The very first Apple computers, distributed nationwide in 1977, had a hood you could pry off to reveal the CPU, the memory, and the motherboard. But almost three decades later, the company that pioneered “open architecture” with the Apple II, even with thousands of admirers looking on, was reluctant to pry the back panel off its new Intel Core Duo-based iMacs and MacBook Pro portables.
Just how Different are Intel-Macs from Intel PCs?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The article’s technical analysis is flawed, which leads it to wrong conclusions. First, OS X is not 64-bit native. It’s almost all 32-bit code, but uses a feature of the PowerPC which allows 64-bit binaries to run on a 32-bit kernel. The AMD64 has no such feature, and requires a 64-bit kernel to run 64-bit applications. Thus, even if Merom had been available now, whether Apple could use it in 64-bit mode would depend on whether they have made the whole OS 64-bit clean since Tiger was released. My guess would be that you won’t see full 64-bit support for OS X until 10.5 at least, when Conroe-based PowerMacs are in good circulation.
Also, the article seems to think you could put a pair of Core Duos into the PowerMac. This is, of course, not true. The Core Duo, like all of Intel’s consumer chips, has no SMP support.
Care to elaborate on that?
Have any links to back you up? (I’m speaking about this part in your post: “but uses a feature of the PowerPC which allows 64-bit binaries to run on a 32-bit kernel.”)
How would the OS save the contexts to switch threads (it would have to save the registers and stuff). How would you gain anything if it’s a 32-bit kernel? (for each MOV (yeah, I know PPC doesn’t have MOV) you would have to do two MOVs (slower))
And other stuff like that.
Links would be nice
The author fails to realize that someone might want to run BOTH XP and OSX on their new intel mac. I know I myself plan to get my hands on one of these machines as soon as I can afford one – why? I’m a web developer. I need a good development machine that I can test on – and I’m not going to just be an arse and say “Everybody use mac if you want to ensure it works”. I want to be able to say that my products work on XP, OSX, and Linux. Having it all in one machine makes things much easier.
Not to mention the fact that I’m probably not going to be able to shell out thousands of bucks for mac software after purchasing the new machine
I’ll still need to use my Windows software for a while.
This may be a dumb question, but as a web developer, why do you need to verify web apps work on Windows? The purpose of web design, I thought, was so anyone, anywhere, with any OS can use the same app and view the same data.
Cross-browser support I can understand, but not OS. Unless you mean testing on IE, but then couldn’t you either use MacIE or get a Windows emulator?
Most of the work is in layout testing. One big difference people neglect is font rendering; Linux’s font rendering is VERY different from Windows, even with the same fonts. There are numerous sizing issues.
Besides, I also do music composition, and graphic design – I already own most of my Windows software, so I’m not shelling out the cash for Mac software
Mac IE is absolutely nothing like Windows IE. They are worlds apart in the way they render web pages, what “Microsoft experimental” DHTML code is supported, and what CSS attributes are supported. Not to mention ActiveX does not run on Mac. On top of that, Microsoft has abandoned Mac IE. So, no he couldn’t rationally use Mac IE.
Mac IE is absolutely nothing like Windows IE. They are worlds apart in the way they render web pages, what “Microsoft experimental” DHTML code is supported, and what CSS attributes are supported. Not to mention ActiveX does not run on Mac. On top of that, Microsoft has abandoned Mac IE. So, no he couldn’t rationally use Mac IE.
the intel 64-bit chips are 32-bit with 64-bit extensions (allowing more memory and better fp) they’re not pure 64-bit like sparc et al.
were the powerpc g5’s etc. 64-bit proper?
You’re wrong. The x86-64/amd64/EM64T architecture is as pure 64bit as a sparc64 or an alpha.
It is an extension to the x86 architecture only as far as using a similar instruction set and allowing 32bit apps to run from within 64bit mode. But it doesn’t make it any less pure than the others (other “pure” 64bit architectures do the same, as they are usually an evolution of a 32bit one – sparc, for instance).
The K8 is a pure-64 bit chip. The Netburst 64-bit chips are only partially 64-bit. Their integer ALUs, in particular, do 64-bit operations in multiple clock cycles.
That being true just makes the Intel implementation a bad implementation (we already knew it to be inferior to AMD’s) but, from the software point of view, it is still a 64bit architecture on its own.
What I mean is, if the PAE was 64bit instead of 32bit, then it wouldn’t be 64bit “pure”.
But this is just fuzzy wording, the point is the x84-64 ISA is as 64bit as an Alpha (even in the inferior EM64T incarnation).
were the powerpc g5’s etc. 64-bit proper?
Yes, the G5 is a “proper” 64-bit chip. However, Apple doesn’t yet make “proper” use of 64-bit.
If you remember, when Apple first added multiple processor support, the second CPU wasn’t fully supported (i.e., it wouldn’t run normal Mac programs). Instead, you called a special library to run special code that makes no calls to the OS, but it ran concurrent to the main program on the second CPU.
MacOSX 64-bit support is the same way. You have your normal 32bit program, which uses a special library to run special code that makes no calls to the OS, but it runs in 64-bit mode.
You can get a true 64-bit OS for the G5 Macs by running 64-bit linux for the PPC.
That is wrong, the library that is available for 64-bit mode is libSystem.
So you can have a 64-bit process calling the OS (at the UNIX / POSIX level).
However, there a currently no highlevel (GUI) 64-bit libraries (Cocoa, Carbon).
Because of the architecture of the PPC there is no need for a process to be 64-bit to use 64 instuctions (when a G5 is present).
You only need a 64-bit process to have access to more than 4GB of RAM.
Most of these applications are servers etc. and have no GUI.
If you need a GUI and more than 4GB of RAM you have to split the application in a GUI process and a background process.
The article’s intro makes it sound like it the “closed box” mentality is new to Apple – if anything, they’re much less overbearing about it now. Anyone remember needing special screwdrivers to open early Macintoshes?
what.. hex-bit srives? those are hardly “sepcial”
but yes, Apple’s systems are much more open than they use to be…. and now with PCI-E machines… GFX cards should be swappable just like other cards.
Were they just hex-bit? I thought I remembered them being something more exotic. Still, they’re fairly exotic compared to phillips or robertson.
Not hex, they were Torx bits (aka “star”).
doh… Torx, that is what I was after (the picture in my head was that at least)
It won’t be long before they find out what the difference is between the to hardware platforms. I would guess in the next few months they will have found a way to circumvent the DRM or whatever to allow Mac OS run on any PC hardware.
Smartpatrol,
This site http://www.osx86project.org/ may interest you. Legally I don’t believe Apple can stop people from running OS-X on non-Apple sold systems since for one thing they sell the OS seperately. Though running OS-X on non-Apple sold systems would definitely void technical support from Apple and their authorized resellers.
> Legally I don’t believe Apple can stop people from running OS-X
> on non-Apple sold systems since for one thing they sell the OS
> seperately.
Actually the EULA stipulates that you can only run it on Apple hardware. So if you’re concern is legalities, then running on your own intel hardware would be breaking the license.
Can they stop you? Probably for awhile.
bubbayank,
Re: “Actually the EULA stipulates that you can only run it on Apple hardware. So if you’re concern is legalities, then running on your own intel hardware would be breaking the license.”
Just to clarify when I refer to OS-X it’s with the understanding I’m referring to the purchased OS not an illegal copy that would infringe the DRM. Apple’s EULA basically stipulates Apple will not provide support for users who install OS-X on desktops/laptops/servers that are not sold by Apple or it’s authorized resellers. They will also enforce to the full extent of the law unauthorized distributors who attempt to sell systems with OS-X installed. Though when it comes to consumers purchasing OS-X and are able to run it on their current systems I don’t see how Apple will legally stop them other than state they void warrenty coverage and technical support. The reality is Apple is attempting to go through legal loop holes to run a hardware monopoly by locking out many manufacturers and businesses from selling Apple software such as their OS. It’s surprizing to me that there are some consumers who are either ignorant of this or are simply closing their eyes to the issue. It’s sort of like saying it’s not okay for a business like Microsoft to use monopoly tactics but it is okay for Apple.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
http://appleintelfaq.com/
The case is absolutely clear with consumers, as stated earlier – ie you buy it, you can run it (in compliance with copyright) wherever you want.
The case of a packager is interesting and different. It must be OK for a packager to buy software, and to then sell machines with it preinstalled. He would have to be careful to observe truth in labelling regulations and not violate any trademarks, but its hard to see how this could be actionable. At the extreme, he could always break down his charges into three parts: a fee for the hardware, a fee for the software, and a fee for the installation; and it cannot be unlawful to do for a consumer what it is lawful for him to do for himself in the way of an installation.
The difficult question would be, if Apple were to refuse to sell retail in sufficient quantities. There are cases like this. Its common for supermarket chains in the UK when selling loss leaders to limit quantities, and to refuse in general to sell in quantities which suggest the buyer is a business, cafe, bar and so on. Its an interesting question. Suppose my local Mac dealer starts to order 100s of copies of X, what exactly can Apple do about it?
They may be saved from some of the rigors of EU competition law by having such low market share.
Actually the EULA stipulates that you can only run it on Apple hardware…
Not valid, in the EU at least. Conditions in Eulas can be valid, =df courts will uphold them, but this one will not be. It is just the same as running Office under Wine, the MS Eula will not stop that either. Nor would a book Eula which forbad you from reading it in the bath stop you from doing that. Or a CD Eula which forbad you from playing it in (eg) Panasonic walkmans.
People who say the opposite don’t understand EU competition law, or EU consumer protection law, or both.
Manufacturer support/warranty under the proposed use is a different matter.
If Apple put in some measure to keep OS X from running on regular intel machines then circumventing those measures might be a violation of the DMCA. I’m no lawyer though so I’m not sure.
Legally I don’t believe Apple can stop people from running OS-X on non-Apple sold systems since for one thing they sell the OS seperately.
This has come up before, but where did it say Apple would be selling OS X for Intel as a seperate package? It makes no sense. There’s no legacy Intel Mac platforms, and the OS will come pre-installed on new ones.
Fair use would generally allow you to install OS X on whatever you want, but the way I see it is that you would have to buy an Mactel to get a license for OS X/Intel anyways. And you’d have to remove it from the Mactel before you could “legally” install it via hacks onto a different machine.
OS X/PPC is a different product; purchasing OS X ppc doesn’t entitle a user to install OS X/intel, unless Apple has turned over a new leaf and become very open with their end user licensing.
I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision, in fact, it was hard to see what alternatives there realistically were, but the nature of the decision seems to be getting clearer all the time. They are just reselling standard Intel machines with a tiny bit of code left out of the bios and a slightly different case.
We should stop talking about running Windows on Macs, almost – it gives a completely misleading impression of what is being talked about. What’s being talked about is running Windows on a PC that happens to have been sold by Apple.
It is getting closer and closer to either Dell or MS all the time. They must have different profit centres for the OS and for the hardware. Pretty soon the pressure from the hardware people to package with XP will become intense, and the similar pressure to be able to let the OS go from the OS people will also become intense. The two will collide in the boardroom and bang! Both will be opened up, and the hardware division will sell both X and XP, and the software division will sell to Dell, as well as the hardware division.
Everyone will make more money. Or at least, that is what they will promise…
umm… A Mac is a PC.
the machintosh is a brand name like the XPS is a Brad name for Dell.
both the mac and the pc use the same kind of ram, hard drvie and share the same type of slots. so i would say the only difference is the CPU and the price.
Originally a Mac was not a PC. A PC was a computer adhering to the IBM PC standard. A standard which has changed quite a bit over the years. Apple saw no need to adhere to this standard.
Actually, I’d be more interested ro run OSX on non-Intel Macs. I mean, if it rocks, I coudl always buy a Mac, but hopefully they’ll come up with some kind of ‘trailware’ that people can run on their PC alongside Windows just to test drive it.
If I got a Mac, I would definitely want to be able to boot into Windows, especially since some of my hardware isn’t compatable with Macs .. flashing the firmware isn’t something you can necessarily do in a virtual machine
what hardware?
Isn’t this article a bit pointless seeing as no who can actually say has any idea what is really inside one of the new Core Duo Macs.
I know! From the description I expected the article to be about taking one of those new Intel Macs apart and examining the contents.
What are you talking about? you mean what the code is on the EFI chip?
Really it does not matter in the long run since Vista will run on a machine that uses EFI.
In don’t understand why you americans are so Apple zealots. I don’t see this on other countries, maybe only in Japan.
Apple is pure marketing and good design. iMacs and Powerbooks have beautiful design and MacOS X interface is sexy but for me it is stupid exchange Windows/PC/Intel/AMD platform (software monopoly/muliple hardware vendors/two CPU makers) for MacOS X/Apple hardware/Intel (software monopoly/unique hardware vendor/unique CPU maker).
Apple hardware with Intel processor is even more similar to PC hardware than before. With Windows Vista, operating system differences will be much smaller than today.
I use linux both on servers and desktops but if I would have to choose another platform I would go with Windows/PC.
MacOS X/Apple/Intel freedom < Windows/PC/Intel/AMD freedom <<<< Linux/PC/*/Intel/AMD/* freedom
If Apple can make OS X run on Intel, then theoritically it could run on AMD. I don’t mind Apple using Intel but I hope AMD will work something out so you can buy either an Intel-Mac or an AMD-Mac, just like most PC companies.
It would force Intel to keep “innovating” and hopefully push down Mac prices.
OS X has been rumming on AMD machines for months; check the unofficial hardware compatibility list for details.
But can you get an official Apple-AMD system? With my current understanding, you can only get a Mac w/ OS X on an Intel base.
While Apple has no problem if people run other OSes on a Mac, they’ll probably have a problem w/ someone running OS X on a home-build. So what I’d like to see is Apple offering Mac with either Intel chips or AMD chips.
I know it’s not that big of a difference, but I’m partial to AMD due to price and performance, plus I feel AMD has better technology. Just my opinion.
Agreed. Shame it doesn’t seem to run on AthlonXP-class HW at all.
The Intel-exclusivity is the only real downside I see to the x86-switch. I don’t have anything against Intel per se, I’m running 3 P3s between two of my PCs, but the P4-era generally left a bad taste in my mouth and I find that Intel charges a premium for their product, compared to their competitors, that isn’t warranted by the level of performance/quality.
I find that Intel charges a premium for their product
Hmmmm, the perfect match for Apple then :p
<< WARNING, THIS IS NOT A FLAME >>
sigh.
According to ThinkSecret who got some informations at the Apple booth
“Despite the similarities to Intel’s Core Duo-based “Centrino Duo” platform, Apple representatives are telling visitors at its Macworld Expo booth that the MacBook Pro is not employing that particular platform’s technology, but rather suggested that Intel had worked with Apple on developing a custom platform.
While confirming this information has proven difficult, the similarity in specifications between the new MacBook Pro and a Centrino Duo laptop from Acer—including features such as 802.11a/b/g support, a first for Apple—certainly indicates a collaboration between Apple and Intel with regards to the platform the MacBook Pro employs.”
Interesting!!!!
I think we will see OS X running on AMD 64 bit systems soon enough.
Mac PC impossible ? See how this can happen 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=vP2yeLssvEU