State your opinion: MacOSX on x86
- Thread starter z4ph0d
- Start date
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
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!
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!
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
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.
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.
ksuther
Registered
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
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
ulrik
Registered
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!!!)
ulrik
Registered
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
Missing Intelligence
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
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
Registered
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
_____________________
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
best wishes,
I don't want my ketchup electrocution guitar I prefer my avatar.
Hervé
ksv
web developer
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.
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
Old Rhapsody User
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.
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.
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.
ulrik
Registered
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!
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
Futuristic Robotic Cat
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
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