“For those of you who have been wishing for a copy of Apple’s Mac OS X to run on your x86 PC, your wish may soon be granted if recent reports regarding graphics accelerator companies ATI and Nvidia are to be believed. It has been rumored that an x86 version of OS X exists somewhere deep within the confines of Apple Computer’s software laboratories, although none of us mere mortals living outside the Cupertino campus truly know for sure.” Read the rest of the editorial at OSOpinion.
The x86 OS X Success Strategy
2002-04-10 macOS 55 Comments
mmm using an mac doesnt apeal to me as i like to build my own computer with the parts i like.. and still i sure would like to get off the microsoft road.. linux dont apeal to me tried it well that was 2 years ago much has happend since but still dont like it to much fuss and different packaging etc.. beos rocked used it for 6 months as only os…
but running osx would possibly be something awesome..
would most likly even go and buy it in a store…
If there really will be an x86 version of OS X I will defenetly buy it and trough my Winblows disk into the trash!
If Apple releases AMD box, MacOS X will only runs on Apple AMD box. You surely won’t be able to buy a crappy eMachine computer at your local WallMart to boot OS X. They must have OS X running on Intel/AMD processor, but it might be just as an emergency solution or to get more negotiation power with Motorola.
If this is true, and i sure hope it is. I’ll buy it right away. I know that it sounds a bit like over-reacting, but hence the limited amount of “commonly usable” osses out there, i think os x on x86 will be the competitor for windows, and NOT linux.
this may be a bit harsh, but that is the way i see it.
as quoted from another forum;
“As seen in the ARSTechnica Mac Forums. To quote the interesting bit:
Originally posted by Programmer (forums.appleinsider.com)
It just occured to me where TheInquirer’s rumour may have originated. Sometimes things get completely misrepresented, distorted, and come out rather twisted, right? Well consider this then: Apple / ATI / nVidia have been working on a few extensions to OpenGL which are being proposed as official ARB extensions. If this happens then those extensions will need to be ported to all the platforms. Since version 1 of this code may very well be on the Mac (as Apple is doing much of the work), it would then make sense that “ATI and nVidia are looking at porting the MacOS X graphics drivers to the x86″.
Boring, but a whole lot more plausible that the wild, rampant (but entertaining) speculation that this thread contains.”
This is old news *cough* I mean rumor!
The Power of Unix, the ease of use of Mac, and decent commercial software….
The x86 platform has needed something like this for a long time. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen with BeOS, and the various flavors of Linux are still a bit too rough around the edges to do it for me. But OS X on intel…where do I get in line?
we had a copy at our school. i installed it and ran it for about 3 months on an old 166. it also included the programming API’s and other fun stuff. it was pretty stable, and obviously running more of NeXT then apple OS.
take a look here for a brief timeline:
… they know how to properly leak stuff… :-))
Uhh-uh… don’t kill me, just kidding… 😉
I don’t know about you but I going to start holding my breath right…. now.
Having built my own/wife’s/and son’s computer I’ve invested alot in these (x86 based) but having heard and seen OSX in action this would be a dream come true!
P.S. mines a dual processor (love Be) I also will fantasise and hope OSX will support using Both!
PC hardware is based on open standards. My question is: what could Apple do to sell an x86ized OSX version that would run only with Apple x86 hardware ?
Have some kind of a chip on the motherboard that says: “yes i’m apple made” ? Sounds like you’ll see soon pci cards with a chip that would say yes to that question. Or even some bios would emulate it ?
Have some agreement with Intel and/or AMD to produce “apple only” CPUs that only Apple would get ? Nonsense.
I dont see any viable solution that wouldn’t destroy Apple’s revenue.
Can someone tell me if Apple can really have its own x86 hardware ?
If not, why would Apple go head to head against MSFT ?
this is just rediculous. the time that Apple releases OS X for general X86 machines (i.e. the one that you throw together in your basment) I will eat my motherboard.
yeah mabye they will port it over to x86 but only if they move their mac over to that. and if they do that, only the mac ill be able to run it.
it is still posable to make a proprietary system on x86.
I think we’ve heard these claims before. It would be risky but apple really needs to do something different if it hopes to increase its market share. The new imac is great but Apple continues to miss that sweet spot that would give them considerably better market share. Still, its hard not to be skeptical, apple on x86 has been chanted so many times and has never happened. Moreover PC makers remain under the control of MS.
Similar to NeXTStep, I don’t think OS X was designed to sell OS X. I think OS X was designed to sell Apple Computers. I don’t see the benefit (to Apple) of porting to x86 and all its, disorganized, hardware. I think Apple should come up with cheaper hardware on their own (similar to what Sun did with the Blade workstations).
This will never happen. Apple would never let this happen.
Man how many times is this statement going to become true.
I would buy a X86 version of OSX if it were true.
We all know that from the Rhapsody days there has always been the vision of Yellow Box, Red Box, Blue Box.
IF you look at the NextOS there were versions that ran on X86, & sparc.
Why not OSX I say they do have a copy and are waiting …
Apple why wait the masses are ready show us the true potention of your hardware by releasing this truly amazing os on X86 will show the true power of Apple’s Hardware.
Windows and other OS’s don’t truly push the X86 platform, but OSX would push it to it’s limits.
How many of us have heard PC users say wow what is that when you are working in OSX. I couldn’t start to tell you.
I would reformat all my existing PC’s to OSX I have already done this will all my Macs… One OS to bring them
One OS to rule them all! <— ok so that was stupid but you get the point.
While I would LOVE to see OS X on a x86 machine, I HIGHLY doubt Apple will ever allow this to happen. This article just stinks of hearsay and utter nonsense.
People have been spreading this baloney dream around a LONG time, and it’s just not going to happen. Mind you, I would LOVE for it happen, but it just won’t.
Apple’s biggest profits come *not* from their OS sales, rather from the their HARDWARE sales.
“As discovered during the MS/DOJ antitrust trial, Microsoft bullied PC OEMs so that bundling of alternative operating systems would result in cancellation of the license that allows them to include Windows on their machines.”
I have been telling people about this for years, unfortunately it seems most computer users either are to young to remember (or care), and the rest don’t seem to have a problem with having their freedom of choice taken away from them, and cheerfully continue on, using what has been shoved down their throat. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
As far as a MAC OS X for the X86. I’m waiting, but I’m not holding my breath.
On my main box, you can find Win98, WinXP, Sorcer Linux, QNX, and BeOS (there would be more, but my selection of the Radeon 8500DV for my graphics card kinda limits my OS choices right now).
I would kill for a copy of OS-X to play around with though!
The one thing you could almost guarentee would happen though is that either someone would hack OSX to work with Linux, or vice-versa (hack a Linux distribution to work with OS-X as the front-end).
Either way though… Wow!
When it was released, it was far superior to what windows was at the time. It ran on the same hardware as windows. It was backed by a very LARGE company (IBM) who threw 4 BILLION dollars of marketing at it.
Anybody care to tell me how much market share OS/2 has today?
Anybody care to tell me how Apple, who is MUCH smaller than IBM is going to succeed where IBM couldn’t?
When NeXT was alive, it had several ports of NeXTStep/OpenStep for various CPU’s. It also was very easy to write an application on one platform and compile it so that the binary will run on all of them.
NeXT err I mean Apple does have an x86 port. There is no question about it. They would be fools not to have this capability.
I would drop Windows XP in a heart beat (well, I would keep one tiny system for games) and install OS X on my x86 Dual CPU system. I just can’t afford a G4/G5 right now, but I would buy 2 copies of OS X for x86 even though I’m only going to use 1.
As Kelly says, Darwin is available for x86. Considering Jobs had NeXT 3.3 for Intel a decade ago- and there is still considerable support for it out there – this is not at all surprising. Darwin & OSX are built on NeXT; therefore why should there not be an x86 variant of OSX?
As much as I dislike and distrust Small&Limp, I wonder if such a release would be as beneficial as Kelly says. I would wish so, but I just don’t trust those boys at Redmond.
They haven’t abandoned their Vito Corleone tactics at all – they’ve only made them more subtle. Somehow, they will find a way to take control of this initiative and bury it deeper than Hoffa’s bones.
I seriuosly doubt Apple would ever do this. People have suggested Apple do this since their beginning. The G5 will be fine and so Apple will have no reason for a port to x86.
Isn’t it pointless to post about a rumor laid on top of a rumor? Besides that, Mac would most likely suffer from a PC port and what real benefit would ATI or nVidia get?
Of course, “Darwin”, the OS X kernel has been on Intel for more than the “several months” cited in the article. It is also the open source part of Mac OS, though hard-liners have argued that OS X is not open-sourced enough. Still, it is the ONLY mainstream OS with an open-source part that I know of.
PRO: Lots of people own Intel boxes and would love an easy to install/use alternative to the Windows morass. A “Lindows”-like layer could provide native speed access to Windows apps as well as the native access one would get to re-compiled OS X apps. OS X’s marketshare would certainly increase by some amount.
CON: Apple is a hardware company. This would erode their margins. I have never been impressed with X86 architecture or performance, and “itanium” only cements this view for me. “Classic” (Mac OS less that “X”) apps would NOT be easily portable to Intel– a big problem– and OS X apps would require at LEAST a re-compile, meaning that lazy software vendors would have to get off their tushes.
Conclusion: In my mind, cons WAY outweigh the “pros”. But if Apple DOES go this route, I am sure Steve will find a way to make the PowerPC version enough better than the Intel, that the finance aspects of the decision would work out. I would note that Apple has succeeded in pure software plays in the past. Filemaker is very popular, even among Windows users. It just works way better than Access.
… However, one thing that bugs me (maybe I’m just being dense) is the wording of the article about Nvidia and ATI. I could see these two companies being given sample x86 boxes for developing OS X-specific video drivers, but I can’t quite see why they would “set up teams to investigate porting OS X to an x86 CPU.”
Wouldn’t *Apple* be the one doing this? Isn’t that what Darwin is the basis for? I would think that, if the overall rumor(s) are true, then third party companies would only be working on porting their particular products to an x86 version of OS X.
I don’t see Apple releasing OS X for the PC into the wild and saying “here you go, have fun with it.” Apple products work well because one company has reigns over the integration of hardware and software. If OS X is being developed for X86, then Apple may be working on an X86 Mac. Weren’t there rumours a while back about Apple adopting the AMD Sledghammer processor? This might be the next piece of the puzzle.
ok back to the real deal
im sorry but i cant fathom apple ever publicly releasing an x86 port of any flagship os they ever produce, its just not going to happen IMO. admittedly the idea of a sledgehammer running osx does appeal to me (im an os junkie, why else would i be here ;} ), the thought of them actually doing it just seems like something from a fantasy world, not the real world…. but then again maybe the matrix has us all and the agents are looking to try something new… ;}
but they’re biggies..
Motorola, by some reports, is borderline bankrupt… if you forget the iBook/iMac v1 which still uses an IBM 750 series G3, Motorola is the sole supplier of CPUs for Apple Computer.. and has publicly spoken of moving out of the computer Hardware market
If you were Apple, wouldn’t you want an exit strategy?
Then you will have every tom dick and harry mad at apple because they are trying to build their computer with the cheapest parts possible and the drivers don’t work or suck and this is crashing and it will just become one unstable mess.
OSX86 will be like Solaris X86. It will be out for a while, get almost no support and die.
This is a little of topic but when i read this i just happen to be using a mac and bitching at it. I think OSx could be a good thing. But I have my doubts when using a mac. Though I’m using OS9 on this one so I don’t know if this applies to OSX. I honestly don’t know how people can stand to use these things. I keep hitting two keys at once do to the insane small keyboard, plus don’t know if i hit the key do to lack of feedback. the mouse is the most unresponsive anoying thing to use and control. I wanted to open this post in a seperate window but have no clue how to do it without a second button. This may be to not using macs much. This brings me to the question of If Apple is a hardware company and thats why they won’t make and X86 port why does their hardware , for lack of a better word, suck. Most people I know who have tried macs had the same reaction as I. These are things Apple could change. Unfortently they seem to have a style over function mentality. 1 button mouses may look nicer but arn’t usefull, same for small keyboard verse your big PC type keyboards. One could by a mac and replace these with other devices but that defeats the whole pull it out of the box and go concept. Plus if one of the reasons people buy a mac is cause they know all the hardware will work flawlessly together change bits like mice and keyboards defeats this. I’m not saying one should not style a computer to look good, but function should be before style when it comes to practical/tool type things as a computer. If you are really good at what you do style and function go together, and with apples I just don’t see that. If Apple were to make a x86 release (which i doubt they would) that could be loaded on a machine that was a factory windows box they would pick up people who don’t want hardware change or just can’t stand mac hardware for reasons other than it being closed.
I really doubt this will ever happen.Think of the nightmare for developers, the driver hell, the lack of applications, etc. Plus how would OS X perform on a x86? Would MS port office for OS X? probably not.
As for the G4/G5, Even if Motorola goes, Apple still has IBM. IBM, unlike motorola, is showing a lot of interest in expanding its role in the microprocessor market, and they have the know-how, funding, and manufacturing scale to do so. It even sounds like IBM is looking to leverage the powerpc core in their efforts with Sony and Toshiba.
I do think that apple needs to seriously consider AMD or another fab as a second source to IBM in case Motorola continues its downward spiral. They do need to protec themselves and Motorola is, at least outwardly, not looking so good or all that intereted
As the above posts have stated, Motorola barely cares about making computer processors, they are barely able to keep up with more advanced Intel and AMD designs. Apple could easily switch processors to AMD only hardware solutions, even on nForce boards and still keep the hardware proprietary in the ways that count. Or they could even create OS X for Intel/AMD and charge more for it to make up for the lost hardware sales. I would probably be willing to spend $300 for OS X on my Intel machines as long as it doesn’t have insane license agreements like Windows.
Wow – it would be awesome if they did it, and I’d buy it 5 times over!!!
But, they never will…they sell Apples, not OSs…
But, they already have…Darwin…
But, Microsoft won’t let them do it, because they own everybody/everything…
Wake me when something happens…
AMD Sledgehammer running Intel version of OSX
G3 or G4 as dual processor running “Classic” PPC apps transparently while OSX-86 runs on the AMD chip
According to Microcode solutions, who aim to allow PCs to emulate a mac by providing a G3 PCI card, its possible the other way round… so why not?
This way apple doesnt alienate the software makers who recoded for OSX on PPC and also gains faster processors, access to more X86 compiled *Nix applications and keeps control of its hardware and software.
Recompiling windows apps coded to the winNT api would be really easy as both OS’ are POSIX compliant’
This is probably so much crap ;-| but who knows?
Someone asked why OS/2 failed with all of IBM’s resources behind it. I am surprised a reader of OSNews would need to ask. OS/2 failed, in short, because IBM is managed by dunderheads and MS is managed by sharks. OS/2 never had as many apps as Windows, but was supposed to run Windows apps OK. Problem was, it never really did. You-know-who saw to that.
The Sun Solaris to Intel port 1) was not well optimized– after all Sun would RATHER sell you SPARC stations than give away their OS– and 2) had no clear target market. I guess the target market would be UNIX admins– not exactly a humungous groundswell.
ANY non-Win OS on Intel faces huge barriers. Most PC guys I know live in terror of installing appplications, never mind whole OS’s. You need to SELL configured boxes in a STORE. This is also what LINUX guys don’t seem to comprehend. You need a “UNIX Country”, like a Gateway country, where the hard part is done for you. I’ll tell you, even as a Mac guy, OS installs make me nervous. I recently upgraded to OS 10.1 on my G4 and I was biting my fingernails. Everything went well, though (Woo-Hoo).
Another point: the Windows tax. Gates has it set up so you PAY for Windows whether you want it or not (on an X86). NO OEM (unless it was Apple or a start-up) would DARE getting MSFT mad. Especially with the morons in washington doing their best to fumble the DoJ/Microsoft case which the government theoretically WON (but seems to have no use for under John “moneybags” Ashcroft and George “Enron” Bush).
>Recompiling windows apps coded to the winNT api would be >really easy as both OS’ are POSIX compliant
POSIX is a very small part of their code and anyway, WinNT is only partially POSIX compliant, also, it would require recompiling the whole ms controls dlls etc…
Wouldn’t it be funny if OSX worked faster and better on an intel chip**Would Apple release it or doctor it
There is an interesting observation that folks seem to miss about Microsoft and Windows itself.
Microsoft has been, and continues to be, primarily, an applications company rather than an OS company. Anything shoved deep into the bowels of Windows is there because someone in the Application Division needed it. The yelling and screaming about “hidden” this and “undocumented” that are because these tricks and tips gave Microsoft applications an edge over 3rd party applications.
Windows gets all of the headlines, and certainly is a profitable operation, but I’m betting they make a lot more off of Office and SQL Server than they do off of Windows.
An old adage in the computer industry is that you don’t get rich selling tools, and the underlying OS is simply a tool. An enabler with which to make applications.
What are the current major selling points for a Macintosh today? iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, etc. Home users are buying Macs specifically for these applications. They’re not buying them for MHz.
Jobs is focusing at this point on the consumer market where people have more flexibility in their purchases than the bottom dollar. He’s selling them these applications, he’s not selling OS X.
NEXTStep/OPENStep for intel was out years ago, and nobody was buying it. Price was too high and it had too few, or at least no real compelling, applications, no drivers, etc. But, at its core, it isn’t dramatically different from OS X today.
Are people willing to pay for it today? Would people be willing to pay $300 for x86 RUNTIME version, the one without the developer tools? And another $199 for the developer CD? Would they pay $300 for a version that has a similarly draconian registration process as Win XP? Would they be willing to pay that much for an OS that DOES NOT run Windows applications out of the box?
OPENStep showed that most of the major NEXTStep apps were able to cross compile quickly to the new CPUs (remember, OPENStep was running on Next hardware, HP PA RISC, and SPARCs). So, compiling OS X apps would hopefully be similarly less painfull, except that most OS X apps are really OS 9 apps to the new apis. So, not only are they not designed for the OS, they would not be designed for the new hardware either.
So, basically, I think that right now only the geeks are crying out for OS X on Intel. The users certainly aren’t. From Apples point of view, if it’s going to require:
a) Formatting your drive
b) Losing all of your existing applications
Then, we might as well start fresh with a shiny new box so that they only have to write a half dozen drivers and support 3 chipsets, rather than the N^M combinations of Intel hardware.
When Michael Dell knocks on Jobs door and says “Hey, we’re losing a lot of business here and getting a lot of request for your stuff”, then we might see OS X for Intel.
Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
>Another point: the Windows tax. Gates has it set up so you >NO OEM (unless it was Apple or a start-up) would DARE >getting MSFT mad. Especially with the morons in washington >doing their best to fumble the DoJ/Microsoft case which the >government theoretically WON (but seems to have no use for >under John “moneybags” Ashcroft and George “Enron” Bush).
I have a use for Tom “Bunghole” Barta…
I am not optimistic that a version of OS X will appear on anything Intel like anytime soon. If it does happen I doubt is will be what many people on this board are wishing for. I see two directions Apple could take.
#1 and least likely, Apple dumps PowerPC to go with Intel. Yes it can be done, but the cost, to Apple, and independent developers would be very, VERY high. Porting an OS is not free. Porting applications is not free. Apple will explore a lot of other avenues, that use the PowerPC line, before they follow this one. If they do port, it will be to a non-standard PC configuration where they can control the quality of the hardware. Remember quality integration between hardware and software is Apple’s selling point. Users won’t be building these computers from parts.
#2 and a little more likely, is that Apple will port OS X Server to Intel. This will allow Apple to quickly start offering much better server hardware to key clients (schools districts and universities) without spending a lot on hardware designs. This would also give them the opportunity to test the viability of OS X Server in a broader business market. Remember however, Apple could also go with IBM servers that use processors from the PowerPC family.
Yeah, maybe. Sure. And it probably isn’t that big a deal just to recompile OS X for x86. The bigger issue is in drivers, etc., but there’s a pretty limited number of those for Apple comput–
Oh, waitasec. You thought this meant for YOUR x86 PC? No, sorry. If Apple ever releases OS X for x86 (which they may if Motorola/PowerPC processors become uneconomical, or Motorola goes out of business, or something) it will be for x86-based Macintoshes–and you won’t be able to tell the difference.
It’s just a processor.
x86 is really not a good platform for any use other than a toy. It may seem ok since it is all over the place but there are basic design flaws that can never be patched over. Why put a good operating system on a faulty box? I know….everyone knows x86 this and that. Too hard too this too that. Hey, I know you want a better operating system, why not demand a better platform too?
>Hey, I know you want a better operating system, why not
>demand a better platform too?
I think that every geek daydreams about a completely new hardware, processor and OS that go together. If every geek that had such dreams could donate $1000, it would be possible to achieve. unfortunately, everyone’s dream is different so there never would be an agreement on what to create. and the dream would never pick up once it is created because there isn’t a commercial entity backing the whole thing…
“Why put a good operating system on a faulty box?”
Watch yourself there, there are people who will disagree with your statement, including yours truely… me.
Also, I half agree with K. Architecturally, the average PC-building junkie probably won’t see too much difference between the Mac platform vs. the PC platform. Both platforms use SDRAM in DIMM sockets, both have PCI and AGP buses, and the Mac’s boot rom sounds a lot like the PC’s BIOS chip.
IMO, all it would take is for Apple to tweak the crap out of the ATX motherboard design so that it can sit on a circular PCB and put in the new iMac design.
I could care less what Apple decides to do. I had my fun with hardware, now I’m more focused on CG artwork and the occasional programming.
What I would like to see first before an x86 OSX, is for Apple to get rid of friggin’ Aqua, or trim it down. It’s just too much. Sure it looks pretty, but is all that shimmer really necessary? Too much transparencies that are there when I don’t need it, and not available when I want it. And why do we need drop shadows around the edges of windows?
Porting OSX onto x86 hardware would be insane. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing in this world that can convince me that PowerPC is superior to x86, I just think that OSX is more than both PPC and x86 can handle. I say it is insane, also because it would take too much time and effort to get it up to speed with it’s PPC cousin, native OSX, and to be honest I think Linux has a better chance of making it on x86 than a full blown OSX simpily because it’s been on the x86 platform longer and there’s a larger user base to support it, whereas Apple probably won’t support OSX x86 whole heartedly.
1. I really don’t care much about OSX nor Apple in general (after my Apple II).
2. And I don’t think OSX on x86 is going to happen.
3. It is true that Apple is a hardware Company, and it still could remain a hardware Company on x86. Apple doesnt’ have to license the OSX to anyone of the PC sellers, it could still be the only and one unique worlwide OEM selling a PC with OSX. And as jefro said above, it wouldn’t be hard for Apple to build a proprietary Mac on x86.
4. All in all, Apple could sell PCs instead of their actual Macs, with Apple’s proprietary design. As I see it, it all comes down to a processor issue, not just a market share one, the PPC architecture is an inferior one ***long*** time ago (aprox. 1995) for any serious analyst, and Motorola is facing some problems ahead, but not in bankruptcy yet. Motorola is still delivering and Apple is cash flow positive, they really don’t have at Apple any good reason to make such a drastic change nowadays.
So I doubt a lot it could happen, it has to be a misinterpreted rumor as CattBeMac pointed.
I don’t think Linux will ever make it BIG on the Desktop. I do expect that OBOS will.
I hate Aqua too.
“In Cupertino they make the prettiest (or weirdest) boxes for their machines, but they’ve only moved sideways or backward in terms of interface design. When I see the color aqua, I do not want to put a skin on it, but think more in terms of hiding it with six feet of earth.”
I think Apple can take some risks with its computers (new design…) but who can estimate the risk to support a new plateforme ?
May be Apple has OS X on x86… and may be on ARM computers too.
It’s a funny story, a story for helping geeks to sleep may be, that’s all.
This is just a pipe dream… it is not going to happen folks. It makes no logical sense for Apple to push over to PC. The x86 has no technical advantage over PPC, it’s pretty much the other way around, but who cares. PC market is too diluted and is owned by Microsoft and Intel. Microsoft is definitely not going to give Apple a warm welcome either. ONe thing Apple needs to address is who i s willing to take the PowerPC technology more serious than Motorola… IBM is a possible candidate, but will they drive the technology in the right direction?
If Apple was smart, they would just take over the PPC semiconductor line from Motorola, maybe in conjunction with AMD to push the chip in the right direction. That is what separates Intel and Motorola, Intel’s core market is CPUs, not the same for Motorola, so even though Intel ignores Motorola, Motorola ignores Intel since the 2 have 2 different strategies. Motorola builds anything that can possibly harness a transistor, so CPUs are the last thing on Motorola’s mind. Right now Motorola is the #2 mobile phone maker behind Nokia, so I figure the PowerPC stuff is taking a back door to that market. And if Apple does decide to take over the PPC techno, they need to get over their arrogance and let other hardware types access their chip technology, like the ones that are building PPC Linux Nodes and so forth.
I think that Apple can be its own worst enemy at times!
You won’t be able to run OS X on a standard x86 PC. Never.
Of course, there is Darwin, the open-source “heart” of Mac OS X.
I see a small probability apple switches to Athlon processors in its low-cost line of computers; as the PowerPC G4 is superior to, at least, today’s PC processors, they won’t change their higher-priced systems.
So maybe an Athlon iMac is a possibility.
Though a very unlikely one.
When I commented about it being easy to compile NT appz to run on OSX I was actually directly quoting the head of the Microsoft Mac Business Unit.. I presumed he’d know.. I accept the criticism that NT is more than POSIX but suspect the MacBU guy knew his stuff…
I agree about Linux having more of a chance than OSX on tha x86 platfrm but reiterate my previous criticism that the fragmented nature of Linux makes driver support hard if not impossible on a large scale.. ditto software..
Nevertheless many hardware companies provide free Linux drivers for their products.. so I dont see why the driver situation should be comsiderably worse for OSX. The open standards used in the x86 platform would make providing basic functionality easy enough.. advanced acceleration for sound and video would need specific drivers but thats not necessary to get the OS to boot..
I daresay that this will all prove to be just another techy myth though.
( If they do, lets hope its to AMD Hammer x86-64bit – theres a chip that needs a decent OS )
>I accept the criticism that NT is more than POSIX but
>suspect the MacBU guy knew his stuff…
Maybe they have a layer of some sort that makes this compatability?
Apple could easily port OS X to x86 it’s just that you wouldn’t be able to run the software on your computer without the proper ROM installed on your motherboard. To get a motherboard with a ROM installed you have to buy it from Apple. So are you still interested? The rom motherboard costs $400 more than usual priced motherboards.
MacOS 8.6 and later use a software ROM file which is supplied on the CD
You know, if you had the slightest insight into the topic, you’d research the Darwin project at Apple’s website.
Apple has been rumored to be working on an x86 port of their OSX for quite a while. In fact, if you have a PIIX4 IDE controller, Intel 8255x 10/100 ethernet controller, and a Vesa 2.0 compliant vid card, then you’re in luck! However, if you use anything Via/AMD, you’re SOL.
Check out the Darwin Project at apple:
There you can obtain the ISO for the x86 Darwin port. Too bad I have an AMD processor and Via chipset. *sigh* Sure, the Darwin project is still an immature version of what we all want, but it’s better than nothing, and at least they’re working to get something……………………..
rumours, whatever, lots of blah blah about nothing. And if it comes out.. again, whatever, just another OS on the pile of OS-es in the PC market.