Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'Marklar' (OSX + x86) - what's the story?

mrjamin

mrjamin

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 6, 2003
1,161
1
Strongbadia
Hey,

I remember reading an article similar to this some time ago - does anyone know any more on the situation?

Also, what are peeps opinions of launching an x86 version of OS X? I'd be more than willing to spend my cash on it! unfortunately for me, £100(ish) for a mac-esque OS is far more suited to by student budget than £1500 on a new Mac desktop! Buying an iBook is possibly one of the worst things i could've done; it's made me want to replace my wintel more than ever!!
 
there is no story really. There is nothing indicating its something that will ever see the light of day unless the PowerPC just completely fails. You won't see it probably ever.

As for opinions on it, everyone knows apple's profits come from hardware. an x86 version would destroy them. There's no way they would sell enough copies to make as much money as they do on hardware. Even if it does make mac OS more available, it doesn't change the fact that most people use windows because thats what they use at work and what they are used to, along with perceived and real compatibility issues.
 
An x86 version wouldn't necessarily destroy them but they'd have to lock it in with their hardware very carefully so it wouldn't run on just any x86 hardware.
 
Don't kid yourself man... where there's a lock there's a key or a good bobby pin to pick it with. Marklar will never see the light of day. The 970 is coming to light, the 980 is not far behind. Sorry to all you x86 buffs but you're just going to have to buy a mac if you want to use the OS.

The x86 infastructure is no better than the mac hardware, dare I say it's worse. Most systems still use primarily the same architecture used in the first PC in 81. So the processor is faster... it's hotter and more unstable. ATA133 and serial ATA are nice, but it's been shown that hard drives only get faster with faster rotation speeds which also cause more noise and heat. Can a PC boot from Firewire, USB? I've never seen it.

PC hardware is cheap... but so is a Kia Rio. You get what you pay for.
 
Originally posted by bousozoku
An x86 version wouldn't necessarily destroy them but they'd have to lock it in with their hardware very carefully so it wouldn't run on just any x86 hardware.
Click to expand...

Thats true, though I was under the impression the original question was about mac OS that could be installed on any PC. If apple used x86 on their own machines, they would undoubtedly use the hardware rom as they do now. Its not crack proof (south american countries reverse engineered it when macs couldn't be sold down there), but its a good lock that would keep hardware sales within apple.
 
The last story I read on Marklar was in MacWorld UK. It said that a version of OS X running on x86 existed within Apple's labs and was considered for official release should Microsoft's next OS update implement anti-piracy protection for things like CD-ripping (MP3s), video, etc. In forums one popular theory is that Marklar exists to keep Microsoft from doing anything silly like stopping the development of Office for OS X.

Considering that Apple users are more excited about the possibility of dual 64-bit processor computers I think that Marklar will never see the light of day. Apple would rather sell the hardware and the software than just the software. Sure, sales would increase if x86 users could use Apple software, but I think the Windows software market is so saturated that Apple would have difficulty competing with Adobe and Microsoft in it.
 
Honestly I've often wondered why Apple wouldn't do this. Granted there are a lot of people who would only buy the OS because x86 hardware is so cheap. So what...if they don't want the glamourous machines Apple builds who cares...Apple would still be getting more money from OS sales than they are now. If the 970s come out there is no chance I'd buy x86. PowerPC is just too beautiful a system. I can't stand thinking when a PC starts up...wow, 640k base RAM...756826492k extended (exaggeration but you get the point). Since the processors were originally designed with only 640k in mind (huge amount of RAM, we'll never need more than that), they had to ghetto-rig a fix so more RAM could be used. This just makes RAM access really inefficient. x86 may be cheap, but that's because it's been around unchanging forever. I'll stick with PowerPC if I have any choice in the matter. Who knows, maybe the previous post about worries of Microsoft dropping Office was right. Maybe Apple creating their better version of Office with MS Office compatibility will allow them to release Marklar. There are tons of people who hate Windows but use it cause it's the only OS that's out there that runs on PCs (other than *nix which generally is harder to set up and get working than Windows is to just maintain). OS X would develop a large following of x86 followers who when they have more money may be thinking, "Wow, if Apple (a computer company) can make an operating system like this, maybe their computers are REALLY sweet." I personally think it would be good for Apple to release this. What do you guys think?
 
Originally posted by Zeke
I can't stand thinking when a PC starts up...wow, 640k base RAM...756826492k extended (exaggeration but you get the point). Since the processors were originally designed with only 640k in mind (huge amount of RAM, we'll never need more than that), they had to ghetto-rig a fix so more RAM could be used. This just makes RAM access really inefficient. x86 may be cheap, but that's because it's been around unchanging forever.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a PC do this in years. Yes there were some wierd things you did in the days of 16bit programming, to address memory you had to set a page then the address, but this hasn't been an issue for a really long time. The 16bit modes are still there should you need to run DOS on your 3ghz p4, but it in no way hinders my use of memory in a 32bit OS.

Back to the original post, while I think Marklar would be a neat thing to see from a "hey that's cool point of view", I hope it never happens. I have to support and build product for too many platforms already. I target windows, os9, and osx with my products. Since I have Altivec and SSE instructions in some of my products, but don't want to break older machines, I have to keep G3s and PIIs in addition to the G4s and PIII+ machines around. I suspect I will have to pick up a 970 box when the come out (oh, twist my arm). I also keep dual and single processor boxes in the mix because sometimes I hit those issues. Last thing I want is to add the expense (new machine, new compiler, more testing time) of keeping yet another machine around just to do builds and testing on. Currently my Mac customers are about 1/2 the number of my PC customers, but account for probably twice as much work and money when it comes to platform specific development costs, this would only aggravate it.
 
I really don t think apple will be that stupid, At least i hope so. Well why ? Because apple is a hardware vendor, and if they release an os for x86, nobody, or not many people will buy apple hardware which is much more expensive. Even though it might become much more powerful in the future.

But, I ll ad just the following :)
If i can ever put my hands on a marklar, and even if it is only a seed, i will plant it on all my linux boxes i got aroung. :) gui is just much better than gnome, and gnome is ( at least for me the best in the linux world )
 
Originally posted by strider42
Thats true, though I was under the impression the original question was about mac OS that could be installed on any PC. If apple used x86 on their own machines, they would undoubtedly use the hardware rom as they do now. Its not crack proof (south american countries reverse engineered it when macs couldn't be sold down there), but its a good lock that would keep hardware sales within apple.
Click to expand...

I know it's not crack proof, but it's something that Apple can use to protect themselves--on the machine and in the courtroom. A lot of people assume that Apple would be willing to do something completely stupid such as making the operating system run on any hardware.

If anyone has noticed, there are PPC systems out right now that cannot run Mac OS at all.

If Apple were to build a machine using a SPARC or MIPS processor, Mac OS X wouldn't necessarily run on all machines that run Solaris or Irix.

Apple is not stupid or philanthropic. They won't give away their business.
 
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Don't kid yourself man... where there's a lock there's a key or a good bobby pin to pick it with. Marklar will never see the light of day. The 970 is coming to light, the 980 is not far behind. Sorry to all you x86 buffs but you're just going to have to buy a mac if you want to use the OS.

The x86 infastructure is no better than the mac hardware, dare I say it's worse. Most systems still use primarily the same architecture used in the first PC in 81. So the processor is faster... it's hotter and more unstable. ATA133 and serial ATA are nice, but it's been shown that hard drives only get faster with faster rotation speeds which also cause more noise and heat. Can a PC boot from Firewire, USB? I've never seen it.

PC hardware is cheap... but so is a Kia Rio. You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
AT from 1984 dude...

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle?doc_id=IWK20030404S0003
 
Well, I know that they will probably never release marklar for use on any pc, but I can't help but sit and wish they would. If I could get rid of every copy of windows I work on in a day, my life would be enhanced greatly. I think that if they decided to jump into the pc software market, they could prove to be a serious contender. Much more than they think. People really hate M$, and just want an affordable system that works, and has developer support. Apple has all this, and could market that on the pc. It's a risk, but if they switched their business model it could work.
 
Originally posted by strider42
Thats true, though I was under the impression the original question was about mac OS that could be installed on any PC. If apple used x86 on their own machines, they would undoubtedly use the hardware rom as they do now. Its not crack proof (south american countries reverse engineered it when macs couldn't be sold down there), but its a good lock that would keep hardware sales within apple.
Click to expand...

Apple sells a lot of hardware. So the hardware is slower than PC... so what? Do you cut your leg off when you skin your knee falling off your bike?
 
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Apple sells a lot of hardware. So the hardware is slower than PC... so what?
Click to expand...

It seems to be the major point of discussion....
People over at the rumor sites think that slower hardware seems to "slow down" the hardware sales.
 
Let me ask this. Why do you think Apple would shoot itself in the foot by releasing this? Take the current hardware sales as profit for Apple. There's a lot of cost that goes into that first off but yes they make a lot off of it too. What percentage of current Mac owners would switch to a PC to run OS X if it were released? I wouldn't...I would just install it on any PCs I could. What does that mean? Increased sales for Apple with very little investment or overhead...software is the perfect item to sell for profit (especially if it's already developed). I think a large number of Windows users use it because they can't/don't want to spend the premium for Apple's systems but given the chance would happily pay $180 (maybe mark it up for PCs for extra profits) since they're used to $300 for Windows. For what most people do, this wouldn't be a problem. People who have a large amont of money invested in PCs of course wouldn't switch but that's a lost market anyway. Any more sales of OS X would just give Apple more money. I really doubt this would hurt their hardware sales at all as some people (like myself) really like Macs. It would always be optimized for PPC so if/when the 970s come out it should be faster even at lower clockspeed than a PC would running Marklar. The only problem would be software for Mac to run on the PC. But that's a different idea...
 
Originally posted by Zeke
Let me ask this. Why do you think Apple would shoot itself in the foot by releasing this? Take the current hardware sales as profit for Apple. There's a lot of cost that goes into that first off but yes they make a lot off of it too. What percentage of current Mac owners would switch to a PC to run OS X if it were released? I wouldn't...I would just install it on any PCs I could. What does that mean? Increased sales for Apple with very little investment or overhead...software is the perfect item to sell for profit (especially if it's already developed). I think a large number of Windows users use it because they can't/don't want to spend the premium for Apple's systems but given the chance would happily pay $180 (maybe mark it up for PCs for extra profits) since they're used to $300 for Windows. For what most people do, this wouldn't be a problem. People who have a large amont of money invested in PCs of course wouldn't switch but that's a lost market anyway. Any more sales of OS X would just give Apple more money. I really doubt this would hurt their hardware sales at all as some people (like myself) really like Macs. It would always be optimized for PPC so if/when the 970s come out it should be faster even at lower clockspeed than a PC would running Marklar. The only problem would be software for Mac to run on the PC. But that's a different idea...
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't make an Operating System. Well, they do, but that's not what they sell, and that's not what their company is based upon.

They are a computer manufacturer. Always have been, always will be.

That's why I find it troubling that most people compare Apple to MS -- saying that MS has 95% and Apple just 4%, but that's not a fair comparison. A better comparison is manufacturers, where Apple has about 4% compared to the leader Dell with 38%

Apple would be killed in the world of x86; MS has the leverage to destroy anyone that dares enter their realm. Hell, they can even destroy anyone that's established a new realm that they want to take over (IE, MediaPlayer, etc.).

If Apple undercut MS and sold OSX for x86, MS could just give away XP for a year or two until Apple was dead.
 
Slower Processors?

Why does everyone think that PowerPC Processors are slow? Sure, when you run only one or two applications, Pentiums are faster. But once you start running more than five applications, PC's slow down, where Macs stay at a steady speed.
 
Re: Slower Processors?

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Why does everyone think that PowerPC Processors are slow? Sure, when you run only one or two applications, Pentiums are faster. But once you start running more than five applications, PC's slow down, where Macs stay at a steady speed.
Click to expand...

no - they slow down less than pcs do. until HT technology. we need the new IBM chips to get going again. and as for moto, if i was apple i would tell them that they can go take their 4-digit chips and put them up their <admin block> <admin block>!!!!!!!!!

G3 chips from IBM can run at 1Ghz cooler, and faster in non-alitvec apps than a G4 can. WHY ARE WE USING G4s!!!!!!!!! o/c a g3 like you do with the g4s apple. you dont o/c you say???? then why does my mdd sound like a ruddy F-16 at Mach .9!!!!! (any faster and you woundnt hear anything xcept a bang. my mac better not sound like that.)

anyway, nough nagging. we is getting 970s. YAY! :D
 
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