Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rich82fox · 03:46 PM

what was the main reason for Apple to move to Intel processors - as I always thought Apple aimed to offer an alternate computing experience

I have always been used to the fact that Apple Systems and Wintel Systems were incompatible -as now it seems that it is possible to run windows xp on a macintosh natively

rich

residentEvil · Mar 30, 2006, 03:35 PM

uhm. what?

rich82fox · Mar 30, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by residentEvil

uhm. what?

there -I've reworded my question

jasonsRX7 · Mar 30, 2006, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by rich82fox

as I always thought Apple aimed to offer an alternate computing experience

You could get up from working at a G5 iMac and sit down at an Intel iMac and the experience would be the same. Same OS, same applications, so changing processors doesn't change the Mac experience. Even though Windows can run natively on a Mac, OS X isn't Windows, so what does it matter?

ghporter · Mar 30, 2006, 03:53 PM

First, welcome back from missing most of the past year in terms of Apple's switch. It was, according to Apple, all about IBM not caring to bother with improving the PowerPC processor so that it would perform well and at lower powers.

Second, OS X is based on OpenBSD; a Unix-like operating system that includes distributions that run on Intel hardware. It is not that big a leap to recompile the Mac-specific segments of the OS for the new hardware, which is basically what Apple did with the Intel version of OS X 10.4. This will NOT run on your G4 PowerBook.

Third, Windows XP is running "natively" on some Intel-based Macs because people have played with the boot system (Apple does NOT use the PC-style BIOS system to boot Intel Macs) in order to get it to work. This is neither optimal nor particularly a good thing at the moment, and I am still wondering if running a non-Mac OS on your Mac either voids any warranty or violates the software license for the correct OS.

Dark Helmet · Mar 30, 2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

It was, according to Apple, all about IBM not caring to bother with improving the PowerPC processor so that it would perform well and at lower powers.

Yes that and they couldn't get faster G5's out the door either. IBM was just as bad as Moto in the end.

Tomchu · Mar 30, 2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

OS X is based on OpenBSD

Nope. Mac OS X is Darwin + proprietary Apple technologies (Aqua, Core*, WebKit, whatever, tons of others). Darwin is a UNIX-like system running the Mach kernel with a BSD layer (userland tools are borrwed from both Free and OpenBSD I believe).

vmarks · Mar 30, 2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Third, Windows XP is running "natively" on some Intel-based Macs because people have played with the boot system (Apple does NOT use the PC-style BIOS system to boot Intel Macs) in order to get it to work. This is neither optimal nor particularly a good thing at the moment, and I am still wondering if running a non-Mac OS on your Mac either voids any warranty or violates the software license for the correct OS.

Apple didn't object when the G5 supercomputer in Virginia was running Linux.

Phil Schiller said they wouldn't prevent people from booting other operating systems.

It doesn't violate the license for Mac OS X. It shouldn't violate the hardware warranty. My supposition is that it does not, but that when returning a machine for service, back up and install a clean copy of OS X.

ghporter · Mar 30, 2006, 04:16 PM

It's still dumb in my opinion. At the very least there aren't enough drivers for all the hardware out there that can be found on a PC. Just my 2¢...

lpkmckenna · Mar 30, 2006, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by vmarks

Apple didn't object when the G5 supercomputer in Virginia was running Linux.

Uh, the Virginia Tech supercomputer is NOT running Linux, it is running Mac OS X. (Unless something changed since the project started.) http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/vatech2/

vmarks · Mar 30, 2006, 04:22 PM

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/in...tibility_Lists

is the incompatibility list.

Basically what is missing is:

A good video driver.

Because the EFI bios is different than standard legacy BIOS, things like USB get treated differently by Windows, but for the most part work. The sound driver needs a little teasing, some people have had it only play sound through headphones, not internal speakers.

Other than that, it's ready. There's no damage it can cause to the hardware.

vmarks · Mar 30, 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Uh, the Virginia Tech supercomputer is NOT running Linux, it is running Mac OS X. (Unless something changed since the project started.) http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/vatech2/

http://news.com.com/Apple%20sells%20...3-5242487.html

Red Hat and Yellow Dog Linux also were run on it.

rich82fox · Mar 30, 2006, 04:45 PM

does anybody have a link where I can watch the 2006 macworld keynote speech (but no the one on the apple sites - as it is isn't working

rich

lpkmckenna · Mar 30, 2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://news.com.com/Apple%20sells%20...3-5242487.html

Red Hat and Yellow Dog Linux also were run on it.

That's not what that article says. It says Colsa's MACH5 was evaluted to run Linux, not Virginia Tech.

mduell · Mar 30, 2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Second, OS X is based on OpenBSD; a Unix-like operating system that includes distributions that run on Intel hardware.

This is neither optimal nor particularly a good thing at the moment, and I am still wondering if running a non-Mac OS on your Mac either voids any warranty or violates the software license for the correct OS.

No, it's not. OS X borrowed parts of the userland from FreeBSD, but it is absolutely not based on OpenBSD.

How on earth could running completely independent software violate the license for the bundled software?