[Superchicken]

Well maybe not OS X persay but a compatable enviroment similar to how OS 2 and windows were... or were ment to be. I was thinking like since Sony probably really doesn't like M$ after all they're using Star Office now arn't they? And they have the PS and the Xbox competting now. And what not.
Wouldn't it be cool if like Apple, IBM and Sony all used Cocoa as a desktop language? Granted that would mean you'd have to include an IBM/Sony version with any Apple version because of the different proccessor types and what not.
But wouldn't that be a perfect way to buck Microsoft a bit and displace some market share? I mean really it's not like people in Japan one of Sony's major markets really LIKE microsoft like in america. And there are many places in the world that are still very IBM faithful.
Then again they could just all use the PPC 970 in some desktop versions and run different branded but standard versions of Mac OS X but under different names and with midly different default looks and stuff... I dono sounds cool dout it'd work though... but personally I think it'd be cool... I mean Sony uses Palm for their hand helds and their phones are kinda teamed up with apple... who knows what'll happen though.

[Graymalkin]

It was called OpenStep, it didn't catch on.

[KaptainKaya]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
It was called OpenStep, it didn't catch on.

I think the price is what killed it though. wasn't it like $400/$500 for the OS? Or am I off?

[OreoCookie]

Supposedly project Marklar exists that keeps OS X on x86 up to date, but there is no plan of releasing it in the near future (specifically, the next-gen PowerMac ‘G5' or whatever Apple will name it) will still be a PowerPC and not an x86).

For the Unix geeks, there still is Darwin.

Darwin is the core of OS X, and can be configured similarly to Linux and *BSD.

[tooki]

OS X did inherit from OpenStep the ability to have fat application bundles -- a bundle with several binaries in it, for each CPU type. In fact, that method is used for some Carbon applications, to allow it to have a separate binary for Classic Mac OS, and another for OS X. Inside these bundles, in the Contents folder, there is a folder called MacOS (containing the OS X binary) and one called MacOSClassic (containing the Classic resources). (Look at AppleWorks 6 for an example of this.)

No doubt it would be possible to add a MacOSx86 or MacOSIA64 folder as well.

(OpenStep actually did this -- an application package could contain 68K and/or x86 binaries. If your application didn't have the correct kind, the icon would get grayed out!)

tooki

[Superchicken]

so when all these people are saying that apple could never move to x86... they're acctually wrong, and all companies would need to do would begin releasing multiple compliations in one simple file?
Granted program sizes would be pretty big... but they could specialize it... but then again there's not a MAJOR need for any of this since... it's uhh well the PPC 970 is comming... but if apple ever did wanna move to x86, they could tell major developers like Adobe, Quark (not that they'd listen) Macromedia, and so on and so forth, to make compiled versions bundled with their apps and nobody would probably notice...

[sniffer]

Eh-hem.. Clones? Apple is a hardware company. The software is just to convince and satisfy buyers. The iApps is like free coffe while on air trips.

[Axo1ot1]

I was thinking it would be cool if there was an OS X LE for PCs that only ran a select few apps that were re-coded for the x86 architecture, but enough to give PC users a hankering to switch. Sotra like those demos that let you use most but not all of the features and put a watermark on what you're working on. I doubt it would really be worth all the development that would have to be done to do this, though

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
I was thinking it would be cool if there was an OS X LE for PCs that only ran a select few apps that were re-coded for the x86 architecture, but enough to give PC users a hankering to switch. Sotra like those demos that let you use most but not all of the features and put a watermark on what you're working on. I doubt it would really be worth all the development that would have to be done to do this, though

Think I would have freaked out if I e.g. just bought a new mac, and Apple starts shipping free OS X demos for x86, man.
Besides Apple has allways been very secret about their next moves. What message would that give us?

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Think I would have freaked out if I e.g. just bought a new mac, and Apple starts shipping free OS X demos for x86, man.
Besides Apple has allways been very secret about their next moves. What message would that give us?

Im not talking about demos for a planned move onto that hardware, im talking about demos to lure wintel folk onto Apple hardware. Apple on x86 would be stupid unless they were there with the express purpose of snagging new users.

[Superchicken]

If Apple could get Adobe, Quark and a few others to make x86 versions of their OS X apps it would almost be economical to have an x86 work stationy thing... almost... I dono I think if they kept it closed to sony and IBM it could work out well, the problem with the other clones was they were just apple clones, no one will mistake apple with IBM or Sony, and if apple's making a good chunk of scratch off those ones then it's OK, it's simply that you can't get involved with a cheap startup. But IBM and Sony both charge enough that they couldn't be accused of trying to undersell apple.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
If Apple could get Adobe, Quark and a few others to make x86 versions of their OS X apps it would almost be economical to have an x86 work stationy thing... almost... I dono I think if they kept it closed to sony and IBM it could work out well, the problem with the other clones was they were just apple clones, no one will mistake apple with IBM or Sony, and if apple's making a good chunk of scratch off those ones then it's OK, it's simply that you can't get involved with a cheap startup. But IBM and Sony both charge enough that they couldn't be accused of trying to undersell apple.

So if I understand you right, you wish Sony and IBM to produce Apple x86 hardware/clones? What's the purpose? Programming languages and techniques is roughly much platform in-depended as far as I know.* Also Adobe and Quark apps are already running quite nicely on x86 today.

Edit: *Well, really I don't know much about programming, but I start thinking your idea is to push OS X in a NeXT direction or something.. I dunno, I am rambling, it's late.

[Superchicken]

well acctually I was thinking since Sony's already hopping into bed with IBM as far as their Cell chip goes.. why not have em all be PPC 970s
I dono although this would mean TECHNICALLY they could run cross platform too...
Although I was acctualily thinking the whole x86 option would be better for if Apple ever did move to x86 like analysts had been saying. although I think more anaylsts are morons.

[int69h]

Im not talking about demos for a planned move onto that hardware, im talking about demos to lure wintel folk onto Apple hardware. Apple on x86 would be stupid unless they were there with the express purpose of snagging new users.

Apple has no intentions of butting heads with MS. All they would get out of the deal is a two dimensional head.

Cocoa on Windows was cancelled. It was known as Web Objects and "Yellow Box".

Assuming Steve reintroduced clones, IBM would have very little interest in the desktop market because there's no money to be had there. Desktop margins are tight. They make more money by concentrating on their high and mid range servers and the lucrative support contracts those entail.

In order for Apple to move to x86, they'd have to dump Carbon and essentially their whole catalog of applications. As fast as those x86 processors are getting, they don't have a chance in h e double hockey sticks of simulating a PPC at acceptable speeds.

[asmodeus]

Originally posted by int69h:
In order for Apple to move to x86, they'd have to dump Carbon and essentially their whole catalog of applications. As fast as those x86 processors are getting, they don't have a chance in h e double hockey sticks of simulating a PPC at acceptable speeds.

Carbon wouldn't need to be dumped.

[tikki]

I doubt you are gonna find too many big companies you can convince to do another OS port. They just finished going from os9->osx. Hell, Quark hasnt even gotten to X.

[int69h]

Carbon wouldn't need to be dumped.

I was under the impression that carbon relied on big endian byte ordering. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong if not.

[asmodeus]

I'm just going by what moki said in this thread.

[Moose]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Eh-hem.. Clones? Apple is a hardware company. The software is just to convince and satisfy buyers. The iApps is like free coffe while on air trips.

Your argument is internally inconsistent. If the software is "just to convince and satisfy buyers," it's much more integral to the package than in-flight coffee (unless you have a Frequent Flyer card on Starbucks Airways).

Applications are what drive hardware sales. It happened with VisiCalc, it happened with 1-2-3, it happens with Office today (in businesses), and it's starting to happen with the iLife applications today for consumers.

It's the application software available for Mac OS X that compels people to buy Apple's high-margin hardware. On the Windows side, all the software works with each manufacturer's computer, so the only competitive advantage manufacturers have over each other is how thinly they can cut their profit margins.

Dell, HP, and Gateway compete on price. Sony appears to be the only one on the PC end really integrating consumer electronics with PCs. And while HP (When it's this easy, why not?) and Gateway (insipid poetry reading tone and meter commercial) are trying to capitalize on the "digital hub" idea, their offerings are pretty sad.

I mean, really. Printing out a contact sheet from your printer, filling in the ovals, and getting prints? Waste of time, but a great way for HP to make a killing on "photo paper" and ink cartridges.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Moose:
Your argument is internally inconsistent.

I have an excuse. English is far from my main language. But I get your point.