Cupertino had prototype OSX running on x86. Then give us Centrino Powerbook!

jindrichjindrich
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
This is a thought i've been entertaining as of late.



OSX is an evolution of what Next OS was a few years ago. Job's computer used to be a x86 laptop running the afformentioned OS, when he was out of Apple and CEO of Next.

We also know Apple has been (secretely) running/testing OSX on x86 boxes, *just in case*.



With Moto's G4 stuck at 500 sometime ago and with the infamous Jobs' episode of *throwing the phone across the room while talking to Moto*, Apple decided to "go shopping" for alternative CPUs.

We now of IBM's 970 now, although absolutely nothing has been confirmed as of yet, following Apple's (uncomprehensively) road maps' secrecy.

But there was discussions about AMD and intel as well.

Besides, Jobs is speaking ant Intel shows. Pixar switches to intel for the farms. Hmmmm....



And Jobs recently said, when asked: "we like options".





Sooo, (science-fiction starts) WHAT IF we could have a Centrino Lapzilla?



-Running NATIVELY OSX (adapted for x86)

-Running XP as well.



think about it. The best ever laptop, with 5 hours of REAL Batt life, filled with 2GB of RAM (like centrinos laptops), NATIVELY running BOTH OSX and XP -almost- simultaneously (but not concurrently):

Say you assign 1GB RAM to each OS (both loaded at startup), and with a single click you zapp the cpu's cache, sending one of the OS to *sleep*, and switch from Xp to OSX, forth and back, in say just about 5 seconds.



I'll kill for one of those machines.



And Cupertino, face this: you could sell this Lapzilla to Wintel users AS WELL (think about widening percentage users in one go). (And dont tell me Apple wants nothing to do with Windows. VPC is essential to University/PRO users.)

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    Why offer x86-macs in just the portable line? Why not the whole product line, or none of it?



    I don't see the great benefit of moving the 'Books to x86, when this will require a huge engineering-effort (for the OS, and more), recompiled and possibly overhauled applications and etc., which has been covered pretty well in the other x86 threads. Moving the 'Books to Centrino, or other x86 low-power processors will only happen when (or more correct: if) Apple moves everything from PPC to x86.



    I'm not even sure if the Centrino has anything to offer over the G4 or 970 low-power versions. Performance? Little, if any. Lower power? Absolutely not!



    Apple will stick with the G4, and probably the 970 too. The 7457 offers 10-watt power consumption at 1GHz, the 970 is estimated at 19W @ 1.2Ghz.



    Code:




    Pentium-M 1.60 1.60GHz/600MHz 1.48V/0.96V 24.5W

    Pentium-M 1.50 1.50GHz/600MHz 1.48V/0.96V 24.5W

    Pentium-M 1.40 1.40GHz/600MHz 1.48V/0.96V 24.5W

    Pentium-M 1.30 1.30GHz/600MHz 1.39V/0.96V 22.0W

    Low Voltage Pentium-M 1.10 1.10GHz/600MHz 1.18V/0.96V 12W

    Ultra Low V Pentium-M 900 900MHz/600MHz 1.00V/0.84V 7W







    numbers fetched from anandtech.com
  • Reply 2 of 10
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Why does everyone think it is so simple as having the operating system funtion on x86? Do you run an operating system and no other applications? Do you think the developers would all just say "WHOA! Apple just switched to x86! We better get out x86 versions of all our products STAT!!!!"
  • Reply 3 of 10
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Is every new x86 CPU/architecture bolt on going to be accompanied by a thread like this?



    Is that 970 at 19W peak or mean power? Could be nice if it's manufacturing process is shrunk/has suitable low power modes.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Stoo



    Is that 970 at 19W peak or mean power



    Typical/Average.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    grad studentgrad student Posts: 184member
    the only reasonable stratagies for apple that would include Intel/x86/itanium/opteron64:



    apple switches all new machines to one of the mentioned architectures, and provides some form of compatibility between ppc and new arcitecture boxes... this is the less likely, more difficult option... and would probably demand some form of fat binary/ byte code with native code caches, and a backward compability layer



    the more likely option I would consider would be to ressurect the NeXT brand, and use it for x86 workstations. Provide the ability to run linux/winXP/OSX... use commodity parts, paint the thing black, and charge a *reasonable* premium for good design/engineering/componants. Target large companies, be like dell. If the NeXT boxes eat into mac sales... it won't matter because its still money for apple and the cause. if NeXT box sales totally kill mac sales... then make the mac x86 too, and distinguish the two brands on target markets... if nobody buys a NeXT box... f*ck it and forget about x86...



    the last, and in my mind most dangerous option... is to just license the OS and try to go the software route...
  • Reply 6 of 10
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Don't forget that NeXT was nearly dead when Apple bailed Stevie out. They quickly found out just what kinda bad shape NeXT was really in onnce they bought it.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    anonymous karmaanonymous karma Posts: 174member
    I've seen many stupid posts on this board, but this one takes the cake.



    Centrino is designed to overcome the power-sucking nature of existing 802.11b + chipset combinations for the Mobile P4. It works in conjunction with their new mobile P4s, which run at a lower clock rate but they claim achieve better performance (!). PowerBooks don't need it. The G4 that's used is already effectively a very-low-power part compared to even the new Mobile P4s, and the Apple AirPort has never been as much of a power hog. That's why my TiBook (667 DVI w/60GB and AirPort) can pull out 5 hours on reduced screen brighness, while a Centrino laptop will hit AT MOST 4 hours.



    To top it off, most Centrino laptops are advertised as being ``light and thin'' laptops at 1.5in thick and 4.6lbs WITHOUT a CD drive. My TiBook is 1in thick and 5.4lbs with the combo drive.



    At least it now appears that there are x86 manufacturers who are actually interested in building a laptop and not a luggable
  • Reply 8 of 10
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    ...
  • Reply 9 of 10
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    x86 as we know it is vanishing anyway, why would Apple want to move to that horrible kludge of an CPU architecture?



    Centrino is great for the PC laptop world, which has always made huge sacrifices in performance in exchange for portability. In the Apple world, laptops can keep pace with the desktops pretty damn well.



    There's bsolutely no need for an x86 Mac...especially a laptop. Maybe I could get behind an x86 based NeXT box, but that's about it.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Of all the x86 threads, this is pretty darn close to the worst.



    It's been 99% confirmed that the 970 is going into Apple machines. IBM had a press release specifically mentioning the inclusion of AltiVec in the architecture to satisfy one particular customer (which may or may not have been directly named as Apple in said release).



    Lock.
Sign In or Register to comment.