or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Next Mac - A PC? Boldly going...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Next Mac - A PC? Boldly going...

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
First, a little disclaimer because there are a few things I am probably going to get flamed for if I don't put it:

1. This IS a thread on MacOS (X?) running on an Intel architecture. I am putting it in the Future Hardware forum because there is no longer a Future Software area that I can see, and because hardware in this case constitutes anything that is 1) made by Apple or 2) running the Mac OS ... and this would be the latter. If a MacOS revision is to run on PC architecture, well that certainly is some new hardware for it

2. You can attack the idea all you want, but please don't flame me personally for bringing up what many believe to be a jackassed idea. I'm starting this thread not because I necessarily think this is a wonderful idea but because something I read kinda gave me chills and I'd like to see a discussion on it. On to the post, I'll explain my stance later:


Apple's web site has, as we all know, been hinting at something *big* on the horizon - the future of the PC industry as a whole it seems, the return of Apple to its glory days perhaps, and something leapfrogging our expectations of Apple's capabilities and guts. Today's slogan under the
<a href="http://www.apple.com" target="_blank">Countdown to MWSF</a> is "To Go Where No PC Has Gone Before."

The first thing that struck me about this was the use of the term "PC" on the Apple web site. Although Macs are Personal Computers, the two terms normally don't mix ("PC" seems almost like a dirty word to see in big letters on the Apple site). The second was the obvious Star Trek reference. Combined with yesterdays message, or even not, I found it my duty as an AI regular to come up with the most far-reaching, least-likely, controversial meaning possible (as opposed to pure *hype*, which is probably more likely).

For those who are unaware, Star Trek was a secret project at Apple in the early 90's to port the MacOS to run on the x86 architecture. The "Trekkies" eventually brought their secret to the higher-ups at Apple and gained permission to complete their project. But supporters left the company and it was never released. Although this is something a lot of us know, I read the aformentioned article (see disclaimer) <a href="http://www.geektimes.com/michael/techno/computing/hardware/products/apple/macintosh/misc/project-star-trek.html" target="_blank">here</a> this morning and the last line gave me chills considering the message on Apple's site today.

For those who don't care about the details, it states that on bootup, the screen of the finished machine (after the "happy mac") reads: "Star Trek: Boldly Going Where No Mac Has Gone Before."

Anyone else find this a bit creepy? Consider all the stuff Apple's been posting on its page...

Now for my personal feelings on doing this....basically, I'd give it a cautious go (and then run to the bathroom and puke) if Apple can gain and maintain a hardware edge. And I'm talking about affordable 1GHz iMacs, 1.6GHz G5 towers, and notebooks between 800MHz and 1.2GHz or so. New technologies like AirPort and Gigawire go a long way too. Style and loyalty, along with the advertising the new stores bring, could carry hardware sales IF the hardware is even slightly competitive or even ahead-of-its-time.

At the same time, half of me feels like it's anyone's guess what could happen and hardware sales could reach a plateau rather than rising. They'd have to have a hell of a strategy.

OK, I'm done spewing forth - discuss.

-S

[edit] Like you didn't expect a post this long to need an edit or two [/edit]

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</p>
post #2 of 63
Apple earns most of its money selling hardware, not selling software.
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
post #3 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Notar:
<strong>Apple earns most of its money selling hardware, not selling software.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All the more reason to use a less expensive Athlon CPU.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #4 of 63
[quote] For those who are unaware, Star Trek was a secret project at Apple in the early 90's to port the MacOS to run on the x86 architecture. <hr></blockquote>

Now you're really scaring me! :confused:

I don't understand why Apple would ruin their future hardware sales by porting the Mac OS to PC - But it does fit all the clues you are right.
Think different. But still think.
Reply
Think different. But still think.
Reply
post #5 of 63
Notar, you didn't read his post or what?

[quote] if Apple can gain and maintain a hardware edge. And I'm talking about affordable 1GHz iMacs, 1.6GHz G5 towers, and notebooks between 800MHz and 1.2GHz or so. New technologies like AirPort and Gigawire go a long way too. Style and loyalty, along with the advertising the new stores bring, could carry hardware sales IF the hardware is even slightly competitive or even ahead-of-its-time. <hr></blockquote>
Merdeka!
Reply
Merdeka!
Reply
post #6 of 63
PC is a word used to break a/the barrier in that sentence. If it were to say "where no 'Mac' has cone before." it would restrain from reaching all it is intended for. There is a we are no different value. The broader range makes it all that more inviting to all that see it, and not just a segrigated portion of a group. It appeals to all of the PC community. Smart advertising on Apples part. I hope they blow the doors off my brain with this announcment.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #7 of 63
Is a x86 port of the MacOS really a bad idea? I'm sure that some people who are frustrated with their Wintel boxes would switch, and then maybe switch to Apple hardware as well. Even if it doesn't make much money it seems to make sense to further Apple's survival.
post #8 of 63
Maybe a demo version of the Mac OS that you can use for 24 hours or just a large interactive movie?

Kinda like here's what you guys are missing.

I seriously don't think Apple would port the OS (X probably) to x86 PC's. Even with kick ass hardware Apple would still lose out I think.
Think different. But still think.
Reply
Think different. But still think.
Reply
post #9 of 63
I'm not all that up on technical stuff... but wouldn't it be relatively easy for apple to build hardware around an AMD or Intel processor but have it work exclusively on their machines so that every joe with a wintel would not be able to bring the OS over? Could this not be achieved with a ROM chip or something on the motherboard? (again... i know next to nothing on the techie side) Apple could get some fast processors but it wouldn't hurt their hardware sales.
post #10 of 63
Okay...

It's true that Apple *IS* a hardware company but that's because they have to be... Apple doesn't make money selling the OS and that's because people tend to STEAL it (okay I know nobody HERE does that but it does happen trust me)

Just as Apple doesn't make money on it's OS neither does Microsoft... Infact I think I may have read something were it was stated that MS might loose money on the OS but the sales of the Microsoft Office, Server and Game titles etc etc not to mention the books and certifications are where the money is...

Microsoft was even reported to have said that being #1 in China (where software piracy is like 90%) is very important to them... Why? Well someday they will change their laws (they hope) and when that day does come that means a lot of people will be buying software since they are already hooked and the money will come to MS.

Does anyone here think Apple has the 'other' software titles to do this? Is Apple works gonna be a HUGE hit? Will corporations around the world start site licensing Final Cut Pro? (Filemaker yes but that already runs on the PC)....

So what software/service could Apple sell (to make they money it needs to exist and grow) that would replace the lost hardware sales...

We all know Apple will lose hardware sales... many people here have stated as much... "If I could buy a cheap Dell and run Mac OS (OS X) I'd be happy"

People are cheap and never wanna spend as much as they do for whatever they buy and no matter what the price is... It's human nature. If it sells for $1 people would love to pay 75 cents if they could.

This is where just having the ability to do something isn't enough... Apple could have gone intel long ago and I have no doubt they still could with X but the only way they could/would do it is if they were forced to (no more PPC) or if they think they could make MORE money going to intel because of ?????.

Now if they do go Intel then THAT isn't the major keynote news cause it has to be followed by ????? that will make up for the lost hardware sales...

So we are back to square one... Trying to figure out what ???? is...

Dave

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #11 of 63
Thread Starter 
You guys bring up an interesting point that I forgot to mention. What if an announcement coincided with a switchover to AMD-bassed processors in the Apple hardware line, so that technically you could run just about anything you wanted on their machines (but of course MacOS would remain default)....that alone could increase Apple's hardware sales, no? In any case, I think that such a move would make a Star Trek project a *lot* more realistic.

-S
post #12 of 63
If you rethink that thesis, you'll see that it's crap.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #13 of 63
huumm.. the OS X for PC exists.... or at least there is some evidences, here is the proof...
Use HexEdit and go to the ressources files of the DVD player under 10.1 you'll find those very interesting intruction lines
DisablePIIIsupport..DisableATHLONSupport....Disabl ePIVSupport
Pretty interesting isn't it
:eek: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]</p>
post #14 of 63
I was talking to a friend about AMD the other day (he used to work for them) and he was saying that it wouldn't be too difficult for AMD to manufacture chips for Macs. This would let Apple maintain it'scurrent hardware sales by not using TRUE x86 chips but ones that have been modified to only work on the Mac but at the same time jumping us into the 1.6 or greater arena with the PC's. It didn't sound all that convincing at first but he still swears by it that AMD has the capabilities to make Apple some chips.

Hell I'd LOVE to have an Athlon in my Mac if it would STILL be a mac and not just a pretty PC.

I don't think Apple will ever make a drastic switch overnight like you are suggesting but hey it COULD happen over a period of time.

I was wondering how long it was going to take for the OS X on x86 talk to start. It always seems to pop up a couple days before a big MW.

Mac Guru
"The young people of America need be taught that the only pride they may properly hold is in the content of their character, and the achievements they make. There is no legitimate pride or moral...
Reply
"The young people of America need be taught that the only pride they may properly hold is in the content of their character, and the achievements they make. There is no legitimate pride or moral...
Reply
post #15 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by SpiffyGuyC:
<strong>You guys bring up an interesting point that I forgot to mention. What if an announcement coincided with a switchover to AMD-bassed processors in the Apple hardware line, so that technically you could run just about anything you wanted on their machines (but of course MacOS would remain default)....that alone could increase Apple's hardware sales, no? In any case, I think that such a move would make a Star Trek project a *lot* more realistic.

-S</strong><hr></blockquote>

This stuff has been re-hashed too many time... The problem with that is the software developers would leave the Mac OS (9/X) platform in droves... Software developers don't LIKE to develop for two (or more) platforms they do it only if they feel they can make money selling their software to those who couldn't normally use it... Enter any form of MacOS / Windows combo box and guess what the developer will say great... Mac developer team your fired, no need for you guys now since those boxes Apple sells can now run Windows.

Geezzz I hope that never happens... Damn now that I think about it if VirtualPC were to ever come up with some super secret way to speed up their product and then sell their software on the cheap or just license it to the software developers then this could very well have the same effect... Imagine...

Hi, I have something that could could license and include with your windows product that would allow you to sell the windows version to Mac OS X users....

&&$*(# Why did you make me think about that... Now I'm gonna have nightmares for a week! :eek:

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #16 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Bob Alidilo:
<strong>Is a x86 port of the MacOS really a bad idea? I'm sure that some people who are frustrated with their Wintel boxes would switch, and then maybe switch to Apple hardware as well. Even if it doesn't make much money it seems to make sense to further Apple's survival.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, it is a bad idea.

For a start, Mac users who switch to the new hardware will have to throw away all their old software, and nobody yet has versions for OSX/x86. PC users who switch will have to throw away all their old software, or use windows emulation, which will require a Windows licence, so what's the point. Apple have to try and persuade all the software companies to develop for a new, uncertain, OS, whose users will anyway be able to run the Windows version.
Apple will be in direct competition with Microsoft, who will eat them alive.
Apple also do not have the engineering resources to develop drivers and software for the vast number of different PC configurations out there, so you are probably talking about Apple branded x86 hardware, which would just make the price of the machines look even more outrageous.

There are m ultitude of other reasons as well.

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #17 of 63
@ sapi: this thread is about "the next mac - a pc?" , right? everybody would buy a cheaper hardware and copy MacOS from their friends.

@ Mac Guru: AMD doesn't mean an Athlon, but they can actually produce a PPC-like CPU afaik.
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
post #18 of 63
Now it you wanna go into a deep dark world, just follow me... :eek:

Imagine the MWSF keynote stage (music playing) and then the lights dim and someone (who you can't really make out) walks across the stage and the room explodes into applause... When the lights come back up it's Bad Billy Gates... (crickets could be heard) and intoduces Steve Jobs... they go on to explain that due to the anti-trust trial Microsoft has sold the rights to Windows lock stock and barrel to Apple for $1. Apple has been X-izing MS windows and is now an OS that everyone would love to run! PPC hardware gone.. Apple kills all their hardware and Apple will now make their money from OS license deals from the likes of Dell/Gateway etc...

Hey I told you it was a deep dark place... Now it'll never happen but that is the only way I could come up with for Apple to move to the Intel world...

Dave

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #19 of 63
What about an x86 server based on OS X? This would be a easy way to test the waters and allow Apple to come out with cheap servers.

That said, I don't believe Apple will come out with a version of OS X for x86 (yet). Cocoa for x86, maybe. Full Mac OS X on x86, no.

Cocoa for x86 (which already exists from Next days) would be the best of both worlds. Developers could use a tool that would allow them to develop for Macs and Windoze.
post #20 of 63
Something nobody considered and which was a rumor some time ago is the possibility to reveal a thin client for netbooting which can start up from intel based hardware.
Given the fact that Apple ordered a huge amount of laptop like devices at the Quantas factory could only mean that, maybe the new iMac, this device is some sort of small form factor computer which can do netbooting.
A thin client which can run stand alone also with the combination of existing LCD panels and a small box.
To hype netbooting or an Aqua based X window client even more the only logical option is to introduce a client for intel hardware.
post #21 of 63
DaveGee, you are a devil.
and if you're right, you shall be dead at once.

I'm sitting here in front of my notebook belonging to my company running Windows 2000 and it ain't a really bad system (excluding the hacker ports all over the system), but I love MacOS more than my money, so I pay the extra Apple fee for the hardware, but no one is able to build a proper OS for that Intel trash. not even Apple.
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
post #22 of 63
redbox anyone ?

What if you can use Mac, Unix and Windows software at full speed without emulation and with the Aqua Interface... on all new mac !

Blown Away ?
No PC can do all of that in the same time before monday...

Apple will be in one day the only computer company to sell boxes that can run ANY software !

They say they never move the expo in 18 years and the 1984 Macintosh has 18 years <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #23 of 63
Here is where Apple is so boldly going:

There will be TWO main announcements:

1 Screens: 10-17-19-22-24". Regular and Touch sensitive. FW, GW, Airport, USB, Ethernet, and SuperDrive. All built in.

2 iPod size modules will plug into these screens. CPU module will have Processor, Memory and HD, FW/GW, Head Phone.

Thats it.

Use your imagination and mix and match.

I will have myCPU and 10" in my pocket all the time. At home a 19" screen and at my studio 24".

Widely available peripherals will have FW connectivity.

All I will need to transport is myCPU module in my pocket plugged into my 10" screen.

Beautiful, minimalist, simple.
post #24 of 63
Thread Starter 
I already have a 10" in my pocket. :eek:
post #25 of 63
What if...

Apple does the buyout of the PPC/G4/g5 patents and licensed AMD to create/fab their chips.

What we would get is reliable production and input on MHz.Ghz breakthroughs.

Then imagine AMD announcing a daughterboard processor that couls run PC software natively.

I know it sounds like a engineering hardware/software nightmare but what you forget is the Motorola p*ssed Syeve off with a measely 50MHz speed jump. (Rmember when ATI p*ssed Steve off and he axed them (like a turkey head on thanksgiving day.)

I think Motorola is/was in the same boat but IBM couldn't produce the deficit that would have been created.

SO with Steve'o's grudge factor figured in, what if we had hardware that was capable of running OS X (not ported) on a G4/G5 AND capable of running Windows XP.

(Again, OS X would NOT be able to run on any PC)

The hardware margin is still there, PC users get a true PC that can run all their favortie apps and viruses, but they get the option of having long term exposure to the elegant solution of the OS X/true Mac environment.

Oh yeah, and then there's the reality of this raising the price by $850. (but other than that, no problems)

You can Poo-Poo my idea but only if you offer a better way of converting the PC masses to the Mac without losing hardware sales.


MSKR
"Just tell them that Ben Franklin said it, and everyone will believe the sentiment."
Reply
"Just tell them that Ben Franklin said it, and everyone will believe the sentiment."
Reply
post #26 of 63
good idea Masker, but with VPC you already have all that. No need for Apple to invent the wheel again.
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
Ich weiss, dass ich nichts weiss.
Reply
post #27 of 63
The premis for this is ALL WRONG. Apple's site says "To go where no PC has gone before." Whether that means Windows "PC" or Mac, it's something that has NOT been done yet. Windows DOES run on X86 chips. The tease has nothing to do with the MacOS running on X86 chips. Get over this, will you.

We're going to see something different on Monday, not this tired, old, rehashed idea.

Sorry for the flame, but I just don't understand why so many people waste so much bandwidth over this.
c l o n e n o d e
o n e o f m a n y
Reply
c l o n e n o d e
o n e o f m a n y
Reply
post #28 of 63
Thread Starter 
Orange Micro used to make stuff like you're talking about. Didn't work out... why bother when you can spend the extra $850 (or less) on a real PC if you need to run Windows apps that badly?
post #29 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Masker:
<strong>You can Poo-Poo my idea but only if you offer a better way of converting the PC masses to the Mac without losing hardware sales. MSKR</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll only do that if you show me how this idea doesn't cause the current Mac OS (9/X) developers to drop Mac OS (9/X) support.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #30 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

I'll only do that if you show me how this idea doesn't cause the current Mac OS (9/X) developers to drop Mac OS (9/X) support.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

What if X stays the only thing you can run on a Mac, and installation on x86 means you can't use Win at the same time, either through dual boots or a "Classic" kinda thing. The only thing this would do, then, is spread the platform. I mean, companies don't quit developing for the Mac OS just because we all COULD go out and buy Wintel machines, right? They develop because they believe the platform has advantages for their software. So why not get more people using it, and therefore increase Mac software sales - not decrease...if done smartly.

-S
post #31 of 63
i can't imagine apple ever abandoning RISC for CISC. that being said...i think the only apple is gonna break free of motorola is if they buy the powerPC/altivec architecture and go shopping for a new fabricator. IBM would be a natural...and perhaps AMD as well...but OSX on intel? i think it would be the kiss of death for apple.
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
post #32 of 63
Apple's prices are not based on the price of their chips. Even if they started using AMD chips their prices would still be higher than PCs. AMD might start making G5s for Apple but that's it.
post #33 of 63
I agree with clonenode:

Just because Apple uses the term 'PC' on their front page does not mean OS X will suddenly run on the x86 platform. In context, today's slogan is actually a cut to Wintels stating that Macs will do something PCs have never done or go somewhere where PCs have never gone. In no way does any of this signal platform changes.

(Although I do like the transparent Red Box idea).
post #34 of 63
The thread starter had a good explanation for the Star Trek reference, but the concept will never hold water. Anyone who thinks Apple is going to switch to AMD and give us ABI Windows compatibility is not using critical thinking. This is a tired dream.

First off, whatever new Macs come out must run the PPC ABI natively. Apple will not abandon all of its current developer and current users, so any hypothetical AMD chip would still have to be a PPC. Perhaps AMD could fabricate PPC chips, but Apple will not switch over to x86 AMDs. Not going to happen.

If you believe, however, that AMD is designing a hybrid chip with dual PPC/x86 ABI support, then you're again in for a shock. (Btw, way back when, the PowerPC 615 was a rumored upgrade to the 604 that would have PPC/x86 ABI support; it never happened.) Producing a hybrid chip that would be capable of running both platform's binaries at native speeds would require a tremendous amount of engineering work, as well as processor overhead. We would have heard about this project if it exists. The only other way for Apple to achieve Wintel compatibility would be to switch to Transmeta processors, and I also highly doubt the company would do that.

On the subject of OS X/Intel, yes it did exist, but it was really just OpenStep. OpenStep ran on Intel, but Apple shelved OS X/Intel early in OS X's development. They also killed the Cocoa for Windows environment, which was at that time called Yellow Box for Windows. As OS X's development progressed it became more and more reliant on the PowerPC; I don't think the OS is nearly as portable as it once was. It would be difficult for Apple to move OS X to the Intel environment unless they have devoted major resources to keeping their internal Intel builds up to date. And if they switch over to Intel, that means they are abandoning every third party developer. Getting Carbon on Intel would require much more than a recompilation; moreover, many Carbon apps run so poorly on Mac OS X right now, and getting those programs on Intel would be a total nightmare. (Keep in mind that these Carbon apps run so poorly because they continue to utilize many of the old Classic programming models, including the classic, cooperative events model. These applications are native in name only, and Apple would have to do a tremendous amount of work with outmoded Classic APIs in order to get these applications over with a simple recompile.)

Apple will never allow Wintel software to run natively on a Mac, for the following reason: To remain viable as a platform independent of Wintel, Apple MUST have its own software base. As others have pointed out, if Apple releases a new class of Macintosh with full Wintel compatibility, then developers will no longer have any incentive whatsoever to code for the Mac. Those companies currently supporting both platforms would suddenly abandon Macintosh development entirely, since their Windows applications could run natively on the Mac. Then people would be expected to run Windows on their Mac, or Apple would have to engineer OS X to run Windows applications natively. The Macintosh would become an over priced PC (since Apple would have to maintain their margins), and OS X would become OS/2 Warp. (IBM's OS/2 was a better Windows than Windows and offered compatibility with Windows binaries. It was doomed to failure because developers had no incentive to code for OS/2.)

And if I'm wrong - if Apple truly is stupid enough to switch to Wintel and offer Wintel compatibility, then Apple and the Macintosh platform are both finished. Apple's not that stupid - guaranteed. Good try, play again. (I apologize if this message comes off as spiteful. I'm just tired of people discussing the totally implausible.)

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #35 of 63
There is an important distinction that people often fail to distinguish in discussions of this. There are two possibilities:

1. Mac OS is ported to run on Intel/AMD hardware.

2. Windows is ported to run on Apple (PPC) hardware.

Both of these ideas come up in this thread. Examples:

SpiffyGuy: [quote]Star Trek was a secret project at Apple in the early 90's to port the MacOS to run on the x86 architecture<hr></blockquote>
He's talking about #1.
DaveGee: [quote]Mac developer team your fired, no need for you guys now since those boxes Apple sells can now run Windows.<hr></blockquote>He seems to be talking about #2.

Which would be better/worse for Apple's future?
post #36 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Toofeu:
<strong>huumm.. the OS X for PC exists.... or at least there is some evidences, here is the proof...
Use HexEdit and go to the ressources files of the DVD player under 10.1 you'll find those very interesting intruction lines
DisablePIIIsupport..DisableATHLONSupport....Disabl ePIVSupport
Pretty interesting isn't it
:eek: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that was explained once before. Its because the compiler Apple uses can also compile for AMD/Intel. It doesnt mean they can flip a switch and that app will be Windoze compatible, but that you can create apps for windoze on a Mac using that compiler.

Just like the compiler for Darwin. Darwin also runs on Athlon Intel, etc.... remember?
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #37 of 63
I don't even think it (the term PC) is directed toward the x86 platform. I think it's a generalization. Nothing more.

Also whoever said "buyout of PPC/G4/G5 so amd could create the chips", or whatever. What makes you think AMD could create/fab a better PPC processor than IBM?

That statement is idiotic. AMD, x86, nor intel is the answer to your problem. You, And This Stupid Thread Are The Problem.
If you like x86 so much go get a PC, and keep this crap off these boards. Have a nice day.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #38 of 63
Could you please explain to me why full windows software compatibility would be bad for Apple ?
For the moment there is only Apple who provide true mac solution for us with iMovie, iTunes, Final Cut, etc. and a bit of Adobe, Maxum, Lightwave, Maya with Altivec support.
So why is it a problem for us mac users, developpers and for Apple ?... they ALWAYS find a way to make better complete solution like now because they control the hard&soft !

For developpers it's better because they only have to enhance and aquafied their apps.
For Users, we have finally all the software (games) of the other side.
For Apple: They are the only company who have a full platforms solution.

The only problem for this to exist is to perfectly have a way to use M$ API technology like Direct X, Active X
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #39 of 63
On word: Be.

They tried fighting Microsoft on their own turf. They lost. Big time. Apple would be no different.
post #40 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Bob Alidilo:
<strong>Is a x86 port of the MacOS really a bad idea? I'm sure that some people who are frustrated with their Wintel boxes would switch, and then maybe switch to Apple hardware as well. Even if it doesn't make much money it seems to make sense to further Apple's survival.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If anybody believes that "Apple should port there OS to x86" bullshit...they should be dragged out of their caves and shot in the head.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Next Mac - A PC? Boldly going...