Mac OS X on intel PCs?

Ripcord said:
(Besides, dual-booting makes little sense IMO. I'd much rather see near-full-speed virtual machines, though my guess is that we'll see VMWare make an OS X port before we ever see MS get around to building Virtual PC for MacIntel!)
Click to expand...
If performance is an issue, dual-booting will always be better. OS X uses a LOT of RAM, so it doesn't make sense to have it loaded if it doesn't need to be.

And just because there's no CPU emulation doesn't mean everything will work the way it should. VMWare is far from perfect.

That said, if we can only have one option, I'd definitely prefer virtual machines.
 
Ripcord said:
Yes, but since it's already been said that Windows will dual-boot on Macs,
Click to expand...
Apple said that they wouldn't do anything to stop people from trying to run Windows on a Mac.... that is a far cry from saying that the final design will be able to boot Windows.

Apple has no reason to make their systems Windows compatible... which is something you have to set out to do when designing a system.

Anyone thinking that Intel based Macs are going to boot Windows hasn't spend much time working with hardware. I can think of a number of examples where two different computers used the same processor and yet could not run the operating system design for the other.

Also, for those who don't know this, the Developer Kit systems are not Apple hardware. Those systems are based on the systems put together by the operating system team at Apple to keep builds of Mac OS X for Intel current. Not only are those systems not what an Intel based Mac is going to be like, the final version of Mac OS X for Intel based Macs isn't going to be able to run on them (part of the reason for Apple collecting them and destroying them in about a year).

Besides, Schiller's statement was made before Apple's hardware division had started working on designing the new system.

If you want to run Windows software on a Mac, VirtualPC is going to be your best bet. The version of Intel based Macs should perform as good as the Windows version of VirtualPC does.
 
Just assembling what I know and heard... Apple's going to use 'standard' intel processors. They're _probably_ going to make use of intel's work on motherboards. I actually think one reason to go with intel was to circumvent the problem of always having to have custom everything. Apple's long started to adopt "PC technology". As in PCI. As in PCMCIA. As in USB. And they've started to push _their_ technologies into the PC world. Such as FireWire. QuickTime. Rend... Bonjour.

My take is that the board designs would be a PC. Plus some sort of DRM technology that ensures to Mac OS X that it's actually running on a Mac. I think booting Windows on an intel Mac will be possible.
 
fryke said:
My take is that the board designs would be a PC. Plus some sort of DRM technology that ensures to Mac OS X that it's actually running on a Mac. I think booting Windows on an intel Mac will be possible.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I beg to differ -- I don't think Apple will use run-of-the-mill or commercially available motherboards for their Intel-based systems. There are PPC motherboards out there, yet Apple makes their own. I think this will continue, as Apple has some strange form-factors: the Mac mini and the iMac, most prominently.

My guess is that the motherboards will continue to have Apple-proprietary stuff, just with an Intel processor and Intel DRM chip.
 
fryke said:
I actually think one reason to go with intel was to circumvent the problem of always having to have custom everything.
Click to expand...
Well, this would only be true if they plan on getting out of the hardware business. Part of having custom parts to Apple computers is to give Apple the opportunity to move at the pace they want rather than the pace of what Microsoft will support.

Apple's long started to adopt "PC technology".
Click to expand...
Apple has long supported standards in hardware. Apple used SCSI, lots of people used SCSI because it was faster than IDE and wasn't as limited. Apple used Nubus, that wasn't Apple's technology, it was from Texas Instruments. Apple used RS-422 series ports, I have SGIs that use the same type serial ports. Apple used their own ADB for keyboard and mouse, NeXT used ADB for keyboards and mice.

As in PCI.
Click to expand...
Texas Instruments Nubus 2 slots (while much faster than the original versions), were not as fast as PCI. The move was performance based.

Mac video cards (be them PCI or AGP) are not compatible with PCs. The bus speed was what Apple was after.

As in PCMCIA.
Click to expand...
Apple was one of the first to adopt this technology and made use of it in both the PowerBook line and Newtons.

As in USB.
Click to expand...
USB had languished for 3 years after Intel had released it and some PC makers started adding it systems. You needed a special version of Windows 95 to use it early on and Windows NT 4.0 never supported USB.

When Apple announced that the only way to connect peripherals to the iMac was going to be via USB, all of a sudden there were USB products (which didn't exist before the announcement even for Windows PCs).

And they've started to push _their_ technologies into the PC world. Such as FireWire. QuickTime. Rend... Bonjour.
Click to expand...
QuickTime has been available for Windows since version 2.0 as I recall. FireWire was developed from the outset to be open for other venders to use (just like ADB was).

And people seem to have forgotten that Apple has been making Windows software for quite some time. As I pointed out, QuickTime predates iTunes by years. So did AppleWorks for Windows. And WebObjects.

And there have been very few Mac-only displays made by Apple since 1997.

My take is that the board designs would be a PC. Plus some sort of DRM technology that ensures to Mac OS X that it's actually running on a Mac. I think booting Windows on an intel Mac will be possible.
Click to expand...
Then what you are saying is that you don't think Intel based Macs are going to be any different than an Intel based PC. Apple will no longer, in your mind, make better hardware... because they won't be making the hardware anymore.

It is a good thing that you are off base on this one.

Apple's designs are going to be governed by Apple, not Microsoft or some third party logic board maker.

Further, part of the reason Intel has been pushing to get Apple as a client has been the fact that Apple is not restricted to being compatible with Windows. Intel has tried pushing new technologies with PC makers for years (like they did with USB) only to get a luke warm reception because the technology wasn't supported by Windows. Apple has no qualms with modifying Mac OS X to support something new that will set them apart.

If Apple restricts themselves to using Windows compatible logic boards, then they must be getting out of the hardware business... because the only thing that keeps Apple a float currently is the ability to innovate. And if they do what you think their going to, innovation will be a thing of the past.

The developer kits are the last standard PC logic boards that Apple is going to put into one of their cases, and all of them are going to be destroyed. :D
 
I think you got me wrong, RacerX... Or maybe I didn't put it clearly... I, too, think Apple's intel Macs won't "just" be PCs. For instance, Apple can adopt EFI - whether Windows is ready for that or not. But that doesn't hinder Windows from adopting EFI, too.
But unless Apple adopts something that doesn't have a future in the PC world at all (and I doubt that, because if it's good, they'll want it, too!), at some point, there'll be drivers for it for Windows (XP, Vista, ...).
I guess we'll know more only once the first 'real' intel Mac arrives in June 2006 and people start taking it apart and/or installing Windows on it. But Phil Schiller said they wouldn't prevent people from installing Windows on those machines. And I guess that also means they won't create their own motherboards, crippled to the extent that no other OS could live on that computer.

What you said about QuickTime etc.: Yes, of course. That's what I _meant_. Apple has long learned that using standards actually helps them. And that the standards they develop themselves must be adopted widely in order to succeed on the market. Like FireWire. Had Apple kept that "secret" to themselves, there'd be no cameras using it, and it'd only be another connector for HDs. And only _some_ makers would create HDs based on it, because it'd only run on the Mac (2-5% of the market). That's what I meant: They _got_ that right.
 
fryke said:
But Phil Schiller said they wouldn't prevent people from installing Windows on those machines. And I guess that also means they won't create their own motherboards, crippled to the extent that no other OS could live on that computer.
Click to expand...
Well, lets be clear on what I'm saying...

First, there is a major (and there is no way around it) difference between setting out to stop some one from installing another operating system and just not making something that supports that other operating system.

Schiller spoke before the hardware design team had even started on a design. And the only thing that can be concluded from his statement (knowing that nothing had been started) is that Apple would not take any steps to stop people from trying. But that is a long way from making anything that will work with Windows. Companies have to set out to make Windows compatible PCs. Apple has no reason to do this, in fact it would be an extra step on their part to make a Mac compatible with Windows... a step I highly doubt Apple will make because it doesn't add anything to a Mac and would actually limit it.

Second, I don't think Apple is going to do anything (at all) to cripple Macs from being able to run other operating systems. And I fully expect that Linux will be running on Intel based Macs within a month of their release. But lets be clear... I don't think that Linux for PCs is going to run on a Mac any more than Windows. I believe that Linux will be ported to the new hardware, and will run just fine. And I also believe that any applications for Linux on PCs will run without issue on an Intel based Mac running Linux.


Things that I doubt will change because of the processor... video card architecture (current Mac video cards will work, PC ones will not), open firmware (no bios), and the ability to set the system up in target disk mode.

Apple would have to be getting rid of all of those to make a Mac compatible with Windows.



Now, on the other hand, I could see some one creating a Darwin based boot loader and maybe a hardware card (with bios, maybe even a video chip set for PCs) to let a Mac run Windows, but something is going to have to hold Windows' hand in order to get it up and running on an Intel based Mac.

And I would point out that once Mac OS X for Intel is ported to this new hardware, there is going to be no chance of anyone installing it on a standard PC.


Again, Apple doesn't have to do anything here to keep Windows from running on a Mac. But they would have to take steps* to make them compatible.






* Historical Note: Apple didn't take those same steps when making the early PowerPC Macs so that Windows NT for PowerPC could run on them. All Apple would have had to do is follow IBM's CHRP standard for PowerPC logic boards and Windows NT 4.0 would have run just fine. Same thing with SGI, had they followed someone else's standards, Windows NT 4.0 for MIPS would be able to run on my Indy... but it can't. In both those cases, the processor was not the deciding factor, it was the logic board design.
 
RacerX said: "Things that I doubt will change because of the processor... video card architecture (current Mac video cards will work, PC ones will not), open firmware (no bios), and the ability to set the system up in target disk mode. [...] Apple would have to be getting rid of all of those to make a Mac compatible with Windows."

Frankly, I have basically _no_ idea why graphics cards need special firmware in order to run in a Mac. What I _do_ know is that back when I bought a PC Voodoo2 card, it gave me VGA graphics on the Mac okay. Then i uploaded Mac firmware to it, and it gave me everything a Mac Voodoo2 card would. So that's no biggie, really. Actually, I'm pretty sure that Apple could use 'standard' PC graphics cards without problems. They're using a rather generic intel graphics chipset for the devkit - and that _does_ QuartzExtreme etc. I know, I know, the devkit is only a transitive system, but from what I know: It's simply possible.
If you look at the devtalk lists, you see that OF/BIOS/EFI is not set in stone. I'd say, however, that Apple has an interest in adopting EFI. (So does intel.) EFI is good and is there. I don't see much sense in "porting" OF.
The third thing is the target disk mode. This would simply be a function of EFI or OF or the BIOS. And it wouldn't in any way hinder Windows from running.
 
fryke said:
They're using a rather generic intel graphics chipset for the devkit - and that _does_ QuartzExtreme etc. I know, I know, the devkit is only a transitive system, but from what I know: It's simply possible.
Click to expand...
And you, better than anyone else here, should know why it works... the version of Mac OS X running on the developer kits is a direct descendant of Rhapsody for Intel, which was design to run on standard PC hardware. The goal of keeping those builds alive followed the original design for Rhapsody for Intel, which was an operating system that would run on standard PC hardware.

That is very far from what Mac OS X for Intel is now being proposed for. It is going to be reworked to be Mac only.

I don't see much sense in "porting" OF.
Click to expand...
What porting would really be needed? It is part of designing and building every Mac. Implementing it on a new processor shouldn't be that hard. And it helps keep the systems running the way that Mac users are used to (those that even know how to work with open firmware, that is).

The third thing is the target disk mode. This would simply be a function of EFI or OF or the BIOS. And it wouldn't in any way hinder Windows from running.
Click to expand...
Lets be absolutely clear here... it would not be a hinderance as long as Windows supports what ever Apple chooses to go with.

But if Windows does not support what Apple chooses, then it could very well be the deal breaker on Windows being able to run on a Mac on it's own. And Apple has no reason to make the choices that would make Macs into Windows PCs. The closer Mac hardware is to Windows PCs, the more likely that Mac OS X is going to get hacked to run on Windows PCs.

In all reality, Apple has almost no reason at all to change anything else about Macs than the processor.


And again, I'm sure that you are aware that when Apple made the switch to PowerPC, it wasn't even a done deal when they were designing those original models. The logic boards in the 6100/7100/8100 series systems were designed to work with either IBM's PowerPC 601 or Motorola's MC 68060 processors. There is very little that Apple would need to adopt to make this change in processors, and I don't see anything wrong with their current designs that would justify a radical shift in the directions they have been taking in the recent past.
 
The one reason I see for Apple to "not break" Windows compatibility or to actually provide (although not treading on it) Windows compatibility is that it makes it MUCH easier to sell to Windows people. "Buy a Mac. If you don't like it, you can use Windows on it." I think that would switch a lot more people, actually.
 
You dont' even need a sse3 enabled cpu, right? I believe that's what one of the patches does...i don't think you need a pentium 4, either.

I could be wrong, but this is what i've gathered. Either way, quite interesting.
 
Well Mac Rumors has posted it....It's been hacked to run on any pc with a little teaking of course. The videos look pretty legit. But then again it's a Dev Kit. They've posted it on their english site hardmac.com, here's the link. Enjoy and well I'd still stick with a powerpc mac since it can do everything. I'm sure there's issues both hardware and software if somebody does get it up and running. http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10#4352
:)
 
I won't believe any of these videos until the person behind the camera actually shows themselves inputing things onto the screen.

They all always seem to happilly show themselves turning the machines on - but from there forget it!! theres no vids that show them typing / moving the curser etc etc. why not stick in a DVD and play it?!

Also - if you look at the video - when OS X starts up - I have never seen any mac at any version - stretch its video mode like that - even when i hook up a new screen to my laptop it optimises the screen res by itself so everything still sits square...
 
The stretching thing is simply a thing of those widescreen PC notebooks. Mac OS X probably defaults to 1024*768, and the hardware defaults to stretch this onto the screen, rather than show black bars on each side. It would've been interesting to see him go to the monitors prefpanel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top