[scaught]

apple really cant keep anything under wraps all that tight. that has been proven.

unless they chained the people into that room and forced them to not leave in the past 5 years, how could no information, builds, etc leak about this?

just a little skepticism.

[starman]

It's been known. I knew about it.

Mike

[TheMosco]

Usually, leaked builds of Mac OS X are taken from ADC, and since this never made it to ADC that removes that possibility. I am sure the only people that new what was going on where the ones that where coding it.

And there have been rumors about this. This didn't just come out of no where.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/...30181129.shtml

There is a story about it from 2002.

Also, it makes perfect sense, do you think they would go through all that trouble of making a x86 version of Darwin and not make a GUI for it?

[mitchell_pgh]

It was known... but it also wasn't a major port. Apple wasn't maintaining a copy that would work on various hardware... they just made sure it would work if they needed it.

[ajprice]

IIRC the Aqua interface was kept well under wraps until the OS X unveiling, after many screenshots of Rhapsody etc. being around showing the OS 9 type interface. So yes they can keep things a secret when they want to.

[Millennium]

It had been rumored for many years, so it wasn't exactly a total secret.

However, this build apparently never left Apple; it was not offered through ADC, and the machines running it were probably kept in one of the most secure areas of the campus, so the machines could not simply be stolen. No doubt Apple also had a way to keep the builds keyed to the specific computers in those labs, so even if a build leaked nothing could run it, and there would therefore be no way to prove that the build was real.

[skelotar]

Old knowledge.. A guy a know who works for apple told me quite confidently that OS X ran on x86 hardware last year. No one would have fathomed that it would be running as the new standard though..

[angelmb]

A spaniard site had published something about Mac OS X under intel computers a long time ago, year 2000, when some guy I know had found some 'weird' text string telling the Mac OS X computer to restart into DOS/Windows followed by a "intel computers only". Feel free to check it, it is in english Scary by thenm huh?

[moki]

Originally Posted by scaught

apple really cant keep anything under wraps all that tight. that has been proven.

unless they chained the people into that room and forced them to not leave in the past 5 years, how could no information, builds, etc leak about this?

It did. You just missed it.

[turtle777]

Isn't it funny that now, after the fact, everybody seemed to know about it

-t

[- - e r i k - -]

Uhm. Yes, Marklar was known about way back in 2002. Even Steve commented that "we'd like to keep our options open". And now they just gone with that option. The Just In Case-scenario came true and Apple was wise enough to foresee it.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by scaught

apple really cant keep anything under wraps all that tight. that has been proven.

unless they chained the people into that room and forced them to not leave in the past 5 years, how could no information, builds, etc leak about this?

just a little skepticism.

It was first posted by an AC leaker on slashdot about three years ago. The guy had been on the team that worked on it and revealed that Apple had never dropped the Intel builds since Rhapsody's Intel release. He didn't say anything about Yellow box, the Windows compatibility layer in Intel OSX, though. I assume from all the posts that that has been dropped, since it doesn't really seem necessary, and market wise, downright dangerous, since it would not encourage developers to port Windows software.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by theolein

It was first posted by an AC leaker on slashdot about three years ago. The guy had been on the team that worked on it and revealed that Apple had never dropped the Intel builds since Rhapsody's Intel release. He didn't say anything about Yellow box, the Windows compatibility layer in Intel OSX, though. I assume from all the posts that that has been dropped, since it doesn't really seem necessary, and market wise, downright dangerous, since it would not encourage developers to port Windows software.

You mean Red Box.

Yellow Box was the Cocoa APIs. Yellow Box for Windows was the Cocoa APIs ported to run as a layer on top of Windows.

[JoshuaZ]

I mean, if you were an Apple employee, working on the project, would you risk getting your a$$ sued off by leaking it? Let along the risk of having Steve lay the smack down on you?

[theolein]

Sorry, in that case, Red Box. And no, he didn't say anything about the Yellow Box either, although now that Apple is moving to x86 there are both advatages and disadvantages to implementing Yellow Box. Advantages in that people who write for Yellow Box, i.e. Cocoa under Windows would find it far easier to port that to Cocoa under OSX. Disadvantages in that people who write for Cocoa under Windows would have possibly less need to port to OSX since they'd already have its advantages under Windows.

Having said that, though, it would be interesting if Apple did port Cocoa and XCode to Windows as a bait and switch campaign. The real advantages of Cocoa would be in OSX, so maybe that would interest developers in moving to OSX. It would be Microsoft's own tactic used against it. Could backfire royally though if MS made loads of Windows only Cocoa libraries which would not get ported back to OSX.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

I mean, if you were an Apple employee, working on the project, would you risk getting your a$$ sued off by leaking it? Let along the risk of having Steve lay the smack down on you?

He specifically said that he had been on the team but that he had left Apple sometime during the OSX 10.1 days. NDA's don't count forever. He was also the very first person to mention the name "Marklar" afaik. Also, he posted as an AC, which means you are basically untraceable.

[Ganesha]

Because Apple doesn't hire people like you would would leak it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Isn't it funny that now, after the fact, everybody seemed to know about it

Yes, most of us knew about it. Steve Jobs even said at one point that they could switch at any time.

The real surprise was they actually used it.

[OwlBoy]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Isn't it funny that now, after the fact, everybody seemed to know about it

-t

We did...

-Owl

[theolein]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Isn't it funny that now, after the fact, everybody seemed to know about it

-t

If you do a search on slashdot, you'll probably find the original leaker's comment. It should be sometime in mid 2002 or thereabouts.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Isn't it funny that now, after the fact, everybody seemed to know about it

-t

I find it more funny how you didn't.

[Superchicken]

Come on even I knew about Marklar.

Someone in the MacNN chat who was in the WWDC at the time, wrote "Steve confirms project Marklar!" First words in my head were CRAP!

Then again when I started here I constantly asked questions as to why OS X couldn't be on Intel, and what the difference was etc.

[brapper]

I knew. Intimately.

[osxpinot]

It was pretty common knowledge. And most of all, it is just common sense.

[exactopposite]

i don't even have a mac and i new about it.

(i come here for info as i plan no having a mac sometime next year... now that depends on the intel releases)

[Eriamjh]

Rumors about something possibly existing with absolutely no evidence, is not proof of a leak later when the word does actually get out.

Apple still manages to keep somethings secret (original iMac, iPod, etc). Without proof of existence, it is just a rumor.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Rumors about something possibly existing with absolutely no evidence, is not proof of a leak later when the word does actually get out.

Apple still manages to keep somethings secret (original iMac, iPod, etc). Without proof of existence, it is just a rumor.

No evidence? This eWeek article basically spelled it all out for us three years ago - Marklar as leverage against Motorola and the likely introduction of the Power4 derivative. Rottenberg and Ciarelli were acting as our Woodward and Bernstein, but we weren't paying much attention. Damn, if only I had seen and paid attention to it, I wouldn't have had such a rude awakening.

[OreoCookie]

The purpose of the x86 version of OS X was not necessarily to switch to x86, but to keep the code platform independent.

[Mediaman_12]

Evrybody thought of it as more of a 'break out in an emergancy' last chance, the HW side is dead, we need to sell the OS to regular windows users, option

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I find it more funny how you didn't.

So, everyone besides me knew it. Great.

Why then all the bitchin' and complaining ? They had 3 years and more to get used to the fact. Rrrriiiiight ?!?!?

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

Evrybody thought of it as more of a 'break out in an emergancy' last chance, the HW side is dead, we need to sell the OS to regular windows users, option

That's quite possibly exactly the situation, except rather than the HW side being dead, it's dying

[budster101]

I knew about it too.

Hey, did you know that Microsoft has purchased Apples in the past? And has a bunch of copies of OS X Tiger?...

[moki]

Originally Posted by turtle777

So, everyone besides me knew it. Great.

Why then all the bitchin' and complaining ? They had 3 years and more to get used to the fact. Rrrriiiiight ?!?!?

I think you're assuming Apple is a monolithic entity. It is not. I assure you that Apple employees are glued to the various Keynote presentations to find out what the company they work for is doing, just as people here are.

Apple's a large company -- you can't reasonably expect everyone at Apple to know what is going on in every group. In addition, Apple is famous for secret projects, both on the hardware and software side.

When the 68K emulator was being made years ago, very, very few people at Apple had any clue about it at all, similar to the situation here. 95% of the people who work for Apple were picking their jaw up off of the floor after the keynote too.

[Chuckit]

To get used to the fact that Apple had suppose built OS X on Intel computers? Sure. No one is upset just because they have a build of some unspecified quality for x86 (well, nobody who isn't crazy).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by moki

I think you're assuming Apple is a monolithic entity. It is not. I assure you that Apple employees are glued to the various Keynote presentations to find out what the company they work for is doing, just as people here are.

Apple's a large company -- you can't reasonably expect everyone at Apple to know what is going on in every group. In addition, Apple is famous for secret projects, both on the hardware and software side.

When the 68K emulator was being made years ago, very, very few people at Apple had any clue about it at all, similar to the situation here. 95% of the people who work for Apple were picking their jaw up off of the floor after the keynote too.

moki, sorry, but you didn't catch my irony.

I was trying to point out the inconsistency in the answers of various forum members.
On the one hand, they all claim to have known it all along, for many years. On the other hand, they complain and bitch about it like the world was coming to an end.

My point was: If they REALLY knew all along, why the sudden outrage ? Shouldn't they have gotten used to that thought, if they had really known about it ?

-t

[budster101]

I'm not outraged or shocked. I'm looking forward to running my old windows apps on my new shiney intel based Mac someday.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777

moki, sorry, but you didn't catch my irony.

I was trying to point out the inconsistency in the answers of various forum members.
On the one hand, they all claim to have known it all along, for many years. On the other hand, they complain and bitch about it like the world was coming to an end.

My point was: If they REALLY knew all along, why the sudden outrage ? Shouldn't they have gotten used to that thought, if they had really known about it ?

-t

Who is both bitching and claiming prior knowledge? I never thought this would come to pass, even though we all heard the rumors over the years. But as I said, if I had noticed the eWeek article from 2002 (above), it would have been much less shocking. I also probably would have held off on purchasing any new Macs until this development took place - I would have been waiting a long time indeed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Who is both bitching and claiming prior knowledge? I never thought this would come to pass, even though we all heard the rumors over the years. But as I said, if I had noticed the eWeek article from 2002 (above), it would have been much less shocking. I also probably would have held off on purchasing any new Macs until this development took place - I would have been waiting a long time indeed.

5 years. Gosh, what sense would that make? Someone needed a new Mac in 2003, and waited till 2007 ? He might as well switch to pocket calculators forever...

-t

[olePigeon]

Actually, this relationship with Intel goes back all the way to System 7. Way back when Apple had a partnership with Novel, and Novel ported System 7 to the x86 architecture to run on the Intel chipset. Apple at one point had gotten so close to releasing Mac OS for x86, but at the last second they canceled the project (the story of Apple's life.)

While it's not OS X and they didn't keep a versin of Classic running on x86 after System 7 (at least, not one that anyone knew of), the idea was considered well before OS X.

[macaddict0001]

Also as an interesting side note there was a powermac that could run dos.

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Actually, this relationship with Intel goes back all the way to System 7. Way back when Apple had a partnership with Novel, and Novel ported System 7 to the x86 architecture to run on the Intel chipset. Apple at one point had gotten so close to releasing Mac OS for x86, but at the last second they canceled the project (the story of Apple's life.)

While it's not OS X and they didn't keep a versin of Classic running on x86 after System 7 (at least, not one that anyone knew of), the idea was considered well before OS X.

Not to mention the Rhapsody project which is not OS X per se.

[ghporter]

OS X is based on FreeBSD (or is it the OpenBSD...). Being built on a foundation that is inherently platform agnostic, OS X could be rebuilt to run on any number of platforms that are supported by BSD. This should be effectively trivial, and require only a change in a few linker commands.

I think that one reason the existence of an x86 version of OS X wasn't "common knowledge" was that the vast majority of Mac users have no idea what's "under the hood" of a Mac. Another was that a huge number of us would have considered it a bad joke. "OS X on Windows hardware? Get real!" And one more: the difference in the compiler options and linker commands is really, REALLY geeky-most of the rumor mill doesn't pay attention to the really technical stuff. For example, what is the actual difference between a G4 and a G5 processor? I am pretty technically oriented (I are a computer scientist!), and I don't know...

[krove]

This thread just cracks me up.... it's the who knew/suspected/understood/recognized what when thread!

[moki]

Originally Posted by turtle777

moki, sorry, but you didn't catch my irony.

I was trying to point out the inconsistency in the answers of various forum members.
On the one hand, they all claim to have known it all along, for many years. On the other hand, they complain and bitch about it like the world was coming to an end.

Ah -- my apologies, I did indeed miss the irony.

[Lancer409]

my guess, lots of security.
the machines wouldnt be accessible to the internet.
they were probly more like terminals with no removeable drives, no open usb ports, no firewire ports, no optical burners.


basically no way to get any data out (except from the secure room where the hardware was actually kept, and that it'd be a MAJOR pain to get access to that room (lots of sign offs before u can access, security, camera's and logs)

just random thoughts ...
oh .. "One more thing"..

That photo he used at WWDC, wasnt just a Satellite shot of the building on campus, it was a shot through Apple's new Orbital Ion Cannon platform. Should anything happen, Steve jobs would just have to push the sensibly styled red button and *Boom* (Cough)

[Lancer409]

Originally Posted by osxpinot

It was pretty common knowledge. And most of all, it is just common sense.

is longhorn built with ppc compatibility "just in case?"

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Lancer409

is longhorn built with ppc compatibility "just in case?"

Windows NT was.

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Windows NT was.

This wasn't an "incase of emergency break glass" scenario. It was released and supported.

[ghporter]

Longhorn is still having trouble with x86 compatibility! The funny thing is that I have three different Linux distributions capable of running smoothly on x86 hardware and doing almost everything the Longhorn is supposed to do-with the exception of Searchlight-like behavior-today, and soon I may be able to buy OS X for my x86 machines. Why would ANYONE be interested in Longhorn now?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Why would ANYONE be interested in Longhorn now?

Cheap, off-the-shelf hardware.

-t