While I agree it's technically possible, the utility of the box is pretty low until you can load the rest of OSX on top of the modified Darwin. The italic phrase above is where the copyright gets in the way of doing this as a manufacturer. As a lone wolf hardware/software hacker doing this for personal satisfaction it is a huge amount of work for lots of guaranteed future incompatibilities--An interesting project and worthy of bragging rights, but not particularly practical as a clone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what about what XPostFacto does? Doesn't that take a modified Darwin kernel, and then a normal OS X install, so that you can run OS X on 7600 and stuff?
So basicly someone has done that part (of getting a modified kernel to install), now all that would need to be done is to write the modified darwin kernel that would boot on the 970, right? I know this makes it sound easy, but I know it would be a challenge, but a fun one
<strong>Me, personaly, I think in the foreseeable future, the only way Mac OS will ever be run on an IBM branded computer is if IBM buys Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And to take this one step further...
We have a better chance of Apple buying IBM then we do IBM buying Apple. (in other words... ain't gonna happen) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
We have a better chance of Apple buying IBM then we do IBM buying Apple. (in other words... ain't gonna happen) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
A figure of speech having more to do with the veracity and attention to detail of the corporate lawyers than anything else. Compare and contrast how Apple has held reverse engineering at bay over the last 20 years. If you can't get started you can't finish...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you never heard tell of the Toolbox ROM. The Toolbox ROM was the mechanism by which Apple was able to produce a complete GUI-based OS that could boot from a floppy disk. It was no more illegal to reverse engineer the Toolbox ROM than it was to reverse engineer the IBM PC BIOS. However, Apple contended that it was an impossible task without access to Apple's intellectual property. No one ever proved the contrary.
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>
Compaq finished and then had enough evidence to convince a judge they didn't commit outright theft. If they had been taken seriously before they got started on that project and had the full weight of Big Blues legal dogs on their chest, how far do you think they would have gone? It would have been cheaper to license from IBM than press the legal challenge on a risky project, but they didn't have to make that decision.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compag established protocols that stood legal muster that it legally reverse engineered the IBM PC BIOS. Had Compaq copied IBM, it IBM was have had it for lunch.
Or, are you trying to say that Apple's attorneys are better than IBM's attorneys?
<strong>Me, personaly, I think in the foreseeable future, the only way Mac OS will ever be run on an IBM branded computer is if IBM buys Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
personally. i think apple will one day end up being IBM's consumer PC's. someday steve will have to leave apple again. IBM would be the perfect company to run apple. i dont forsee anyone else being able to run apple as well as steve other than IBM.
I don't see it happening. Nope. I just don't see steve giving away sales of the Xserve and 970 beast tower for IBM to sell it's hardware to it's huge market running X. As much as I'd like to see X with 95% of the market, I don't think Steve has the mentality ot let someone else steal his thunder. The only way would be some type of licensing agreement and fee with each OS, a microsoft type of move or a % of each sale or something.
[edit] Or what about a non mac hardware fee? Like buy X in a mac and it's free, buy it with an IBM and it's $350 or something?
Not that I think this could or would happen it IS doable...
IBM can sell into the fortune 500 and the rest of 'big business'. IBM makes it's big money from selling SUPPORT and SERVICES. Apple has a great product but is still having a hard time cracking the F500 nut.
IBM - They sell the 'BIG IRON' servers running X and most important the support contracts to go with it.
What happens when X invades the server rooms? Clients have to follow!
Apple - Sells the clients (or allows IBM to re-sell them).
Do you think Apple would knife the xServe (or just put it on ice) if it knew they could have IBMs international sales force pushing/pitching their product to business world.. Oh yea I think they would.
IBM sells the servers (+support - IBMs bread & butter) and Apple sells the clients. Not a bad deal if you ask me. All of them using the PPC970 CPU. The big problem I see to this ever happening is IBMs backing of Linux. IBM has been doing some SERIOUS investing in Linux and I don't see how that could fit in with a plan like this. In fact it would seem we might have a major foe on our hands.
IBM investing and supporting Linux
IBM developing a new 'desktop' PPC 970 CPU
IBM rumors about linux boxes (just rumors I hope)
Apple is grabbing a fair number of 'linux converts' (and linux users bring a fair bit of mindshare due to their 'geek nature') but if IBM tries to make a go of growing the Linux market with boxes of it's own using the PPC970 it would seem to be X vs. LinuxPPC or to put it another way Apple vs. IBM
I sure hope those rumors are just rumors but if they aren't then Apple might loose some of those linux converts and that would be too bad.
Gonna be really interesting how things turn out over the next many months...
If IBM woulf release their own boxes using this CPU ... wouldn't that effectively be creating a mac clone since it is using PowerPC techonology ...Possibly being able to install MacOS on it too (abeit maybe easier said than done) ???</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I understand, the chip, the memory controller, and most of the motherboard of the 970 mac are going to be a la IBM. So I would guess that a ROM transplant would make an IBM 970 into a Mac 970.
But given IBM's market segment, I bet their 970 machine will be fabulously overpriced servers. (As most servers are). I doubt there will be a reason to buy the IBM unless you really want to see big blue's logo on your desk. (Or floor)
personally. i think apple will one day end up being IBM's consumer PC's. someday steve will have to leave apple again. IBM would be the perfect company to run apple. i dont forsee anyone else being able to run apple as well as steve other than IBM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Trust me when I say that Apple would go down the tubes, if IBM took them over (unless, Apple was a fully independent subsidiary). I say this from first hand knowledge of seeing how IBM management works from the inside. IBM is more concerned with "perceptions" and "numbers". Apple is more concerned with "substance" and "cool products".
IBM is "up tight" in their codes (use an image of the dark dress slacks, white long sleeve collared dress shirt, Blue or Red "Power" tie <for most folks, although field reps can dress down a little> ; and Apple is "laid back" (use an image of faded blue jeans, pullover collared shirt, and birkenstocks <on the low end> / just picture SJ at a keynote for the upper end). This "uptightness" as opposed to "laid back" affects the products. If Apple engineers had to "comply" with IBM's ways, Apple desktops would lose their creative edge and look like IBM desktops (not much different than Dell, Gateway, Compac/HP), in other words ... boring.
Apple involved in a contractual partnership with IBM sounds more feasible.
1) Apple could license Mac OS X to IBM for "big-iron" servers. These servers are in a different league to Xserves.
2) Clones won't return for the forseeable future.
3) We will have to wait until someone has the balls to post a patch (like XPostFacto) to make X run on generic PowerPCs to know what Apple's reaction will be.
4) We will never see Apple bought by any company AND Steve J staying. Apple's interests are best served by parterships.
From what I understand, the chip, the memory controller, and most of the motherboard of the 970 mac are going to be a la IBM. So I would guess that a ROM transplant would make an IBM 970 into a Mac 970.
But given IBM's market segment, I bet their 970 machine will be fabulously overpriced servers. (As most servers are). I doubt there will be a reason to buy the IBM unless you really want to see big blue's logo on your desk. (Or floor)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was a board that you could buy for the Amiga that basically did this, but the company coulnd't sell the ROM, so you had to find your own source for used ROM. This would probably cost you more than it is worth, an extra $100 at least, for a Unix/Mac dual boot system which you could have with a Mac. At least with the old Amiga system you had 2 seperate OS's with distinct market/software advantages.
There was a board that you could buy for the Amiga that basically did this, </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think things are as tightly locked anymore. There's 'OpenFirmware', which also accesses the Non-Volatile RAM on the newer Macs. But it isn't like the old days where 90%+ of all function calls went through the proprietary ROM. OF is a tool for providing drivers/setting up the chipset for booting -> There's probably a slew of other (albeit painful) methods of getting past that part without OF. You'd still need something to store the info in NVRAM, but - it's just RAM.
Darwin/x86 runs on chips that demonstrably have no 'AppleROM' or anything of the sort. If Darwin/ppc ran on some _other_ ppc machine, how tough would it be to get Mac OS X up and running? -> A lot less difficult than getting System 7 running on the same box.
4) We will never see Apple bought by any company AND Steve J staying. Apple's interests are best served by parterships.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
IBM sells other companies' products as part of its own solutions - EMC storage with IBM servers, for example. It would be more logical for IBM to partner with Apple, sell Apple hardware into the enterprise as part of an IBM package, and then sell the typically lucrative support contract to cover the whole thing. All they would have to do is make sure that the IBM machines and the Apple machines worked together as a coherent system. As it happens, they're already pretty close to realizing that. Besides the basic level of compatibility between OS X and the various platforms Big Blue supports (including Linux and Windows), IBM is currently polling their users to see if it's worth porting DB2 over to OS X, and Lotus is bringing their suite of products over.
That, I can see happening, if Apple's interested enough.
Guys, getting OS X up and running on some non-Apple hardware would not be that hard. The OS is designed to be as portable as possible, after all -- and its open source too! No brainer.
I'll say it again: the reason Apple isn't worried about this is because they can simply prohibit anybody from selling their OS for use on non-Apple hardware. This means that the vast majority of their market (i.e. customers who want a shrink wrapped solution) has no alternative but to buy Apple hardware. If any company does try it then Apple can go after them with their big Legal stick.
If an underground community of hardware hacks, gurus, and various other assorted geeks decide to scratch build their own hardware (or assemble it from various components) and then buy OSX off-the-shelf to run on it... so much the better. Its good to have those kinds of people on the platforms and if they had to buy Apple hardware there's a good chance they wouldn't have come to play. Apple OpenSource'd Darwin to attract this kind of attention. The specter of not being able to get support from Apple, and dealing with unsupported hardware configurations, will mean most normal people won't even consider trying it. If you want to spend your day mucking around trying to get your machine to run right instead of doing something mysterious, go for it. The rest of us buy Macs because we actually want to use them for something.
A big part of the reason that IBM lost control of the PC platform was because the OS came from Microsoft, not IBM. Compaq cloned the ROMs and then bought a legit license for DOS from Microsoft (not there was much to that OS). When Windows came along Microsoft could license to everybody without concern because they don't build hardware (or didn't until recently, that is).
<strong>Sure, but why? IBM has AIX and Linux in its Server line. Why would they want to pay money for OS X Server?</strong><hr></blockquote>(sic.)
Because 'easy to use' and AIX (or Linux) never occur in the same sentence. Erm. Not usually. The XServe monitoring tools are pretty seriously cool. I can't say that they are necessarily _better_, but they are 1) cool, and 2) seem competent. Another tool that does a job competently is only a good thing.
And it wouldn't be IBM paying for it - it would be a customer who wanted to use that OS and yet have a service agreement with IBM.
Comments
<strong> (italics--mine)
While I agree it's technically possible, the utility of the box is pretty low until you can load the rest of OSX on top of the modified Darwin. The italic phrase above is where the copyright gets in the way of doing this as a manufacturer. As a lone wolf hardware/software hacker doing this for personal satisfaction it is a huge amount of work for lots of guaranteed future incompatibilities--An interesting project and worthy of bragging rights, but not particularly practical as a clone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what about what XPostFacto does? Doesn't that take a modified Darwin kernel, and then a normal OS X install, so that you can run OS X on 7600 and stuff?
So basicly someone has done that part (of getting a modified kernel to install), now all that would need to be done is to write the modified darwin kernel that would boot on the 970, right? I know this makes it sound easy, but I know it would be a challenge, but a fun one
<strong>Me, personaly, I think in the foreseeable future, the only way Mac OS will ever be run on an IBM branded computer is if IBM buys Apple.
And to take this one step further...
We have a better chance of Apple buying IBM then we do IBM buying Apple. (in other words... ain't gonna happen) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dave
<strong>
And to take this one step further...
We have a better chance of Apple buying IBM then we do IBM buying Apple. (in other words... ain't gonna happen) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the foreseeable future
[ 10-22-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>
A figure of speech having more to do with the veracity and attention to detail of the corporate lawyers than anything else. Compare and contrast how Apple has held reverse engineering at bay over the last 20 years. If you can't get started you can't finish...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you never heard tell of the Toolbox ROM. The Toolbox ROM was the mechanism by which Apple was able to produce a complete GUI-based OS that could boot from a floppy disk. It was no more illegal to reverse engineer the Toolbox ROM than it was to reverse engineer the IBM PC BIOS. However, Apple contended that it was an impossible task without access to Apple's intellectual property. No one ever proved the contrary.
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>
Compaq finished and then had enough evidence to convince a judge they didn't commit outright theft. If they had been taken seriously before they got started on that project and had the full weight of Big Blues legal dogs on their chest, how far do you think they would have gone? It would have been cheaper to license from IBM than press the legal challenge on a risky project, but they didn't have to make that decision.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compag established protocols that stood legal muster that it legally reverse engineered the IBM PC BIOS. Had Compaq copied IBM, it IBM was have had it for lunch.
Or, are you trying to say that Apple's attorneys are better than IBM's attorneys?
<strong>disaster, i have a motorola clone running in my basement and i'll tell you what, it was a nice piece, and still runs 9 just fine
StarMax 4000/200
200MHz 604e
32MB (96MB in, 160Max)
40MHz bus
2.5GB HD
8X CD-Rom (i think)
beige out the wa-zoo</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was a disaster for Apple, not for the consumer...
<strong>Me, personaly, I think in the foreseeable future, the only way Mac OS will ever be run on an IBM branded computer is if IBM buys Apple.
personally. i think apple will one day end up being IBM's consumer PC's. someday steve will have to leave apple again. IBM would be the perfect company to run apple. i dont forsee anyone else being able to run apple as well as steve other than IBM.
<strong>
It was a disaster for Apple, not for the consumer...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If said consumer wanted to see Apple survive then it was a disaster for them too.
<strong>
Then who buys the Xserve?
I don't see it happening. Nope. I just don't see steve giving away sales of the Xserve and 970 beast tower for IBM to sell it's hardware to it's huge market running X. As much as I'd like to see X with 95% of the market, I don't think Steve has the mentality ot let someone else steal his thunder. The only way would be some type of licensing agreement and fee with each OS, a microsoft type of move or a % of each sale or something.
[edit] Or what about a non mac hardware fee? Like buy X in a mac and it's free, buy it with an IBM and it's $350 or something?
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I think this could or would happen it IS doable...
IBM can sell into the fortune 500 and the rest of 'big business'. IBM makes it's big money from selling SUPPORT and SERVICES. Apple has a great product but is still having a hard time cracking the F500 nut.
IBM - They sell the 'BIG IRON' servers running X and most important the support contracts to go with it.
What happens when X invades the server rooms? Clients have to follow!
Apple - Sells the clients (or allows IBM to re-sell them).
Do you think Apple would knife the xServe (or just put it on ice) if it knew they could have IBMs international sales force pushing/pitching their product to business world.. Oh yea I think they would.
IBM sells the servers (+support - IBMs bread & butter) and Apple sells the clients. Not a bad deal if you ask me. All of them using the PPC970 CPU. The big problem I see to this ever happening is IBMs backing of Linux. IBM has been doing some SERIOUS investing in Linux and I don't see how that could fit in with a plan like this. In fact it would seem we might have a major foe on our hands.
IBM investing and supporting Linux
IBM developing a new 'desktop' PPC 970 CPU
IBM rumors about linux boxes (just rumors I hope)
Apple is grabbing a fair number of 'linux converts' (and linux users bring a fair bit of mindshare due to their 'geek nature') but if IBM tries to make a go of growing the Linux market with boxes of it's own using the PPC970 it would seem to be X vs. LinuxPPC or to put it another way Apple vs. IBM
I sure hope those rumors are just rumors but if they aren't then Apple might loose some of those linux converts and that would be too bad.
Gonna be really interesting how things turn out over the next many months...
Dave
[ 10-22-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]
[ 10-22-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>Just wondering ...
If IBM woulf release their own boxes using this CPU ... wouldn't that effectively be creating a mac clone since it is using PowerPC techonology ...Possibly being able to install MacOS on it too (abeit maybe easier said than done) ???</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I understand, the chip, the memory controller, and most of the motherboard of the 970 mac are going to be a la IBM. So I would guess that a ROM transplant would make an IBM 970 into a Mac 970.
But given IBM's market segment, I bet their 970 machine will be fabulously overpriced servers. (As most servers are). I doubt there will be a reason to buy the IBM unless you really want to see big blue's logo on your desk. (Or floor)
<strong>
personally. i think apple will one day end up being IBM's consumer PC's. someday steve will have to leave apple again. IBM would be the perfect company to run apple. i dont forsee anyone else being able to run apple as well as steve other than IBM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Trust me when I say that Apple would go down the tubes, if IBM took them over (unless, Apple was a fully independent subsidiary). I say this from first hand knowledge of seeing how IBM management works from the inside. IBM is more concerned with "perceptions" and "numbers". Apple is more concerned with "substance" and "cool products".
IBM is "up tight" in their codes (use an image of the dark dress slacks, white long sleeve collared dress shirt, Blue or Red "Power" tie <for most folks, although field reps can dress down a little>
Apple involved in a contractual partnership with IBM sounds more feasible.
2) Clones won't return for the forseeable future.
3) We will have to wait until someone has the balls to post a patch (like XPostFacto) to make X run on generic PowerPCs to know what Apple's reaction will be.
4) We will never see Apple bought by any company AND Steve J staying. Apple's interests are best served by parterships.
Barto
<strong>
From what I understand, the chip, the memory controller, and most of the motherboard of the 970 mac are going to be a la IBM. So I would guess that a ROM transplant would make an IBM 970 into a Mac 970.
But given IBM's market segment, I bet their 970 machine will be fabulously overpriced servers. (As most servers are). I doubt there will be a reason to buy the IBM unless you really want to see big blue's logo on your desk. (Or floor)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was a board that you could buy for the Amiga that basically did this, but the company coulnd't sell the ROM, so you had to find your own source for used ROM. This would probably cost you more than it is worth, an extra $100 at least, for a Unix/Mac dual boot system which you could have with a Mac. At least with the old Amiga system you had 2 seperate OS's with distinct market/software advantages.
<strong>
There was a board that you could buy for the Amiga that basically did this, </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think things are as tightly locked anymore. There's 'OpenFirmware', which also accesses the Non-Volatile RAM on the newer Macs. But it isn't like the old days where 90%+ of all function calls went through the proprietary ROM. OF is a tool for providing drivers/setting up the chipset for booting -> There's probably a slew of other (albeit painful) methods of getting past that part without OF. You'd still need something to store the info in NVRAM, but - it's just RAM.
Darwin/x86 runs on chips that demonstrably have no 'AppleROM' or anything of the sort. If Darwin/ppc ran on some _other_ ppc machine, how tough would it be to get Mac OS X up and running? -> A lot less difficult than getting System 7 running on the same box.
Maybe BootX would have to be modded, maybe not. A new bootloader could always be written, witness Mac on Linux.
Barto
<strong>
4) We will never see Apple bought by any company AND Steve J staying. Apple's interests are best served by parterships.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
IBM sells other companies' products as part of its own solutions - EMC storage with IBM servers, for example. It would be more logical for IBM to partner with Apple, sell Apple hardware into the enterprise as part of an IBM package, and then sell the typically lucrative support contract to cover the whole thing. All they would have to do is make sure that the IBM machines and the Apple machines worked together as a coherent system. As it happens, they're already pretty close to realizing that. Besides the basic level of compatibility between OS X and the various platforms Big Blue supports (including Linux and Windows), IBM is currently polling their users to see if it's worth porting DB2 over to OS X, and Lotus is bringing their suite of products over.
That, I can see happening, if Apple's interested enough.
I'll say it again: the reason Apple isn't worried about this is because they can simply prohibit anybody from selling their OS for use on non-Apple hardware. This means that the vast majority of their market (i.e. customers who want a shrink wrapped solution) has no alternative but to buy Apple hardware. If any company does try it then Apple can go after them with their big Legal stick.
If an underground community of hardware hacks, gurus, and various other assorted geeks decide to scratch build their own hardware (or assemble it from various components) and then buy OSX off-the-shelf to run on it... so much the better. Its good to have those kinds of people on the platforms and if they had to buy Apple hardware there's a good chance they wouldn't have come to play. Apple OpenSource'd Darwin to attract this kind of attention. The specter of not being able to get support from Apple, and dealing with unsupported hardware configurations, will mean most normal people won't even consider trying it. If you want to spend your day mucking around trying to get your machine to run right instead of doing something mysterious, go for it. The rest of us buy Macs because we actually want to use them for something.
A big part of the reason that IBM lost control of the PC platform was because the OS came from Microsoft, not IBM. Compaq cloned the ROMs and then bought a legit license for DOS from Microsoft (not there was much to that OS). When Windows came along Microsoft could license to everybody without concern because they don't build hardware (or didn't until recently, that is).
<strong>1) Apple could license Mac OS X to IBM for "big-iron" servers. These servers are in a different league to Xserves.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, but why? IBM has AIX and Linux in its Sever line. Why would they want to pay money for OS X Server?
<strong>Sure, but why? IBM has AIX and Linux in its Server line. Why would they want to pay money for OS X Server?</strong><hr></blockquote>(sic.)
Because 'easy to use' and AIX (or Linux) never occur in the same sentence. Erm. Not usually. The XServe monitoring tools are pretty seriously cool. I can't say that they are necessarily _better_, but they are 1) cool, and 2) seem competent. Another tool that does a job competently is only a good thing.
And it wouldn't be IBM paying for it - it would be a customer who wanted to use that OS and yet have a service agreement with IBM.