MacOS X on Intel AND 970

dogboy · March 27, 2003 9:14PM

I think this has been mentioned as a possibility on these boards -- I just wanted to be the first to state it definitively.

MacOS X on the 970.... AND x86 by the end of the year.

And no, the x86 port wont cannibalize sales. Not with the 970 around for the creative markets and the consumer line *finally*priced in the value range. The iMac and iBook are moving downmarket folks. The new Workstation class Macs are moving upmarket.

People forget, software can be (still is, believe it or not) one of the most profitable business on earth. Imagine the revenues if even 5% of Windows users bought a copy of MacOS X to try out.

From what I'm hearing, Apple has targeted mid year as the start of a major period of growth for the company... this is going to be a fun year.

inkhead · March 27, 2003 9:23PM

This would be completely the coolest thing ever. I do mean ever. Did you by chance see that business psyic on CNBC? She came on and said this would be one of the biggest years ever for Apple computer, and that they were going to "blow all of us away." Those were the exact words she used. Maybe this has something to do with it. I wouldn't put it past Apple. Lets pray it's not just another crazy rumor. It sounds difficult for them to do but I'm sure they could pull off anything. Apple's been good at always making the impossible happen.

fran441 · March 27, 2003 9:28PM

Moving to the Mac OS X forum.

ensoniq · March 27, 2003 9:40PM

Dogboy - You claim you're posting this information "definitively"...based on what? You have a real inside source, or you're speculating?

And since you seem to have all the details, please explain exactly what an Apple x86 machine is supposed to be. Does it only run new special x86 software for Macintosh? Does it run Windows apps? Does it run PPC software for Macintosh? What does Apple gain by selling an x86 machine with the "Macintosh" label on it?

I'm sure we'd all like to know the amazing details.

-- Ensoniq

vandewaals · March 27, 2003 10:13PM

Sooo.....

Rather than doing a costly overhaul of all their code for x86, software developers will instead cheerfully maintain TWO versions of their Mac software, when many already have little inclination to even maintain one?

(BEEP BEEP)<---BULLSH*T Meter

mrmister · March 27, 2003 10:13PM

Seconded. If there aren't more details, I suspect we should drop the speculation--life is too short.

keyboardf12 · March 27, 2003 10:37PM

NeXT software came with quad binaries at one point it its life.

One program, compiled for 4 platforms... (same code)

not saying i belive its going to happen but it is possible to do. FYI.

fotns · March 28, 2003 12:56AM

There has been an awful lot of work recently on the x86 Darwin code over at the Darwin CVS. It's concurrent with Darwin PPC and it looks like they are keeping it up to date with Panther's base as well. I don't buy the excuse that they do all this work solely "as an integrity-check to make sure that the architectural underpinnings function just as well in Darwin as in the BSD code." (Ask the Darwin Team)

The core of OS X x86 is done, and I am sure the upper layers are as well. All that is left is for Apple to be bold and release it.

mac guru · March 28, 2003 9:58AM

The only reason I would say this is COMPLETE BS is for the same reason someone posted above. Apple had a tough time converting developers over to the OS X side and companies like Adobe and Quark and Macromedia worked thier butt off (well, Quark didn't). But it's still like OS X's 2nd B-day and people are saying that OS X will be on X86.

RIIIIIIIGHT, OS X migration is just come to an acceptable level and now we pull a switch on the devs AGAIN. No chance in heck, it'd piss off too many developers.

Not a dev in the world would want x86, x86 Mac, and Mac development to have to worry about. They have enough issues developing for x86 and Mac as it is.

Mac Guru

gargoyle · March 28, 2003 11:30AM

hmmm maybe not. I saw a video from the ADC where they were boasting the speed of some of their libraries against writing your own functions is C.

Now, for most developers (Read - NOT GAMES) all you do is call on libraries and functions to get your proggy written.

If these libraries are / have been developed for x86 then it would be a "simple" matter of compiling 2 binaries. The source would not have to change.

And for anyone that has downloaded a linux source, you will know that these days compiling on your own system consists of:-

./configure --bleh etc

make

make install

Job done!

And if apple do release a x86 OS, this could - as already mentioned. Generate huge ammounts of revenue... Looking back at my bookshelf i have:- OSX Public Beta, Suse Linux 7.0 pro, Suse Linus 8.0, and until my last major clean out PPC linux 2000. All purchase "just to play with".

stupider...likeafox · March 28, 2003 12:01PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FotNS

There has been an awful lot of work recently on the x86 Darwin code over at the Darwin CVS. It's concurrent with Darwin PPC and it looks like they are keeping it up to date with Panther's base as well.

This is misleading. Darwin on x86 is not anywhere near as viable as Darwin PPC. It certainly could not be used to simply shift Mac OS X with barely a recompile.

x86 for Xserves I could believe. x86 elsewhere is, for a variety of reasons, bull, particularly on commodity hardware.

inkhead · March 28, 2003 1:08PM

You are all thinking wrong...

If apple did this it would be transparent at the os level. No recompiling. it would just work. A machine with OS X would be just that, a Machine with OS X. What's inside wouldn't matter.

Think bigger.

hobbes · March 28, 2003 1:13PM

Maybe one day, but not yet.

mac os x addict · March 28, 2003 2:01PM

A little off topic, but it looks like MS beat Apple in creating a 64 bit OS.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...nXP64BitPR.asp

aquafire · March 28, 2003 5:50PM

YAWNINGLY BORING

mount_my_floppy · March 28, 2003 6:26PM

Quote:

A little off topic, but it looks like MS beat Apple in creating a 64 bit OS.

Who knows what Apple has going on in those dark halways some refer to as my imagination...

hypoluxa · March 28, 2003 7:01PM

Whats the x86?

mount_my_floppy · March 28, 2003 8:58PM

Intels chipset. EG i386

netromac · March 29, 2003 5:56AM

Quote:

From MS press release

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003

Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems

Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems

Hope Apple will find a better way to differentiate its 32 and 64 bits offerings. They don't even have to differentiate between them to the end user. They will also most likely include both versions in the same box, whit the installer choosing the appropriate version. They could just have a small X32 or X64 at the startup screen or something to tell people what version they're running.

netromac · March 29, 2003 5:56AM

[Edit] Double post

fotns · March 29, 2003 1:19PM

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 - desktop or workstation OS, supports dual processors

Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems - (Windows 2000 Datacenter supports 32 CPUs, I could not find how many the 64-bit version supports, but it will probably be similar.)

Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for 64-bit Itanium 2 Systems - (# of CPUs - I am not sure, probably 8 )

I think it is best that Microsoft differentiates the versions, otherwise a desktop user will be paying way too much or a server user might be paying far too little.

Afterall, OS X Server isn't on the same CD as the home version, is it?

MacOS X on Intel AND 970

Comments