# *codename: Chameleon Revealed* Os X On Intel



## osxonintel (Jun 26, 2001)

CUPERTINO, CALIF > It is confirmed via IRC chat (efnet, #macosx) by an Apple employee by the name of Michael (last name is unverified) with the email address mikey@apple.com has broke the news. Michael works for Apple in the Research and Development (r&d) Department. There he is given daily task to test and analysis different software products before they go to beta or open market. 
As the informant explains Apple has been developing a x86 version of OS X to run on Intel hardware. As rumors go they have only been developing x86 OS X to run on Intel and VIA Apollo Pro 133A x86 chipsets, BUT NOT AMD761 or VIA KT133 chipsets. Speculation is assumed that a port for other x86 chipsets will follow. Michael described it as, "they took x86 boards and mounted them in 9600 cases" 

No release date for the x86 version of Mac OS (codename: Chameleon) is planned, and no official word is available from Apple. Michael confirmed that it is only a "back up plan". He wouldn't elaborate too much on "back up plan", but he did go on to say that it is most likely being developed in the event that Apple hardware sales should start to drop. 

06/25/01 

The following are exerts from previous conversations with Michael from Apple. The conversers identity has been withheld for their anonymity. 

<--CUT--> 

0:16: *MikeyD* yes 

0:16: -> *MikeyD* hrm 

0:16: -> *MikeyD* what stage 

0:16: *MikeyD* tons, ranging from rhapsody to latest Bagheera/Devi2V4 builds 

0:17: -> *MikeyD* ok 

0:17: *MikeyD* shhh 

0:17: -> *MikeyD* heh 

0:17: -> *MikeyD* what possible strategy is releasing osx intel 

0:18: -> *MikeyD* does it have a Red Box ? 

0:19: *MikeyD* well, i can tell you think 

0:19: *MikeyD* this even 

0:20: *MikeyD* the project codename is camealon (spelling errors aside) and i think its more of just an ace card incase they have to 

0:20: *MikeyD* purely a contingency plan, but i dont know for sure 

0:21: *MikeyD* they took x86 boards and mounted them in 9600 cases 

0:21: *MikeyD* ill take a snap shot of one of the machines with the boards on it 

0:21: -> *MikeyD* they can't be doing osx intel 'just in case it proves useful'

0:21: *MikeyD* i havent had a chance to take an in depth looks at them yet 

0:21: *MikeyD* mainly cause im not allowed to 

0:22: *MikeyD* no, its just incase they have to release it 

0:22: -> *MikeyD* in what situation would they have to release it? 

0:23: *MikeyD* downfall of the hardware maybe? i dunno 

0:23: -> *MikeyD* sounds really silly 

0:23: -> *MikeyD* porting osx is a 4000 Kg project 

0:23: -> *MikeyD* they have to intend to do something with it 

0:28: *MikeyD* like i said, the way everyone else int he lab is viewing it is that its a backup plan incase hardware sales fail 

0:28: *MikeyD* but i have no real proof other than it exists 

0:28: *MikeyD* and the chosen ones get to test it 

0:28: -> *MikeyD* .. ok 

0:28: *MikeyD* ill get you a snap of it 

0:28: -> *MikeyD* kewl 

0:28: *MikeyD* ill brb..shh, im bring my boss over 

0:29: -> *MikeyD* would be nice with an About This Computer box on it 

<--END CUT--> 

More info will be provided as it becomes available.

***JUST ADDED*** PLEASE VISIT http://zineotic.com/osx/ TO SEE WHY AND WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT...


----------



## DJ_XTC (Jun 26, 2001)

An apple employee giving you his e-mail AT APPLE FOR GOD's SAKE!!!! either this guy does give a damn about his job or a lawsuit, or this has to be one of the biggest misinformation campaigns I've seen in a while.


DJ XTC


----------



## Kristjan (Jun 26, 2001)

I have to agree with a post on one of the other forums, mikeyd@apple.com doesn't sound lika a realistic apple.com email adress.

I really hope there's some truth behind this though... What if Motorola suddenly decides to stop developing the PPC platform...? Or maybe they and Apple have some kind of long term agreement?


----------



## RacerX (Jun 26, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Kristjan _
> *... What if Motorola suddenly decides to stop developing the PPC platform...? *



Actually that would not be a bad thing. IBM has been able to push the chips out better and faster than Motorola. Infact IBM has had 700+ MHz G3 processors for over a year, but Apple wouldn't use them because the Motorola version of the G4 (with the Velocity Engine) was stuck at 500 MHz. If Motorola dropped out of site, Apple could buy the Velocity Engine and license it to IBM, and the Mac world would be moving along that much faster (remember that IBM had 600 MHz rated G4s in the ones they made to make up for Motorola not being able to produce enough 500 or 450 MHz processors when Apple was introducing the G4 systems).


----------



## tismey (Jun 27, 2001)

I agree with pretty much everyone who's said that Apple would be daft to port OSX onto Intel, for all the reasons that have been given (and AS IF they're going to be soending that amount of money on something as a 'back-up' in case their hardware sales drop off), but just cos it's stupid, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not going to do it... eMate, anyone?

But to the matter in hand, posts have already appeared on the other forums mentioned, apparently from the mysterious MikeyD himself, claiming the whole thing is a hoax. If you read the stuff about him on the orginal thread, it would seem that the whole thing is one big hatchet job to get the guy fired/ flamed/ spammed/ Service-denied, whatever... 

Also, replies that have been posted on forums are then being lifted to bulk out a 'what people have said about this thread' page on the original site. Speaking as a person who more than once has used the wonderful anonymity provided by the web to use forums and chatrooms to perpetuate stupid hoax sites (usually for made-up bands with particularly lurid names), I suggest that we as a forum treat this thread, and the original poster, with the suspicion that it warrants. It'd be a shame if a friendly, helpful community like this one got dragged into someone's personal vendettas....

Just my 2pen'orth....


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 27, 2001)

Damn someone beat me to the punch !!!!

let me reiterate cause I am all fired up lol 

1) How do you know for sure that he works for apple ???  Well hell I can come here and pose as an Apple/IBM/Intel/CIA/KGB/FBI/THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA (well the last one would be kinda hard to do given that I dont know spanish) ... but the point is I could do that and convincingly ... and no one really knows who I am, what I do and what I say is true

2) Do you REALLY think he would give out his e-mail you dimwhits?  He is probably under a much much stricter NDA than appledev members ... he could get in A LOT OF TROUBLE

3) Finally this guy just wanted his 15 minutes of fame and he made up all this.... no intel port...not now...it aint gonna work on so many levels.


Admiral


----------



## RacerX (Jun 27, 2001)

lets not overlook that fact that this thread was started by someone who is new to this forum, and may just be trying to get people to use another site or is just throwing a stone in our little pond to see the waves. I would point out that if Apple was working with PCs they wouldn't be hiding it. During the first couple years back at Apple Jobs didn't try to hide the fact that he used an IBM ThinkPad running first OPENSTEP and later Rhapsody. It seems highly unlikely that Apple (which has Darwin for i386 systems) would feel the need to hide such systems inside old Mac boxes. As for Mac OS X on Intel, it has died, Apple is have a hard enough time getting Mac users to use the system given the lack of applications. An Intel version would lack Classic and most of Carbon (which would mean starting the Finder all over again), Apple started down quite a different path after they dropped Rhapsody for Intel. But we have covered this path many times in other threads.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Jun 27, 2001)

Either this guy created a new screen name to be anonymous, or he's just starting out. Either way, lets just give him a break. Everyone gets excited sometimes. Although I generally only get excitied for things that would _promote_ the platform


----------



## tismey (Jun 27, 2001)

I *KNOW* I just said we shout leave it alone, but I got curious... Oddly enough, if you go to 
http://zineotic.com/ 
it's all about lizards. It's not anything to do with computers at all, let alone OSX, and there are no links to /osx on this front page. I'm guessing  that whoever owns that domain is hosting this massive piece of defamation without knowing. Which further leads me to treat the whole thing with a little more suspicion...

BTW, I just found out that if I click the green 'maximise' button on the pop-up java window you get when inserting vBcode, you just get a massive white window with nothing written on it. Odd, huh?


----------



## Raindog (Jun 28, 2001)

Well, this is likely a rumor, regardless, it is one that is very widespread.  I have seen two websites already that are completely devoted to exactly this - porting OSX to intel.

One of them is a petition-like site, asking people to post their e-mail and a comment to show support for apple porting OSX to intel, I visited there about a month ago, and they had just over 50k signatures.

Also, if you go to MacOS rumors (http://www.mosr.com/) there is a rumor (a rubbutal) rather from another alledged apple employee who has stated that OSX is actually running on SOME intel machines, although it is very unstable, and will likely never be relased because of that unstableness and for fear of retaliation from the gods at Microsoft.

I'm not attesting to the validity of any of this information, but thought you might like to parhaps check it out for yourselves.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 28, 2001)

All I can say about that article is that it is COW DUNG .... plain and simple.

Someone wanted his 15 minutes of fame.  No apple employee would risk giving ALL THAT INFO ... especially the amount that they will supposedly buy off motorola's part in PPC.

If *I* were an apple employee I and I knew relevent info that apple would deliver some kickass product in NY ... I would just sit back, put my feet on the table, take a big sip of my favorite beverage and think to myself

"Those damn idiots...they keep caughing up stories about the demise of apple.... I know that in a few days we will amaze the world once more...and my job is safe and secure *siiiiiip* aaaaahhhhh yeah baby that is the life "


Admiral


----------



## Shotokan (Jun 29, 2001)

Ok People.  Lets get one thing straight.  Unless anyone here is directly involved in the development of OS X or Darwin, don't say 'no way, no how' to anything.  I don't care if you are the bomb shiznat Apple Developer.  OS X is a far cry from OS 9 or any other classic Mac OS.  Its based on Linux (BSD).  How many Apple programmers (although very smart) know jack abot Linux or Unix or BSD.  I will tell you, not many.  If you are out there and you do, you are the man (or woman).  So speculate all you want.  Dream of Apple isolation or OS X on every machine (die M$ die), but don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Shotokan _
> *Ok People.  Lets get one thing straight... Dream of Apple isolation or OS X on every machine (die M$ die), but don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't. *



From my count there are at least two people who have posted in this thread that have experience working with an Apple OS for Intel based hardware, and at least four who regularly post to this site. The history of that OS (Rhapsody) was played out to a very sad conclusion. There was an honest effort by Apple to make it work (and it works great!), but in the end it didn't get enough support from developers (most of whom came from OPENSTEP on Intel systems) for Apple to continue working with it. Mind you that this was a time when there was only Yellow Box (Cocoa) and Blue Box (Classic) to work with and Rhapsody for Intel was only missing Blue Box. Now with Mac OS X many of the core apps (like the Finder) are not even Cocoa, their Carbon. This means that Apple would have to invest more time and money into porting Carbon to Intel (which doesn't mean that all Carbon apps could be ported). The logic and history shows that this path was traveled by Apple a few years ago and they have no reason to try it again any time soon (they have there hands full just trying to get Mac OS X for PPC up and running with as many major apps as possible).


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 29, 2001)

I think it noteworthy to say 2 things.

1) osxonintel joined on 6/26 and  shotokan on 6/29, both with one post.  It's quite reasonable to assume that they are the same person (although I could be wrong)

2) As you have said on other threads RacerX, is apple were doing this OS X on intel this, it would not be a secret.  IT would need all the support from developers (for apps) and from BSD hobbyists (for more darwin compatibility).  Secrecy would not work with OS X INTEL... also one would need the legendary Red Box to run winblows apps.


Also rhapsody, as well as open/nextstep rock  Too bad there werent a lot of Rhap apps around ... I remember the days I used to read rumors about rhapsody and how it would have been bi-platform etc etc....that is all past...the future of apple OSs for now lies with PPC which is a better processor in comparison with intel crap.


Admiral


----------



## tismey (Jun 29, 2001)

they DO have differing agendas. Shotokan, at least, is contributing in his/her own way to a thread on whether OSX will be ported to Wintel. OSXONINTEL, however, is just trying to prove a point to someone he feels slighted him. I doubt he could care less about whether this mighty OS is ported onto those horrible horrible machines...


----------



## RacerX (Jun 29, 2001)

Ideas and opinions are great, but when someone says something like "...but don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't." when we are all contributing information that we do have and is (in some cases) well documented, you have to expect heated responses.


----------



## Shotokan (Jun 29, 2001)

First of all, I am me and I do not know who 'OSXonIntel' is. I have been reading this forum for months now, just never joined.  I have no agenda here other than to remind everyone to keep an open mind when it comes to OS X.  I went to lunch with a friend today and we got into a discussion about OS X.  I was telling him how great it would be if OS X could run on x86 based machines.  He replied that if OS X ran on x86 machines, that OS X would start to suffer from the same errors as Window$ does.  But if wouldn't.  For those of us poor souls that in addition to Macs, have to use a PC for part of our day, we all know that 99% of problems Windows users face are soaftware based (aka Windows and dll hell).  Hardware made for x86 machines is everybit as good as Apple based stuff.  The fact is, Window$ is a crappy OS.  Marketing is what got MS where it is today.  I have a 400Mhz G4 Alti-vec and a 800Mhz AMD Athlon Thunderbird and I can tell that I would LOVE to see what OS X could do on my Athlon.  I, however, like some others who like Macs, feel that OS X would almost be 'cheapened' by a port to x86 architecture.  So I guess it is a question of survival.  Apple could port OS X to x86 and devour a huge market share, or stay with PPC, retain the image and suffer financially.  Either way, the next year should prove to be very interesting.  Laterz.


----------



## Shotokan (Jun 29, 2001)

I am a man, man.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Shotokan _
> *The fact is, Window$ is a crappy OS.  Marketing is what got MS where it is today.*



Microsoft Windows got to where it is today by having two factor in it favor;
1) prior to 1997 PC hardware was significantly less expensive than Apple hardware (this is not true today, and so is no longer a factor),
2) application base.

I love Rhapsody on my ThinkPad! It is my second system. It goes with me almost everywhere. But I can tell you right now that Rhapsody on a PowerBook 3400 would be twice as good. Why? Not because of Blue Box (which doesn't work on the 3400's), but because there are twice as many Yellow Box apps for Rhapsody for PPC than for Intel. If you ask people on this forum how many are using Mac OS X as their primary system without using classic, you would find the number alarmingly small. And if you asked that small number if they would be using Mac OS X if it had even less apps than it does now only a small number of them would say that they would. Now given those types of numbers as a user base, Mac OS X would be slapped around on the Intel platform not by Windows, but by Be! Yes, that's right, Mac OS X for Intel would have (in actual users) only a small fraction of the number that Be has now.

So, I would say that your statement: "Apple could port OS X to x86 and devour a huge market share, or stay with PPC, retain the image and suffer financially." is as far from actual reality of the market as you can get.


----------



## Shotokan (Jun 29, 2001)

I am not sure where the argument lies in the last post.  If the only reason that 95% of end users use Windows is because "prior to 1997 PC hardware was significantly less expensive than Apple hardware", what happened to OS/2 and other early x86 OSes?  They all ran good, and people who have ever used OS/2 know, it outperformed Windows in every way.  When I mentioned 'marketing' in the my preious post, I may have confused you with my ambiguity, I did not necessarily mean consumer marketing, rather corporate marketing.  The majority of Microsoft's marketing budget is spent on business-to-business marketing.  I guess what I am trying to say is that the rise of Windows to a 95% market share, the simple fact that its a merket dominant OS, has very little do do with hardware prices, or application base.  There are vastly more applications for the x86 platform (Windows,OS/2,Bex86,FreBSD,Linux,Unix,etc.) that there are for the PPC (OS9,OS X, BePPC, etc).  I think I can count on two hands all the apllications that, besides Apple apps, only run on PPC hardware.  I am in now way trying to degrade OS X, or Macs for that matter.  I think we are starting to enter the realm of opinions, where is is quite possible to disagree forever.  At any rate, I hope this clarifies my position.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Shotokan _
> *...what happened to OS/2 and other early x86 OSes? They all ran good, and people who have ever used OS/2 know, it outperformed Windows in every way.*



My second statement cover that quite completely, the best OS in the world doesnt stand a chance if there are a limited number of applications for it. That seems simple enough to me (maybe you should read my post again).



> *I guess what I am trying to say is that the rise of Windows to a 95% market share, the simple fact that its a merket dominant OS, has very little do do with hardware prices, or application base. There are vastly more applications for the x86 platform (Windows,OS/2,Bex86,FreBSD,Linux,Unix,etc.) that there are for the PPC (OS9,OS X, BePPC, etc).*



So what youre saying is that Mac OS X for Intel could run OS/2 applications? I think you need to reword that statement because applications are dependent on two factors; operating systems (for the APIs) and hardware (code compiled to run on specific hardware configurations). I dont think that the vast amount of apps for Windows has helped out Be or OS/2, do you? Also the application base has everything to do with the choices that companies make when choosing a platform. If Im in a meeting with some clients and we are talking about installing a computer system and I say you could try Macs, the first response is do they run all the software that is out there? Besides, in one sentence you are saying that it has nothing to do with application base and the next you talk about there being vastly more, which is it?



> *I think I can count on two hands all the applications that, besides Apple apps, only run on PPC hardware. I am in now way trying to degrade OS X, or Macs for that matter. I think we are starting to enter the realm of opinions, where is is quite possible to disagree forever.  At any rate, I hope this clarifies my position.*



Okay, are you sure that you know what you are arguing here? Im talking operating systems and application support, you are off making an argument about what apps run on what processor? Let us be very clear how computers currently work, first you have the hardware, then the operating systems, and lastly the applications (which are dependent on the OS). In your argument you sound like you are saying that because MS Word 2000 can run on an Intel system running Windows, it should also run on an Intel system running FreeBSD.

And I liked OS/2 Warp as much as the next guy, but compared to Windows 95 (which it was facing in 1995) I can understand why people left it.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

Maybe I misunderstood racerX (or maybe I am a lookist ... ) but here is a small something something...


----------



## RacerX (Jun 30, 2001)

I need to play around with 4 I see. But your right, about running down to CompUSA or some place and finding software on the shelf for OS/2 or Be. I don't think that moving to the Intel platform helped NeXT or Be, and Be is now willing to became an Internet Appliance, what would be next? Be become a Kitchen Appliance, run the microwave or toaster oven? I would call that the slow slide to computer oblivion (at least OS/2 has continued on as an enterprise solution).

The thing that was confusing was that it sounded like Shotokan was implying that if Mac OS X was on the Intel platform it would have MORE apps than it would on PPC and "devour a huge market share". Not to mention the fact that he lumped every OS for Intel together when talking about apps.

I'm still hoping for clarification on his clarification. 

(PS Did anything from Hobbes work on 4?)


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

1) I think I get where the confusion lay .. and where it still lies ... I think we need some more screenshots of non windows OSs with a text editor running says " Poor me I am {insert OS name here} and I cant run win apps ... even though I am on intel... that sux! " lol 
shall we ?? ghe he he 

2) I played around with the hobbes CD (I wonder where the calvin CD is  lol ) and apps do work.  I installed a game I think just to test it out.



Admiral


----------



## Shotokan (Jun 30, 2001)

My argument about market share had nothing to do with applications.  I was saying that if OS X ran on NON-APPLE hardware, that a lot more people would at least try it out.  Is this clear enough?


----------



## RacerX (Jun 30, 2001)

People can try out Be for free now, I don't see all that many people moving over to that OS from Windows? I am assuming that you must have a PC, have you installed Be on it? or QNX? or OS/2 Warp 4.0 (looks cool Admiral)? or Red Hat? or Solaris? The number of alternatives to Windows has not stopped it. Sun is a great example! They ported Solaris over to Intel, has that helped them gain market share? Which version has more apps, Intel or SPARC? (answer: SPARC). The only reason Macs hold their own at this point is application support from companies like Microsoft and Adobe, and both have said that they are not going to write for Cocoa any time in the near future. Mac OS X on Intel without apps is no better than Be (which has some apps).

Besides, you were arguing that Apple would "devour a huge market share" if they ported OS X, which Apple has already shown that they would not. Plus you said "don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't." which means you must have as much info on the subject as the rest of us, so you should be able to make a reasonable argument why Apple would jump back into a dead project like OS X on Intel before they would... jump back into making Newtons again.

Admiral,
I'll take some time to play with OS/2 4, special now that I've seen how much better it looks than 3.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

Actually a  new newton would be "slammin"  (I have to be up to date with the American English Jargon lol )

OS/2 v4 looks cooler than 3 .. although voice recognition probably needs lots of adaptation before ti works properly lol


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

n/t


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

Part II of our shocking interview


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

In part III we see OS X's daddy....rhapsody


In our next episody ... OS X's granddaddy ... OpenSTEP ...
(racer... I think u can do that better since u know more about it  )


----------



## RacerX (Jun 30, 2001)




----------



## RacerX (Jun 30, 2001)




----------



## RacerX (Jun 30, 2001)

I don't know if this should count because it is Windows NT, but it is related to Rhapsody, so here it is.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

here we have a cousin of OS X


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 30, 2001)

LOL here is a blast from the past 

(now if only I could install Plan 9, OS/9, Inferno, AtheOS, and BeOS )


----------



## RacerX (Jun 30, 2001)

Here is a shot that just maybe what Mac OS X for Intel is going to look like!

http://graphics.stepwise.com/StepwiseGraphics/DBunker/MacOSX.gif

(if you are wondering what operating systems are in this shot, here is the Key: http://graphics.stepwise.com/StepwiseGraphics/DBunker/MacOSXanswers.gif )


----------



## RacerX (Jul 1, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Shotokan _
> *...OS X is a far cry from OS 9 or any other classic Mac OS.  Its based on Linux (BSD).  How many Apple programmers (although very smart) know jack abot Linux or Unix or BSD. ...but don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't.*



You know it just occurred to me that that the statement "Its based on Linux (BSD)" is a strange one. BSD is not Linux. Mac OS X is based on Rhapsody which is based on OPENSTEP which is based on NEXTSTEP which pre-dates Linux by a number of years. What is up with that one? (that is just a side question, I'm still hoping for clarification on the application issue   )


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jul 1, 2001)

A few more viewings and we will have 1000 viewwing of this thread... I think that OpenSTEP (or possibily NeXTSTEP) are waiting to make a retort at that guy who said that OS X is based on linux (BSD) ... first of all linux aint BSD ...as a matter of fact there is a semi-quasi-sorta holy war going between them as to which is better lol


Admiral

PS--> That graphic was hilarious.  I got almost all excepr SGI, Palm OS, and GEOS/PDA.  Although... no KDE/GNOME ... no GEOS(x86), no solaris, no AtheOS, no inferno hmmmm it's time for a version 1.5 of this photo


----------



## RacerX (Jul 1, 2001)

> _Originally posted by AdmiralAK _
> *... first of all linux aint BSD ...as a matter of fact there is a semi-quasi-sorta holy war going between them as to which is better lol*



Yeah, but that is only half as interesting as in infighting between the BSD and Linux distributions. I have a friend who swears by NetBSD, and how much better it is than FreeBSD or OpenBSD. And I've seen Linux discussions almost come to blows over which distribution is better.

We have it now. Look at some of the off colored remarks by strobe towards anyone that supports Cocoa (who can forget such favorites as "Cocoa proponents need to shut the hell up..." or "Geez, you NeXT people are so out of touch!"), and other bigoted remarks form people (Scott Anguish almost went through the ruff at someone's "ex-NeXTers" remark at WWDC). And people say Mac users are all liberal Democrats, I would point out some of those remark and say we seem to have a few right wing fascist using Macs as well.

Most of it is understandable (fight for your 'fill in blank' before you lose it), but then when you see Windows users trolling, why? Even the VERY best case scenario would not have their OS disappear, so why attack others? I guess fear and hatred go hand in hand don't they.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jul 1, 2001)

LOL...
I have friends that havea holy war between SuSE and Red Hat lol ... ( SuSE supporters ). ... as for strobe ... I think he is a tortured sould inhabited by two spirits... one pro cocoa and one pro carbon seing that he has dissed and supported both in the past lol 


I am a mac user but I aint liberal and I aint a democrat lol ... I dont know what I am ... guess I am a libertarian ... I dont like government control of everything, but I dont like people running around killing other people causing anarchy .... such a f*cked up world we live in ... 

for me it's "fight for your dignity & honor before you lose it"  When it comes down to it thats all that matters in life 


Admiral


----------



## foo (Jul 18, 2001)

I wonder what you people put in your coffee...you should market it!


----------



## rharder (Jul 18, 2001)

Yeah, some of these threads just won't die.

Die, thread! Die!

"No, no, that's German for 'The Bart, The'."

-Rob


----------



## mr_mac_x (Jul 18, 2001)

Am I the only one who has noticed? OSXonIntel (or whoever the original poster was) has only one post...still! It's like he/she came here just to harass us...


----------



## kieron (Jul 19, 2001)

As far I understand one of the main reasons why operating systems running on x86 hardware can be unreliable (apart from MS code) is that there are so many system configurations (different chipsets, soundcards etc).  It may work fine for some people (the developer writing the os) yet other users have huge problems.  I used to use win98 at work and at home.  At work it was mostly reliable (by windows standards) whereas at home It was terribly unstable (there is a very good reason why I got a powerbook to replace them both - and upgraded to win2000 for those essential windows programs).

At present apple controls the basic hardware specification of all machines that run MacOS and can ensure that support exists for it in the OS, imagine if apple had to provide an equally good os that supported everyone's hardware.  Without the microsoft "do as we say clout" to wield on the hardware manufacturers Apple would probably produce an operating system that for a large proportion of users would be less stable than windows.

Without all their favourite apps very few people would by such a system (i would imagine most people who would by OSX for intel would have a Mac anyway). All that would happen is that apple would lose out on another hardware sale.

Slightly off topic;  I'm new to macs (both as a user and a developer), from my perspective cocoa based apps are better (faster, more reliable, easier to write etc.).  Is carbon supposed to be a temporary stop gap to allow fast porting of software, with the intention of moving to cocoa in the long term,  Or does there exist a long term future for both api's.  I read lots of almost "religious" arguments about whether or not finder should be rewritten in cocoa - would this make any difference.

Thanks, 

Kieron


----------



## foo (Jul 19, 2001)

Opinions vary, but from what I understand there should be very little performance difference, but Cocoa is supposedly easier/quicker to code.


Carbon was intended to be a crossover principle for Mac OS 9 - X, so that the DTP industry, who are notorius for taking their time, are still supported and can migrate in their own time - this goes for anyone else too.

The problem with the finder is not so much that it is a Carbon application, rather, it is a badly written application.

and the points you raise about OSX/windows, are some of the reasons I don't believe we will see OS X on intel.


----------

