# Apple Secretly Maintaining X86 Port Of OS X



## Erix (Sep 1, 2002)

The subject is from Slashdot.org and below is the link given. What do you think?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp


----------



## macfreak88 (Sep 1, 2002)

What is x86?


----------



## Invicster (Sep 1, 2002)

x86 = Windows processor like the Pentium series from Intel.


----------



## Erix (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Invicster _
> *x86 = Windows processor like the Pentium series from Intel. *



You explained it nice but please don't give bad examples.  Not "windows" necesserilly (did I spell it right?). Linux is welcome too. Also not the "intel" evil but AMD. 

So lets change it like this;

x86 = Linux processor like the Athlon series from AMD.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 1, 2002)

Guys, please stop the rumor about OS X on x86.
I'll give you a couple of reasons why Apple will never support x86:

-Apple has to rewrite OS X and all the iApps completely
-The money invested in relations with IBM/Motorola would have been nothing
-Apple wouldn't had launched the MegahertzMythe-Campagne, don't you guys think?

AppleWatcher


----------



## uoba (Sep 1, 2002)

Normally I would agree AppleWatcher, but several tech news sites have come up with a slant to the story, like this one:

_http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp_


----------



## Erix (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by uoba _
> *Normally I would agree AppleWatcher, but several tech news sites have come up with a slant to the story, like this one:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp *



Isn't it the same url I gave above? Or am I missing something?


----------



## uoba (Sep 1, 2002)

Oh darn, I knew I should've read the contents of this post before I went on! 

Mine looks nicer now anyway    

...sorry Erix


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by uoba _
> *Normally I would agree AppleWatcher, but several tech news sites have come up with a slant to the story, like this one:
> 
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp *



Eh, so you agree now? 

AppleWatcher


----------



## Erix (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by uoba _
> *...sorry Erix *



No problem. Your link looks nicer as you said.


----------



## uoba (Sep 1, 2002)

I'm confused 

Gonna take Sunday off, all this posting is getting to me!


----------



## fryke (Sep 1, 2002)

1. It is no problem for Apple to port Mac OS X and their apps to X86, technically (!).

2. Steve Jobs said that they would review options *after* having made the transition to Mac OS X.

3. This new rumour is a very old one. It says that Apple maintains a build of Mac OS X that runs on the X86 platform(s). This was true for the Rhapsody project (that led to Mac OS X Server 1.0). If the rumour is true, Apple never stopped development of the X86 build, which would only seem normal, as Darwin has always been X86 compatible. Of course, the main focus has been (and is) on the PowerPC platform, but this could change.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Sep 1, 2002)

I would be kinda stupid if they did port to x86.  Reason being, they'd have to write all 64 bit code because Itanium sucks at 32 bit and intel isn't due to ship a hybrid 32/64 bit chip for a while yet.  AMDs ClawHammer would be nice since the code base it supports will be 32 and 64 bit.  But if they are going to go with AMD it's best they go with SledgeHammer.  Either way AMD is the best choice to keep apps running at top speed while they make the transition to 64 bit.


----------



## fryke (Sep 1, 2002)

Hmm... I see AMD's Hammer strategy as a "let's flee the race we can't win" strategy. Combined with Apple's own "let's flee the race we can't win" strategy of choosing processors that run at lower clock rates, this would surely make a good strategy, right? Nope.

I think Apple should neither go Itanium2 (which isn't targetted at consumer workstations at all) nor should it go with the Sledgehammer. Apple should choose IBM.

The talk is that Mac OS X is (and it was, I have the Rhapsody DR 2 for PC Compatibles CD right here) running alive and well on X86 (32bit), meaning Intel Pentium (and AMD K6) and higher processors (K6-2, K7, PIII, P4 etc.).

Apple should, if they plan to switch, choose the processor with the best future. And I am not sure whether AMD can keep up. I'd go with IBM right now, but we all know that Apple knows what's best for Apple. (Although we tend to differ.)


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Hmm... I see AMD's Hammer strategy as a "let's flee the race we can't win" strategy. *



I don't see why that's a "let's flee the race".  Intel would like to have a transitional product from 32 to 64 bit, but Itanium nor Itanium 2 isnt' it.  Hammer will do that.  But it's a really big move to x86, which is not in Apple's best interest, nor Apple developers.


----------



## ccuilla (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *-Apple has to rewrite OS X and all the iApps completely*



Simply wrong.



> *
> -The money invested in relations with IBM/Motorola would have been nothing
> *



Perhaps. But at some point a company has to cut its losses if those investments are not paying off.



> *
> -Apple wouldn't had launched the MegahertzMythe-Campagne, don't you guys think?
> *



But if the strategy _doesn't work_ then one must reconsider the strategy. Right?


Having said all of that...I do not believe that Apple will EVER port to the Intel platform (at least in the sense of making it an OS openly available for all hardware platforms, a la Windows).


----------



## fryke (Sep 1, 2002)

```
If
$possiblesalesofmacosxonX86
> $possiblelossesinapplehardwaresales
Then
Apple will go X86.
```

I think Apple could very well sell 'Mac OS X for PC Compatibles' for, say, 129$ right now. If the system would install well on plain PC machines, if Carbon apps would run on that OS without even needing to be recompiled (yeah, I'm dreaming), I guess, Apple could take QUITE some of MS's cake away. Right now. This instant.

Suddenly, there would be an alternative. And not one of the "we're easy to install, too"-linux variety. But something even easier to install, use and maintain than Windows. And hey, there's MS Office for that operating system - although I think MS would suddenly stop selling that...

But that's not what would happen, right? There would be the need to recompile software (as was the case with Rhapsody YellowBox applications), and only *if* Apple provided a compiler for Carbon/X86 APIs would there ever be Carbon/X86 apps.

Still, I think - even with the piracy problem - Apple would sell many, many of those boxes.

They even would with only Cocoa compatibility. And Connectix would sell a (OS-less) Virtual PC that would enable to run your installed Windows installation in-a-window.

Ah, one can dream... Apple suddenly a software company (as people wouldn't wanna buy slower, more expensive hardware) that would swipe MS off this planet?


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Sep 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Apple would have to take a serious hit on their bottom line considering hardware, not software is their main source of revenue.  I doubt they'd be willing to do that, at least not until the day they know for sure the PowerPC is at the end of the line for desktop systems.


----------



## Excalibur (Sep 1, 2002)

I agree with you there. We may as well start digging their grave if that happens at this point. Cheap boxes will kill their market on hardware before we can say bankrupt. LOL


----------



## gibbs (Sep 2, 2002)

I see this whole problem as more of a "what will bankrupt them first" scenario.

Over the years I have watched apple. Sometimes it seems like they are just about to bite the big one, yet somehow, they always pull through. Its like the company that won't die.


----------



## jimr (Sep 2, 2002)

This should be obvious....

Keep the X86 rumours alive and some people will  continue to buy the hardware and use Windows or Linux as "interim" OS software until the "real thing" shows up.

Apple has plenty of experience developing for the x86 cpu.  Quicktime for windows contains a large percentage of quickdraw routines implemented in the QT.dll  

who really cares what platform it all runs on?

if motorola drops the ball, and IBM doesn't pick it up, then moving to some new architecture might be imminent.  That is not likely to happen "soon" though....

the x86 is at the end of an over 30 year chain of events and is in bad need of escape from an entrenched user base....

what would be even better is to have intel make a new super chip and have OSX ported to that.   finally, most windows users are intel loyalists rather than Windows enthusiasts.   
hardware that is very extensible but screams for a better OS to glue it together (not Win, not Linux, the other unices are not even close on the GUI side...).



That would really rock the Windows world....


Mac on the other hand will still be Mac  "as an attitude" no matter what silicon it lives in.


 a porsche with a volkswagon engine might still be a porsche....

a volkswagon with a porsche engine?  the chassis and suspension can't handle the power


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Sep 2, 2002)

My opinion, it's good to have a backup in case of trying times... if they can't use PPC or whatever, Apple has a working version of their OS on a different platform. They could possibly make a compatibility layer (like classic, but much better) and quickly make a transition or give their major software developers a heads up on what they need to do to make their apps run on the new platform.

Listen, we all know that it sounds farfetched, but it's nice for everyone to leave their options open... you wouldn't want to go to one scenario with only one choice, you'd like to have two or 3. This is just a way of having more options. The more options, the better.


----------



## Erix (Sep 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jimr _
> *
> a volkswagon with a porsche engine?  the chassis and suspension can't handle the power *



Like the recent Apple hardware that cannot handle the software?


----------



## Excalibur (Sep 2, 2002)

I'd expect no less than 75% of their business to come from hardware sales. Remember last time Apple had to battle with clone makers on the same platform? They were almost dead in just over a year. They will take a MUCH faster hit with thousands of clone makers vs. only a handful they had at that time. The bios idea is a temporary fix, it WILL get hacked to run on a $300 Walmart computer I'm sure. Just like how the XBox wouldn't run Linux, or the Dreamcast, or consoles can't get MOD chipped, etc. ALL have been hacked to run whatever was needed. They must take that in consideration, of loosing more hardware sales. They are a hardware company first and sell software to inturn... sell hardware. (I hope that made sense)  A transition to a software company takea LOT of time and money which is their best bet moving to x86. Competing hardware with the others they will be basically another Gateway or Dell.

I'm not saying that it won't ever happen just the timing is not good right now while they are in the middle of a transition period moving from OS9 to OSX on their own platform. Maybe that transition period is over then the options are there. Moving platforms AND operating systems at the same time can be a bit confusing to market I'm sure.

Keeping a valid build up todate this might be wise for something down the line in the distant future but not anytime soon at the least, in my opinion.


----------



## BBenve (Sep 3, 2002)

Can people please stop making stupid threads like this...we discussed it already ..PLENTY of times..it ain't happening....STOP WISHING you PC users...wanna OSX??? get a mac...that's it...i had enought of people starting stupid ocnversation...oh a site reported x86 version of X oh a friend of mine said so....oh a developer tolde me...oh apple is secretly using x on pc...ohh...


you want a real info....from a developer


APPLE HAS NOTHING LIKE x86 version of X...NO ONE and it WON'T have it

APPLE IS A HD SW manufacturer ..it is NOT a SW company ..and it does NOT make it's capital thanks to an OS


SO QUIT IT ALREADY


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 3, 2002)

This is really nothing new. Apple has been keeping x86 builds alive inside the Apple Campus for years, even before NeXT and OS X. Back then it was referred to as "Star Trek", and it's goal was to build a x86 port of System 7. The project was successful, and the x86 build of System 7 did serve it's purpose - getting Motorola to take Apple's business seriously.

OS X should be even easier to port to x86, mainly because most of it's base - ran on x86 back when it was OpenStep. 

However, there are 2 major problems with OS X on x86. 

First, is that Classic would not work. For it to work, Apple would have to build a virtual PPC abstraction layer, and that would take a good bit of time.

Second, is that all Carbon/Cocoa applications would not work unless the develop recompiled them for OS X/x86. While this wouldn't be as time consuming as Carbonizing was, it would still irritate many developers who are already not happy with the work that was required to bring their apps to OS X in the first place.

This OS X/x86 project is nothing more than a safety net. It covers Apple's but in the unlikely event both Motorola and IBM either can't/won't provide Apple with competitive CPUs. 

Apple's currently banking on IBM's new desktop chip, a Power4 knock off, to lift Apple out of the mhz misery. It could take awhile, but IBM is really Apple's last PPC hope, short of contracting out PPC CPU designs to Intel or AMD. Motorola has lost it's chance, and Apple will be moving on from them just as soon as it's able to secure a next gen chip from IBM or through sub contracting...


----------



## Erix (Sep 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BBenve _
> *Can people please stop making stupid threads like this
> *



And can people stop writing rude and "I know everything kind" answers!


----------



## edX (Sep 3, 2002)

so well said Erix


----------



## fryke (Sep 3, 2002)

Okay. Apple is not switching processors. Because both IBM and Motorola are still in the business to develop faster PowerPC processors. Apple chose the PowerPC processor line (and was a driving force behind it, making Mot kill their own, first, RISC plans) for a reason.

Recent years, however, have shown that Motorola is a company in trouble. They are switching strategies like a man jumping from one foot to the other because the ground is hot. Although they have a 'stable tree' (the G4 is constantly renewed, only not scaling that fast/good), their 'unstable tree' doesn't bring evolution fast enough (the G5 should have 'been there' much earlier).

Apple, which is not the dumbest company of the world, has chosen plan A over plan B in 1997. Which basically meant that Steve Jobs and his NeXTies took over Apple in that year. Once they got rid of Gil Amelio and put 'the son' back on the throne, they put some energy behind new hardware AND took that great code base of NeXT/OpenStep, which is a very portable operating system that already had jumped from 68K hardware (the NeXT hardware was Motorola 68K based) to X86 and SPARC (yes, there was 'Cocoa' for SPARC) and now took the jump onto the PowerPC platform.

To quote Steve Jobs again: *"Then we'll have options. Then we'll have options, and we like to have options."*

It's not that Apple wants to or has to switch to X86 this year or next. It's just that the recent years have shown Apple how difficult it is to defend a strategy if it doesn't work out the way it was intended to. When Steve/NeXT took over Apple, the PowerPC G3 was on the horizon, promising higher MHz rates. *But Apple already had faster processors than the rest of the world. The competition was all at around 300 MHz, while Apple had the 350 MHz 604e processor in the PowerMacintosh 9600, which was a beast of a machine at the time. They also had the 240 MHz PowerBook 3400c, which was just the FASTEST notebook on earth, as Wintel notebooks were running at around 166 or 200 MHz.* PLUS the PowerPC was about 1.5 times the speed of a comparably clocked Wintel machine.

Things went down from there, however. The G3 DID scale well compared to the 604 and 603 (G2) processors, but it didn't scale as fast as promised. The G4 was a way out, it had AltiVec. But it didn't scale - PERIOD. (I'm sure Motorola didn't put it that way. I'm sure they didn't think it would stay at 500 MHz for a YEAR.)

_(If we consider all this, Apple has made an incredible job in marketing.)_

Well... Apple must have options. They won't just fade away, it's not the way Apple goes. First they'll try everything else.


----------



## uoba (Sep 3, 2002)

Nice bit of history, thnx fryke... Quick proposition... you reckon Gates has XP running on a G4?


----------



## fryke (Sep 3, 2002)

Bill Gates and XP have Intel and AMD by the balls, anyway. And they already _have_ options. Also: Windows NT was planned to run on PowerPC hardware once, and it was running on DEC's Alpha processors. They just went with Intel then.


----------



## TellarHK (Sep 4, 2002)

As a pre-"Switch" switcher, who purchased my first Mac this past November, I have to say I've watched a lot of the trends from a technical perspective for several years.   I've watched as Apple transitioned from the company that made the computers in my school, to the company that made computers for art students.  

At the same time, I've watched the x86 PC go from being the business class workhorse to the ubiquitous kludge of a platform it is today.  We've seen speeds shoot from 20 to 2800 megahertz over the past decade on the x86 platform and Moore's Law seems to keep finding reprieves from failure.  It's expected that with 64 bit chips like AMD's Sledgehammer that the line will continue to be increasingly powerful at a similar scale.

The G3/G4 series though, for one reason or another haven't even come close to keeping up with Moore's Law.  My bet on this is that it's simply Motorola not really wanting to be competitive in the chip design arena, just because Apple isn't buying enough chips to really make it cost effective.  IBM on the other hand actually has a little more drive there thanks to the "Big Iron" as well as other applications they use their own performance chips (Power 4) for.  The real question however, is which chip design outlook has the most potential for powering Apple's traditional core users best?

Which chip is going to be better for graphic number crunching, and which chip isn't going to look humiliatingly slow compared to the Gateway Profile 6 (About the time they'll get it right.)  and other machines planned around the time any processor switch is made?  The way OS X is designed makes it incredibly easy for Apple to port it.  The compiler they use (GCC) is on so many different processor platforms I can't even name a third of them.  It's been designed from the ground up to be portable to other architectures.  My mildly-educated guess would be that it could be ported to any platform GCC exists for within two months, debugged decently within three.

But, I still don't think it'll be moving to the x86 platform just yet.  Emulation of the PPC chip under x86 is nowhere near as capable as it is from PPC to x86, and the speed of x86 wouldn't be able to make up for the difference even with a good emulation routine.  After spending the past few years trying to convince software makers to produce applications in Cocoa, only to find many still using Carbon routines that would -not- be so easy to port, it would hurt Apple enough - though not as badly as many die-hard Mac fans would think - to make it a non-viable idea. Developers would lose a lot more faith than they already have.  Jaguar has only just begun to show what OS X can become, but it's a case of too little, too late without other significant effort to gain more computing power.

My bet is on the IBM Power 4 chip.  It's enough of a PPC to make things almost if not entirely port-free above the OS layer, the rumor is that Altivec has been introduced to the line, and even if not, a sufficiently powerful "raw" instruction set might be just fine for emulating it in applications that demand it with enough processor power behind it.    

Now, the x86 build has a few different reasons for existing.  Apple could very well be using it as a leverage tool against Motorola or IBM, saying "Don't make us use this.".   Apple could concievably rework the entire platform around an x86 chip, yet leave the machine so unfamiliar with current x86 mainboards as to eliminate any possibility of using the OS on a non-Apple computer, but this would most likely require porting the GCC compiler all over again, as well as the OS.  A rather unlikely - though possible - event.

Apple's been backed into a corner, and the only logical thing I can see from my perspective is either a miraculous decision by Motorola that they want to compete, or one by IBM that they want to jump into the fray.  

If Apple were to take the x86 route, however, I'd definitely bet on AMD rather than Intel being the provider.  AMD has much lower costs per chip, performance in many applications is equivalent to or better than an Intel processor at a faster clock rate, and AMD could -certainly- use the sales.

To summarize:  Not on x86 unless there's something we don't know yet, NEVER on x86 generic hardware (stop begging for it and buy a damn Mac, people) and probably an IBM alliance with Motorola ditched.


----------



## 96.9 (Sep 4, 2002)

OS X is still beeing put together .

I am a SuSE linux dude and a BSD techy . 

OS X would be great for my X86 but it has to compete with Linux and BSD on my hard drives .


----------



## TellarHK (Sep 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by 96.9 _
> *OS X is still beeing put together .
> 
> I am a SuSE linux dude and a BSD techy .
> ...



... Sigh.


----------



## Rod (Sep 10, 2002)

why macOS won't go to wintel machines

it seems pretty simple really.
Apple is making a 30% share on every bit of hardware it sells.
That's HUGE.

The only sustainable competitive advantage Apple has, the ONLY point of difference in it's favour is the operating system.

If people don't buy mac hardware - Apple makes no money.
If you could use macOSX on wintel machines - why would anyone buy macs?

Face it - PCs are cheaper, easily upgraded, easily disposed of, more well recognised, more widely understood (mhz myth), and quite frankly world dominating.




The only reason Apple would port macOSX to PC is as a last ditch effort to not go under.


----------



## terran74 (Sep 10, 2002)

I think everything is fine.  Two processors are always better than 1.  So what they are 1.25 ghz. 

Tell me, if you are running 1 app on a 2.5 ghz machine and 1 on a 1.25 ghz dual proc, would you notice a difference?  Surely.  The 2.5 ghz will be faster.

Now, let's look at what the average power user does.  Probably 10 to 15 apps.  Which would be faster?  A machine with a single 2.5ghz or a machine with dual 1.25 ghz?

What if we made photoshop and other apps multithreaded to the core?  What about cocoa apps and the way MacOS X likes to spread threads across 2 or 4 processors.  Does it matter that they are only running across a couple of 1.25 ghz?

I like this idea of Apple toying with multi-processor systems.  It makes them buy more G4 chips and lowers the over price of the G4.  The more dual proc machines sold means the more Apple can buy more chips.  Why stop at 2?  Let's go with 4, 8, 16 processors... well ok 8 and 16 are a bit much but you get my point.  I see no problems with the current strategy.  When I see my system slow to a crawl at home with my single processor and the one at work with dual processors not even budge no matter how much i throw at it... it makes me sigh with relief.

Dual proc iMacs?  Well why?  All I do at home is email and web stuff and AIM anyway.

Who is holding the CPU back?  Apple or Moto?  I bet you it's Apple because its easier to order 4 speeds of G4 than a larger range of speeds.

What apple needs to do is get with developers so they can build multithreading into more Carbon apps(cocoa does it automatically i beleive). 

If you can take a 3D render or Video editing task and break that one task into a bunch of threads and spread them across 2 or 4 processors it would easily beat a single 2.6 ghz and probably generate less heat and power consumption because as we all know, the G4 is smaller/faster/needs less electricity than a P4


----------



## 96.9 (Sep 11, 2002)

OS X would be great on X 86 but it would have to work with  X 86 Linux  .

There would be the driver support issue for all the hardware but with the e-magic software beeing available for a BSD OS its a pretty cool idea to have OS X multi platform .


----------



## TellarHK (Sep 11, 2002)

The astounding lack of thought put into pretty much all your posts on this topic truly amazes me.  Really.


----------



## Jason (Sep 11, 2002)

here is an idea...

research and development?

for say a backup plan just in case something goes horribly wrong?

so they are testing a build, who cares? doesnt mean they will release it or not, many many companies research products that they dont release


----------

