[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

PIC? WE NEED PICS!!!!!11111!111

That sounds awesome! Balls bouncing, like a video game or something!

More like an acid trip.

[Hash]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Uh huh. You may dismiss my comments, but the truth is the truth. Apple will be producing genuine Intel PCs capable of running Windows just as standard PCs do. They will be Apple branded Intel PCs. So why should be shunned for calling them what they are?

Even now you have the mac capable of that. It is called Virtual PC. Say you have now almost a native version of Virtual PC. So whats the difference? Do you understand what I mean?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Hash

Even now you have the mac capable of that. It is called Virtual PC. Say you have now almost a native version of Virtual PC. So whats the difference? Do you understand what I mean?

Being able to run Windows within a virtual machine on a host OS is hardly the same thing as the hardware being able to boot Windows. It's not even relevant.

[olePigeon]

At this point, if it'll be possible to run Windows on a new Mac without any hurdles, the future for development of OS X applications seems very bleak.

Microsoft may not have to do anything for Apple to give up on computers completely and become a media company. From an economic standpoint, seriously, why would a company spend time and money on a special OS X version if you can just install Windows?

It's all about money. Even if OS X proves itself to still be better than Windows Vista and anything Microsoft has to offer, it's not going to change buying trends as IT sectors in business still promote Microsoft for absolutely everything while simultaneously telling their bosses that Apples are not professional computers.

It's a 20-year-old sterotype that doesn't look like it's going to change.

I really hope Apple knows what they're doing. That there's some special reaon why developing for OS X is so much better than Windows; that it can be at least as, or more, profitable than writing for Windows.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

At this point, if it'll be possible to run Windows on a new Mac without any hurdles, the future for development of OS X applications seems very bleak.

The only thing Apple has said is that they will not do anything to prevent people from running Windows on their machines. What is implied by that statement is, "if they're willing to try."

If Apple's new motherboards use enough custom chips (and you know they will), people will have a very hard time trying to run Windows on the machine. It will be an unsupported configuration at any rate.

I'm sure Apple knows what they're doing, and despite what Mr. Big Mac says, they will not be Apple branded Intel PCs.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Person Man

The only thing Apple has said is that they will not do anything to prevent people from running Windows on their machines. What is implied by that statement is, "if they're willing to try."

If Apple's new motherboards use enough custom chips (and you know they will), people will have a very hard time trying to run Windows on the machine. It will be an unsupported configuration at any rate.

I'm sure Apple knows what they're doing, and despite what Mr. Big Mac says, they will not be Apple branded Intel PCs.

That's a good point. I guess we won't know for sure until they're released. I sure hope Apple keeps with the awesome looking motherboards like with the G5s. Maybe it's just me, but seeing 200 huge capaciters all over a motherboard with pink, lime, and lavender colors and cables coming out of every end is just... well, UGLY. Blue motherboards with gold leads, no visible cables, and polished heatsinks is cool.

I wonder if Microsoft knew about the impending switch to Intel when they bought Connectix? I can now see VirtualPC selling pertty darn well for Intel Macs if it means a near native speed Windows running on top of OS X, WITH accellerated video.

[besson3c]

I'm willing to bet that Apple won't allow Virtual PC to take all the glory of providing the Windows layer.

There are several options:

- hardware machine virtualization

- software OS virtualization via something like Xen (many Unix server providers are providing so-called dedicated servers this way)

- Windows API mimicking ala Wine

- VMWare

- Other OSS OS emulation/virtualization

- Some homegrown Apple thing


Keep in mind that emulation will become a term of the past. We are not emulating here, we are virtualizing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm willing to bet that Apple won't allow Virtual PC to take all the glory of providing the Windows layer.

No glory to be had there, son.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No glory to be had there, son.

Not to us, but don't underestimate the attraction this will offer to businesses needing to run specialized Windows apps!

[wdlove]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Not to us, but don't underestimate the attraction this will offer to businesses needing to run specialized Windows apps!

Interesting. Willing to chat if you would like.

[Hash]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Being able to run Windows within a virtual machine on a host OS is hardly the same thing as the hardware being able to boot Windows. It's not even relevant.

As you already read from other replies, it is quite relevant. The issue is that both Intel hardware transition as well improvement of VirtualPC software have same result - better compatibility and execution of Windows and Windows applications on Mac systems. So, the impact of Intel transition is virtually same as faster or better Virtual PC. We can analyze and predict the impact on Mac OS applications development by judging to what extent had VPC impacted Mac development before.
Now, ability to run Windows apps and ability to run Windows itself are two different things as well, but i will leave it aside for the time being.

I think that we have to ask ourselves a more general question - why does Mac OS X and Mac systems sell, despite having Windows and Windows PC hardware available for sometime much cheaper price? It goes without saying that Windows PCs execute Windows apps without any emulation MUCH better than any VPC on Mac. Yet, Mac systems sell. Why despite Windows market being so larger, people and companies continue to develop for Macs? If we answer these questions correctly, then we can answer the main question as well - does transition to Intel hardware and presumable better execution of Windows with or without VPC affect Mac app development?

My answer is as follows: people buy Macs because Mac OS X is a superior computing platform, due to its anti-virus strength, traditional stronghold in graphics, video and perhaps audio, better user interface, ease of use and so on. It had its shortcomings, namely slower processors and generally outdated architechture, partially solved by G5 transition, which added however, huge costs in R&D and other areas. It never was impacted by VPC development or ability/inability to execute Windows software. However, I remember early Macs being able to run Windows by having special MS DOS cards and so on, and if anything, these cards made Macs better choice, cause you had Macs AND could run Windows software as an added bonus.

Therefore, ability to run Windows either through directly hardware or software emulation has nothing to do with the traditional strength of Mac OS. They remain intact, and perhaps Vista will not be able to catch either. So Macs will continue to sell. And they will sell even better because they will run not on custom-made chips but on best chips available in PC world and no longer lag in development. They will also have comparable prices since no longer R&D budget will be spent for development of OS for very special processors like G5 or G4 but rather will be spread or combined with Intel R&D (not directly of course, but in terms of results). It will imply lower costs, better processors, great battery life, better PC hardware compatibility, wider availability of PC parts such as audio and graphic cards.

So you have PC hardware strength now combined with Mac OS strength as OS. For me, its unbeatable combination. So, Mac OS market will expand.

And here we have a second question. With the Macs ability to run Windows software, will Mac developers continue to develop for Mac OS?

The key is here Windows OS execution. If Macs will run Windows apps WITHOUT running Windows PC - direct emulation- already demonstrated by running Notepad.exe on PC with Mac Intel OS without installing Windows itself, it will have a very strange and uncertain result. Let's presume that Windows apps will be executed by Mac intels or new VPC versions at speeds near native execution (otherwise, there is nothing changed with current situation)

It will create new hybrid software, able to run on Mac intel and Windows PCs, formally designed for Windows market, but actually with Mac intels ability to run it in mind.

It will have zero impact on development of Macs-only software (cause Mac share will continue to expand at even faster rates given first class hardware, lower prices and parts availability). It has an ambigious impact on software with both PC and Mac versions - some may prefer to scale down, especially Adobe and concentrate on Windows only apps. But this will be bad for Adobe too, as it will be gradually replaced by other software vendors, maybe even Apple itself, and in long run no longer Adobe will be the king of graphic software. Except of Adobe apps and perhaps Office, I can't think of other software vendors having difficulties with dual version development.

PC games running on Macs without Windows will be another great thing.

And it will have crushing impact for Windows OS and Microsoft. Imagine - you do not need Windows to run Windows apps!

Why would you bother buying Windows OS then? To run Windows MovieMaker or solitaire? There will be zero reasons.

And it will shrink Windows share faster and faster and expand Macs share more and more. And if Windows share in some near future will shrink to say less than 50% of the market, why bother developing Windows versions if you can concentrate on Mac versions (by then I guess Mac OS X for PCs will be released )? The only reason will be users with legacy Windows apps if the particular software vendor aims to capture that market as well.

Anyway, we are entering a very strange, uncertain world where the only certain thing is Mac share is going to expand further, Windows will be crushed and Macs emerge triumphant winners.

But it will be in the long run

[Hash]

Oh, forgot to say that the Windows software able to run on Mac Intels, no longer can be called Windows software - it will be hybrid software, able to run on multiple platforms thanks to Intel chips in Macs. You cannot call them Windows software anymore. And THAT hybrid software for Macs (as well as Windows PCs) WILL BE CONTINUED to developed by Adobe and the company. Guess, its answer to the question, isnt it? Repeat after me - hybrid multiplatform software - just check the box for Windows compatibility

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Hash

The key is here Windows OS execution. If Macs will run Windows apps WITHOUT running Windows PC - direct emulation- already demonstrated by running Notepad.exe on PC with Mac Intel OS without installing Windows itself, it will have a very strange and uncertain result. Let's presume that Windows apps will be executed by Mac intels or new VPC versions at speeds near native execution (otherwise, there is nothing changed with current situation)

Wha-what? Link please.

Oh and keep in mind that anything more complex than Notepad probably requires Windows-API's up the wazoo to run and can't run without Windows or a WINE-style layer.

[Hash]

Of course, it does require WINE layer, but read here:

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2005-11-20/#4756

"Running Windows apps on OSX86 - Lionel - 21:29:23

We've been hesitating a long time before putting these findings online, but since plenty of sites have published articles about the installation of OSX X86 on branded PCs without facing censorship, here they are:

I just wanted to tell you about a hack I experimented on my PC (I didn't really know what to do with it since I bought a Power Mac). It was surprisingly simple:
I installed OSX86 and then Darwine. These are both simple operations. Now if I double-click on "Notepad.exe", it just runs !
This is how it works:
Now that OSX runs on Intel (or even on AMD as far as I'm concerned...), it is possible to run Wine - a soft coming from the Linux world and whose aim is to provide a Windows environment - WITHOUT emulation. Thus an application such as Notepad.exe, which is compiled for '86 CPUs, can be run as long as the calls to Windows services are supported (opening a window, a menu, managing the mouse...). An obvious exemple is Microsoft Office (the Windows version - Microsoft hasn't compiled it for a Linux environment, of course...), which runs with Linux thanks to CrossOffice, a commercial version of Wine.
Same story for OS X in a few months. Darwine is the OS X86 port of Wine. The fact that I could make my "Mac-Intel" notepad-compatible with basic versions of Darwine in 10 minutes means that, within a few months, most small Windows applications which have no equivalent on OS X will be runable without emulation, that is: with speed.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the Intel transition will have big consequences on Windows market share and that Apple is well aware of it. From there, we could even suppose that the transition has nothing to do with problems about the PowerPCs, but is indeed a step to implement a hegemonic system able to run OSX, Windows and Linux application.

To tell the truth, this concept is sure sexier than having to set a MacIntel on DualBoot. It opens wide horizons for those who have to stick to Windows because of some specific soft. Some will argue that this would mark the end of the develoment of native OSX applications. But indeed, it would be such a relief not to have to bother wether or not such app exists on OSX... At the end of the day, this whole business might even be more a threat for Micrsosoft than for Apple."

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Hash

And they will sell even better because they will run not on custom-made chips but on best chips available in PC world and no longer lag in development.

Have you seen a shipping Intel Macintosh? How do you know they will not use custom-made chips? Don't you think having a few custom-made chips (which won't be found in any generic PC) will be to Apple's advantage in keeping OS X x86 off of non-Mac hardware?

I agree with most of what you said, but don't mention speculation like the above, as fact, because the bottom line is that NOBODY but Apple knows what chips are going into the new Macs.

[sworthy]

If windows apps can't run without windows, then we're all forgetting that users would have to pony up a few hundred bucks just to be able to install other apps. That's a pretty large switching cost right there, and most users won't do it unless there are multiple or absolutely critical windows apps that they need to run.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

At this point, if it'll be possible to run Windows on a new Mac without any hurdles, the future for development of OS X applications seems very bleak.

Microsoft may not have to do anything for Apple to give up on computers completely and become a media company. From an economic standpoint, seriously, why would a company spend time and money on a special OS X version if you can just install Windows?

It's all about money. Even if OS X proves itself to still be better than Windows Vista and anything Microsoft has to offer, it's not going to change buying trends as IT sectors in business still promote Microsoft for absolutely everything while simultaneously telling their bosses that Apples are not professional computers.

It's a 20-year-old sterotype that doesn't look like it's going to change.

I really hope Apple knows what they're doing. That there's some special reaon why developing for OS X is so much better than Windows; that it can be at least as, or more, profitable than writing for Windows.

I simply don't agree. It's one thing if we could run Windows applications on OS X (that would be horrible), but "Oh, just reboot into windows" just isn't a good enough answer for me, and my spending dollars. It WOULD hurt companies like Dell... because I wouldn't need to buy one for the rare occasion where I needed to run a Windows application.

Sales Pitch: If you don't like the Mac mini... you can always run Windows on it.
IMHO, I think potential switchers would be a little more likely to buy if they knew that they could always go back to Windows.

[Hash]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Have you seen a shipping Intel Macintosh? How do you know they will not use custom-made chips? Don't you think having a few custom-made chips (which won't be found in any generic PC) will be to Apple's advantage in keeping OS X x86 off of non-Mac hardware?

I agree with most of what you said, but don't mention speculation like the above, as fact, because the bottom line is that NOBODY but Apple knows what chips are going into the new Macs.

With all the speculations about Yonah in incoming macs, I haven't found any information about custom-made Intel processors for Macs. Even now OS X runs on standard 915 motherboards with standard Pentium 4. Now, if Apple does not release officially OS X for PC and if you install OS X on non-Apple Intel chipset and motherboard, your configuration will not be supported. As simple as it is. Even if you have a configuration similar to motherboards in incoming Macs, but the PC is self-assembled, Dell and so on, you get no support. Even without ANY special or custom chips you are limited in your choices.

Now, all kinds of pirates and hackers will install OS X on their PCs. But guess what - average computer user is nor a hacker neither pirate and just wants normal support, normal work and so on. So for them it does not make any sense to install pirated OS on their computers which may not support OS X at all (eg AMD or older Intel chipsets). Why bother? Just buy cheapest Mac (mini or a new mid-tower aka Cube), use it and have things done.

And as the practice has shown, you cannot stop hackers. So let them have fun and play with OS X. So now you have OS X installed on normal Intel Macs with Applecare or normal support, installed on cheap PCs (belonging to hackers, pirates, etc) without support, and you increase your installed base. I would say that Apple SHOULD let OS X get pirated and hacked. It is best way to increase installed base and penetrate new markets. Hackers love to play with various hardware configurations and will be best testers. When they grow up, they will buy normal Intel Macs. I see no point in special or custom chips for Macs from Intel just to stop pirating. It is meaningless. Larger the installed base, larger the customer base for Apple software, iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, whatever. Apple almost gives away iApps, so why bother with antihacker moves? SoftwareUpdate can identify that the computer is not supported so any Leopard updates will not be installed. And I bet that 10.5.1 will be released in few weeks after official Leopard release - just to limit the hackers to original Mac Intel hardware. Sure, you can hack updates as well, but no normal computer user will ever bother with it.

So you have low-cost standard PC architechture and limit pirates by simply software updates and lack of support. And you get huge increase in installed base. The installed base is what matters.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Hash

Oh, forgot to say that the Windows software able to run on Mac Intels, no longer can be called Windows software - it will be hybrid software, able to run on multiple platforms thanks to Intel chips in Macs. You cannot call them Windows software anymore. And THAT hybrid software for Macs (as well as Windows PCs) WILL BE CONTINUED to developed by Adobe and the company. Guess, its answer to the question, isnt it? Repeat after me - hybrid multiplatform software - just check the box for Windows compatibility

I wish framework and graphics support were as simple as putting in a checkbox. We could do that right now.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Hash

With all the speculations about Yonah in incoming macs, I haven't found any information about custom-made Intel processors for Macs. Even now OS X runs on standard 915 motherboards with standard Pentium 4. Now, if Apple does not release officially OS X for PC and if you install OS X on non-Apple Intel chipset and motherboard, your configuration will not be supported. As simple as it is. Even if you have a configuration similar to motherboards in incoming Macs, but the PC is self-assembled, Dell and so on, you get no support. Even without ANY special or custom chips you are limited in your choices.

Now, all kinds of pirates and hackers will install OS X on their PCs. But guess what - average computer user is nor a hacker neither pirate and just wants normal support, normal work and so on. So for them it does not make any sense to install pirated OS on their computers which may not support OS X at all (eg AMD or older Intel chipsets). Why bother? Just buy cheapest Mac (mini or a new mid-tower aka Cube), use it and have things done.

And as the practice has shown, you cannot stop hackers. So let them have fun and play with OS X. So now you have OS X installed on normal Intel Macs with Applecare or normal support, installed on cheap PCs (belonging to hackers, pirates, etc) without support, and you increase your installed base. I would say that Apple SHOULD let OS X get pirated and hacked. It is best way to increase installed base and penetrate new markets. Hackers love to play with various hardware configurations and will be best testers. When they grow up, they will buy normal Intel Macs. I see no point in special or custom chips for Macs from Intel just to stop pirating. It is meaningless. Larger the installed base, larger the customer base for Apple software, iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, whatever. Apple almost gives away iApps, so why bother with antihacker moves? SoftwareUpdate can identify that the computer is not supported so any Leopard updates will not be installed. And I bet that 10.5.1 will be released in few weeks after official Leopard release - just to limit the hackers to original Mac Intel hardware. Sure, you can hack updates as well, but no normal computer user will ever bother with it.

So you have low-cost standard PC architechture and limit pirates by simply software updates and lack of support. And you get huge increase in installed base. The installed base is what matters.

Yes, but Apple has said that the Transition Kit is not to be used to determine what the final shipping computers will be like. They HAD to use off-the-shelf hardware to get things into developer's hands QUICKLY.

If Apple wants people to run Intel OS X on non-Apple hardware then they wouldn't be messing with a TPM chip or other things to prevent it. They can make it much harder if they use a few custom chips along with Intel chipsets. And it's not just to halt pirating, either. Apple will do something to make it less of a generic PC (as SOME people would have you believe).

Again, we don't know for sure what Apple is going to do until they actually release a machine and we can see what kinds of chips they're using. My earlier post was just to say don't present speculation as fact, that's all.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Have you seen a shipping Intel Macintosh? How do you know they will not use custom-made chips? Don't you think having a few custom-made chips (which won't be found in any generic PC) will be to Apple's advantage in keeping OS X x86 off of non-Mac hardware?

I agree with most of what you said, but don't mention speculation like the above, as fact, because the bottom line is that NOBODY but Apple knows what chips are going into the new Macs.

My guess is they're going to use stock Intel chipsets. I don't think Intel will have it any other way, and I think Apple will be glad to not have to design the chipsets anymore. Makes Macs cheaper to produce and faster to design and get to market.

[tooki]

FWIW, a friend of mine who works at Microsoft out in Redmond says that everyone there is waiting to see the Intel Apple machines, because they all think Apple makes awesome hardware. They just wanna be able to run Windows on it!

tooki

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by goMac

My guess is they're going to use stock Intel chipsets. I don't think Intel will have it any other way, and I think Apple will be glad to not have to design the chipsets anymore. Makes Macs cheaper to produce and faster to design and get to market.

Perhaps. But it's just a guess. People are already stating it as fact. That's what I'm against.

I think Apple will use some Intel chipsets. But I also think they will have one or two custom made chips as well, because it will differentiate a Mac from a generic PC.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by tooki

FWIW, a friend of mine who works at Microsoft out in Redmond says that everyone there is waiting to see the Intel Apple machines, because they all think Apple makes awesome hardware. They just wanna be able to run Windows on it!

tooki

I had a friend back in Seattle who was a Windows biggot and had friends back in the Windows development labs. He said they kept a Mac in there to "see why people like them so much." I always had thought it was funny because it was part of his argument as to why Macs suck.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by goMac

...He said they kept a Mac in there to "see why people like them so much...

Heh, I guess they never quite figured it out!

tooki

[Hash]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Perhaps. But it's just a guess. People are already stating it as fact. That's what I'm against.

I think Apple will use some Intel chipsets. But I also think they will have one or two custom made chips as well, because it will differentiate a Mac from a generic PC.

They are already differentiated by running OS X but other than that, i do not know if there is any need to differentiate. I simply do not see any meaning in differentiation. Surely they will have awesome design, Apple nice touch, great software, great OS. My guess is that maybe they will use only a slightly modified motherboard, but standard chipset?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hash

They are already differentiated by running OS X but other than that, i do not know if there is any need to differentiate. I simply do not see any meaning in differentiation. Surely they will have awesome design, Apple nice touch, great software, great OS. My guess is that maybe they will use only a slightly modified motherboard, but standard chipset?

Well, for the laptops and Mac Mini they'll probably be moving around the positions of the chips, but I'd guess everything is going to be standard.

Myself, I'm looking forward to going down to Fry's and picking up any old Intel processor to upgrade my Mac.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well, for the laptops and Mac Mini they'll probably be moving around the positions of the chips, but I'd guess everything is going to be standard.

Myself, I'm looking forward to going down to Fry's and picking up any old Intel processor to upgrade my Mac.

I seriously doubt you'll be able to do that.

[Hash]

Interestingly, I hope Firewire will be included. It is standard on high-mid end PC mainboards.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

I seriously doubt you'll be able to do that.

Well, the alternative is that Intel sets up a custom line for Apple with the pins on their chips all different. But I doubt Intel is going to do that.

I can see in the Mac Mini and the 'books the chips being non-replacable. Maybe in the iMac. In the PowerMac? Seriously doubt it.

[Hash]

I wonder how they will call the processor inside the Mac and how it will be branded. IntelMac
Mac G6
Mac Intel 440 (or whatever)
Mac Pentium 5
Mac Centrino 2
InMac
?

[Goldfinger]

They won't change the names, seriously. Why should they ? And the PowerMac will probably just be called PowerMac G6 (or PowerMac somethingelse). They won't drop the "Power" because they ditched PowerPC. The iMac will still be called iMac, the iBook iBook and the PowerBook PowerBook.

[olePigeon]

Interesting naming convention:

iBook
PowerBook
iMac
Power Mac <-- Has a space

Wonder why?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Interesting naming convention:

iBook
PowerBook
iMac
Power Mac <-- Has a space

Wonder why?

Comes from Power Macintosh, which is what they were called until the G4 appeared.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Comes from Power Macintosh, which is what they were called until the G4 appeared.

I know. Just wondering why they didn't rid of the space in the name.

Of course, I'm still wondering why they put brushed metal everywhere.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Perhaps. But it's just a guess. People are already stating it as fact. That's what I'm against.

I think Apple will use some Intel chipsets. But I also think they will have one or two custom made chips as well, because it will differentiate a Mac from a generic PC.

There is no reason to run 'custom' chips. The northbridge and southbridge chipsets serve specific functions which are tied to industry standard architecture (such as memory controllers) - and any other 'chip' (audio, modem, USB) is merely tied to an existing bus, ie PCI. I highly doubt Apple will have special RAM modules manufactured for its products, nor any special hardware that requires a proprietary interface. It would be prohibitively expensive and wouldn't work as well as the technology already being used. Development of Hypertransport and other 'industry standard' architecture took a lot of time and money...and pretty much all related hardware is designed to interface with these 'industry standards'.

Unless Apple is going to develop its own busses and memory controllers, the 'custom chips' will serve absolutely no function - and wouldn't be able to prevent an x86 operating system from being installed. There are no 'extra' chips on motherboards - there are simply busses that connect hardware - and a means to intelligently control the hardware's interaction with the busses.

While Apple's chipsets might not be made by Intel (or SiS or Via, or nVidia), Apple's chipset will do exactly what any other x86-based PC chipset is already doing.

If Apple wants to make it difficult for their machines to boot into Windows, my guess is that they'll restrict it at the BIOS level. And they'll use a standard 2MB or 4MB flashROM which would require a re-flash with a 'compatible' binary file in order to boot in the same manner as a PC. Re-flashing the BIOS would result in the Apple machine no longer being able to boot a Mac OS. So then, you'd have to re-flash the ROM back to the Apple binary...or physically swap 2 ROMs in/out of the socket in order to change the OS back and forth.

[goMac]

Of course Apple has stated they do not intend to block people from loading Windows, and recently issued a patent on a process to get Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X triple booting on a Mac easily...

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well, the alternative is that Intel sets up a custom line for Apple with the pins on their chips all different. But I doubt Intel is going to do that.

No, but they could take a standard chip and permanently attach it to a daughtercard with whatever pinout they wanted. Apple has done it before; there's no reason they couldn't do it again.

Of course, eventually Sonnet and Newer and their ilk eventually found ways to produce processor upgrades. But it took them long enough that by the time they'd come out with upgrades for a particular model, Apple had usually replaced it with a new model anyway, and thus the cycle continued.

[production_coordinator]

I've always assumed that Apple kept Yellow Box going... in the same way they kept the x86 port of OS X going...

Yellow Box
I've long assumed that Apple hasn't let this die. Once we make the transition to x86, and if Apple released a Yellow Box environment for Windows... you could write one program in xCode and release it for OS X and all of the modern Windows environments. It would also run at native speeds on all of the platforms. This would make a very appealing reason to write small and medium programs for OS X... especially considering the price of Xcode... free.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by goMac

Of course Apple has stated they do not intend to block people from loading Windows

No, but they're probably not going to deliberately make it easy to do so, either.

Probably the same situation as with Mac OS 9. People claimed Apple was deliberately blocking OS 9 from running (and that such a block could then be removed), when what they were really doing was simply not updating Mac OS 9 to run on the new machines.

They are concentrating on getting the Mac OS booting on the machine. They're not doing anything to ensure that Windows will boot. It is unsupported. They're not actively doing anything to prevent it either (which is what they said they're doing).

It will be up to Microsoft and the hackers to get it running on new Apple hardware.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I know. Just wondering why they didn't rid of the space in the name.

"PowerBook" was around long before the Power Macintosh. It was just a cool name for a laptop. The "Power" in Power Macintosh referred to Apple's new processor line. Hence why there was a space.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac

I said if you compile now on an unreleased version of OS X x86 you're not guaranteed to have your binary run on the final systems.. You just repeated what I said.

Are you just trying to argue with me? You just repeated what I said.

FYI: For the record, I'm a select member who went to WWDC. I really doubt you have any information I don't.

So here we are, a few weeks later, and another statement by goMac where he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

So, he says above that if I compile then for deployment, it's not going to work on final systems. Oh, and he's a Select member who went to WWDC. Very nice, very nice.

YOU'RE WRONG.

How do I know this? Well, WEEKS before you made this completely uneducated statment, I built deployment code for OS X x86. Not only was it deployment, but it was APPROVED BY APPLE AND IT'S ON THE OS X INTEL DVD. As I said, I was under NDA and couldn't say anything, but now that the Intel builds are out, I can say that I was working on something for the Apple OS X 10.4.4 Intel installer DVD for months. Therefore, you're wrong. I tried telling you this, but Mr. Select Member Who Went To WWDC is trying to argue with me, who has a Premiere account, and a relationship with people from Apple, and actually has something on the installer DVD.

Christ, goMac, you really have to stop playing with the big boys. You talk smack, but you don't know squat. I'm sure you're very smart, but there's a lot you have to learn....like when someone tells you that you're wrong, you might actually BE WRONG.

Mike

[willed]

Originally Posted by starman

So here we are, a few weeks later, and another statement by goMac where he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

So, he says above that if I compile then for deployment, it's not going to work on final systems. Oh, and he's a Select member who went to WWDC. Very nice, very nice.

YOU'RE WRONG.

How do I know this? Well, WEEKS before you made this completely uneducated statment, I built deployment code for OS X x86. Not only was it deployment, but it was APPROVED BY APPLE AND IT'S ON THE OS X INTEL DVD. As I said, I was under NDA and couldn't say anything, but now that the Intel builds are out, I can say that I was working on something for the Apple OS X 10.4.4 Intel installer DVD for months. Therefore, you're wrong. I tried telling you this, but Mr. Select Member Who Went To WWDC is trying to argue with me, who has a Premiere account, and a relationship with people from Apple, and actually has something on the installer DVD.

Christ, goMac, you really have to stop playing with the big boys. You talk smack, but you don't know squat. I'm sure you're very smart, but there's a lot you have to learn....like when someone tells you that you're wrong, you might actually BE WRONG.

Mike

You feel better now you've got that off your chest?

Pretty cool to be working for Apple on this project though. Nice one

[- - e r i k - -]

Wow. For a big-shot developer you really come out as a jerk here. Fame got to your head?

[Hash]

erik, what, you woke up from month-long sleep to revive the old thread?