OSX was always ready for Intel?

Z

zoranb

Registered
Was OSX always ment to run also on Intel cpus as well as on PPcs from day1? Cause i heard something like that but im not sure.
 
NeXTSTEP begot OPENSTEP, and then OPENSTEP begot Rhapsody once Apple and NeXT merged, and then Rhapsody became Mac OS X. OPENSTEP ran on Pentium CPUs, so the support has always been there even through Rhapsody.
 
THe other thing is that the BSD kernal already runs on Intel. Heck you can download FreeBSD from the web. Just know that FreeBSD is NOT OS X
 
Steve Jobs said that from day one, OS X was developed platform-independent. This theoretically means that with a little code, OS X could be run on ANY processor that could handle it.
 
Ok so out there there must be a "puma" beta that will run on a P3 say at 800mhz?
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. But any copies of it are likely locked up deep inside 1 Infinite Loop--never to see the light of day--and isn't worth even thinking about. :)
 
Yes, OS X was developed for both the PPC and Intel processors simultaneously, since day 1.

Yes, every single version of OS X for PPC processors has an Intel counterpart: OS X 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.2.4, 10.3.1, and so on and so on... you cannot get your hands on these Intel builds though because, a) Apple locked them up for obvious reasons, and b) It's illegal.

If it helps to think about it this way, every time the developers press the "build" key in XCode to build Mac OS X or a point update to Mac OS X, both a PPC version and an Intel version are built. We only ever see the PPC build.
 
No, not really. Theoretically, yes, but probably not. Maybe inside Apple, at the roughly five-person team that kept building intel builds from time to time. But those are not the kind of people who leak pre-release builds to the public.
Just think of it this way: Apple decided _not_ to release Mac OS X Server 1.0 (Rhapsody's final version, long before Mac OS X 10.0) for intel, although it was basically ready for consumption. (Rhapsody DR 2 _was_ still available for intel. For developers only, of course.) Now... While the big Mac OS X team got working on Mac OS X DP1 through DP4, the Public Beta and finally Mac OS X 10.0 Final, "all" the small team had to do was test building the source on intel hardware. The big OS X team had the order to keep things portable, generally speaking, but they didn't have to actually _build_ SPARC or intel compatible builds.
 
The impression I get is that it was maintained on a "we might need this someday" basis. Even the first Intel Tiger releases were flaky, and it seems reasonable to assume that those were the best they've had in years. The team maintaining the x86 version was probably not concerned with usability or performance. So I doubt that Apple's internal x86 builds were ever really on par with the PPC version, at least until now.
 
Sure. I think that's exactly what happened. I mean: Apple always knew they wouldn't switch to intel from one day to the other, so they just had to keep it portable.

Remember the rumours from, hmm, 2002 or 2003, when someone found code in OS X that talked about OEM-logos? Knowing that Apple was basically always ready to move (or copy) to intel, this sounds like - theoretically - Apple could have licensed Mac OS X to Sony, back when Sony wanted this and the discussion on here was that this was a technical problem. Maybe it was even true that Sony actually wanted to buy Apple back then...
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Yes, OS X was developed for both the PPC and Intel processors simultaneously, since day 1.

Yes, every single version of OS X for PPC processors has an Intel counterpart: OS X 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.2.4, 10.3.1, and so on and so on... you cannot get your hands on these Intel builds though because, a) Apple locked them up for obvious reasons, and b) It's illegal.

If it helps to think about it this way, every time the developers press the "build" key in XCode to build Mac OS X or a point update to Mac OS X, both a PPC version and an Intel version are built. We only ever see the PPC build.
Click to expand...

As Steve Jobs said, and this is true, just a few minor tweaks and the universal app is good to go. all it takes is setting a path to the cross development API to the Universal Binary Software Development Kit, then the checkboxs; Intel and PowerPC and that's it.
 
whitesaint said:
As Steve Jobs said, and this is true, just a few minor tweaks and the universal app is good to go. all it takes is setting a path to the cross development API to the Universal Binary Software Development Kit, then the checkboxs; Intel and PowerPC and that's it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe for a relatively simple application. But we don't use "relatively simple" applications all that much for serious productivity work.

An application that was developed with cross-platform tools in the beginning won't have much trouble porting over to a new architecture. Like you said, change a handful of lines of code, click the "Intel" checkbox, and click "Build." But larger applications that heavily depend on architecture-dependent APIs will not be able to make the transition with such ease.

The ease of porting is inversely proportional to the amount of platform-dependent and architecture-dependent code and APIs used in the application. You can't take any old application and click the "Intel" button and expect a working Universal Binary to come flying out the compiler's chute.
 
Well it would be really intresting in searching/finding puma for intel cpus, must be around some where, id really like to check it out on my old AMD AthlonThunderbird!
 
zoranb said:
Well it would be really intresting in searching/finding puma for intel cpus, must be around some where, id really like to check it out on my old AMD AthlonThunderbird!
Click to expand...

Yes, they must be. I know where, too: Cupertino.

The bottom line for finding an old version of OS X for Intel is that it's not feasibly possible. As I believe was mentioned before, they're also not 100% stable.
 
From what I _know_ (not guessing)... Rhapsody DR 2 for PC Compatibles had a rather short list of compatible hardware. Back in those days, I've equipped my AMD K6/200 (that's MHz) with a NEC ethernet PCI card and an original Soundblaster card in order to get networking and sound to work.

My guess (we leave the knowledge) is that while a move to intel wasn't really around the corner (i.e. some years away), Apple didn't really invest in having the best hardware support. So even _if_ you'd find a build of Mac OS X for intel later than Rhapsody DR 2, it's doubtful you'd get it to actually run on your PC - unless you'd fit your hardware to the specs the OS supports.

Also, I would suspect that Rosetta - the emulation layer enabling one to run PPC OS X software on intel OS X - is a newer development. And the reports from the developer builds for the developer transition kit intel Macs suggest that Rosetta has made big steps in the past few months, so even _if_ you'd find a Puma/Jaguar/Panther build and even _if_ it had Rosetta, and EVEN IF you'd get it to run on an older PC, the result would probably not be really useable. (As in: Everyday use.) I know RacerX would oppose that he's actively using Rhapsody on PC as a working operating system for everyday tasks, but to that I'd say: Different expectations.

Maybe some day builds will pop up as "vintage obscurities" (there are still early Copland builds floating around that can only be installed on G2 PowerMacs but need a G1 PowerMac as a debugger connected through a serial cable; kinda like doing open heart surgery...). I guess this craving for a Puma/intel build is a bit like me searching for pre-ban vintage Pernod Fils Absinthe bottles in old French cellars... Sure: I might be lucky one day. But the odds are against me.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
The ease of porting is inversely proportional to the amount of platform-dependent and architecture-dependent code and APIs used in the application. You can't take any old application and click the "Intel" button and expect a working Universal Binary to come flying out the compiler's chute.
Click to expand...

Well in this case we only need to worry about the architecture dependent stuff because the platform is not changing. And really any architecture dependent stuff should be vanishingly small in all but the smallest fraction of apps. In all my years of coding and porting almost all of the architecture dependent stuff I have ever found has been the result of programmer incompetence pure and simple.

For all (xcode using) shops if the intel port is much more than an afternoon's effort and clicking the Intel button, means you have bigger problems.
 
Just yesterday I found some good informations (...) about OS X x86. There are people who have installed it on their pc, and it's working too!!

Just search and you'll find out more. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top