OSx86: Are You Serious?

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by Mikuro

Right now, what separates Mac hardware from PC hardware besides the processor? (I mean from a technical perspective; style and attention to detail don't count.)

Logic Board.

But if you don't think that makes any difference, why don't you replace the PowerPC processor on a ZIF logic board in a Mac with an Intel processor and see if Windows boots.

If the logic board makes no difference, then Windows should boot just fine... right?

On the Beige G3 systems you had PC-66 memory, PCI slots, ATA-66 bus and a ZIF processor socket. On the Blue & White G3 systems you had PC-100 memory, PCI slots, ATA-100 bus, a ZIF processor socket, USB and Firewire.

By your definition, putting an Intel processor in the ZIF socket makes those systems generic PCs... that should boot Windows just fine.

Best of luck.



I've said it many times already, but I'll say it once more...

The developer kit systems are generic PCs because Mac OS X for Intel was originally designed for generic PCs. It wasn't kept in development for Intel based Macs, it was designed as a fall back if Apple was to give up their hardware business.

The thing is, Apple isn't giving up their hardware business.. they are just changing processors.

Once the final design of Intel based Apple hardware is finished, porting Mac OS X for Intel over to these systems should be relatively easy... and all the software that worked on the version for generic PCs will still work on the version for Intel based Macs (which was why there was no reason to wait for Apple hardware when they could get developers started right now).

And could we give the Schiller quote a rest.

There is a major difference between taking steps to stop Windows from running on Macs and taking any steps (at all) to make Macs which can even run Windows.


But like I said, if you think that processor makes all the difference, put an Intel processor into those ZIF Macs and boot up Windows. There is no reason to wait for the new Intel based Macs to come out when you can do it right now on existing hardware.

That would end this and prove your point in one easy step.

[TommyWillB]

Originally Posted by Mikuro

The dev systems are "generic PCs". And Phil Schiller himself said that Apple will "do nothing to preclude" the use of Windows...

True, but that's the opposite of the question asked when this thread was started:

Originally Posted by cfleck

...Is it possible for OS X for x86 to be out there and only run on Mac hardware?

That's the question I addressed.

That's the question that you're all (Except RacerX) digressing from...

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Originally Posted by RacerX

The developer kit systems are generic PCs because Mac OS X for Intel was originally designed for generic PCs. It wasn't kept in development for Intel based Macs, it was designed as a fall back if Apple was to give up their hardware business.

The thing is, Apple isn't giving up their hardware business.. they are just changing processors.

Slightly off-topic and speculative, but I think Apple developed Mac OS X on Intel simultaneously a Mac OS X on PPC in case of a switch of processors, not in case Apple ever gave up their hardware business. I don't think Apple ever gave a thought to giving up the hardware business; instead, always kept their options open as to which processors to use... just a thought, though.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Slightly off-topic and speculative, but I think Apple developed Mac OS X on Intel simultaneously a Mac OS X on PPC in case of a switch of processors, not in case Apple ever gave up their hardware business. I don't think Apple ever gave a thought to giving up the hardware business...

There should be no mistake... Mac OS X for Intel is a direct descendant of NEXTSTEP 3.1 for Intel which was designed to replace NeXT's hardware business which had been shut down a short time earlier.

It was never designed for NeXT hardware using Intel processors... it was design to work on Wintel compatible systems.

When Apple started work on Rhapsody, the idea behind Rhapsody for Intel was to run it on Wintel compatible systems, not Apple hardware using Intel processors. The Rhapsody for Intel line was never shut down and it's design was never changed.

Why?

Very simple... Apple didn't make hardware with Intel processors.

How in the world could Apple develop Mac OS X for Intel for nonexistent Intel based Apple hardware? They couldn't. The design of Mac OS X for Intel has been no different (at all) from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody for Intel.

It is only now, as we are speaking, that Intel based Apple hardware is coming into existence (and the developer kits are not Apple hardware, they are based on the hardware that Apple's developers where using to keep Mac OS X for Intel current).

The final version of Mac OS X for Intel that will be released is going to be designed for Apple hardware.

But the current version that has been in development all this time had to be run on something... and as it was originally designed for generic PCs, that is what it currently runs on.

It was a back up plan... Jobs had already been burned (badly) by hardware once. Do you really think he would go without a back up plan after that?

Never put all your eggs in one basket.

I don't think that anyone at Apple ever thought that their hardware business could both be flourishing and be forced to change processors at the same time. The fact that Mac OS X for Intel could be used in this way was a great benefit of a back up plan designed around a completely different scenario.

As for Apple not giving the idea of losing their hardware business a thought... I'd be willing to bet real money that Jobs has never forgotten the fact that NeXT Computer was forced to become NeXT Software (even though he has always been a hardware person).

I don't think that the possibility that Apple's hardware business could be gone is ever far from Jobs' mind.

If you think otherwise, then you are doing so by ignoring one of the single biggest failures in Steve Jobs' life. I highly doubt he has forgotten what you seem to want to overlook (the fact that Jobs had viewed NeXT as a hardware company and was slow to react when it was forced out of that business).


Those who don't learn from history are doom to repeat it. I don't think Jobs plans on repeating any of his mistakes.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Good points... maybe that's why Steve is CEO and not me... :P

[WeeZer51402]

RacerX - is Mac OS X a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP 3.1 or OPENSTEP 4.2(even though OS 4.2 is a direct descendet of NS 3.1)?

[MrNivit1]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Slightly off-topic and speculative, but I think Apple developed Mac OS X on Intel simultaneously a Mac OS X on PPC in case of a switch of processors, not in case Apple ever gave up their hardware business. I don't think Apple ever gave a thought to giving up the hardware business; instead, always kept their options open as to which processors to use... just a thought, though.

Going on a bit about it being the software, not the hardware; it would be interesting to see, now that the transition to intel is happening, whether Apple will keep developing PPC along with intel once the switch is over (just in case it needs to switch back). This is a bit of a paradigm shift here; where it does not matter what hardware you run, you will still be able to run OS X on it. Would this allow Apple to continue selling/buliding PPC hardware along intel hardware should the IBM/frescale relationship improve? I think so. This is the genius in OS X, allowing it to be hardware independent. Maybe we'll even see OS X run on cell processors (don't flame, just an example, pick any other chip if you want).

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by WeeZer51402

RacerX - is Mac OS X a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP 3.1 or OPENSTEP 4.2(even though OS 4.2 is a direct descendet of NS 3.1)?

Yes.

OPENSTEP was the new name that NeXT gave NEXTSTEP 4.0 when it was released because it used the OpenStep APIs (all the beta versions of 4.0 were still called NEXTSTEP). Rhapsody was version 5.x of the operating system formerly called NEXTSTEP.

Mac OS X's foundation is based on Rhapsody... with proprietary technologies not owned by Apple removed (to make Darwin).

The first Darwin based operating system by Apple was Mac OS X Developer Preview. You can take a look at it here and what you'll find is that it is basically Mac OS X Server 1.x (Rhapsody 5.3 and later) from a user point of view (you can look at plenty of shots of Rhapsody on my Rhapsody Resource Page)... but it isn't Rhapsody. Mac OS X DP is using Darwin not Rhapsody even though it is using all of the GUI from Rhapsody.

Note that the first releases of Darwin still had parts that identified it as Rhapsody 1.0 which was to be the name of the public release of Rhapsody (version 5.2 of Rhapsody, which Apple never released to the public, version 5.3 was renamed Mac OS X Server 1.0).

Carbon was first implemented in Rhapsody 5.1 (within Apple), and was being integrated into the system (including building a new Finder -not related to the old one- to replace the Workspace Manager) by Mac OS X DP2 (shots on my site are here and other shots can be found here). And Aqua started with DP3.

One of the only part of the original Mac OS that is in Mac OS X is Carbon... well Carbon wasn't even originally part of the Mac OS, it was added in Mac OS 8.5 at the same time Apple started testing Carbon in Rhapsody 5.1 (WWDC 1998). Before that, Carbon was a set of APIs that the Copland team had started developing when third party developers became upset when they found out that they were going to have to rewrite their apps to have them run in Copland.

Apple thought they had quite a head start with those APIs, which was why Apple made unrealistic release date projections for Mac OS X. The APIs really were not as ready as Apple had originally thought which is why Mac OS X didn't ship until early 2001 (and wasn't truly useful until the summer of 2002).

For the most part, the only thing directly from Mac OS 8/9 that remains in Mac OS X today is HFS+. Otherwise, the Mac OS X that you are using right now is descendent from NEXTSTEP (with some technologies from Copland).

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

Good points... maybe that's why Steve is CEO and not me... :P

Who knows, maybe you wouldn't have let your love of hardware cloud your business sense the way Jobs did back in the late 80s and early 90s.

But he is a much more cautious person today than he was back then.

Steve Jobs... graduate of the school of hard knocks.