“For those who aren’t familiar with OS X, it is a full implementation of BSD Unix with a Macintosh front end, which is to say world class inside and out. OS X is faster, smarter, prettier, and easier to use than any version of Windows. In short, it is exactly the competitor Microsoft needs. And the timing couldn’t be better.” Very interesting and easy-reading article, but I would not say “faster” in the above excerpt. Robert Cringely is at it again, this time discussing how the best thing for Apple, for users, and even for Microsoft, would be an Intel version of OSX.
The Power of X
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
A X86 port of O.S.X won’t solve the main problem facing serious computer users.
Such persons don’t buy computers because of the operating systems installed on them, but because of the applications they can run.
I work for an architect.
We use Autocad extensively to create construction documents.
Autodesk abandoned Unix and Apple versions of Autocad years ago.
Like most other professions except publishing, graphic arts, and possibly, non-linear movie and video editing, I have little choice about using Windows.
Who is going to create all the O.S.X for Intel applications?
Who is going to port all the P.P.C. versions of O.S.X software they just finished porting from Mac O.S.9?
This idea won’t suit anyone besides the geek crowd who use computers for the machines own sakes.
Unless Apple can figure out a way to make an x86 version of O.S.X which can run existing O.S.X for P.P.C. binaries, this idea will never get off the ground.
I think Apple should dump PPC and move to X86. Be was successful with BeOS for intel…why not apple too? Plus Apple will coast longer with 4-5 billion in cash before they are bought out by Handspring for 8 million dollars.
Example: The video game company Sega couldn’t keep up with the competition in terms of hardware. So they abandoned their hardware and became a software only company.
Apple does not create the Mac hardware themselves. They may have contributed to the architecture design but they don’t own fabs that manufacture hardware parts. Therefore, I don’t see why Apple can’t just focus all their efforts on software.
One major reason that’s been keeping me away from the Mac platform for so long is because I am unable to build the Mac computer myself the same way I can with a PC, by that I mean I can’t buy a case of my choice, motherboard and a PowerPC processor and assemble the system by hand. This is really no big deal. And like Raymond said, serious computer users choose the platform that runs the software the user needs. With that said, going back to my original point, Apple should forcus their effort in convincing people to use Apple software, and not the hardware platform itself. We’ve seen Apple’s efforts in a campaign to educate people about the “MHz Myth”, and their goal is to convince people that the MHz number isn’t the only thing that spells performance. You can have the best hardware that money can buy, but if the OS you put on it is crap it will hose the entire system. I believe MacOSX to be a very good OS and will continue to get better.
By making OSX available for x86 hardware, Apple will be fighting on only one front, the software and OS front. They’ll become a direct competitor to Microsoft, an even more dangerous competitor than Linux. The reason that makes MacOSX so great should be because of what it can do, and the software available for it, not because it works on better hardware. If you really wanted the best performance in Windows NT/2000 you can install it on an Alpha system. But that doesn’t make Windows the better OS.
If Apple carries on the way it is now, isolating themselves in a niche, they’ll become their own enemy.
‘OS X is faster, smarter, prettier, and easier to use than any version of Windows.’
Robert Cringely is an idiot.
When I tried out OSX (10.1), it ran like molasses on a 866. The WM speed felt much like a slow, bloated WM (Gnome, KDE) under Linux/X. Maybe I am too used to Blackbox. Actually, even Winblows was faster (perceivably (which is all that counts for 99% of lusers)).
Do we really need these propaganda-oriented rants?
BTW I found it relatively easy to destroy the OS via the handy terminal and some poking around. Actually, bloated and bug-infested applications such as iTunes are pretty helpful in accomplishing this too. So much for ‘stability’.
Cringley clearly hasn’t used X on an average Mac for any length of time.
OS X has nothing on Windows, and porting to Intel would only reveal just how little Apple has to offer on the software end.
I don’t think many people understand what an effort it takes to port an OS to a new architecture. Darwin has already been ported, but that would be the least of Apple’s problems anyway. Assuming Apple ports the OS, who’s going to write the drivers for the thousands of pieces of hardware people are going to be clamoring for? Apple? Hardware companies? Oh, I suppose you expect the teeming millions to write open-source OS X drivers for everything. Fair enough.
But the Mac is not just software – it’s a seamless blend of software and hardware. It’s a whole experience. Plug something in and it just works. Install an application and it just works – no arseing about required. Both the software and hardware aim to be high quality (the hardware is there, the software is getting there), and high quality is not something often found in the land of cheap commodity soulless x86 boxes.
Why would Apple WANT to port to x86? They’ve got great hardware. The PPC has been slightly lagging lately, but it’s catching back up. The G5 is looking very exciting. MHz for MHz, PPC beats both Intel and AMD – it’s a solid, healthy foundation. Let’s face it – if Apple were to port to Intel, OS X for PPC – that solid foundation – would be dead instantly. Apple barely has enough resources to support PPC as it is – it can’t support its own hardware IN ADDITION to x86.
So, okay, um, let’s kill the iMac, the Power Mac, the iBook, and the PowerBook, because even though our hardware is f*cking great and it makes us tons of filthy cash, and even though it’s gaining in market share every day, and even though we don’t even NEED any more market share than we already have to be perfectly healthy, well, we don’t want to piss off those 0.5% of PC users who would actually USE OS X on x86. (Because, let’s face it, unless Microsoft were to port Office to OS X x86, PC users would stick with Windows.) And we all know what a bang-up job Be did moving from PPC to x86, and how they were one of the most successful companies of all time. I (Steve Jobs) myself remember how my own OpenStep, previously NextStep, almost took over the world when it got ported to x86. I’m sold! Let’s stab the several million current Mac owners square in the back and go for it! Cowabunga!
Let’s put our common sense and past experience to good use here, kids. OS X for Intel = About as good an idea as a solar-powered flashlight. Robert X. Cringely suggesting OS X for Intel = A dope. His Porsche analogy is crap. Yawn.
I’d dump windoze in an instant if I could have a Mac without buying overpriced Apple hardware. I started out with an Atari ST. I really wanted a Mac but even then they were way too expensive so I went with the “poor boy’s Mac”. After Atari there was windoze, unix, Linux and a brief fling with Be (best of the bunch, but just more roadkill now). I think there are a lot of people like me who would love a Mac but can’t justify the cost. I agree with Cringely that Apple could haul in a lot of new users without dinging the Mac hardware crowd.
alexd wrote:
“… no arseing about required …”
Them Macs must be true wonder machines then.
Let’s see what the “requirement arseing” usually is:
– When you are low on HDD space on your Mac, what will your Mac do then, detect things you don’t really need and delete it automatically?
– When you have a memory intensive app, won’t it slow down when you’re low on RAM and it has to swap portions of memory to the harddrive?
– When Carmack ports Doom 3 to the Mac platform will it run flawlessly with your G3/Rage128 system?
– CD-ROM requirement – well…
alexd wrote:
“high quality is not something often found in the land of cheap commodity soulless x86 boxes”
I’d rather say most of the high quality software found on the Mac is a small subset of the software available on the Windows platform…
on x86 we have Darwin and on top of it we can place GNU or GNustep.
It is OpenStep spec compatible so most software may be ported with little effort, if company want to do that they have just to help the GNUstep team.
Anyway I still hope in the Hurd. The developement is progressing even if the developers don’t say much.
How tired and old this is… Apple cares less about Intel. Im certain this has been batted around quite a bit. In fact their original plan was to hava yellow box running on Intel, but was scuttled by Steve. Apple is a profitable company that makes great products for a certain niche. Why can’t it just be that? Why must they provide competition for Microsoft? Jobs gave that up long ago, and it’s done the company a world of good.
Mac OS X for Intel has been discussed a zillion times and won’t happen, not now, not ever. I love my Dual 1 Ghz Mac!
I have to admit, the only thing I’m convinced of after reading this article is that an x86 port of OS X would be good for Microsoft. The arguments of why it would help Mac seem a little sketchy.
Let’s first look at Apple. It’s a company with high profit margins on its hardware, very little debt, and a solid chunk of change in the bank. That doesn’t sound like a company in deep trouble.
And yes, they are a niche market, but people overlook some of those niches. The art world and Hollywood are enamoured with Mac’s, and that’s a lot of cash to throw around. Friends in the film and television industry tell me they are swtiching over from Avid systems to Final Cut Pro decks (both of which feature Apple). It may seem small, but I bet people don’t think about how many small post production houses there are across the country. Sure, not everyone gets to work on a Nike ad for the Super Bowl, but there are tons of smaller ads all across the country being made on G4’s. I think the big concern is their faltering place in the education market.
And the statement that Mac users will always buy Mac, it may or may not be true, but why shift a company’s focus based on such an artibtrary statement?
Personally I think Mac needs to dump Motorola and strike up an agreement with AMD. OS X could still remain Mac only with some hardware tweks and they would get great, low cost processors that can reach higher speeds and support multi-processors without too many headaches. The author’s recommendations only benefit Microsoft (in the light a fire under them sense) and only work for Apple if they want to kill themselves trying to dethrone Windows as the #1 PC OS. If they want to remain successful, at least for now, they should tell this guy to stop talking out of his arse.
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO OS X ON X86!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PPC is migrating to a 64-bit platform for IBM’s mainframe activities…how long will the processor stay desktop focused?! Moreover, when you get to 64-bit, mac hardware is even more expensive. I just priced a dual-PPC system @ apple and damn!? I can get equivalent performance in any number of flavors for 1/2 the price…
Apple already over-prices and doesn’t provide the seamless integration that mac-addicts claim. I’ve had to support macs and pcs and they are equally a pain, regardless of OS or apps, unless you are talking about basic office productivity.
Although I haven’t had an opportunity to try OS X for any amount of time, it represents the promised land, but now while it stays on proprietary HW.
I’ll stick with winblows for office work and Linux for everything else until someone gives me an integrated GUI/OS on standard OSs that is as simple as mac claims…
Nuka
Basically almost any OS that is target towards desktops for the x86 will get smashed by Microsoft. It has happened so often and will happen again. Who can possibly claim that BeOS switching to x86 was good for them? Look at them now. Steve Jobs (if that really is him up there, which i doubt)’s NeXTStep went downhill after switching to x86.
The only reason i see for OSes like linux and QNX survive is by targetting non-desktops. It doesnt mean they arent good for the job though.
BeOS lasted longer than they would have if they’d been foolish enough to try and keep afloat by clinging to the PowerPC platform. Steve Jobs had pulled the plug on the clone market, which effectively killed any viable PowerPC market outside of Apple Macs. Be would have gone down the tubes that much quicker by trying to stay with PowerPC machines … the 3rd party alternatives like the PIOS just didn’t look like they had a chance, especially since they’d been counting on being able to run MacOS, too.
NeXTStep went downhill ’cause it was too friggin’ expensive, compared to other alternatives at the time. Didn’t matter a whit what platform it was running on.
If Apple was to port OS X to X86, Microsoft would most likely retaliate by halting development of Office, et al, for the Mac platform. Can you say “death knell” ?
Now, please, please don’t get me wrong … I would LOVE to see OS X running on a dual AMD machine, with tons of cheap, fast RAM … but, I just can’t see the control-freak coporate philosophy of Apple ever relinquishing enough control to allow OS X to “escape into the wild” of umpteen-bazillion hardware combinations. Look how much of a headache Windows and Linux users go through trying to get their particular hardware combinations to work. Apple would face a nightmare trying to suddenly support all of the major flavors of motherboards/video cards/mice/etc. that are out there in the world.
>OS X is faster
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. And it’s a shame, because NeXTStep was a better OS that ran smoothly.
BeOS died because of bad business decisions, not because it came to x86.
The fact of the matter is that after BeOS 5, Be abandoned the desktop in favor of the holy grail of fridge, toaster, kitchen, and other stupid IA ideas, all of which crashed and burned as they should have. Blame their management for being pig-headed idiots, not x86.
Hi,
I neither think that Apple will port MacOS X to Intel nor that they should.
Apple will also not want to compete with MS because MS devivers the Internet Explorer [1] and Office for the Mac.
The technical problems would be very small because MacOS X’ ancessor OpenStep and FreeBSD from which the UNIX parts were taken run on intel, also the problem of having programs that support two or more architectures has been solved yet (“fat binaries”), except that a MacOS 9 emulation would be nearly impossible.
But what makes up a Mac is also user-friedlyness of the hardware (e.g. nearly no “legacy” interfaces, but only hot-pluggable ones, no trouble with IRQ assignments or nearly no with incompatibilities of some extensions with some boards or BIOS versions, …, …) and the seamless integration of software and hardware. If you press the power button of a mac, it askes you if it should shut down, go to sleep mode or ignore it. I know many platforms and operating systems, but i’ve never seen this before except on a NeXt.
To archive the same level of user-friendlyness with Intel hardware, special hardware and BIOS versions would be required. And this is not so far away prom what Apple does soendso: The Mac models of the last years use standard PC components like PCI/AGP busses, IDE drives, memory modules, USB and FireWire. So you would not save anything because such a system would be more expensive than an ordinary PC.
On the other hand the PowerPC processors have some advantages over current Intel or AMD CPUs: They’re RISC CPUs with more registers, have a shorter pipeline and AltiVec. Another advantage is that they don’t use so much power. There’s no up-to-date x86 CPU on the market that could run a high-end laptop for 3-5 h out of a 55Wh battery (and allows changing the battery in sleep mode, without rebooting).
The desktop CPUs aren’t that power-saving, but most models still don’t require a constantly-running, noisy CPU fan.
The Macintosh is a computer for people who want to get their work done without having to understand every detail under the hood of their computer. The users get a very sophisticated system that offers good abstractions – what can be considered the most difficult thing in computer science at all. And if you belong to the people who think that their time os quite worthful, this is worth a few more $ or EUR that a cheaper PC system would save.
Ciao, Matthias
[1] I usually use OmniWeb which I consider much better
NeXT Step 3.3 was ported to Intel CISC architecture almost 10 years ago. NeXT had the sweetest, most purely OO interface ever. The microkernal architecture and full pre-emptive multitasking was lightyears ahead of anything Redmond could create (note they still haven’t). Yet, because of “Small and Limp”‘s anti-competitive and monopolistic licensing practices, it never caught on.
OSX is NeXT redux; ergo OSX was already ported to Intel years ago. It didn’t catch on then; it won’t now.
Pity, though.
Just be glad Robert X. Cringely isn’t running Apple, eh
‘Twas a good laugh, that one.
As much as I’m insulted by Apple’s braindead marketing to the lowest common denominator, and their hideous prices…Steve Jobs is doing the right things to keep the company in the biz. Mr Cringely doesn’t know that by selling anything found on Apple’s “platform” to another hardware platform, they are essentially giving away part of their identity – their selling points, something that sets them apart from the competition – to their competitors. In case people have not noticed, those distinctive Apple selling points have been less and less with each passing year. OSX for Intel would also create a world of confusion. How this can NOT hurt them is a better question.
Who the hell would want to use OSX on Intel, anyway? A few geeks? People (ie. 99.9% of the population) don’t choose OSs, they choose applications. Total newbies to computers choose pretty boxes. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong here. And those car analogies…you know you’re lost when you bring those up and they don’t remotely relate to what you’re talking about.
I think Dvorak, this guy & several other close clueless tech writer friends should get together some time and have a grand ol’ time discussing their genius strategies. I’m sure they’ll love the sound of their own voices.
OBOS is trying to clone be os.
if mac os x is so great, why not start cloning it for x86?
get volunteers, open source it and clone.
no need to clone OSX for x86. That’s what Darwin is for. Darwin already runs on a few select x86 hardware. Volunteers would just have to get it to work on other hardware, like AMD processors. From what I understand, Aqua is not in Darwin, so people would have to make a GUI system that looks and behaves like Aqua. If you were to do that, I would suggest taking it down a notch because aqua the way it is right now is a little much.
If you really want a Apple like system on an x86 platform then BeOS is a very close fit. For a little over 8 mil in shares Apple could have picked up Be and had a ready made platform for assaulting the Intel/Microsoft combo without needing to compromise the integrity of OSX.
Wishfull thinking
As others have pointed out:<BR>
1. Apple would have to write drivers for countless peripherals<BR>
2. Apple depends on Microsoft for Office and Internet Explorer<BR>
<BR>
Another reason:<BR>
3. The costs of providing support will be astronomical. Imagine the number of users buying shrinkwrapped OSX for x86, and finding that it doesn’t work on their machine, because of obscure conflicts between peripherals, unsupported hardware, inadequate disk drive or memory. Plus users will expect to do all the things they could do under Windows, including opening Windows files created by arbitrary Windows applications. It’s a support nightmare.
I believe, back before the return of the Steve, that Apple TRIED to buy Be, Inc. several times for quite a bit more than US $11 million. Jean-Louis Gassee, who founded and ran Be, Inc. for all it’s days, (AND happened to be a former Apple employee) would not sell at all. I believe that Apple would have used the BeOS as a basis for one of their many aborted attempts (Copland, Taligent, A/UX, Rhapsody**) to drag MacOS kicking and screaming past Windows into the future. After the Steve returned, I believe no further offers were made, not just because they had acquired NeXT’s technology and assets, but because of some “issues” and “differences” between JLG and the Steve.
When Apple couldn’t quite do it themselves (mainly management issues, not for lack of talent), they bought the Steve and his company, and the Steve beat the company back into the center of the computer media attention, despite some very unfortunate sacrifices (WHY did you kill the Newton, Steve? WHY??!! I mean, OpenDoc and HyperCard have been barely alive for a while, but the Newton had a CHANCE!!).
-JM
**Rhapsody was basically to be a refined new release of OPENSTEP for PowerPCs. It was very nice, but only had Cocoa and Classic. There were also quite a few under-the-hood differences but not many. No Carbon, no Aqua, very Spartan but quite functional. It would have been interesting to see what would’ve happened if MacOS X continued to evolve in THIS direction.