Mac clones: Part 2? (seriously)

outsider · January 2, 2004 11:06AM

http://www.mai.com/news&events/PressRelease122103.html

Quote:

Mai Logic's feature-rich Articia I supports IBM® PowerPC? 970 microprocessor, DDR 2 memory interface and other advanced peripheral interfaces such as PCI Express and PCI-X. The combination of IBM® PowerPC? 970's performance speeds, the ultra high speed Elastic I/O technology and Mai Logic's AGP 8X compatible Articia I chipset represents a formidable solution in the embedded markets, particularly those requiring high resolution graphics such as multimedia, gaming, medical and aerospace industries.

If they manage to make a 3rd party chipset that can use the 970's bus and the other advanced features, think of the implications. That means IBM will be supplying other manufacturers with G5 chips besides themselves and Apple. Also note the use of the terms embedded and gaming. Could it be conceivable that a next generation gaming console will have a G5 or G5 derived chip?

rhumgod · January 2, 2004 11:10AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Outsider

[url]Could it be conceivable that a next generation gaming console will have a G5 or G5 derived chip?

Sure, the xbox2.

nebagakid · January 2, 2004 11:11AM

for a Mac Clone to be a Mac Clone, wouldn't have to run the Mac OS ?

If not, the GameCube is a Mac Clone!

mooseman · January 2, 2004 1:43PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nebagakid

for a Mac Clone to be a Mac Clone, wouldn't have to run the Mac OS ?

If not, the GameCube is a Mac Clone!

...from what I understand, such boxes should be able to run MOL (Mac on Linux) even if they can't boot Mac OS X directly.

I'm sure with Darwin being OSS, that a good Darwin hax0r could get OS X to boot on such a box.

eric_z · January 2, 2004 2:29PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Outsider

http://www.mai.com/news&events/PressRelease122103.html

If they manage to make a 3rd party chipset that can use the 970's bus and the other advanced features, think of the implications. That means IBM will be supplying other manufacturers with G5 chips besides themselves and Apple. Also note the use of the terms embedded and gaming. Could it be conceivable that a next generation gaming console will have a G5 or G5 derived chip?

Marvell will allso make a 970 compatible chipset.

And if things will work as usal then:

Mai Logic Theron I (using the Articia I) + ROM dongle = AmigaOne "Videotoaster" (or what not)

Just like in the past there have been

Mai Logic Theron Px + ROM dongle = Eyetech AmigaOne-Xe

Mai Logic Theron Mini + ROM dongle = Eyetech Micro AmigaOne

Mai Logic Theron Xc(?) + ROM dongle = Eyetech AmigaOne-Xc

nebagakid · January 2, 2004 5:12PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mooseman

I'm sure with Darwin being OSS, that a good Darwin hax0r could get OS X to boot on such a box.

yes, a good "haxOr" could get a window server running for a GUI, but then there are parts of the Darwin source that Apple does not release.

fotns · January 2, 2004 8:04PM

First, the firmware on the clone would need the ability to load the BootX bootloader, or another method devised to load the kernel. Then kernel extensions would need to be created to support the hardware on the clone motherboard, such as the Mai chipset, memory controller, Ethernet, etc. No work should be needed on the higher level components like Quartz or Aqua. This is similar to how XPostfacto adds OS X support to older Macs; it installs kernel extensions for hardware that Apple has removed support for in the kernel. A similar utility could be created to for a cloned Mac, if of course Apple didn?t mind.

\

altivec_2.0 · January 2, 2004 8:42PM

If compianes want to start production of mac clones, will they have to purchase some agreement with Apple?

@homenow · January 2, 2004 9:13PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Altivec_2.0

If compianes want to start production of mac clones, will they have to purchase some agreement with Apple?

If they wanted to bundle OS X with their computers they probably would, but if someone else comes up with an installer that installs OS X on their non-Apple system then Apple wouldn't have any legal reason to stop them from building the computers. The person who came up with the installer might find themselves on the wrong side of the table from Apple's lawyers though.

outsider · January 2, 2004 9:58PM

Quote:

Originally posted by @homenow

If they wanted to bundle OS X with their computers they probably would, but if someone else comes up with an installer that installs OS X on their non-Apple system then Apple wouldn't have any legal reason to stop them from building the computers. The person who came up with the installer might find themselves on the wrong side of the table from Apple's lawyers though.

Especially if the computers are shipped with a Linux OS.

outsider · January 2, 2004 10:00PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nebagakid

for a Mac Clone to be a Mac Clone, wouldn't have to run the Mac OS ?

If not, the GameCube is a Mac Clone!

Yes it would have to run the MacOS. GC however, has no HD, USB or Firewire so it wouldn't even make sence to hack it to run the MacOS.

paul · January 2, 2004 10:24PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Outsider

USB

the controllers are proprietary USB ports... they sell adapters to let you use your GC controller on your computer...

barto · January 2, 2004 11:46PM

Mac clones using 3rd party PowerPC hardware are very possible... but because of Apple's legal team would remain very underground.

Case closed.

clive · January 2, 2004 11:49PM

This thread is nonsense!

So, some other manufacturer may use PPC chips, other than Apple - that?s the whole point, to have an alternative to Intel!

It's been happening for nearly 10 years.

outsider · January 3, 2004 12:02AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clive

This thread is nonsense!

So, some other manufacturer may use PPC chips, other than Apple - that?s the whole point, to have an alternative to Intel!

It's been happening for nearly 10 years.

Except for 10 years their attempts have been WEAK. Look at MAI's other chipsets. Pathetic. This new one looks promising if they can actually get it out in 2004.

outsider · January 3, 2004 12:07AM

Mac clones is just musing, I admit. But I'm willing to wager that the next Nintendo console will use a 970 or 970 derived chip.It will already be backwards compatible with the 750 used in the present Gamecube, unlike the Xbox that will move from X86 to another architecture (was PPC confirmed? or will it be another IBM chip, maybe Cell, like the PS3?)

G5 in a Nintendo before a Powerbook?

Lets hope not!

johnsonwax · January 3, 2004 3:53AM

Quote:

Originally posted by @homenow

If they wanted to bundle OS X with their computers they probably would, but if someone else comes up with an installer that installs OS X on their non-Apple system then Apple wouldn't have any legal reason to stop them from building the computers. The person who came up with the installer might find themselves on the wrong side of the table from Apple's lawyers though.

Yeah, read your license agreement.

Your license only entitles you to run OS X on Apple hardware. That's not to say that all of the individual components aren't allowed to independently exist, however, the end user becomes the one violating the agreement.

Where the vendor could probably get nailed is that they can't actually test OS X on their hardware without installing it, and that's where they violate their agreement which Apple can then extend to all manner of other places.

Quite honestly, I don't think Apple cares if somebody makes it possible since Apple will never permit them to preload or even resell OS X. Since Apple will staunchly refuse to support the machine in any way, shape, or form, the likelihood of such an endeavor being profitable is very small. Think of it as the iTMS DRM approach applied to the OS X - make it only as unpleasant as necessary to dissuade people from abusing it.

imacfp · January 3, 2004 8:47AM

Nothing good would come from clones and Apple knows this so it will never happen. People want to think that clones, well done, will just recreate the Intel/MS juggernaut and give Apple (consumers really) a price break, jump start, whatever. It won't happen. Apple needs hardware sales to keep afloat and it's too late to do what MS did with Windows. The boat left and isn't coming back. All Apple can do is try to keep up. Apple could have done what MS did but they didn't and nothing can bring that moment back. It is interesting to imagine what could have been, I admit.

kupan787 · January 3, 2004 3:21PM

Quote:

Originally posted by imacFP

Nothing good would come from clones and Apple knows this so it will never happen. People want to think that clones, well done, will just recreate the Intel/MS juggernaut and give Apple (consumers really) a price break, jump start, whatever. It won't happen. Apple needs hardware sales to keep afloat and it's too late to do what MS did with Windows. The boat left and isn't coming back. All Apple can do is try to keep up. Apple could have done what MS did but they didn't and nothing can bring that moment back. It is interesting to imagine what could have been, I admit.

It isn't really what MS did, but more of what Comapq did. Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS (the only non-off-the-shelf component in the first PC). Then they let everyone and anyone have a copy of their IBM compatible BIOS. That is how the clones started. It isn't because Intel, IBM, or MS wanted it (in fact, IBM got screwed by the whole thing). It just happened. MS was just in the right place at the right time, and was able to take advantage of this now growing IBM compatible market.

mark- card carrying fanaticrealist · January 3, 2004 3:39PM

As strange as it may seem, we may well see a Macintosh clone return in the next three years but the likelihood is that it will be produced by Apple.

My theory is that - at some point in the not too distant future - Apple may resurrect the Power Computing brand that it acquired in the death throes of the first cloning era, for the simple reason that this action would give Apple an outlet to exploit fully amortized engineering in a less demanding marketplace than that traditionally serviced by Apple's Macintosh brand.

For example, Power Computing could still be selling 970FX-based systems with a lower specification (bus speeds, RAM speeds, fewer USB/Firewire ports on shared controllers, etc.) and lower price in two or three years time when the mainstream Apple brand has long since moved to G6.

Power Computing may also be the perfect outlet for an iPod clone - less elegant design, mechanical jog wheel etc. - which would again act as an outlet to continue the exploitation of engineering that has been fully amortized and recovered elsewhere.

There will be a whole load of people who will disagree with this as a strategy, but to them I would say: -

"Apple customers are Apple customers for a reason; we buy the brand image and the values of Apple and buy the products for the experience, the quality and the design DESPITE the fact that the product is perceived to be more expensive than the competition.

The potential customers for the Power Computing brand are probably going to be more cost-conscious, less sensitive to design and engineering aesthetics, and certainly less precious about Apple's 'mission to convert' the world to an alternate view of the universe - they want a utility device that works reliably and doesn't cost the earth.

A diffusion-marketing exercise like Power Computing - sold exclusively through a direct sales model like Dell - will be vital for the Mac OS to progress beyond 3% marketshare, because 95% of the world has already shown its belief that 'good enough' sells in the marketplace."

Just one man's delusional rantings, feel free to argue.

scifience · January 3, 2004 8:51PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mooseman

...from what I understand, such boxes should be able to run MOL (Mac on Linux) even if they can't boot Mac OS X directly.

I'm sure with Darwin being OSS, that a good Darwin hax0r could get OS X to boot on such a box.

Somebody ... I forget where - it was a long time ago - actually managed to combine parts of the Mac OS X install CD and parts of Darwin for x86 so that the Mac OS X installer would boot on an Intel PC. Of course, it wouldn't install or anything, but it just goes to show how easy it would be for Apple to go x86 if they wanted to.

Mac clones: Part 2? (seriously)

Comments