Can it be done??//

[Cipher13]

Not publicly.
Search the fora.

Cipher13

[This message has been edited by Cipher13 (edited 12-21-2000).]

[spicyjeff]

Its called Darwin, and now that XFree86 4.02 has been released for Darwin you will have a UI rather than just a command line. So you can run apps but you loose the Apple goodies and the Aqua interface...but its free!

[mr_sonicblue]

I thought the PC Darwin compile was useless because of the lack of device drivers. Maybe I heard wrong?

------------------
-Eric Schneider (SonicBlue)

[mitchell_pgh]

GRRRR, over and over this string keeps re-hashing itself! NO, it can't be done at this time!

Why:

A) It's not in Apples best interest (they are mainly a hardware company)

B) It would take a considerable amount of hardware drivers (far too many for Apple to even begin considering at this time)

C) Darwin is NOT OSX, it's an underlying component of OSX (consider it the foundation)

I say, lets make sure Apple can do a PPC port prior to a Intel port!

P.S. Search the site before posting, but don't worry, I've done it many a time...

[naden]

Can EVERYONE please read the above message.

I would love to see the correlation coefficient between people who believe in OSX on Intel and people who are actually subscribers to the Darwin Development Mailing List.

Funny that ?

[Scott_H]

Well up until a week ago I got the Darwin Dev list and I think OS X on x86 is total bs. So that would be a negative correlation right

[sordid]

Can it be done.

Don't be stupid. As if apple will release the source for Aqua/Quartz! (NeXTSTEP part of osx).

Thats all it gets down to!

[zpincus]

There is an interesting salon article that talks about this.
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/feature...le3/index.html

Basically they say that Apple will only prosper if it ports OS X
to a (still proprietary, so Apple still controls the hardware)
Athlon-based system. Thus, a mac could run mac, windows, and UNIX
programs all out of the box. This compatibility is what may save
Apple, they say.
Personally, I doubt that Apple will die without an intel port, but
the article is very interesting.
As far as teh technical difficulties inherent, they are completely
surmountable, but to get it running smooth would require a lot
of effort. But this article indicates that there would be a huge
payoff for apple to do so -- a point a lot of people disregard.

Zach

[zpincus]

To clarify about Apple and proprietary hardware:
Apple could still make and require custom motherbords and sell
machines with only certain hardware even if they went to Intel or others.

It would be just like today but with an x86 chip instead of a PPC.
So apple wouldn't have to write thousands of drivers because it
would still be a hardware company and it would still control
what components go into its systems. (Not to mention that many of these
x86 drivers are already written and opensource in the BSD CVS trees.)

To reiterate: Moving to x86 chips does not require that Apple suddenly
stops being able to control who can make Mac-compatible systems. Jeez--
PPC chips sell to a bunch of vendors but Apple doesn't need to support
OS 9 on all those systems!

Zach

I'm fascinated by the arguments from both sides for an x86 based future Macintosh - built as proprietary Apple hardware, but able to run both an x86-ized Mac OS X and native Windows 9x, Me, 2000, Whistler...

I actually believe, whether they pursue it or not, that it is quite likely Apple are at this moment either considering the possiblity or are actually actively working on it. If nothing else, it could be seen as a contingency plan if the PPC architecture did somehow bellyflop.

However, people should remember that though the clockspeeds have been little changed for over a year, the PowerPC is still a very well designed chip with much potential upside.

The G4 may max out below 1 GHz, but little has been stated about the possiblities for the G5 and beyond, all of which will more or less just slot in to existing Apple hardware designs.

Apple would look pretty silly if they ported everything to x86 and invested much R&D building hardware to run it, and then a PPC chip emerged that put even a 64-bit Itanium in the shade.

[zpincus]

The problem here is that "PPC chip development" is in a bit of
chaos right now. IBM will have G3e chips to 1+GHz soon, but
Apple can't very well put fast G3's in their top of the line
boxes, after spending so much time pushing the "velocity engine"
(which Motorola owns, so IBM can't put it on their chips.)
Further, Motorola's big market is embedded systems, and especially
after Apple killed the clones, Motorola feels not too kindly
toward Apple, a small and angry portion of their marketshare.
Apple's really painted themselves into a corner here.
Zach

[lgerbarg]

Originally posted by naden:
Can EVERYONE please read the above message.

I would love to see the correlation coefficient between people who believe in OSX on Intel and people who are actually subscribers to the Darwin Development Mailing List.

Funny that ?

Well just so you have one data point. I am on the Darwin Development list and am an active contributer (I wrote /dev/zero, /dev/random, and have done patches to a bunch of other things).

I personally would love to see OS X for intel, and I don't think it would be nearly as difficult as a lot of people seem to think.

I also think it would be horrible from a business perspective, since it would cannibalize Apple's hardware margins. Even if they used custom hardware it would be trivial for someone to get it running on a commodity machine once they released the proprietary sections in binary form for intel.

In fact, the guys from Apple who were at BSDcon thought that if someone were to port the Darwin kernel to a PPC 32 bit compliant
machine (IBM RS/6000) one would probably be able to run the rest of OS X simply by copying the files over.

Louis

[This message has been edited by lgerbarg (edited 12-27-2000).]

[pmcd]

I'm not saying it should be done but it most certainly is in Apple's interest to preview some sort of cross-platform solution for sparc, intel, crusoe, etc...Try to remember how fast the change from black to white happened in the NeXT days(around this time of the year as I recall).

A) Apple is less of a real hardware company than before. They are heading towards what might be termed a software and consumer hardware company.

B) Well, with very few people the NeXT crowd developed an incredible driver base fast. People can do wonders when they have to. I was using a NeXT Cube at the time the bombshell was announced (dropping of Motorola hardware) and had a Turbo slab on order (which I now have and still use). It was chaotic and exciting. So my gut feeling is to not agree with this point.

C) True but so what?

I'm not saying they will or should do whatever but we already know a PPC port works. At the time of the switch from NeXT black to white Motorola was busy messing up the 060 and this no doubt led, in part, to the decision that was taken.

In the longer term Apple should use whatever architecture works great. It need not be PPC and they do seem to have had difficut decisions in sticking with Motorola so far.

This debate goes back to the early 90's with NeXT and is not Mac only related. The problem Apple has to deal with is the current status of the Mac as a poor porting platform for windows' ports. The Mac OS just doesn't appeal as a development platform. Hopefully OSX will change that.Were it not for OSX with its rich development environment there really wouldn't be any reason for Apple to continue to operate. It should be clear that the applications for the Mac rarely come out first and uniquely for the Mac at this time.If that doesn't change then...

Philip

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
GRRRR, over and over this string keeps re-hashing itself! NO, it can't be done at this time!

Why:

A) It's not in Apples best interest (they are mainly a hardware company)

B) It would take a considerable amount of hardware drivers (far too many for Apple to even begin considering at this time)

C) Darwin is NOT OSX, it's an underlying component of OSX (consider it the foundation)

I say, lets make sure Apple can do a PPC port prior to a Intel port!

P.S. Search the site before posting, but don't worry, I've done it many a time...

[mitchell_pgh]

I actually a majority of people that are reading this post are on the same page. I feel most people would like to see an Intel Port. I personally would prefer the option to build my own system from spare parts as so many of my Wintel friends do, but it�s just not going to happen within the next few months. Yes, It can be done (actually, from what I hear, it�s not all that difficult to create basic hardware support), and I wouldn�t doubt that Apple doesn�t have a version running now in it�s basement in case the bottom falls out of any deals.

Could you imagine, a quad 1.50 GHz Intel Pentium 4 machine running OSX, duel 21� monitors for under 5 grand??? I know PPC �is the wave of the future�, but just think about the above machine, verses what you could buy now for 5 grand.

Also, there are going to be more and more people that want to use OSX without the apple frills! You will see people NOT wanting sound cards, video cards, modems, firewire, USB, CD-ROM�s, DVD-ROM�s, and the bundled software that comes with most computers. It will be due to the fact that consumers won�t want to pay for something that�s going to sit in a basement where nobody ever physically going to comes into contact with the hardware.

[RichardET]

And you plan on doing what with this machine? Modeling fluid flow?

Richard

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I actually a majority of people that are reading this post are on the same page. I feel most people would like to see an Intel Port. I personally would prefer the option to build my own system from spare parts as so many of my Wintel friends do, but it?s just not going to happen within the next few months. Yes, It can be done (actually, from what I hear, it?s not all that difficult to create basic hardware support), and I wouldn?t doubt that Apple doesn?t have a version running now in it?s basement in case the bottom falls out of any deals.


Could you imagine, a quad 1.50 GHz Intel Pentium 4 machine running OSX, duel 21? monitors for under 5 grand??? I know PPC ?is the wave of the future?, but just think about the above machine, verses what you could buy now for 5 grand.


Also, there are going to be more and more people that want to use OSX without the apple frills! You will see people NOT wanting sound cards, video cards, modems, firewire, USB, CD-ROM?s, DVD-ROM?s, and the bundled software that comes with most computers. It will be due to the fact that consumers won?t want to pay for something that?s going to sit in a basement where nobody ever physically going to comes into contact with the hardware.

[mitchell_pgh]

download porn...

[The Dude]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
download porn...

[natro301]

mitchell_pgh yahh

[dbenne]

quote:
Could you imagine, a quad 1.50 GHz Intel Pentium 4 machine running OSX
---

Nope...not really, if only because the P4 cannot be used in an SMP configuration. Kinda makes you wonder what Intel is smoking after marketing the ability of the P III to be used in an SMP config.

Sorry, I know the intent of the original poster, but I just couldn't resist
:-)

[naden]

Yeh, but could you imagine someone who actually understood the semantics of microprocessors and why a P4 is not necessarily that good. Sure it'll reach 2GHz quite easily but the speed difference between it and a P3 1GHz will be very small. Small enough not to warrant an upgrade.

Too many clueless people are equating overall speed with internal microprocessor clock speed. Things like Instructions Per Clock and the memory subsystem somehow don't sound as cool.

Can we please drop this crap now.

Naden.

[zpincus]

As for what a stripped-down OS X machine is good for:
Servers. BSD is great to serve from, and if we ever
see an Aqua VNC server or aqua forwarding a la X (where you can
run X apps on one machine and display them on another) there will
be a good reason to want to run a stripped-down, headless, OS X
(as opposed to Darwin) server.
But maybe Darwin will be all people need to serve from, and then the
Darwin intel port (without need for drivers) will be enough.

Zach

[mitchell_pgh]

Yah, yah, yah, PIV doesn�t support SMP, whatever... It wasn�t a speed comparison. It was a price comparison. You can purchase various quad processor motherboards for well under $300. The processors are always in a state of flux, but they are rather cheap as well. You can�t even buy a quad processor G4 motherboard that is supported under OSX, and to buy 4- G4 chips would be out of this world.

Point blank: I�m tired of paying +30% for all my hardware purchases (even though I do purchase bare bone systems), but I do it because I like the operating system [and I guess the OS and hardware do go hand and hand a bit].

While I�m ranting, why doesn�t apple make a F#$% pizza box. You know, a stackable, monitorless, G3 iMac. If they were priced accordingly, I would buy at least two. I love having a few computers all hooked to my kick ass 21" monitor. One switch of a knob and I�m fiddling with my BeOS MP3 box, one more switch, and I�m using M$ (ick), one more, and OSX is pounding away. I haven�t used Linux all that much, but there is one more knob

There are three reasons to port an OS to a different platform:

1) Because you want cheaper hardware
2) Because you want faster hardware
3) Because Apple won't give you their hardware specks

I don't care how many Pentiums you string together - I don't want my Macs running them. The Pentium is based on an inferior architecture. Why would you want to downgrade to an x86?

[zpincus]

Good god, not the "inferior architecture" stuff again!
A good primer on "RISC" vs. "CISC" chips can be found on
arstechnica.
Personally, I think the superior architecture is the faster,
cheaper one. (Faster in terms of benchmarks, not MHz)
No matter how many photoshop bake-offs Jobs does, x86 is going
to be faster for the time being.
Also, please note that the "architecture" differences between
these so-called RICS and CISC chips are really a lot more minor
than you might think. The PPC instruction set has grown so much that it is hardly "reduced" and the x86 chips intel makes are really "RISC" chips with a microcode CISC interpreter on top. Its time for pragmatism, not blind "architecture" faith. Good Grief.

[alexkent]

even if they did port it easy or not, and they programmed the 10,000+ device drivers so you could run all the legacy pc crap (don't slag me for hating pc's, i have plenty, i just prefer my mac).
There would be no software. Everything would have to be recompiled. For classic/carbon apps that would be pretty damn immpossible and for cocoa apps i doubt it would be straight forward.

it would just go against all apple's principles about having and easy to use, simple but powerful platform.

just my 2p.

[mitchell_pgh]

alexkent, no offense, but what are you talking about. Look at what Apple did to every Mac user that was using anything other then a G3 or above. Basically (if they ported) they would probably say PIII or later...

[Thunderbird]

A while back I sent an e-mail to Steve Wozniak (www.woz.org) asking his opinion on this issue. Here is his reply...

"Apple's hardware sales should stand on their hardware strengths. Apple's OS sales should depend on the OS strengths."

[alexkent]

mitchell_pgh. yeah, apple did screw everyone with the g3 vs. legacy hardward malarky. but on the otherhand they have been spending the last 3 years designing + building UMA motherboards to simplify writing drivers for their hardware.
if they moved to intel think how many motherboard / ethernet / graphicscard / pc card / inputdevice / scsi card / every other bit of pc made in the last year (let alone *any* legacy stuff) drivers they would ave to write.
ok, you could argue that it is really up to the hardware manufact. to write the drivers but do you think they could really be bothered?

the only time apple would start using intel/amd/whatever chips would be in a their own specialist motherboards so they don't have to write all this drivers and suddenly support all the pc stuff.
And if they did that they would really be shooting themselves in the foot, since all software would have to be recompiled and so on.
Apple would basically be saying;
"ok, were going to stop making Mac's now, we're going to make OSX-on-intel machines, for which there is no software at all, but don't worry because at least it is running at the same chip speed as all those windows pc's".

i think it would be the stupidest thing they could do. It would truely be the death of the Mac.
Apple are in trouble with the perceived chip speeds at the moment. But the chip speeds go up and down, i think in a year's time Apple's in be the fastest again, then slower the next year, then faster, slower... (you see what i'm getting at)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
alexkent, no offense, but what are you talking about. Look at what Apple did to every Mac user that was using anything other then a G3 or above. Basically (if they ported) they would probably say PIII or later...

By the time OS X comes out, Apple's switch to the G3 chip will be 3 years in the past. I don't think that this is so terribly unfair.

Sure, you can *run* Windows 98 on a 1995 standard PC - but what good will that do you? I'm pretty sure you could *run* Office 98 on a Mac LC III.

Face it, Macintosh computers are obsoletized by the application software before the system software stops running on them. OS X does run on the last high-end pre-G3 systems - although it is unsupported. But by the time most current application software will be OS X-ONLY (as opposed to Carbonized), it won't make sense to try and run it on an old system anyway. For the software that isn't OS X-only, you don't have to upgrade.

So really, by the time you will be forced to upgrade to OS X to use the latest and greatest versions of your application software, the first G3 Macs will be four or so years old.

People being forced to upgrade their computers will be those with five- or six-year-old computers - that's a *much* better lifecycle than anything the Wintel world has ever known.

-chris.