|
|
osX running on an intel based system...
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
It does...at least the open source project that osX has been developed from does...
<a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.4/release.html" target="_blank">http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.4/release.html</a>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere in CyberSpace
Status:
Offline
|
|
it is just free bsd with darwin. no Aqua interface.... Aqua is Apple Closed code, and the only way to get the Aqua Frameworks is to be an Apple Employee on the OS X group.
I dont think we will see it anytime in the future, with the Interface we use, it would take Apple's Market Share down.
this is just MHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Leiden, Netherlands
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Originally posted by guard0:
<strong>It does...at least the open source project that osX has been developed from does...
<a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.4/release.html" target="_blank">http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.4/release.html</a></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Remember OSX comes from <a href="http://www.gnustep.org/resources/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html" target="_blank">OPENSTEP</a> which ran on SPARC, i386,68K and HPPA. PPC was a port, so yes it could run on i386. But apple first needs to have 95% of its users under X before it can think about another hardware switch (and the last switch was long and difficult, remember ?). Apple coud switch to IBM Power processors, that would be easier ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Apple coud switch to IBM Power processors, that would be easier ...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">I get a good laugh whenever I hear this.
The cheapest POWER4 system is <a href="http://commerce.www.ibm.com/content/home/shop_ShopIBM/en_US/eServer/pSeries/entry/6306C4.html" target="_blank">$12,500</a>, and this is only for a single 1Ghz processor. And if you want a system with a 1.3GHz processor, you'll have to pay <a href="http://commerce.www.ibm.com/content/home/shop_ShopIBM/en_US/eServer/pSeries/high_end/pSeries_highend.html" target="_blank">$1,000,000</a>.
Forget the memory, the hard drive, etc. A single 1.0GHz POWER4 processor runs $2500-$3000. If Apple charges $3000 for a system with two $295 processors, how much do you think they will charge for a system with a $2500 processor? And IBM has no intention of producing a consumer version of the POWER4 (nothing remotely close to one is on their roadmap); it's expensive to produce, thus it commands a high price.
And why all the interest in the POWER4 anyway? The POWER4 and PowerPC are not compatible. A POWER4 will not run OSX or OS9. IBM broke compatibility with the PowerPC a long time ago (with release of POWER3), as they felt parts of the PowerPC architecture were holding performance back.
In our little fantasy world, let's suppose that somehow we could all afford $20,000 Macs with a rewritten version of OSX for POWER4 that would run none of our applications. The processor itself is HUGE; it consists of two processors on a single chip, with a high-bandwidth switch and i/o interface. In order to accomodate a POWER4, Macs would have to use large server cases; it would mean the end of iMacs and smaller desktop cases. You could cook your breakfast using one of these systems.
And POWER4 performance is nothing special. Intel's new, second-generation <a href="http://www.intel.com/eBusiness/products/itanium/overview/bm022701.htm?iid=intelland+ww28procperf" target="_blank">Itanium2</a> (previously codenamed McKinley), substantially outperforms the POWER4 processors, particularly when it comes to fp-intensive tasks. And this is a single core <a href="http://www.intel.com/eBusiness/products/itanium/overview/bm022701.htm?iid=intelland+ww28procperf" target="_blank">Itanium2</a> running at 1.0GHz, compared to the POWER4 (which integrates two separate processors) running at 1.3GHz. It's said that the POWER4 will have to reach 1.5GHz to 1.8GHz to outperform the Itanium2. Evidently, all those ALPHA engineers that Intel acquired from Compaq are beginning to pay off, cause the first Itanium was a dog, and second-generation Itanium2 is no joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Southfield, MI, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Crank up the sales volume and the price will drop. That's where Intel's biggest advantage is (other than sheer clock-speed).
I know nothing about these Power4 processors. Let's move to intel and level the playing field. Bring OSX to Intel!
|
Dan
"I guarantee that I am correct."
(not a guarantee)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think this is a valid opinion and I hope it's not wishful thinking. If we have OS X on Intel, then the only choice that consumer has to make is which OS is more stable and user friendly, which Apple is already known for. Then the "switch" will be phenomenal. IMHO.
|
I am not indispensable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
you do realize the laws of supply and demand don't you?
if there were more Macs and more of a demand for Macs then Moto could crank up production of G4 chips and Apple could get its parts in more bulk quantities and therefor bring the prices for all respective parts cheaper and thereby making Macs cheaper. The moral. Tell every to buy a Mac. Beat it in there heads if you have to.
The reason PCs are so cheap is EVERYONE has one. That is also why only Dell and IBM are making money and all the other PC manufacturers are losing money. They have to undersell their machines to beat competition.
Apple doesnt have to deal with this. When the clones were around Apple got creamed, because they thought people would still by Apple...because it is Apple. Nuh Uh. People bought PowerComputing, StarMax, and other clones because they were faster and cheaper.
FOr Apple to have this luxury everyone must want a Mac. Everyone lusts for them...but noone wants to switch. If only...ahh that is another story.
|
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
Itanium is no joke. Your right, it isn't, but it could probably heat you house and its cost, correct me if I'm wrong, is about $2000. The G5, vaporware, is supposed to be multiple cores also but I bet it will be a large chip as well. So what are left with? The current status quo of overrated under performing hype that will not change until we have a major new chip introduction that will from either side turn the desktop into something other than what we have today. In other words, increase the performance substantially not incrementally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
that law only works if there is competetion in the market
PC's are so cheap because amd and intel are banging heads with each other... with motorola being the only company that actually produces the powerpc chips, it wouldnt suprise me if they actually raised prices when the demand went up (it would be better business for them if they did...ask any person in high level store management of any kind)
<small>[ 07-23-2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: guard0 ]</small>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Itanium is no joke. Your right, it isn't, but it could probably heat you house and its cost, correct me if I'm wrong, is about $2000.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Like the POWER4, the Itanium2 is outrageously priced. I don't know specific figures, but it's probably between $2000 and $3500 per processor. It has 214 million transistors, or about four times as many as a P4; not only that, it's using the old .18um process (thus its massive and produces lots of heat). By the end of next year, Intel will have the Itanium3 running at 2GHz on .13um copper. But it won't be any cheaper...cause Intel isn't done yet. They plan to keep on adding transistors; IIRC, Itanium3 will be in the range of 400 million transistors, or about ten times as many as the current G4. Just think, for the amount of transistors Intel will be using next year, you could produce a 10-core G4.
[Not really, of course, since most of those transistors are consumed by the ItaniumX's large L2 and L3 caches...which don't require nearly as much die space as other processor 'parts']
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Gosh, I felt like I chose the a bad computer (Apple) after reading many posts in the other forums. All I want is a good computer that does my daily tasks for me.
As a teacher and a non technical guy, I won't have time to be on the phone talking to a customer service rep fixing my computer. I had only called Apple like less than 5 times since 1995, that was because I was a first time Mac User, switching from Windows 3.1!! After that my Performa was trouble free. It still runs great on 8.5 but the 28.8 modem makes me a medieval mac user. Time to upgrade.
I'm holding on to my cash for now, if Apple decide to release new hardware come September. I'll probably get new ones on Ed discount.
|
I am not indispensable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mac-User:
<strong> I think this is a valid opinion and I hope it's not wishful thinking. If we have OS X on Intel, then the only choice that consumer has to make is which OS is more stable and user friendly, which Apple is already known for. Then the "switch" will be phenomenal. IMHO.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Sorry, it's wishful thinking. Apple will not be switching to x86.
There are other better and easier options for Apple.
|
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status:
Offline
|
|
This kills me every time it comes up....if they release OSX for Intel, Apple will move from a multi billion dollar computer manufacturer to a sub billion OS company. If I could get OSX stability/functionality for 650.00 on Intel, I would do it in a heart beat.
Apple lives by its innovation, if they had to sell systems at sub 1000.00, that would end the ability to compete in the machine space. They would then have to compete in a software market in which they have no footing in any market. Anyone remember what Powercomputing and the other clone makers did to Apple?
Please no OSX for Intel...if you want cheap, go free BSD on a intel box. If you want Apple quality and innovation, buy Apple.
<small>[ 07-23-2002, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: webb3201 ]</small>
|
Read my MacWebb column and other great Mac articles at Lowendmac.com
Owner of a MacBook Pro and various other Macs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Charlotte NC USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
OSX on x86 doesn't mean there will be clones.
It would be a no-brainer for Apple to produce an x86 machine with a proprietary ROM that prevents the installation of any non-Apple operating system.
You'd need the Apple-specific ROM in order to use OSX.
|
*empty space*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<strong>OSX on x86 doesn't mean there will be clones.
It would be a no-brainer for Apple to produce an x86 machine with a proprietary ROM that prevents the installation of any non-Apple operating system.
You'd need the Apple-specific ROM in order to use OSX.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Your absolutely right. It's strange how every time this comes up, most seem to overlook that point.
|
That's OK citizens of the world, sit back on your asses and let the Americans make the tough choices for you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just want my next Mac to be fast... is that to much to ask <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
haha
Nah... I do like the idea of AMD chips... I hate intel just becuase they're the BIG GUYS.
And AMD has some purdy darn nice chips from what I understand.. I think there would be much less of a cry for blood if apple went with AMD instead of Intel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
but that doesn't include all of the software that would have to be ported over. (again). Some developers just would not do it.
Look at Real. OS X came out on March 24, 2001. It took them almost a year and a half to get an OS X version of Real Player out..
I've said it once, and I'll say it again.
Going to x86 would be finacial suicide....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: College Park, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Discussion of OSX belongs in the OSX forums.
Tranferring to OSX gen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|