The only reason Apple would port OSX to x86 is if they decided to finally throw in the towel on Motorola and IBM and the PPC architecture. i.e. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I think the PPC remains fundamentally superior to x86 and its 64-bit ISA descendents, but Moto, IBM, and Apple all seem to want PPC to go in different directions. The G4, while an excellent chip overall, has turned out to be a tar baby for Moto engineers - if they can't shake loose and get moving on newer chips (a la G5 - which was supposed to debut in January 2000, according to the roadmaps back in '95), the performance lag may get to the point where Apple just gives up on Moto altogether.
Supposedly, there was a lot of life left in the 68k series of chips, but Moto got hung up with the development of the 68050 (I don't recall just why) so Apple pulled up stakes and went with IBM's PPC. So Apple's done it before, they may do it again. They would keep some proprietary pieces - ROMs, probably, so they could keep control of the hardware, though.
OSX on x86 is certainly possible - but would be a sign of desperation on Apple's part. I would not welcome it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would bringing a lovely shiny groovy fabby hunky-dory excellent operating system to millions of Intel owners indicate desperation? Sounds like the height of Apple-esque computing idealism to me.
But you're not going to tell us where you got it??? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nevermind I found it at macrumors.com
I also found this post from XUser:
[quote]
Not a book, a room tag
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't a manual. Its the room tag from the wall outside of one of the conference rooms at the Apple Cupertino campus.
In Infinite Loop 2, 4th floor, there is conference room with the name "Game Room.'" That is the label tag from outside the room. I would recognize one of those things anywhere. Now, why Woz has that particular one on his desk is somewhat of a mystery (he probably just liked the name).
cant help but nitpick, but im a geek when it comes to trek.
In TNG, DS9, and Voyager, warp 10 would put you everywhere in the universe simultaneously, so basically you could go anywhere in 0 time if you could go that fast.
in the last episode of TNG, where riker and crusher both call for warp 13, this was most likely a redesigned warp scale to account for faster possible speeds w/ out having to say warp 9.9997.
<strong>Well, contrary to everybody else in the whole world, I want MacOS X on x86. Seems pretty clear to me that, 'to boldly go where no PC has gone before' indicates an entrance into the PC market. Windows is shite and Linux is too complex for anyone but geeks who prefer tweaking their OS to actually doing anything useful. BeOS died because there were no apps and nobody had heard of the company, and it had an incredibly stupid name. The time is right for a new, useable, stylish OS on the PC.
But Apple, splitting an infinitive? Who'd have thought it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont think this will happen. Apps would have to be recompiled and all of the "perks" that Apple has with the PPC would be gone. (IE no AltiVec) So any company that spent resouces coding for things like that would have wasted money and not be happy with Apple.
Also, would be on par with switching from 68k macs to PPC WHILE IN THE MIDDLE of the trasition to OSX. It would be a nightmare. Not to mention the fact that going from 68k to PPC is a baby step compared with going from PPC to x86.
<strong>A transition to x86 is more complicated then most people think, but if it happens, I'm sure that Jobs and Co. will explain it well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How could they "explain it" to all those companies that have spent months carbonizing their apps that they have to start all over again?
How could they "explain it" to all those companies that have spent months carbonizing their apps that they have to start all over again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo!
OS X on Intel:Not goona happen for @ least 5 years.
Windows on OS X: Never goona happen for @ least the system level.
Comments
<strong>Yes it's from the WozCam, and no, it's not my shot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you're not going to tell us where you got it??? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
The only reason Apple would port OSX to x86 is if they decided to finally throw in the towel on Motorola and IBM and the PPC architecture. i.e. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I think the PPC remains fundamentally superior to x86 and its 64-bit ISA descendents, but Moto, IBM, and Apple all seem to want PPC to go in different directions. The G4, while an excellent chip overall, has turned out to be a tar baby for Moto engineers - if they can't shake loose and get moving on newer chips (a la G5 - which was supposed to debut in January 2000, according to the roadmaps back in '95), the performance lag may get to the point where Apple just gives up on Moto altogether.
Supposedly, there was a lot of life left in the 68k series of chips, but Moto got hung up with the development of the 68050 (I don't recall just why) so Apple pulled up stakes and went with IBM's PPC. So Apple's done it before, they may do it again. They would keep some proprietary pieces - ROMs, probably, so they could keep control of the hardware, though.
OSX on x86 is certainly possible - but would be a sign of desperation on Apple's part. I would not welcome it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would bringing a lovely shiny groovy fabby hunky-dory excellent operating system to millions of Intel owners indicate desperation? Sounds like the height of Apple-esque computing idealism to me.
<strong>
But you're not going to tell us where you got it??? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nevermind I found it at macrumors.com
I also found this post from XUser:
[quote]
Not a book, a room tag
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't a manual. Its the room tag from the wall outside of one of the conference rooms at the Apple Cupertino campus.
In Infinite Loop 2, 4th floor, there is conference room with the name "Game Room.'" That is the label tag from outside the room. I would recognize one of those things anywhere. Now, why Woz has that particular one on his desk is somewhat of a mystery (he probably just liked the name).
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://home.attbi.com/~jtmoltz/iPad.mov"; target="_blank">http://home.attbi.com/~jtmoltz/iPad.mov</a>;
Found it at Crazy Apple Rumors:
<a href="http://crazyapplerumor.blogspot.com/"; target="_blank">http://crazyapplerumor.blogspot.com/</a>;
Stephan Paul the first. God praise the Mac.
In TNG, DS9, and Voyager, warp 10 would put you everywhere in the universe simultaneously, so basically you could go anywhere in 0 time if you could go that fast.
in the last episode of TNG, where riker and crusher both call for warp 13, this was most likely a redesigned warp scale to account for faster possible speeds w/ out having to say warp 9.9997.
im a trekkie, i know it
This is TOO funny. It's the "secret iPad footage".
<a href="http://home.attbi.com/~jtmoltz/iPad.mov[/QUOTE"; target="_blank">]http://home.attbi.com/~jtmoltz/iPad.mov<hr></blockquote></a>;
Everyone should watch this movie.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
<strong>Well, contrary to everybody else in the whole world, I want MacOS X on x86. Seems pretty clear to me that, 'to boldly go where no PC has gone before' indicates an entrance into the PC market. Windows is shite and Linux is too complex for anyone but geeks who prefer tweaking their OS to actually doing anything useful. BeOS died because there were no apps and nobody had heard of the company, and it had an incredibly stupid name. The time is right for a new, useable, stylish OS on the PC.
But Apple, splitting an infinitive? Who'd have thought it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont think this will happen. Apps would have to be recompiled and all of the "perks" that Apple has with the PPC would be gone. (IE no AltiVec) So any company that spent resouces coding for things like that would have wasted money and not be happy with Apple.
Also, would be on par with switching from 68k macs to PPC WHILE IN THE MIDDLE of the trasition to OSX. It would be a nightmare. Not to mention the fact that going from 68k to PPC is a baby step compared with going from PPC to x86.
-Paul
(Originally posted on the Tech TV thread in GD)
<strong>This is TOO funny. It's the "secret iPad footage".
<a href="http://home.attbi.com/~jtmoltz/iPad.mov"; target="_blank">http://home.attbi.com/~jtmoltz/iPad.mov</a>;
Found it at Crazy Apple Rumors:
<a href="http://crazyapplerumor.blogspot.com/"; target="_blank">http://crazyapplerumor.blogspot.com/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
DAMN! THAT LOOKS LIKE THE SUCCESSOR TO THE NEWTON!!!
<strong>A transition to x86 is more complicated then most people think, but if it happens, I'm sure that Jobs and Co. will explain it well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How could they "explain it" to all those companies that have spent months carbonizing their apps that they have to start all over again?
To Fran441: Hanks was beaten to it by 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' i think?
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Chumley ]</p>
<strong>Porting to x86 is NOT AN OPTION!
To Fran441: Hanks was beaten to it by 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' i think?
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Chumley ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it's an option, divbag. Anything's an option.
<strong>
How could they "explain it" to all those companies that have spent months carbonizing their apps that they have to start all over again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo!
OS X on Intel:Not goona happen for @ least 5 years.
Windows on OS X: Never goona happen for @ least the system level.
-Paul
It wont happen next week. It will be a last ditch attempt from Apple. Soooooo... ITS NOT AN OPTION!!!