I know this sounds ridiculous, but I have heard this same thing a few times now. I have no idea if it is really true or not. It does go hand in hand with what a few people that I know and trust beleive is going to really happen (evantually). That is, OS X is going to switch to the Vista Kernel, place on top of that Cocoa, QTkit, Webkit, possibly core*, and the Apple GUI, etc. That way, you have an OS that runs both OS X (cocoa apps, actually some carbon apps should work too) and vista apps natively.
Secondarily, I have also heard that Apple may instead try to lease .NET framework and gain at least those win apps through that, if OS W (what media is calling OS X on vista) doesn't pan out.
It sounds far-fetched to me, but the more I hear and the recent directions at apple (intel transition, NeXT people leaving, a few Apple Developer note hints, bootcamp, rumors of dissatisfaction with mach, etc.)
Lol, they would dump Mach and break compatibility with every current OS X app again to switch to a Vista kernel over the choice of a unix kernel? I don't think so. I think they will just work on getting the interaction with the Mach and BSD layers a bit better.
John Dvorak is the initial source of the Vista-kernel rumors, as far as anyone can tell, and it's been years since his head has been outside his colon. Just because a lot of people keep repeating it, it doesn't make it true. Personally, I think that Cringley's speculation on Apple providing a home-grown Win32 compatibility layer might be the most probable of all the bizarre ideas floating about - think WINE, but more thoroughly integrated.
sequitur, welcome to the Crazy Branch of the Mac Family Tree.
Sorry about the confusion...for a second I thought I had killed the thread...yes, I generated that complaint using Pakin's as a joke.
No hard feelings to sequitur. Thanks to lundy for realizing it was a joke.
BTW, welcome to AI sequitur. Yes, we were hard on you...but it's for your own good. I (and others) like to train the new members to take the heat. Those that can't handle it, just fade away. You've held on so you've got what it takes.
John Dvorak is the initial source of the Vista-kernel rumors, as far as anyone can tell, and it's been years since his head has been outside his colon. Just because a lot of people keep repeating it, it doesn't make it true. Personally, I think that Cringley's speculation on Apple providing a home-grown Win32 compatibility layer might be the most probable of all the bizarre ideas floating about - think WINE, but more thoroughly integrated.
sequitur, welcome to the Crazy Branch of the Mac Family Tree.
Thanks Kickaha
Having switched from PC to Mac over a year ago and feeling like a PC pariah, I needed to be part of a Mac group. I?ve had PC?s since about 1980. My first desktop had no hard drive. Excuse the reminiscing.
Anyway, moving to a Mac was like coming out of a cave into sunlight. Again, thanks for the welcome.
I would also like to throw my $.02 in here and point out that Apple employees sign a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) and Apple frequently reads these and other boards looking for leakers.
They even make Developers agree to such things
From the developer agreement.
Confidential Information. You agree that all information disclosed by Apple to you that relates to Apple?s products, designs, business plans, business opportunities, finances, research, development, know-how, personnel, or third-party confidential information, will be considered and referred to collectively as ?Confidential Information.? Confidential Information, however, does not include: (a) information that Apple makes generally available to the public; (b) information that you can demonstrate to have had rightfully in your possession prior to disclosure to you by Apple; (c)
information that is independently developed by you without the use of any Confidential Information;
(d) information that you rightfully obtain from a third party who has been given the right to transfer or disclose it by Apple; or (e) any third party software and/or documentation provided by Apple and accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose confidentiality obligations on the use or disclosure of such software and/or documentation, for example, software governed by the GNU General Public License (?GPL?). You agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate Confidential Information to anyone other than those employees and contractors working for the same entity as you who have an existing ADC membership. You further agree to take reasonable precautions to prevent any unauthorized use, disclosure, publication, or dissemination of Confidential Information. You agree
not to use Confidential Information otherwise for your own or any third party?s benefit without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of Apple in each instance.
This is why we are so skeptical when we hear an apple rep disclosing a SIGNIFICANT new feature in the OS.
Bootcamp came as a total surprise.
Hell, the ability of OSX to run on Intel hardware was a persistent rumor for years. The codename had been Marklar.
There is a long tradition of the mac fanatics trying to read the tea leaves.
Suggested Reading:
Apple Confidential.
A good movie to watch:
Pirates of Silicon Valley
Once again, welcome and keep those keen ears open!
Lol, they would dump Mach and break compatibility with every current OS X app again to switch to a Vista kernel over the choice of a unix kernel? I don't think so. I think they will just work on getting the interaction with the Mach and BSD layers a bit better.
If I am correct, when OS X was getting developed the Mach kernel was better than the FreeBSD kernel, but that is no longer true so if Apple did change kernels wouldn't using the FreeBSD kernel make sense?
First you have to define the criteria under which you are determining that one is 'better' than another.
Every engineering decision is one of trade-offs, not absolutes.
Heck, in 1984, cooperative multithreading was the *obvious* best choice for the first Mac: 1MHz chip, 128kB of RAM, and the GUI *HAD* to be snappy and immediately responsive at all times.
Two years later, it started causing problems.
Ten years later, it was a laughing stock.
But in 1984, it was the best overall decision given the hardware and constraints.
If I am correct, when OS X was getting developed the Mach kernel was better than the FreeBSD kernel, but that is no longer true so if Apple did change kernels wouldn't using the FreeBSD kernel make sense?
I think they'd use Darwin as they are now, which is based on FreeBSD:
Like I say though, I don't think they'd do something as drastic as scrapping mach unless they could do that without breaking the OS X binaries. Every OS X program uses the Mach-o binary format.
Developers have been very nice to Apple. Apple switched to OS X so people updated their code gradually. Apple switched to Intel and people have again updated their code. If they break compatibility again, people are going to be very pissed off.
Apple Computer suffered a setback in its effort to plug an internal leak, after a state appeals court ruled that the computer maker can't immediately get its hands on records of who may have contacted an Apple enthusiast site (AppleInsider) with details on an unreleased product.
After reading the above, it's more apparent to me why you came down so hard on me.
Comments
Originally posted by xdaniel
I know this sounds ridiculous, but I have heard this same thing a few times now. I have no idea if it is really true or not. It does go hand in hand with what a few people that I know and trust beleive is going to really happen (evantually). That is, OS X is going to switch to the Vista Kernel, place on top of that Cocoa, QTkit, Webkit, possibly core*, and the Apple GUI, etc. That way, you have an OS that runs both OS X (cocoa apps, actually some carbon apps should work too) and vista apps natively.
Secondarily, I have also heard that Apple may instead try to lease .NET framework and gain at least those win apps through that, if OS W (what media is calling OS X on vista) doesn't pan out.
It sounds far-fetched to me, but the more I hear and the recent directions at apple (intel transition, NeXT people leaving, a few Apple Developer note hints, bootcamp, rumors of dissatisfaction with mach, etc.)
Lol, they would dump Mach and break compatibility with every current OS X app again to switch to a Vista kernel over the choice of a unix kernel? I don't think so. I think they will just work on getting the interaction with the Mach and BSD layers a bit better.
sequitur, welcome to the Crazy Branch of the Mac Family Tree.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Sorry about the confusion...for a second I thought I had killed the thread...yes, I generated that complaint using Pakin's as a joke.
No hard feelings to sequitur.
BTW, welcome to AI sequitur. Yes, we were hard on you...but it's for your own good. I (and others) like to train the new members to take the heat. Those that can't handle it, just fade away. You've held on so you've got what it takes.
Thanks. I felt like I was running a gauntlet.
Originally posted by Kickaha
John Dvorak is the initial source of the Vista-kernel rumors, as far as anyone can tell, and it's been years since his head has been outside his colon. Just because a lot of people keep repeating it, it doesn't make it true. Personally, I think that Cringley's speculation on Apple providing a home-grown Win32 compatibility layer might be the most probable of all the bizarre ideas floating about - think WINE, but more thoroughly integrated.
sequitur, welcome to the Crazy Branch of the Mac Family Tree.
Thanks Kickaha
Having switched from PC to Mac over a year ago and feeling like a PC pariah, I needed to be part of a Mac group. I?ve had PC?s since about 1980. My first desktop had no hard drive. Excuse the reminiscing.
Anyway, moving to a Mac was like coming out of a cave into sunlight. Again, thanks for the welcome.
I would also like to throw my $.02 in here and point out that Apple employees sign a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) and Apple frequently reads these and other boards looking for leakers.
They even make Developers agree to such things
From the developer agreement.
Confidential Information. You agree that all information disclosed by Apple to you that relates to Apple?s products, designs, business plans, business opportunities, finances, research, development, know-how, personnel, or third-party confidential information, will be considered and referred to collectively as ?Confidential Information.? Confidential Information, however, does not include: (a) information that Apple makes generally available to the public; (b) information that you can demonstrate to have had rightfully in your possession prior to disclosure to you by Apple; (c)
information that is independently developed by you without the use of any Confidential Information;
(d) information that you rightfully obtain from a third party who has been given the right to transfer or disclose it by Apple; or (e) any third party software and/or documentation provided by Apple and accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose confidentiality obligations on the use or disclosure of such software and/or documentation, for example, software governed by the GNU General Public License (?GPL?). You agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate Confidential Information to anyone other than those employees and contractors working for the same entity as you who have an existing ADC membership. You further agree to take reasonable precautions to prevent any unauthorized use, disclosure, publication, or dissemination of Confidential Information. You agree
not to use Confidential Information otherwise for your own or any third party?s benefit without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of Apple in each instance.
This is why we are so skeptical when we hear an apple rep disclosing a SIGNIFICANT new feature in the OS.
Bootcamp came as a total surprise.
Hell, the ability of OSX to run on Intel hardware was a persistent rumor for years. The codename had been Marklar.
There is a long tradition of the mac fanatics trying to read the tea leaves.
Suggested Reading:
Apple Confidential.
A good movie to watch:
Pirates of Silicon Valley
Once again, welcome and keep those keen ears open!
Originally posted by TednDi
Welcome.
I would also like to throw my $.02 in here and point out that Apple employees sign a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement)
Note that campus representatives are not Apple employees.
Apple Campus Reps are employees of Volt Technical Services.
Of course, the same applies. They're under NDA, and when they do get inside scoop, they're not permitted to talk about it. At all.
Originally posted by Marvin
Lol, they would dump Mach and break compatibility with every current OS X app again to switch to a Vista kernel over the choice of a unix kernel? I don't think so. I think they will just work on getting the interaction with the Mach and BSD layers a bit better.
If I am correct, when OS X was getting developed the Mach kernel was better than the FreeBSD kernel, but that is no longer true so if Apple did change kernels wouldn't using the FreeBSD kernel make sense?
Every engineering decision is one of trade-offs, not absolutes.
Heck, in 1984, cooperative multithreading was the *obvious* best choice for the first Mac: 1MHz chip, 128kB of RAM, and the GUI *HAD* to be snappy and immediately responsive at all times.
Two years later, it started causing problems.
Ten years later, it was a laughing stock.
But in 1984, it was the best overall decision given the hardware and constraints.
Originally posted by troberts
If I am correct, when OS X was getting developed the Mach kernel was better than the FreeBSD kernel, but that is no longer true so if Apple did change kernels wouldn't using the FreeBSD kernel make sense?
I think they'd use Darwin as they are now, which is based on FreeBSD:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...H214-TPXREF103
Like I say though, I don't think they'd do something as drastic as scrapping mach unless they could do that without breaking the OS X binaries. Every OS X program uses the Mach-o binary format.
Developers have been very nice to Apple. Apple switched to OS X so people updated their code gradually. Apple switched to Intel and people have again updated their code. If they break compatibility again, people are going to be very pissed off.
After reading the above, it's more apparent to me why you came down so hard on me.