# State your opinion: MacOSX on x86



## z4ph0d (Apr 4, 2002)

What do YOU think about making MacOSX for x86 computers? Good? Bad? Lame? Wonderful? Share yer opinion!


----------



## simX (Apr 4, 2002)

Oh, for the love of everything Mac!!

We've had this discussion SO many times on this forum.

For the LAST time, OS X on anything other than a PowerPC processor will NEVER EVER HAPPEN IN A MILLION YEARS!  Motorola won't go out of business for a LONG time, and if they do, then Apple or IBM will buy the PPC assets and continue the processor line.

Without even getting into the benefits or disadvantages, I can say this for sure: it won't happen.  So stop dreaming!


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 4, 2002)

Uh, yeah.  What simX said.  

And add a vote for "bad".


----------



## symphonix (Apr 4, 2002)

The Motorola chips are far more advanced than those used in x86 PCs. Hell, I have PC friends who are actually proud of the fact they have six fans on their PCs, and two fans to cool the processor on their laptop.
The G3 and G4 chipsets run without need of cooling. They don't overheat and crash, like PC chips. And a Mac never humms like a dishwasher when you're listening to music, like a PC does.
Then, of course, there is the fact that the x86 chips are the only ones that haven't adopted RISC technology. That x86 chips are produced by a number of vendors desperate to under-cut each other's prices while squeezing a little more out of their technology than is reliable. Or, that x86 chips are built on layers of legacy technology and have to accept commands written for 8, 16 and 32 bit software.
One of the things that makes the Mac special is its superior technology, and not even the most insanely greeder marketeers will ever take that away from us.


----------



## ulrik (Apr 4, 2002)

not again...please....it hurts.....


----------



## ksuther (Apr 4, 2002)

Not in a million years, like simX said 

There are many projects to port the Darwin core to x86, and they have almost done it, but Apple still retains the code for the interface and all the fun stuff, so it would be quite useless to the end user. My friend seems to be of a different opinion, but he's wrong 

Even if they did get the interface to x86, the thing would be slug. Like it running on a 604e slug. It would have no optimizations at all. No AltiVec makes thing slow down quite a bit... Even if you're using a G3 you notice this hit.

My vote is bad


----------



## benpoole (Apr 4, 2002)

AHEM!

April 1st!

(ditto for that rumour re a $299 iMac running with a 68040 chip)


----------



## ulrik (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by symphonix _
> *T They don't overheat and crash, like PC chips. And a Mac never humms like a dishwasher when you're listening to music, like a PC does. *



I have to disagree on this one. PowerMacs are LOUD, VERY LOUD! 

A friend of mine has a Dual Althon XP 1800 (lucky one got the SMP ready XPs before they where "closed" for SMP support) with good fans (he has exactly four fans in his PC: 2x CPU, 1x Power supply, 1x Graphic board, that's just one more than my Quicksilver) and he equipped the casing of his PC with special sheets which absorb noise. Costed him around 20 dollars and his PC is as silent as the new iMac...I really envy him when I have to hear my really loud Quicksilver...

(not to mention my Linux box, a Compaq Celeron 1300...which has exactly 0 fans!!!)


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *
> 
> I have to disagree on this one. PowerMacs are LOUD, VERY LOUD!
> ...



I did not think they made noise.  I thought it was just my HD making noise.  My friends mom has an AMD XP something.  The fan on that is really loud.  Sounds like a jet taking off.


----------



## ulrik (Apr 4, 2002)

then he might have a cheap fan...cheap fans are loud as hell....then again it also depends what PowerMacs you listen too. The first where really quiet, they only had one fan, which was not very loud. Than came the graphics board active coolers....than the newer big fans...and now even active CPU fans in the quicksilver line....


----------



## Dak RIT (Apr 4, 2002)

An Athlon produces far more heat than a PowerPC does.  Easily up to 70 watts+.  The G4 in comparison draws only about 11.5 watts for the 7400 model (up to 450MHz), and even the 1GHz Apollo only pulls about 21.3 watts.  I believe the low power model in the TiBooks is under 10 watts.  That's why Apple can make them so thin.  The new iMac would be impossible with a Pentium 4 or Athlon too.

Ever since Intel decided MHz were the only thing that mattered they've been just as bad as 
AMD when it comes to heat.

So, when it comes to noise the Mac has a big advantage over a PC.  If your friend has achieved less noise than a Quicksilver G4 on a PC then he's been using quite a bit of insulation to block out the noise.  I don't know what setup he's actually using, although if there isn't proper heat flow through the system he's going to be burning up some expensive hardware.  He needs a friggin big power supply and some heavy duty fans to handle a dual Athlon XP 1800+.  (Lucky he got the Athlon XP early!  I only know 2 other people that managed that too, although with the 1600+).

Cheers,
Dak


----------



## ulrik (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Dak RIT _
> *An Athlon produces far more heat than a PowerPC does.  Easily up to 70 watts+.  The G4 in comparison draws only about 11.5 watts for the 7400 model (up to 450MHz), and even the 1GHz Apollo only pulls about 21.3 watts.  I believe the low power model in the TiBooks is under 10 watts.  That's why Apple can make them so thin.  The new iMac would be impossible with a Pentium 4 or Athlon too.
> 
> Ever since Intel decided MHz were the only thing that mattered they've been just as bad as
> ...



check this out to see what the heat problems are on modern x86 CPUs.
After I saw this video, I knew that I will NEVER (I wouldn't have before, but anyway) put an Athlon into a server!

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-05.html


----------



## tagliatelle (Apr 4, 2002)

I have another idea. I want to see my "invention" be reality. A nonmovablecdplayer with a camera as eye.
best wishes,
I don't want my ketchup electrocution guitar I prefer my avatar.
Hervé


----------



## ksv (Apr 4, 2002)

OK, I'll leave deciphering Hervé's post to somebody else  

I wonder why no one puts peltier cooling elements in PCs/Macs instead of fans. Peltier elements are way more effective, they can cool the processor down to below room temperature even without addidtional cooling (except from a heatsink on the peltier element).
Peltier element work like fridges, they're cool on one side and hot on the other side when they get power. With a peltier element that's powerful enough, the processor could even be overclocked to run hundreds of MHz' above their rated speeds, with a fan to cool down the peltier element (the cooler they are on one side, the hotter they got on the other side).
Why does everybody do it so primitive, and put 3-6 fans in a computer, when they really only could have one fan and peltier elements/heatsinks?

Also, I think Apple should be selling Macs with a motherboard cooled down to -18°C, and the HD/optical drives could be in a seperate "room". I guess they would have no problem getting approval from Motorola to run G4s at 2x1.4 GHz or so in that temperature.

Back to the OS X on x86 thing, no, it won't happen, and there is no point in releasing OS X for x86. As mentioned earlier, Apple would have no way of optimalizing OS X for x86, either.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 4, 2002)

I only need to think about examples of other operating systems that have been ported to the Intel platform to see what a bad idea it would be. NeXT did it, they slowly started to die soon after. Be did it, we all know what happen to them. Sun did it, and they have stopped with Solaris 9 beta (which means that the end of the line was actually Solaris 8). Apple started down that road once with System 7 and again with Rhapsody, and thankfully turn back each time.

Until computer makers can sell systems without Windows installed (that is, people can buy a PC without being force to pay for a license for Windows), there really is no need for any other operating system on the Intel platform.


----------



## jokell82 (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *then he might have a cheap fan...cheap fans are loud as hell....*



Just recently switching from the PC side, I can tell you that you are wrong.  The most expensive fan I ever bought for my Thunderbird 1.4 (one of the hottest processors of all time) was also the loudest.  That is because they push WAY more air than the cheaper/quieter ones do.  Typically the cheaper ones are quieter as they aren't as effective.

Oh, and to ksv, many people use pelts to cool their system.  However, it's very dangerous as you need some serious cooling on the hot side of the peltier in order to not damage your system.  Most of the time a heatsink does not suffice, nor does a heatsink with a fan.  In fact, most peltier cooling systems NEED a water-cooling solution.  This is how people are able to overclock their 2 GHz Pentiums to 3.5 GHz.


----------



## ksv (Apr 4, 2002)

No one sells liquid nitrogen cooled computers, as far as I know... 

Well, OK, yeah, cooling with peltier elements may be dangerous, but I suppose large companies would have to trouble about designed a properly cooled peltier cooled system.


----------



## ulrik (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jokell82 _
> *
> 
> Just recently switching from the PC side, I can tell you that you are wrong.  The most expensive fan I ever bought for my Thunderbird 1.4 (one of the hottest processors of all time) was also the loudest.   *



Well, as you say. I have switched from the PC side also, and I can tell you, if you buy an expensive fan and it is loud, you have bought the wrong fan.
The fans cooling down those two overclocked 1800 XPs are from a company which specialized themselves on quiet, powerful fans, and they are much more silent than the stuff in current Quicksilvers.

If you want, I can ask the webpage of the manufacture of those fans, they have very detailed specs about the noise production so you can see that a powerful fan does NOT equal in a loud fan!


----------



## jokell82 (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *No one sells liquid nitrogen cooled computers, as far as I know...
> 
> Well, OK, yeah, cooling with peltier elements may be dangerous, but I suppose large companies would have to trouble about designed a properly cooled peltier cooled system. *



No one sells them, yes.  But check out sites like www.hardocp.com and you can find people that make their own.  I think the record is around 4 Ghz, or something like that.


----------



## phatsharpie (Apr 4, 2002)

I think a lot of people keep missing the point regarding OS X on x86 processors. Apple is a company that tries to make their computer as easy to use as possible, and to accomplish that goal, they control both the hardware and software side of the equation. So even if Apple ports OS X to Intel, they will STILL control the hardware by making sure that the Intel PowerMac will have proprietary boot roms like the PowerMacs now. So essentially, other than claiming that they are using CPUs that are as fast as the ones Dell use, there will be no difference in company strategy. In other words, you can't just go out and buy a cheap Dell to run OS X. Apple won't support the numerous configurations of PCs out there like Windows.

Therefore there is no point to porting OS X to Intel. It would cost a lot of money and time in R&D, and not to mention all the Carbon applications (most of the commercial apps on OS X are Carbon) would be rendered obsolete.

Very stupid idea...

-B


----------



## ksv (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jokell82 _
> *
> 
> No one sells them, yes.  But check out sites like www.hardocp.com and you can find people that make their own.  I think the record is around 4 Ghz, or something like that. *



Yeah, I know, but I don't have access to liquid nitrogen and proper equipment, anyway 
Yah, I saw that someone had OCed a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 to 4010 MHz...


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 4, 2002)

Regarding the fan noise issue:

I have a friend who was in the business of building computers.  (He may still be doing so, I've lost touch with reality  )  One specific computer was to use a T-Bird 1 GHz (IIRC).  But it had to be as close to silent as possible.  So he got specific fans -- the power supply alone I think was around $150.  I have no idea what normal PSs go for, but that sounds steep to me.  When he was done, the computer ran perfectly.  And it was almost as quiet as my iMac.    Of course, I didn't have the iMac then, but still...


----------



## jokell82 (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *
> 
> Well, as you say. I have switched from the PC side also, and I can tell you, if you buy an expensive fan and it is loud, you have bought the wrong fan.
> ...



I understand what you are trying to say.  I have a Alpha PAL8065 Heatsink on my 1.4 with a variable speed 80mm fan.  It is pretty quiet.  And it was pretty expensive.  But most heatsinks use 60mm fans, which push much less air than the 80mm fans and are louder.  The quieter fans are typically less efficient than the noisier ones, as the quieter they are, the slower they spin.  However, sometimes the quieter fans can provide adequate cooling for most situations.

The most recommended fan for cooling an athlon effectively is the Delta Black Label, a 60mm fan.  The thing friggin screams.  I had it on mine for a while, then switched to the more powerful delta, which is also much longer (but still 60mm).  That was the most expensive and loudest fan I ever bought.  

If you want to check out some fans, go to www.sidewindercomputers.com .  I ordered all my fans from there, and they actually let you listen to how loud they are.


----------



## tagliatelle (Apr 4, 2002)

SMT


----------



## tagliatelle (Apr 4, 2002)

Apollo? A new cpu? 1GHZ! Simultaneous multithreading is used in Xeon and Motorola seems doing the same or am I wrong?


----------



## simX (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *
> 
> check this out to see what the heat problems are on modern x86 CPUs.
> ...



DAAAAAAAAANG!  I have much less respect for AMD, now. 

I did notice, though, that when they measured the temp of the Intel CPUs in that video, they didn't put the instrument right up to the processor, while when they measure the temp of the AMD processors, they put the instrument right up to the processor.  Admittedly, I'm not sure what tool that is, so this fact could make no shred of difference, but I'm thinking that it probably screws up the temperature data.

Nevertheless, those AMD processors went up in smoke! 

I loved the music, too.  It was appropriate for their testing.


----------



## xoot (Apr 4, 2002)

Mac OS X for x86? Has the world gone mad? Not in any amount of time would I like to see that!

But, it's better than windows.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 4, 2002)

Here's a slightly different take on this much-discussed topic. I'm semi-technically literate in terms of hardware and CPUs, but nowhere near as literate as many posters here. For this argument, though, I'll pretend to be a little less literate for the point.

For a typical Mac user or someone who isn't particularly interested in the "engine", the "I would never want to run OS X on an 086 chip" makes no sense. That is like saying "I would never use a semiconductor with a copper fabrication process". Who the hell cares?

All I care about is what the pixels are doing on the screen and that's all about OS X, not about the chip. I know Altivec-enabled chips factor into how X operates, but in the end I"m interacting with X, not a chip. I don't care of the chip is made by monkeys and called the Banana Chip as long as it's the fastest chip available and runs my software stabley (is that a word?).

I have no allegiance to Motorolla or the PowerPC chip. My allegiance is with Apple and OS X and the inherently better EXPERIENCE it provides. The problem is that right now, as Mac owners, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We either choose the best OS experience, or the fastest chip, we can't have both. (I don't care what Altivec does, a 1 gig chip against a 2 gig chip isn't going to catch up in 95% of the cases. I've run all sorts of tests and with very few exceptions, MHz DOES matter, but that's a whole 'nother thread so I'll stop here.) If Apple sold an 086 machine tomorrow that was faster than their PowerPC machines and ran OS X identically (<<key word), every single one of us would buy one, why the hell wouldn't we?


----------



## simX (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *If Apple sold an 086 machine tomorrow that was faster than their PowerPC machines and ran OS X identically (key word), every single one of us would buy one, why the hell wouldn't we? *



Yes, true, but that won't happen, both because Apple will never release OS X to run on another chip, and because an 086 machine would never catch up to the performance to the G4 in OS X.

But I digress, as we probably shouldn't get into an argument over the latter point.


----------



## Dak RIT (Apr 5, 2002)

Well, for starters MHz doesn't matter 1 iota when comparing two completely different chip architectures to each other.  That's one of the problems Intel is having now... they encouraged the "MHz myth" (and still are) for as long as they could because it was a marketing move.  Just look at the Itanium which Intel is trying to move to so the Pentium can die... it runs at 800MHz, but it definitely beats a Pentium 4.  The G5 may also take a MHz drop from the G4 if Motorola increases the G4's pipeline to 14 when they move to the .13 micron process.  I believe a 1.4GHz to 1.6GHz chip is expected.  G5 afaik is still expected to be 800MHz to 1.6GHz (Apple probably going with 1.2GHz - 1.6GHz).

I find the best thing to do when it comes to desktop computers though is simply save yourself a lot of yelling and assume all the chips out today are fast enough.  An 867MHz G4, an Athlon XP 1600+ and a Pentium 4 1.8GHz are all going to get the job done for you with little noticeable difference in most cases.

And on a completely different subject... I was really hoping when Motorola was talking about selling its microprocessor unit that Apple and AMD teamed up and bought it   Intel is, well... Intel.  And IBM would have just been pricks when it comes to pricing.  AMD shared some fabs with Motorola, and the Hammer and G5 are quite similar, so it would have been a good match, and Apple could have had a bigger stake in controlling R&D.

Cheers,
Dak


----------



## vanguard (Apr 5, 2002)

I keep hearing that the x86 isn't as fast.  It is.  Actually, it's faster.  Yeah, Apple has Alltevic so they can do 4 floating point opertations in one clock cycle.  Intel has SSX2, it does the same thing but it can do it with 240% more cycles per second.  Also, the Intel chips already work RDRAM which helps to prevent wasted cycles because the processor is waiting for more data/instructions to operate on.

I'm with mindbend.  I don't have any loyalty to Intel, Motoral, or AMD.  I just want my machine to be fast.

And one final point, that AMD video that shows the chip overheating has been discredited.  I forget the details but I think it was a beta chip without overheating protection or maybe they turned something off to get it to do that (more than just removing the fans).  Either way, that won't happen to a chip that you buy off the shelf.

Vanguard


----------

