Mac OS X-on-x86 efforts. {Naked Mole Rat}
[quote]Nevertheless, these observers report that Apple has been serious enough about its ace in the hole to seed a few lucky civilians with prototype boxes ? delivered heavily swaddled in layers of cloak-and-dagger security, natch. Specifically, recent testers report taking delivery of Athlon-powered boxes that Apple had assiduously welded shut to prevent prying eyes from ogling whatever other gremlins might be lurking inside these nondescript beige chassis. <hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20021112.php"; target="_blank"> Mac Editions- Expatriate games - November 12, 2002</a>
[ 11-12-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
<a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20021112.php"; target="_blank"> Mac Editions- Expatriate games - November 12, 2002</a>
[ 11-12-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
Comments
If they're guessing because the machines have some serious go-fast in them, that could mean something else.
Anyway, 'uname -v' unless they code the release name, it might say something like "root:xnu/xnu-xxx.xx.x.obj~1/RELEASE_AMD"
Apple going so far as porting FCP along with the OS just does not really surprise me. If they earnestly wished to pursue a 'no future PPC source' contingency, I would hope they would create a complete and up-to-date port. (Emphasis on 'complete').
Screed ...come now chaps, if you were wedded to Motorola, wouldn't you more often look at the pretty young miss across the street?
[ 11-12-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
<strong>I don't recall NMR ever making a big blunder in rumor reporting. (...predicting the date of something, granted).
[ 11-12-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, my memory is far from perfect, but I believe that Last year, at about this time, he predicted the release of "G5's" that wouldn't really be G5's, at the MacWorld in early 2002 ... well, well ... when that came around, what was released didn't even rate a 'sort of' G5 ...
What's the point of an OS with no apps or drivers?
<strong>They want to keep these customers, and if they "force" them to upgrade key software when they buy new hardware then there is more of a chance for their customers to switch if they can get the PC hardware and software for, or less than the cost of new Apple branded hardware (remember that classic will not run on X86 version of OS X)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Therein lies the problem with any switch to OS X on x86. Regardless of the software available or that they run they are going to need to replace it all over again to have it run on OS X on x86. Current software wouldn't run on OS X on x86 hardware.
Program.app/Contents/AMD/Program
/Applications/Utilities/Apple System Profiler
<strong>Just out of idle curiosity, how does he - or anyone - know they're running OS X/x86 on an Athlon if the cases are welded shut? The About this Mac... dialog?
If they're guessing because the machines have some serious go-fast in them, that could mean something else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SO they tell somebody that they have AMD-chips in them and welds the cases shut to hide the innards from them. Maybe they AMD-story is a smokescreen and the cases are welded shut to keep people from discovering that they have 970's inside?
Why would Apple change from one strugling chip-supplier (Moto) to another (AMD)? If they change to X86 they will go Intel, not AMD. And they will go 64-bit, not 32-bit.
<strong>
Why would Apple change from one strugling chip-supplier (Moto) to another (AMD)? If they change to X86 they will go Intel, not AMD. And they will go 64-bit, not 32-bit.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Alternatively, why would Apple change from being reliant on one sole supplier (Motorola/G4) to being reliant on another sole supplier (IBM/970). I believe (and hope) Apple will go down the IBM route, but in a couple of years Apple may be in exactly the same situation as it is now.
[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
If you hold out for x86 boxes, you'll have to hold out for months for 3rd parties to catch up!
If Apple was serious about this they would HAVE to tell 3rd party hardware and software developers months in advance.
This thread is ridiculous!
<strong>If the NMR's report that Apple is sending out prototypes with AMD chips is true, then it seems to me that they are getting ready to sell Apple-X86 boxes. As such, I'm going to hold off on buying a new Powermac (or Powerbook) until I see what's going on. That last thing I want to do is shell out 2 to 3 grand on a PPC based mac only to see them make the switch to X86.</strong><hr></blockquote>
isn't that the biggest reason to buy a mac now you still have the change to get the fastest possible PPC based mac, before they switch to those X86
What about AMD-made PPC chips?
It doesn't make any sense that they would seal the boxes and then leave software around to allow the user to discover what is inside.
<strong>What seem strage to me is that if these are very fast sealed/welded boxes how do the users know what processors are inside? I wold assume that Apple would have removed "System Profiler" for obvious reasons.
It doesn't make any sense that they would seal the boxes and then leave software around to allow the user to discover what is inside.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple left the system profiler on the computers they could make it say whatever they wanted to.
<strong>If the NMR's report that Apple is sending out prototypes with AMD chips is true, then it seems to me that they are getting ready to sell Apple-X86 boxes. As such, I'm going to hold off on buying a new Powermac (or Powerbook) until I see what's going on. That last thing I want to do is shell out 2 to 3 grand on a PPC based mac only to see them make the switch to X86.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A switch to a non-power PC processer would be anounced by Apple just like the switch to the Power PC was. This is too big of a deal, and effects the platform, software and hardware, too much to do it compleatly in the dark.