ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
Good points... maybe that's why Steve is CEO and not me... 
OSx86: Are You Serious?
- Thread starter cfleck
- Start date
WeeZer51402
Registered
RacerX - is Mac OS X a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP 3.1 or OPENSTEP 4.2(even though OS 4.2 is a direct descendet of NS 3.1)?
MrNivit1
Registered
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Going on a bit about it being the software, not the hardware; it would be interesting to see, now that the transition to intel is happening, whether Apple will keep developing PPC along with intel once the switch is over (just in case it needs to switch back). This is a bit of a paradigm shift here; where it does not matter what hardware you run, you will still be able to run OS X on it. Would this allow Apple to continue selling/buliding PPC hardware along intel hardware should the IBM/frescale relationship improve? I think so. This is the genius in OS X, allowing it to be hardware independent. Maybe we'll even see OS X run on cell processors (don't flame, just an example, pick any other chip if you want).
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Yes.WeeZer51402 said:
OPENSTEP was the new name that NeXT gave NEXTSTEP 4.0 when it was released because it used the OpenStep APIs (all the beta versions of 4.0 were still called NEXTSTEP). Rhapsody was version 5.x of the operating system formerly called NEXTSTEP.
Mac OS X's foundation is based on Rhapsody... with proprietary technologies not owned by Apple removed (to make Darwin).
The first Darwin based operating system by Apple was Mac OS X Developer Preview. You can take a look at it here and what you'll find is that it is basically Mac OS X Server 1.x (Rhapsody 5.3 and later) from a user point of view (you can look at plenty of shots of Rhapsody on my Rhapsody Resource Page)... but it isn't Rhapsody. Mac OS X DP is using Darwin not Rhapsody even though it is using all of the GUI from Rhapsody.
Note that the first releases of Darwin still had parts that identified it as Rhapsody 1.0 which was to be the name of the public release of Rhapsody (version 5.2 of Rhapsody, which Apple never released to the public, version 5.3 was renamed Mac OS X Server 1.0).
Carbon was first implemented in Rhapsody 5.1 (within Apple), and was being integrated into the system (including building a new Finder -not related to the old one- to replace the Workspace Manager) by Mac OS X DP2 (shots on my site are here and other shots can be found here). And Aqua started with DP3.
One of the only part of the original Mac OS that is in Mac OS X is Carbon... well Carbon wasn't even originally part of the Mac OS, it was added in Mac OS 8.5 at the same time Apple started testing Carbon in Rhapsody 5.1 (WWDC 1998). Before that, Carbon was a set of APIs that the Copland team had started developing when third party developers became upset when they found out that they were going to have to rewrite their apps to have them run in Copland.
Apple thought they had quite a head start with those APIs, which was why Apple made unrealistic release date projections for Mac OS X. The APIs really were not as ready as Apple had originally thought which is why Mac OS X didn't ship until early 2001 (and wasn't truly useful until the summer of 2002).
For the most part, the only thing directly from Mac OS 8/9 that remains in Mac OS X today is HFS+. Otherwise, the Mac OS X that you are using right now is descendent from NEXTSTEP (with some technologies from Copland).
Who knows, maybe you wouldn't have let your love of hardware cloud your business sense the way Jobs did back in the late 80s and early 90s.ElDiabloConCaca said:Good points... maybe that's why Steve is CEO and not me...
But he is a much more cautious person today than he was back then.
Steve Jobs... graduate of the school of hard knocks.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Well, NeXT Computer shut down it's hardware division on February 10, 1993 ("Black Tuesday") and continued to support NeXT hardware until 2001* (when Apple closed down Apple Enterprise, the OPENSTEP area of Apple).MrNivit1 said:
So I would think that Apple will continue to make Mac OS X for PowerPC system for many years to come.
Further, NEXTSTEP 3.3 and OPENSTEP 4.x ran on Motorola 68k processors (in NeXT hardware), Intel (x86) processors in PC Compatibles, SPARC (microSPARC II, SuperSPARC II and SuperSPARC) processors in Sun hardware, and HP's PA-RISC workstations.
As Mac OS X is based on the same foundations, it could (conceivably) run on as many platforms if Apple wanted. So they are in no way stuck with Intel any more than they were stuck with IBM or Freescale.
* Note: Black Tuesday was before the release of NEXTSTEP 3.0 as I recall and OPENSTEP 4.2 (released by Apple in early 1997) still ran on NeXT hardware... some four years after the last NeXT system was made.
TommyWillB
Registered
The one thing that I still miss is the OS 9 style Apple Menu that you can add hard drive and folder alises in.RacerX said:
I'm using Fruit Menus to get that back, but it's sort of anoying to see that they actually built that under DR1 and Rhapsody (called Apple Menu Options in your screen shot) but then took it back out before the OS X release.
...I'm sure we all remember that first OS X that had the blue Apple in center of the menubar providing absolutely no functionality. I'm sure this is part of why we lost this in the transition from Rhapsody to OS X.
TommyWillB
Registered
I remember the first time I saw Preferences Panes in OS X. (See Settings Menu)
After dealing with OS 7-9 (+ Rhapsody) multi-windows Control Panel Applications, this single window/Application UI seemed like a throwback to the pre-OS 7 "CDEV Viewer" Control Panels. (See the General Controls on this page.)
See... Same UI except the CDev Viewer had a vertical list of "CDev's" while the Pref Pane was horizontal.
Anyone else around here old enough that they made that same connection?
After dealing with OS 7-9 (+ Rhapsody) multi-windows Control Panel Applications, this single window/Application UI seemed like a throwback to the pre-OS 7 "CDEV Viewer" Control Panels. (See the General Controls on this page.)
See... Same UI except the CDev Viewer had a vertical list of "CDev's" while the Pref Pane was horizontal.
Anyone else around here old enough that they made that same connection?
Yep, and I did make that connection, but decided that Apple probably correctly did it to create more simplicity. Like this, they forced makers of 'control panels' to stay within certain boundaries - although Microsoft for example just didn't want to do this. Ever seen their Mouse Prefs in OS X? (Dunno if they've changed that by now, never really used them...) The preference panel only has one button that starts an external application. I guess they really only felt comfortable with Carbon from the beginning.
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
I guess this thread really got off topic quickly. And who would really be surprised.
The real question we ended up asking ourselves with the announcement of the Intel transition was "Why?". How would the transition benefit Apple in the future.
A number of reasons were suggested. One is that IBM simply weren't delivering on promised performance and wattage targets. Another was that the "roadmap" for Intel's processors was in some way better.
DRM was cited as another possibility, though based on Apple's past history and privacy conscious customer-base its not a real likelihood. There are many many ways of using DRM technologies that don't require a processor transition and if DRM were a factor there would be easier ways to go about it.
So what else could it be? The "roadmap" that Intel and Apple must have discussed surely offerred Apple a lot of really compelling and worthwhile new possibilities ... possibilities that they have been working on for at least five years.
Intel's newly released VIIV chips are rumoured to contain many media possibilities, including TV, digital radio and cable interfaces. And rumours I've been getting from Apple sources for the past couple of years have all pointed towards an effort to produce full entertainment-centre type appliances. There have been a lot of companies working in this direction recently, but none has really succeeded. Tivo is the best known, though they've been seeing slowing sales. M$'s next XBox was supposed to come into this area as well ... though it looks like it will launch without meeting the requirements for features and price point (the low end 360 does not have a hard drive, none are likely to have a DVD writer at launch, and the price point for a 360 capable of these tasks is likely to be far too high).
So, I'd conclude that the "Entertainment Centre" is one thing on Apples roadmap that just happened to match up with what Intel was offering. But that is just the beginning of the reasons ...
The real question we ended up asking ourselves with the announcement of the Intel transition was "Why?". How would the transition benefit Apple in the future.
A number of reasons were suggested. One is that IBM simply weren't delivering on promised performance and wattage targets. Another was that the "roadmap" for Intel's processors was in some way better.
DRM was cited as another possibility, though based on Apple's past history and privacy conscious customer-base its not a real likelihood. There are many many ways of using DRM technologies that don't require a processor transition and if DRM were a factor there would be easier ways to go about it.
So what else could it be? The "roadmap" that Intel and Apple must have discussed surely offerred Apple a lot of really compelling and worthwhile new possibilities ... possibilities that they have been working on for at least five years.
Intel's newly released VIIV chips are rumoured to contain many media possibilities, including TV, digital radio and cable interfaces. And rumours I've been getting from Apple sources for the past couple of years have all pointed towards an effort to produce full entertainment-centre type appliances. There have been a lot of companies working in this direction recently, but none has really succeeded. Tivo is the best known, though they've been seeing slowing sales. M$'s next XBox was supposed to come into this area as well ... though it looks like it will launch without meeting the requirements for features and price point (the low end 360 does not have a hard drive, none are likely to have a DVD writer at launch, and the price point for a 360 capable of these tasks is likely to be far too high).
So, I'd conclude that the "Entertainment Centre" is one thing on Apples roadmap that just happened to match up with what Intel was offering. But that is just the beginning of the reasons ...
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
The other thing to consider is that Intel also makes other chipsets including networking, wireless and video ... especially when it comes to fully integrated or "on-board" solutions. These are best suited to use in very small devices. Like iPods.
For years, iPodders have been asking for a video iPod, a BlueTooth and Airport Extreme enabled iPod, an iPod with web-browsing and chat capabilities, digital camera interfaces, and so on. With current hardware, most of these are just outside the realm of possibility. Devices like this can be made, but not cheaply, and there is a cost in terms of power consumption and size.
But with access to a chip-maker who specialises in low-end, integrated versions of these chipsets, Apple will be closer to creating this dream device.
There's no doubt that Apple see Sony's PSP as a real threat to iPod sales. Not only is it audio and video capable, but Sony have gone out of their way to make it compete with the iPod. The audio controls on the headphone cable show that Sony really intended to steal back some of the market back from Apple. Apple has to counter, therefore they have to work with Intel.
For years, iPodders have been asking for a video iPod, a BlueTooth and Airport Extreme enabled iPod, an iPod with web-browsing and chat capabilities, digital camera interfaces, and so on. With current hardware, most of these are just outside the realm of possibility. Devices like this can be made, but not cheaply, and there is a cost in terms of power consumption and size.
But with access to a chip-maker who specialises in low-end, integrated versions of these chipsets, Apple will be closer to creating this dream device.
There's no doubt that Apple see Sony's PSP as a real threat to iPod sales. Not only is it audio and video capable, but Sony have gone out of their way to make it compete with the iPod. The audio controls on the headphone cable show that Sony really intended to steal back some of the market back from Apple. Apple has to counter, therefore they have to work with Intel.
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
The final reason I'd cite for the transition is that its no good being ahead of the game in terms of processor performance, if nobody ever notices. The megahertz myth is a real factor that stop uninformed potential customers from buying Macs. They check out an iMac G5 2.0 ghz, then head down to ma-and-pop computers where he convinces them that a 2.7ghz Celeron will be much faster and better.
When the first PowerMac G5 was released, it was, for about 3 months, the fastest desktop computer on the market. Period. Rendering tests and benchmarks all proved this. However, this news completely failed to reach PC users. It simply went un-noticed.
Finally, putting Mac OS X on a system that can also run Windows will allow people to see for themselves how much slower and more bloated Windows really is.
When the first PowerMac G5 was released, it was, for about 3 months, the fastest desktop computer on the market. Period. Rendering tests and benchmarks all proved this. However, this news completely failed to reach PC users. It simply went un-noticed.
Finally, putting Mac OS X on a system that can also run Windows will allow people to see for themselves how much slower and more bloated Windows really is.
First: I've learned we shouldn't make definitive statements about intel Macs running Windows. But more importantly: Don't bet any money on "how much slower and more bloated Windows really is". If the Macs can run Windows natively, this will basically be the first time we shall see Mac OS X and Windows being run optimised on the same hardware. Mac OS X - mostly in the UI - does a _lot_ of things that don't exactly make it fast. Make it good, comfortable, nice - whatever. But not necessarily quick. Also even with Safari, Camino etc., webbrowsing is still lacking in speed compared to IE on Windows. Etc., etc. - But I don't think we should care too much about that.
I agree that Apple will have less problems once they're using the same processors. They can talk about Mac OS X instead of the PowerPC. They can focus. That'd be good. Unless Apple will still not learn to update their machines more quickly, that is. If you go to the computer store and see dual core 4.0 GHz intel machines, but the "current Macs" are using 3.6 GHz chips of the same family, because uncle Steve wants to wait with the announcement for just a month or two longer, then that game is lost again. The situation with IBM and Moto was more comfortable, I guess, because Apple actually had to tell those to produce faster processors. Direct competition is good. But only _for_ Apple if Apple is ready to _be_ competitive.
I also wonder if we'll be able to buy any processor upgrade out there. Because that way, you could buy a first generation intel "PowerMac" (if it'd be called that) and replace the processor(s) with newer ones of the same family later on yourself. Much cheaper than replacing the whole Mac, of course. It'd also mean that people would keep their Macs a little longer, though. We'll see how that plays out.
But back on the topic of the thread (please?): I somehow hope that Apple would do specific licensing. For example, Apple could let Sony sell subnotebooks running Mac OS X, if Apple doesn't care for that market (they didn't create a subnotebook, ever...). And they'd make money from the OS X license sold with those, of course, and should Sony really sell a lot of those subnotebooks, Apple could still rethink after one or two years. I think Apple's in the great situation that other computer makers would actually _love_ to "sell Macs" - at least as an option. I don't think Sony, Toshiba etc. are actually 100% behind Windows.
The fault in letting PowerComputing and others create Mac-Clones in the 90s was that those were allowed to create very similar machines that _directly_ competed with Apple. And after all, a PowerMac 8500 or 9500 wasn't exactly a "work of art" considering its design. They were badly serviceable towers is what they were. PowerComputing offered ugly towers, too, but theirs were a little faster and cheaper at the same time and offered access to the motherboard without having to almost _break_ the motherboard.
Such licensing can have very strict limits and _still_ be interesting for Sony, Toshiba, Dell (gasp!) and others. Apple could tell them very specifically which markets it doesn't intend to work in and let others be guinea-pigs. Apple doesn't want to have their own media center PC (haven't gone there _so_ far...), well: Let Sony create it. And give them a one or two year contract that you can take back, should you decide to cater for that market yourself. Hmm... Interesting times coming up sometime next year (and in the future)...
I agree that Apple will have less problems once they're using the same processors. They can talk about Mac OS X instead of the PowerPC. They can focus. That'd be good. Unless Apple will still not learn to update their machines more quickly, that is. If you go to the computer store and see dual core 4.0 GHz intel machines, but the "current Macs" are using 3.6 GHz chips of the same family, because uncle Steve wants to wait with the announcement for just a month or two longer, then that game is lost again. The situation with IBM and Moto was more comfortable, I guess, because Apple actually had to tell those to produce faster processors. Direct competition is good. But only _for_ Apple if Apple is ready to _be_ competitive.
I also wonder if we'll be able to buy any processor upgrade out there. Because that way, you could buy a first generation intel "PowerMac" (if it'd be called that) and replace the processor(s) with newer ones of the same family later on yourself. Much cheaper than replacing the whole Mac, of course. It'd also mean that people would keep their Macs a little longer, though. We'll see how that plays out.
But back on the topic of the thread (please?): I somehow hope that Apple would do specific licensing. For example, Apple could let Sony sell subnotebooks running Mac OS X, if Apple doesn't care for that market (they didn't create a subnotebook, ever...). And they'd make money from the OS X license sold with those, of course, and should Sony really sell a lot of those subnotebooks, Apple could still rethink after one or two years. I think Apple's in the great situation that other computer makers would actually _love_ to "sell Macs" - at least as an option. I don't think Sony, Toshiba etc. are actually 100% behind Windows.
The fault in letting PowerComputing and others create Mac-Clones in the 90s was that those were allowed to create very similar machines that _directly_ competed with Apple. And after all, a PowerMac 8500 or 9500 wasn't exactly a "work of art" considering its design. They were badly serviceable towers is what they were. PowerComputing offered ugly towers, too, but theirs were a little faster and cheaper at the same time and offered access to the motherboard without having to almost _break_ the motherboard.
Such licensing can have very strict limits and _still_ be interesting for Sony, Toshiba, Dell (gasp!) and others. Apple could tell them very specifically which markets it doesn't intend to work in and let others be guinea-pigs. Apple doesn't want to have their own media center PC (haven't gone there _so_ far...), well: Let Sony create it. And give them a one or two year contract that you can take back, should you decide to cater for that market yourself. Hmm... Interesting times coming up sometime next year (and in the future)...
TommyWillB
Registered
RacerX said:
Come to think of it I used to do the same thing. I'd ALWAYS make a folder under the apple called "Misc." and then move all of the odd things into it. I even did this for my Mom, so she assumed "Misc." was the out-of-box experience.
Veljo posted a pic here: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584 ...
Veljo
Mac Enthusiast
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5
"The impact of the OSx86 hack on Apple's hardware brand could be severe."
And yes, the link Fryke posted (http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584) is a picture of my friend's PC running Mac OS X.
Apparently its a 6GB image file download, and Mac OS X will only install if it has its own hard disk. It hates using a partition. Strange...
"The impact of the OSx86 hack on Apple's hardware brand could be severe."
And yes, the link Fryke posted (http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584) is a picture of my friend's PC running Mac OS X.
Apparently its a 6GB image file download, and Mac OS X will only install if it has its own hard disk. It hates using a partition. Strange...
Well, using a separate partition probably just wasn't important to developers yet. Before the WWDC announcement it was only run on a few PCs inside Apple, and now it's only intended for the devkits. The final version will probably work the same way Mac OS X does now: I.e. no problems with installing into a partition of the right size.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
How does this example have anything to do with the PC verses Mac hardware argument escapes me.Veljo said:
What you seem to be bemoaning is your choice of hardware... all in one verses tower (which Apple has been making... they are called PowerMacs).
Now if we were to look at my 1998 PowerBook as an example of a system that could be modified, I can put an 802.11g card in it. But I couldn't do the same for an iBook from 1999/2000.
Of course my PowerBook has had the processor replaced, the RAM extended far beyond it's original specs, the CD-ROM drive has been replaced with a CD-RW drive and it has a second internal hard drive... I don't know many PC laptops from 1998 that have had their operational lives extended like this.
So it seems to me that the argument that PCs have some sort of advantage over Macs in the way of hardware when it comes to making modifications is deeply flawed. The only advantage that a PC would have over a Mac in the area of hardware is driver support... and that is a Windows verses Mac OS advantage, not a PC verses Mac hardware thing.
Having the Mac OS on PC hardware isn't going to change this.
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
The problem there is that Apple doesn't offer any consumer-level towers, whereas even cheap PCs are usually very upgradeable. You shouldn't need to shell out $2,000+ to be able to upgrade things. So unless you're in the market for a high-end system (most people are not), this IS a PC-vs-Mac-hardware argument.RacerX said:
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Well, if we are going to talk about most people... then most people (Mac and PC users) well never install a single piece of hardware in their systems from the time they buy it to the time they replace it. Apple realized this fact back in the mid 90's, which is why there is an iMac to begin with.Mikuro said:
The professional models are aimed at people who are professionals... and make these types of changes during the course of their computer's active life. Consumers usually don't need this ability, so Apple doesn't include it (and the consumer doesn't have to pay for it).
And so it may be a price issue... but it is absolutely not a hardware issue.
Besides, anyone who really needed the expandability of a PowerMac wouldn't have bought an iMac G5 when for about the same price they could have gotten a first generation midrange PowerMac G5 (single processor G5 at 1.8 GHz) for the same price.
Anyone willing to buy a low end PC should be a perfect candidate for a used or refurbished PowerMac.
A PC comparable to a PowerMac is going to run about the same price... so like I said, no argument.
Oh, for future reference... the most people statement was a mistake on your part.
Most people don't do anything with their systems, so including the statement in a technical discussion is a bad choice. Most people don't know anything about the computers they own and most people will never see the inside of their own systems. And most people will replace their entire system rather than upgrade even the operating system.
Just FYI.