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.
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.
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?
<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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.)
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.
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 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.
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
<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.
Comments
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>
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.
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
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.
<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
<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
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).
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>
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?
<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?
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>
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
They tried fighting Microsoft on their own turf. They lost. Big time. Apple would be no different.
<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.
Dual Boot ? Wrong way to live...
See 9 and X.
Does anybody comprehend that it will be huge to have the red box layer in X ?
We will have MAc developper, unix and linux devs and... windows devs
One World Unite in an Apple Box !