Future OS X only machines....
Apple stated that all new models shipping will boot into 10.2.x only and won't support 9 anymore. What's the difference (hardware wise) between these and the 1.25ghz that will supposedly be left to run both OS's? Will dropping support for 9 increase the overall performance of the computer? Sorry if this sounds stupid but I'd like to know! 
Danks alot <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Danks alot <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Comments
But it will cost Apple less money to develop and test any new hardware features in X only.
FireWire 800 and AirPort Extreme being two of those features.
Barto
Second thing which I am not sure about - I heared Mach was selected because Apple needed to run basically two systems, OS9 and OSX. Now if Apple goes all OSX with no more OS9 (not even classic mode in OSX), would there be any speed improvements if Mach was dropped in favour of a BSD-only OS layer? I heared Mach is not really optimal, anyone in the know?
<strong>For one I think booting might be faster if the firmware supports OSX only.
Second thing which I am not sure about - I heared Mach was selected because Apple needed to run basically two systems, OS9 and OSX. Now if Apple goes all OSX with no more OS9 (not even classic mode in OSX), would there be any speed improvements if Mach was dropped in favour of a BSD-only OS layer? I heared Mach is not really optimal, anyone in the know?</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm? i want to hear more of this. i don't believe that apple choosing Mach and this OS9/OSX "bootability" has something to do with each other...
<strong>hmm? i want to hear more of this. i don't believe that apple choosing Mach and this OS9/OSX "bootability" has something to do with each other...</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, in a discussion about OSX speed compared to a BSD system mainly the IO subsystem was criticised for not being "optimal" and a remark was made that this is due to the Mach underpinnings. might have even been in the BSD/OSX sever comparing article that was posted on the web some time ago...
NeXT used Mach as well, so I am not entirely sure the above statement is correct, yet I am wondering why Mach at all since I tought BSD is a complete system already. from my understanding Mach is more of a OS toolkit ("roll your own") which can be used as a base for a OS9 layer then. I am looking into it now, though.
EDIT: Ah, here goes;
"The core technologies have been chosen for several reasons. Mach provides a clean set of abstractions for dealing with memory management, interprocess (and interprocessor) communication (IPC), and other low-level operating-system functions. In today?s rapidly changing hardware environment, this provides a useful layer of insulation between the operating system and the underlying hardware.
BSD is a carefully engineered, mature operating system with many capabilities. In fact, most of today?s commercial UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems contain a great deal of BSD code. BSD also provides a set of industry-standard APIs."
so as I understand it Mach is used for separating "the hardware from the OS" (to some extent), which makes sense for portability or for running multiple OSes wihout having to rewrite/add parts of them with every hardware change.
this fits well with the "we like having options" idea, but I wonder if it was neccessary were there no OS9 compatibility layer. it could be used, however, to add a Windows compatibility layer later on, though. unless I didn't get it
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: xype ]</p>
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>...and could this 'Windows compatability layer' mean 'Marklar'?
which would mean that we were wrong in presuming Marklar is OSX on x86 but rather win32 on ppc. which would make MS angry. quite angry.
Us 'insider's sometimes get it wrong, eh?
Yeah. There's another thread around here discussing the why use Mach as opposed to a BSD kernal. Could Mach's 'abstraction' between hardware and the OS be what puts win32 on said 'bed' along with Classic and all the other tech's that sit on the 'seat' of Mach? Surely then, a 970 could run said Win App blazingly fast? That would be ultimate M$ bend-over for a hosing. Apple's got 4 billion in the bank that could fend off any M$ legal onslaught! Afterall, we have Virtual PC, eh?
Further more! YES (getting excited now!), furthermore, Apple have shown how other, admittedly opensource apps, like X11 can run ala carte Aqua on said Mach Kernal bed. Wow. An 'X' that can have Classic Mac, X11 and Win32 on it?!!??! As well as Ten!?!?!? That would be awesome? THERE IS NO WAY APPLE ARE GOING OUT OF BUSINESS IN THE NEXT X AMOUNT OF YEARS!!!
Maybe THIS is what those ex-9 prog's are working on? A Win' app compat' layer. Run on Apple AMD board or PPC board? Or just PPC? Golly.
Dual 970s runs yer PC apps like a Pentium 4 at 1.6 gig?
"...but rather win32 on ppc."
Moki, whither thou..? (Now, don't be shy...) Programmer..?
Can this...be done?
"..which would make MS angry."
...ooo.... Maybe we'll give them iWord with Inkwell to take on 'Word' and iSpread (Apple have already got half of the Office suite to pound M$...and all those bits are better: Keynote, Filemaker...) The threat of Office removal is looking less credible all the time. Apple is reducing it's dependence on M$.
"...quite angry."
We owe them. Y'know. For the 'trashcan'. You can't take another guy's trashcan...
Lemon Bon Bon
Interesting. :cool:
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
In a manner of speaking. No. Yes. NO. Not 'X' only. But it really is 'X' only. If you KNOW what I MEAN!!!
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>"...but rather win32 on ppc."
Moki, whither thou..? (Now, don't be shy...) Programmer..? Can this...be done? </strong><hr></blockquote>
sort of VirtualPC without having to run it in it's own Window. is possible but would likely piss off the maker of Virtual PC. Apple just announced a product based on LGPL software (Safari) so why not using another LGPL software (Wine) to piss off MS even more? teehee!
U-huh.
"is possible but would likely piss off the maker of Virtual PC."
S'funny, Apple didn't mind p*ssing off Adobe with the b*llocks body blow of FinalCut Express to Premiere's tender regions, it didn't mind bundling Indesign with its 'power'Macs to gonad flick Xpress along...(or elbowing them in the face with the 'laggard' swipe...) nor bending M$ over with the double entry 'Keynote'/Safari double whammy hose-job...or music makers with eLogic...nor the Linux community with 'X'...nor...Watson with Sherlock the 'feel the power of the III shaft'! I think we get the idea that Apple are through backing down and want to compete these days. I like it. I like it alot.
"Apple just announced a product based on LGPL software (Safari)"
And isn't it amazing? An Apple browser. Re-wind one year. Think it possible? Yet beat IE by a speed of 3?!
"so why not using another LGPL software (Wine) to piss off MS even more?"
Yup. (I love it when people talk dirty...) I've seen Wine in action. Put a couple of altivec 970s on it. Rocket.
"teehee!"
Yeah. Xype. That's what I thought.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong> Apple just announced a product based on LGPL software (Safari) so why not using another LGPL software (Wine) to piss off MS even more? teehee!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Wine Is Not an Emulator - it needs an x86 processor to run.
<strong>Because Wine Is Not an Emulator - it needs an x86 processor to run.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wine is a complete rewrite of the win32 libraries - material that can be used for a Win32 emulator without the need of a WinXX copy installed on the machine as well. Wine would certainly help a "run win32 apps on OSX" project.
Shouldn't it be possible to "load" a win32 binary and map it's calls to a OSX-Wine?
Y'know. If I could run Wine on top of the Mach. Would it be so great a problem to emulate it?
And if the Mac can run it's x86 or otherwise x86 app/emulation, will...it...matter?
Look at the intended benches of the 970.
Dunno about you guys, but the G3 233 was running Truespace okay in Virtual PC and that was how many years ago?
What's betting a 970 can't emulate a 1 gig Pentium 3/1.6 Pentium 4 processor.
R you really bothered if you want to run Office x86 okay or the odd obscure needed 'switcher' app?
With that level of performance, you could run Lightwave as well as most 'power'Macs do today! Decent gaming performance with an Ati Radion 9700 in yer Mac.
Emulation or not? I don't think it's going to be an issue for people outside of the uber-computing elite. And I think Apple and Marklar know it!
Pending Palladium? M$ pending a pounding like no other.
'Switch' it on, baby.
The next two years are going to be very interesting...
Lemon Bon Bon
"Wine is a complete rewrite of the win32 libraries - material that can be used for a Win32 emulator without the need of a WinXX copy installed on the machine as well."
Hmmm...no needy XP, win95 et al? So that's sans baggage and performance penalty in this 'emulator'? So, could the app, in theory, be re-compiled onto PPC? Or would the x86 binaries still need to be emulated?
"...Wine would certainly help a "run win32 apps on OSX" project."
My kinda thinkin'....a 32 layer with minimal performance penalty?
"Shouldn't it be possible to "load" a win32 binary and map it's calls to a OSX-Wine?"
? Programmer...? Anybody?
Simon Jary of Macworld UK said in his editorial about half a year ago that Apple's X could be the ultimated cross platform environment.
He cited Unix, Mac, Windows (via Virtual PC...) and said, 'Beat that...' Many people who want out of the M$ licence stranglehold may take a small performance hit. May go x.
There is now PC2Mac software for the X-Serve? I remember reading stuff that can convert via a gui, all passwords and preferences from NT to X-serve.
Boy, some people out there are really DESPERATE to get out of M$ land...
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Hmmm...no needy XP, win95 et al? So that's sans baggage and performance penalty in this 'emulator'? So, could the app, in theory, be re-compiled onto PPC? Or would the x86 binaries still need to be emulated?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would need emulation, but with Apple-tuned win32-compatible libraries it would likely go a bit faster than Virtual PC. What I was thinking is that the only thing that would need emulation would be the executable file itself (via a virtual machine, like Java), the libraries could be compiled under OSX and called by the VM. I am not sure how feasible this would be to do, but it should be possible.
Maybe you might throw some excitement into the thread
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=001848"; target="_blank">Thread</a>
Apple has realized they can make software like no other, so if an application if bothering them...
an apple-ized .app comes out that blows the competition away
Apple has realized they were having hardware problems, so f you MOTO, IBM wants our business
apple's partership with IBM will hopefully help them get their act together and Apple can thrive for years to come, maybe even grow market share
...though who really would need it with the 970's coming out, i mean i use 10.2.3 on a 733 QuickSilver with 768MB Ram, and its pretty zippy, i can only imagine that on a Dual 1.25GHz PM, that 9 and X are the same speed
That would make sense. Next and all.
"I don't know if this has been rethought. It could kill the development of Mac software after all."
Having 5% hasn't killed software development, I don't see a 32 compat' layer would either. I don't see software developers saying, 'Buy Virtual PC, then you can run Photoshop...'
"Perhaps also relevant is Steve's 1997 deal with Microsoft for both companies to share patents."
That's what I was thinkin'...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. After M$ sat on the M'4 board and then half licensing fees for its own media standard...I can see war brewing over things like that...
PPS. And I think Apple are prepared for it. They have their own browser, half a decent office suite, and sorry, what do they need M$ for again?