Sealed Box Speculation

spartspart
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
This pop into anyone elses mind yet? Remember all the people saying they had messed with sealed boxes from Apple that were lightning fast? Could it be that the boxes were x86es running ported versions of OS X and 9? Don't shoot me down because all the apps would have to be recompiled...who knows...they may have written some kind of background emulation...they did with the transition from 68k to PPC.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Gee, let's make a new thread concerning X on x86, I bet that no one here has discussed it.







    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
  • Reply 1 of 30
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    Maybe they sealed the machines because they didn't want the tiny little people inside to escape?
  • Reply 3 of 30
    icomicom Posts: 41member
    [quote]Originally posted by jamiemarshall:

    <strong>Maybe they sealed the machines because they didn't want the tiny little people inside to escape?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, They bit me in the finger once
  • Reply 4 of 30
    suckfuldotcomsuckfuldotcom Posts: 550member
    yeah, the OS group, who aren't even finished with OS X yet (hello, Jaguar?) have had the time to build a compatibility layer......seems reasonable.



    For me to poop on.



    SdC
  • Reply 4 of 30
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>Gee, let's make a new thread concerning X on x86, I bet that no one here has discussed it.







    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    yeah I know I have explained it like 100Xs!!



    From the Tech TV thread in GD:



    I dont think this will happen. Apps would have to be recompiled and all of the "perks" that Apple has with the PPC would be gone. (IE no AltiVec) So any company that spent resouces coding for things like that would have wasted money and not be happy with Apple.



    Also, would be on par with switching from 68k macs to PPC WHILE IN THE MIDDLE of the trasition to OSX. It would be a nightmare. Not to mention the fact that going from 68k to PPC is a baby step compared with going from PPC to x86. &lt;http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/rolleyes.gif&gt;



    -Paul
  • Reply 6 of 30
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:

    <strong>

    For me to poop on.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    LOL
  • Reply 7 of 30
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Still, those reports of ultra-fast sealed boxes are interesting. Could they be G5s? Do they have some sort of hardware acceleration for Aqua/Quartz?



    ?
  • Reply 8 of 30
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>Gee, let's make a new thread concerning X on x86, I bet that no one here has discussed it.







    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I wish I didn't have to deal with idiots like this everyday....this thread is not about porting OS X to x86, it's about what exactly those boxes were that Apple sent our "insiders". <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



  • Reply 9 of 30
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by Spart:

    <strong>



    I wish I didn't have to deal with idiots like this everyday....this thread is not about porting OS X to x86, it's about what exactly those boxes were that Apple sent our "insiders". <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    But since X on x86 is being discussed right now in at least two other threads here, you could have posted it there.
  • Reply 10 of 30
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    I'm just saying there has to be some big reason why Apple would seal those boxes. I really don't think that just shoving in a new proc is something...wouldn't be worth the trouble. It has to be something like the Raycer chip or an Intel Inside ::shudder::.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    I know someone who has managed to get OS X running on a windows machine. The GUI does not qwork and he tried it on four machines and could only get it to work on one.



    He is a Linux Geek and I don't know any more than that.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    [quote]Originally posted by Spart:

    <strong>



    I wish I didn't have to deal with idiots like this everyday</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not very smart Spart. JLL may have two post less than you here but all his are of highest quality. Get it?



    __________________







    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 30
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:

    <strong>I know someone who has managed to get OS X running on a windows machine. The GUI does not qwork and he tried it on four machines and could only get it to work on one.



    He is a Linux Geek and I don't know any more than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Nope, no GUI automatically implies it is not OSX. I am almost certain that he has got <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/"; target="_blank">Darwin</a> running on x86, which it can do for a limited range of configurations, this is what underlays OSX, but is not the same as OSX.



    Michael
  • Reply 14 of 30
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]Still, those reports of ultra-fast sealed boxes are interesting. Could they be G5s? Do they have some sort of hardware acceleration for Aqua/Quartz?<hr></blockquote>

    What reports? You mean a couple of posts on Appleinsider. Its like everyone else quoting G5 benchmarks from The Register and MacOSRumors, and assuming remarkable performance f the part of the G5. All of this is highly speculative and very bogus, but if repeated enough it becomes fact. Do this often enough and you can start your religion.
  • Reply 15 of 30
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    From AI Forums and MOSR. Note that the title of the thread says speculation.
  • Reply 16 of 30
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by mmicist:

    <strong>



    indubitably guilty of floccinaucinihilipilification.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Watch you don't catch pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis!



    J :cool:
  • Reply 17 of 30
    doctorgonzodoctorgonzo Posts: 529member
    [quote]I dont think this will happen. Apps would have to be recompiled and all of the "perks" that Apple has with the PPC would be gone. (IE no AltiVec)<hr></blockquote>



    Your opinion of Altivec's importance to developers does not mesh with reality.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Supposedly Apple has tied a lot of its own OS X code to AltiVec. But then again, doesn't the kernel handle all talk with the hardware?



    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 30
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by jamiemarshall:

    <strong>



    Watch you don't catch pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis!



    J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Damn, how did you know I had that? A form of hypochondria isn't it?



    Michael (An expatriate Scot)
  • Reply 20 of 30
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by mmicist:

    <strong>



    Damn, how did you know I had that? A form of hypochondria isn't it?



    Michael (An expatriate Scot)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Someone from Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch told me you have it. It's a lung disease caused by the inhalation of very fine silica dust.



    J :cool:
Sign In or Register to comment.