Apple using X86 hardware?
Face it Darwin is already ported to the X86 platform. How long before Apple starts building X86 based machines (Perhaps with AMD chips?) to run Darwin as servers for those wanting cheap servers? Just enhance the GUI a bit like OSX had, and maybe add in some other Extras to beef up the Darwin X86 build.
The PowerPC/PowerMac line I don't see going economical unless Apple opens back up the clone market?
The PowerPC/PowerMac line I don't see going economical unless Apple opens back up the clone market?
Comments
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
If you need that kind of cheap server, though, you'll be buying or building an x86 box and running BSD or Linux on it into the foreseeable future, or maybe Darwin for x86 once it's been polished up a bit - last I heard, it didn't even run on AMD processors. Full-blown OS X on x86 is not happening.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>at a shareholder meeting earlier this year some1 asked the jobs himself. he laughed at the idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was it like, "Ha, ha, ha! You crazy Mac users! No sense of reality."
Or was it more maniacal like, "Mwah, ha, ha!!! You have no idea what I, I mean we, are capable of!!!! Behold this fully operational... oh wait... not yet."
Apple nearly did it before with Rhapsody DR2 for Intel. Here it is running on Virtual PC for Windows, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/thunder45566/"; target="_blank">Rhapsody for Intel</a>
While it not OS X, it shows what Apple could easily accomplish.
You think porting apps via carbon is cake, try this one at home? I mean, every application ever has been carbonized right?
People, Apple probably could get X to run x86 hardware, that's it...but there would be virtually no native apps to speak of. None.
The crux of the matter is that it is more of a software (app) issue than a hardware one (cpu architecture).
If you really want to run PowerPC code, you could always get a PowerPC chip on a PCI card if you really wanted to run the Apps.
Rhapsody had yellow box yellow, yellow box turned into quartz. I had an installation of rhapsody in virtual pc . When you compile code in Rhapsody`s version of project builder you get to chose PPC or X86 hardware with out a change to the source code. Do you suppose it would be that hard to do the same with quartz and what we have now?
Personally I doubt Apple would pull this move but here is to speculation...
Glad to have you thinking and contributing, but this one's a dead horse.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Hey Cable, I don't want to sound rude, but this idea has been hashed out repeatedly over the last 6 months to a year here, at Ars Technica, and just about every other Mac-centric forum site around. There have been some very thoughtful and erudite posts on the subject. I don't think anyone is in the mood to go through it all again. Search some archives and you'll find hundreds of threads around the web about it. Bottom line: OS X on x86 is sheer idiocy. If you do some research you'll find out why.
Glad to have you thinking and contributing, but this one's a dead horse.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
If you don't want to contribute to the thread, that?s fine. But I hate when people like you try to decide for others that a subject is not worth discussing. That is not your decision to make.
<strong>
If you don't want to contribute to the thread, that?s fine. But I hate when people like you try to decide for others that a subject is not worth discussing. That is not your decision to make.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I apologize - that was not the intent of my post. If it WAS my decision to make, I'd be a mod, which I'm not. I'm simply contributing to the thread, just like you.
It was meant more of a caution that he was probably not going to get much of a response to this particular thread topic around here. IMHO, it's better to let him know it's been talked to death already rather than leaving him scratching his head wondering why no one wants to discuss it. It is certainly a subject worth discussing, but it already HAS been - ad nauseum.
So I'll leave it at that. Have fun.
<strong>Ok, it must once again be pointed out that almost every single app would need to be re-compiled to run on an X86 architecture and a significant portion of apps would not even successfully complete that portion.
You think porting apps via carbon is cake, try this one at home? I mean, every application ever has been carbonized right?
People, Apple probably could get X to run x86 hardware, that's it...but there would be virtually no native apps to speak of. None.
The crux of the matter is that it is more of a software (app) issue than a hardware one (cpu architecture).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well...aaaactually this part of the problem is not nearly as tough as you present. In fact I think this would be smallest problem for Apple to overcome (the larger problems being business model, marketing, Microsoft, etc.).
Back in the day...NeXT solved this problem fairly well. They would solve it similarly to how they solved the 68K to PowerPC migration or even the dual launching (OS 9 and OS X) applications.
The approach NeXT used is called "fat binaries". In this model, an application developer would select a switch (literally) in ProjectBuilder to choose which platforms they wanted their application compiled for. At the time this was 68K, HP PA-RISC, SPARC or Intel (yes, Intel). You could pic any combinations of these. It worked. Perfectly in fact. Apple would do it this way.
Finally, this is not as scary as it sounds. You would not have applications that were twice the size as they are today. The size difference is actually fairly small since the actual executable code of applications these days (as opposed to other resources an application uses, like images, UI resources, etc. which are platform neutral) is a small percentage. Furthermore, Apple surely would provide a means for users to "strip" the binary components they don't need for their given hardware.
So...yes it can be done.
* FOOMPOW *
[quote]Face it Darwin is already ported to the X86 platform. [How long before Apple starts building X86 based machines (Perhaps with AMD chips?) to run Darwin as servers for those wanting cheap servers? Just enhance the GUI a bit like OSX had, and maybe add in some other Extras to beef up the Darwin X86 build.
<hr></blockquote>
Compared to others in it's class Xserve is very well priced. --
If Apple wanted to use x86 in a server they would have done it with the Xserve. x86 is a Bad Idea, and always has been. Nuff said.
[quote]The PowerPC/PowerMac line I don't see going economical unless Apple opens back up the clone market? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<hr></blockquote> What the hell is that supposed to mean? looks like someone let a PC user in here again that has no clue what is best for the Mac.
:eek:
Why switch just to be behind the curve again, if Apple were to go x86 then they should at least get P4's in SP and DP configs.
Why go second class?