Mac OS X compat with x86 but secret?

[Delator]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

Interesting read.. [thanks /. ]
According to the article mac has a ported version of mac os x for x86 and is secretly maintaining it.
What do you think, bs or possible?
Wouldn't suprise me if it was true (probably exagerated), wouldnt be all that hard to do and rumours of this type of thing have been around for ages.

[Bern]

If they had 1/2 a brain they would be doing this.....but this is apple we're talking about. I'd have a look at it, the main problem with mac's is the closed hardware.....and the single button mouse of course.....I don't know what they were thinking about when they came up with that one.

[GooSE]

Originally posted by Bern
If they had 1/2 a brain they would be doing this.....but this is apple we're talking about. I'd have a look at it, the main problem with mac's is the closed hardware.....and the single button mouse of course.....I don't know what they were thinking about when they came up with that one.

Most modern macs actually have quite good upgradability (AGP slot, PCI slots, IDE hard disk/cd-rom, SDRAM, USB, Firewire, etc). This also means that you can plug in your Microsoft Intellimouse or any other 3 button or whatever USB mouse.

[BoutS]

Most peoples i know who work with macs, usually buy a intellimouse with it and throw the stock one away!

I agree with bern that Apple should release a ported version and get the OS into the mainstream, it would be a great way to increase public/consumer awareness of the Apple brand. Not suprisingly the brains behind apple dont want that.

[Bern]

Originally posted by GooSE


Most modern macs actually have quite good upgradability (AGP slot, PCI slots, IDE hard disk/cd-rom, SDRAM, USB, Firewire, etc). This also means that you can plug in your Microsoft Intellimouse or any other 3 button or whatever USB mouse.

Yes but whenthey do shit like this then being able to use generic hardware is pointless.

[decryption]

i doubt apple would release os x to x86 machines anytime soon..
if they did.. who in their right mind would buy an apple desktop? think about it... the only reason youd be buying an apple desktop would be
A. they look good
B. you need some specialist os x only software (rare circumstance)
C. you want os x

put it on x86 hardware... bye bye imac, powermac sales...

at least thats my logical (illogical?) reasoning anyways...

[Bern]

The imac and powermac will be around as long as there are clueless interior designers who want to colour match.
What Apple has the opportunity to do with OSX is to upset the MS OS monopoly on x86 hardware, there is a market for it, the market that MS created, and Apple can pull the rug right out from under them if they play there cards right. Personally, I think that we may see an anouncement from Apple re OSX and Hammer.

[Molman]

Originally posted by Bern
The imac and powermac will be around as long as there are clueless interior designers who want to colour match.
What Apple has the opportunity to do with OSX is to upset the MS OS monopoly on x86 hardware, there is a market for it, the market that MS created, and Apple can pull the rug right out from under them if they play there cards right. Personally, I think that we may see an anouncement from Apple re OSX and Hammer.

The thing you have to remember is unlike Microsoft, Apple isn't just a software company, they rely heavily on their hardware sales (that link you provided even indicated 85-90% of their sales). Thus in making OSX compatible with x86 hardware they essentially open the doors for an apple clone market which closed down some years back now. This essentially is what I think
decryption was trying to highlight. Further because of the fact that Apple dictates their whole platform the QA is normally of high standard.

The only way I can see Apple moving to x86 hardware is if they can devise some means of ensuring you can use only "their" x86 hardware. For Apple image and brand recognition carries allot of weight with aesthetics being very important (not just the physical either) This ownership and total control of everything Apple (as seen through then pouncing on anything that imitates them) is something the company has followed for some years now and I really don't see it changing in the near future.

[Bern]

Your complety right Molman, and it's exectly that attitude that has kept Apple as a bit player with a smaller market share that their OS should have. Thus my original "1/2 a brain" comment.

[Molman]

Personally I feel if they can devise some means to use x86 hardware (whilst obviously still making you use Apple hardware) it wouldn't be such a silly move. I see cost as being a major factor against Apple (which hopefully using x86 would help reduce). I know I wouldn't mind an Apple computer but the value for me just isn't there when compared to a x86-Windows system (even if you buy the OS + software which we all do right ). For a less technical minded person the perspective is likely different, though companies like Dell don't offer a bad deal if you still want to go the brand name route.

[Myne_h]

havent you guys heard of Darwin?
It is an X86 unix from mac.
I installed it once, I was expecting a gui, instead I got a familiar unix prompt.

[funkychild]

The port is done to the x86 processor - that doesn't for a minute mean it'll be able to run on any old PC. It's probably a backup in case (for example) if there are problems with Motorola producing the G5 and they need to switch to a different vendor. If they did decide to use x86, it's be an Apple computer, with an x86 CPU inside, rather than a G4. Probably using a custom motherboard etc. too. Apple would be killing themselves if they released a version of MacOSX that attempted to run on any old PC. I wouldn't be surprised if there's also a port of OSX to the 64bit IBM Power4 CPU, since it's apparently quite similar to the G4.

Originally posted by Bern

Yes but whenthey do shit like this then being able to use generic hardware is pointless.

That's exactly what they want. Apple isn't in the business of selling software, nor is it in the business of selling hardware only. They are in the business of selling a complete package, which 'just works'. Now, perhaps that's not what a lot of us more technically minded people want, but it's perfect for most people who just want ot use their computer as a tool, and get get it over with.

If Apple allowed generic hardware, they'd run in to the same sorts of problems as Windows and Linux have now - incomplete driver support because there are so many different pieces of hardware to worry about, crashes from buggy driver code from incompetent vendors and so on. For the market that they're aiming at, the tradeoff in having a lesser range of (usually cheap yum-cha stuff anyway) hardware is worth the added simplicity and convenience of having a fully integrated package.

I always wonder why people blast Apple specifically about this, other computer manufacturers like Sun and SGI do it too, to a much greater extent (most of the stuff inside Apples use standard hardware interfaces etc.). SGI wants to sell a 'complete graphics workstation solution', not a cobbled together box of bits with some software as well. It's the same thing for Apple.

[Molman]

Originally posted by Myne_h
havent you guys heard of Darwin?
It is an X86 unix from mac.
I installed it once, I was expecting a gui, instead I got a familiar unix prompt.

Yes, but Darwin isn't OSX.

See: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/pr...arwin/faq.html

Q. What is Darwin?

A. Darwin is a version of the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file systems. It was originally released in March 1999. Darwin currently runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers, and is being ported to Intel processor-based computers and compatible systems by the Darwin community.

Q. How does Darwin relate to Mac OS X?

A. Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. All software built for Darwin should be able to run unmodified on Mac OS X. However, because Darwin by itself does not encompass all of the features of Mac OS X, software that depends on higher-level features of Mac OS X (such as the Cocoa and Carbon toolkits) will not run on a stand-alone Darwin system.

. . .essentially the foundation of OSX is Open Source, but everything that makes it Apple isn't (ie. being Closed Source).

[hast]

i saw this article on slashdot, so chances are it is probably a rumour

[The C Man]

It's like the Apple iPOD, they ported it to Windows because someone hacked it firstly, but it also their secret weapon trying to convert Windows users to make the jump to Mac

Whoever asked about Darwin, it aint OSX, as said earlier its the core

Also the Darwin logo just happens to be my avatar

I doubt that Mac will port OSX to x86, they would lose far to many sales (except for the very nice 23 inch monitor, mmmmmm)