Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
MacOS X on Intel Petition (revised)

By An Enraged Cow in Op-Ed
Mon Sep 25, 2000 at 05:35:13 PM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

A new petition is going on at OS X on Intel to get Apple to port their upcoming flagship Operating System to the x86 platform. They're due to reach 10,000 signatures tomorrow and have a steady rate of 80 signatures per hour. While many such attempts have been made in the past (remeber QuickTime for Linux?), this case, if succesful, would be healthy and benefitial for both customers and the Cupertino-based company.


Back in the days before the Second Coming of Steve Jobs, Apple already knew that the classic MacOS was starting to show its age. So they set out to create a multi-tasking, handy-dandy next-gen OS called "Copland". It failed miserably, and the project's ship was abandoned. Steve Jobs reincarnated through Apple's purchase of NeXT ("we belive a small group of people can change the world"), and the NeXTGen OS plans were revived under the code-name Raphsody. The folks in California then came up with an ever-so-confusing plan of "boxes", or environments, in which Rapsody could run. They had the blue box, and the yellow box, etc. They originally had an intel version as well, and reading through a few year old mac magazine reveals Apple folks telling the public that by now we'll al be running Rhapsody on our good 'ol x86 boxes. Nope. Rhapsody vanished into the nothingness of Apple's collective idea-trash-bin, and the whole thing went back to the drawing board. Enter MacOS X. Based on BSD *nix. Based on NeXT tech. Not a single trace of the original mac code, except the classic environment which emulates the orginal OS. Finally, full multi-tasking. Industry-standard security. No crashes. Bins, roots and /s and dots - all behind the visual glitz of the best PDF-based GUI ever. And anytime you like it, you can bring up a console and telnet to 127.0.0.1 or do more productive things. Drool. So, what does this mean to Joe Schmoe? If you're sick of Winblows 9x XYZ edition, or for some uncomprehensible reason are not following the ways of the Holy Penguin, you have an alternative. As one user desiring OS X for x86 put it: "Steve: Would you like to spend the rest of your life selling colored plastic, or change the world?" :) We know that Apple can port OS X to x86 without too much effort. After all, they have the tools and have done it before with Rhapsody. Not to mention, OS X's BSD opensource core, "Darwin", already boots on x86 and even in emulated x86 environments. Now it's just up to Apple to use some of their proprietary tools, get some drivers, and show the world what an OS really should be like. Now, it only takes a few (read: a LOT) of people to convince Steve to ignore his ego and conquer a larger part of the OS pie chart. And you can help. You know the link - what are you waiting for (besides linux to be ported to your cell phone?)???

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o OS X on Intel
o Also by An Enraged Cow


Display: Sort:
MacOS X on Intel Petition (revised) | 72 comments (46 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden)
Sounds nice (2.00 / 9) (#5)
by maketo on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 04:49:15 PM EST

But I dont think it'll ever happen. Apple has shown in the past how wooden their attitude is. One has to like them for the really nice OS but also hate them for beeing so darn stupid sometimes. I hope they decide to port it but doubt it really.
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
(3.83 / 12) (#9)
by farlukar on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 05:05:26 PM EST

"Steve: Would you like to spend the rest of your life selling colored plastic, or change the world?"

If all cheap PCs could run OSX, who would buy Apple's expensive coloured plastic? They might make a few bucks on the OS but they'd probably lose a lot on not selling their harware.
______________________
$ make install not war

Re: (3.40 / 5) (#15)
by 31: on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 06:26:19 PM EST

IBM vs. MicroSoft.

Moral? Sell all the hardware you want, it's the interface people buy.

-Patrick
[ Parent ]
IBM vs Microsoft (3.33 / 3) (#51)
by ThrillKiller on Mon Sep 25, 2000 at 05:52:08 PM EST

The difference with IBM vs MicroSoft and Apple vs Microsoft is that Apple sells their hardware proprietary where IBM did not. If I remember correctly they were IBM PC clones. Microsoft made their money off of licenses for each of the PC's to include the clones. Apple did allow clones of there systems for a while (I dont believe they do anymore).

---

nuclear, it's pronounced new-clear - Homer


[ Parent ]

Your JJ Quote (none / 0) (#61)
by ubu on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 04:53:39 PM EST

You forgot the attribution for your quote, who should be the inestimable John Jensen.

Ubu
--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
Re: Your JJ Quote (none / 0) (#62)
by farlukar on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 05:52:58 PM EST

Sorry... Never heard of the guy.
______________________
$ make install not war

[ Parent ]
Not gonna happen (4.33 / 9) (#14)
by GoRK on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 05:59:44 PM EST

I hate to be the nasayer here but not many others are making noise about this other than the people who just want OS X on x86 because they need a good GUI and are sick of windows.

The clincher:

I HAVE RUN MAC OS X ON MY X86 PC!

Or rather, a very early version of it.

Apple already explored the feasability of their newest operating system on the Intel platform as it was derived from NextSTEP/OpenSTEP and originally based on this kernel which ran on 68K, PPC, and X86. They released two alpha versions of "Rhapsody" for X86 - these of course would eventually turn into OS X. YellowBox was available for both Rhapsody/X86 and PPC; however BlueBox (the key to legacy applications) was only available on PPC. I supported the effort and did my part on bug reports, suggestions, etc... I even coded some applications on it. Apple sent me a very nice letter detailing the reasons they were dropping the X86 port.

They aren't going to pick it back up no matter how many signatures you get on your form. Sorry. That's just the way Apple is. If you want OS X, go buy an Apple. Even if they did (do) release OS X for X86, the PPC version is always going to be the more superior and the most supported by third parties. Look at the death of Windows NT for PPC (Yep, they had it. I have run NT on Mac hardware too!)

~GoRK

bad idea IMHO (3.16 / 6) (#16)
by sergent on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 06:28:55 PM EST

  • I really think it's probably a good business decision by Apple to stay as focused as they are.
  • Are there any applications at all that would run on Mac OS X for Intel? Mac OS X would not be usable by most mortals if it were not for the Classic environment; the Classic environment would clearly not run on Intel without hardware emulation.


Why? (2.42 / 7) (#20)
by Inoshiro on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 08:53:22 PM EST

Sorry if I don't sound enthusiastic, but why do I want OS X again?



--
[ イノシロ ]
Re: Why? (3.33 / 3) (#29)
by pope nihil on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 02:05:57 AM EST

OK...BSD kicks ass, right? if you haven't used it, take my word for it. it rules. Next, the OS X GUI kicks ass. If you question this, look at the screen shots. I'm not really a mac fan, but i'm drooling over this. I'm probably going to buy a macintosh JUST so i can run OS X. i don't realistically expect apple to port it to intel.

I voted.

[ Parent ]
Re: Why? (2.00 / 3) (#44)
by Inoshiro on Sun Sep 24, 2000 at 12:38:52 AM EST

Naw, I don't think so. If Apple's Mach/Linux wasn't appealing, why should their Mach/BSD be appealing? Besides, the Mac gui has some failrly convoluted keyboard shortcuts. It's bad enough using Gnome with its brain-dead half Emacs / half Windows default.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: Why? (3.50 / 2) (#45)
by pope nihil on Sun Sep 24, 2000 at 01:10:09 AM EST

mklinux never REALLY took off. that's why we have LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog linux, and ... i think there's one more. anyway, it was never go to be apple's premier software. linux wasn't ready. IMHO, it still isn't as ready for primetime as BSD. some of the rumours i've been hearing about the hardware requirements are kind of scary, but i don't know. i still want to give it a try.

I voted.

[ Parent ]
Re: Why? (none / 0) (#63)
by baka_boy on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 09:55:32 PM EST

If you are a fan of Mac hardware, OS X is the most exciting thing to happen since the PPC601 chips came out -- the past days of having a good look-and-feel at the expense of stability and performance can be over. If you like the multimedia capabilities of the Mac, then OS X will give you a worthy OS to continue those tasks on. Or, if you're interested in application server development, then the (potentially) killer combo of OS X, WebObjects, and the new integrated Java runtime environment (with full access to the NeXTStep-based OO system libraries -- yum!) will make you very, very happy.

OS X will not be a direct competitor to Linux; it's not a lean, constantly-hacked-born-to-serve hot rod. Nor will it have much of a shot at taking Windows out at the knees -- Office and IE will, until that fateful day when the OS and apps are seperated, always run best on Windows, and that's all most businesses care about. However, it will take the best things about the Mac, and make them better, while still injecting some new life and performance into a worthy platform.

[ Parent ]

If you want a glitzy UI on a solid foundation... (3.42 / 7) (#21)
by PresJPolk on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 09:42:31 PM EST

...use BeOS.

If BeOS were open, I'd use it. Since you want MacOS, you clearly don't care if it's open.

BeOS, unlike MacOS X, doesn't hesitate about the GNU and Unix components in the system. You can use a great GUI, or open up the terminal and /bin/bash to your heart's delight. All in the free-of-charge R5 download. Development tools are a separate download, though.

Best of all, BeOS got out of the hardware business. That means they have an incentive to support as many architectures as possible, unlike Apple, who has an incentive to support only that architecture that pays the bills.

No, BeOS doesn't do all the translucency or whatever it is MacOS X does. But, the UI does look quite good, and the foundation seems quite solid.

Re: If you want a glitzy UI on a solid foundation. (1.25 / 4) (#23)
by An Enraged Cow on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 11:02:37 PM EST

Yeah, I know that Be was light-years ahead of what Apple & Co. are just arriving at today. As for r5 -> haha. I installed it, and it's a joke of an OS. Boots fast, but that's about it... And talk about crappy hardware recognition. BTW, my article was not about glitzy UIs, but porting OSX to x86. Quite a different topic, if you'd care to realize...
Mooo!
[ Parent ]
Re: If you want a glitzy UI on a solid foundation. (3.50 / 2) (#26)
by PresJPolk on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 12:39:17 AM EST

Well, it's not going to happen. Apple cannot port OS X (other than Darwin) to x86, or they lose.

So, that's why I'm saying to try BeOS. OS X isn't going to come to intel, so BeOS is the next best bet.

[ Parent ]
Re: If you want a glitzy UI on a solid foundation. (3.50 / 2) (#24)
by Toojays on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 12:04:31 AM EST

The trouble with BeOS is that it has nowhere near the amount of applications as MacOS has. AFAIK it still doesn't have Java . . . not that there are many Java apps either, but the options on BeOS are terribly limited.

[ Parent ]
Five days ago on Metafilter. (2.40 / 5) (#28)
by Holloway on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 01:30:22 AM EST

For those interested in another site's discussion of this petition, it's 'ere.


== Human's wear pants, if they don't wear pants they stand out in a crowd. But if a monkey didn't wear pants it would be anonymous

keep your Mac off my PC (2.44 / 9) (#32)
by xah on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 12:20:36 PM EST

We need to address some things. The author speaks of "the best PDF-based GUI ever." I have no idea what this means. I think the author means to say "DPS-based" in reference to NeXTSTEP/OpenStep's innovative Display PostScript GUI. Clearly the MacOS GUI has its ardent and locquacious admirers. But is it the best ever? This is by necessity a subjective valuation. The OS/2 Workplace Shell had numerous distinct advantages, and because I became familiar with it, I would take it over the balky Mac interface any day.

Soon after, the author says, "And anytime you like it, you can bring up a console and telnet to 127.0.0.1 or do more productive things." I am not the world's foremost UNIX expert by any imaginative stretch, but what could one do in a telnet session to the same machine that one could not in a "console" on that machine? I suppose one could also ftp to one's own machine, but besides testing the operability of one's ftpd, the point of the task eludes me.

Would "MacOS X" succeed on the x86 platform? Notwithstanding even the complete hack job its name does to the English language (is its full name the "Macintosh Operating System X Window System"?), it does not appear to have any great advantages over the many other proprietary contenders for the title of chief competitor to Windows.

Why would MacOS X succeed where OS/2, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, Desqview/X, Taligent, Geos (GeoWorks), and others have not toppled Microsoft? Why would someone want a proprietary operating system when they can have Linux or BSD?

How many applications would initally be available for MacOS X on Intel? How long would it take to port them? What is the likelihood that Microsoft would ever port Office to that platform? The whole thing is utter fantasy.

Re: keep your Mac off my PC (3.33 / 3) (#34)
by mattdm on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 03:16:23 PM EST

Soon after, the author says, "And anytime you like it, you can bring up a console and telnet to 127.0.0.1 or do more productive things." I am not the world's foremost UNIX expert by any imaginative stretch, but what could one do in a telnet session to the same machine that one could not in a "console" on that machine?

I think that was a joke. That's why it says "or do more productive things".

Notwithstanding even the complete hack job its name does to the English language (is its full name the "Macintosh Operating System X Window System"?)

It's pronounced "Mac OS Ten". I don't believe that it ships with the X Window System at all.



[ Parent ]
Re: keep your Mac off my PC (none / 0) (#57)
by Legolas on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 12:58:08 PM EST

No, MacOS X doesn't come with an X server. (Although, Aqua, from my playing around in DP4, looks really sweet). However, a company called Tenon Intersystems is making an X server for MacOS X that integrates into Aqua pretty nicely, apperently. They also make an X server for the current MacOS. (Beware, the website seems sorta slow today).

Also, I had the "pleasure" of using an iBook all summer. (With LinuxPPC... MacOS 9 isn't my idea of fun). Actually, when i finally get out of university and get money, I'm honestly going to consider Apple hardware. It seems to be fairly powerful (based on my G3 iBook under Linux).

-legolas

[ Parent ]

Simple, because it's better (3.75 / 4) (#40)
by Paradox on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 08:22:32 PM EST

Well, right now, because it's better. I hope people aim for quality, because that's the only important thing. I run linux over windows, because it is better. I'm bying a G4 because it is better, performance wise. If linux was 1/2 the speed of windows, ran only a few programs, and crashed a lot, I wouldn't run it regardless of how free it is. No matter if you give or sell it, it can still be crap, or an epiphany.

Apple has been a great sport reelasing the fundamental code to Darwin and Mach is no huge secret. So, all the important bits of OS X are open, and the rest are clearly documented. So "open source advocators" don't have much to complain about.

Mac OS X can succeed because it is a better operating system (we hope, let me reserve this until it gets out of beta.. I'll eat my words if it sucks then I guess), it is based off of a great standard (OPENSTEP makes development a breeze) and supports a wide range of languages for development (C, C++, Objective C and Java, plus any code the gcc can compile can be finagled in). So why WON'T it succeed? Because the dualbooters and the cheapskates who don't want to buy an apple box because "it looks silly" or "I can't run my windows games anymore!". Gimme a break.
Dave "Paradox" Fayram

print print join q( ), split(q,q,,reverse qq;#qsti
qq)\;qlre;.q.pqevolqiqdog.);#1 reason to grin at Perl
print "\n";
[ Parent ]
Re: keep your Mac off my PC (3.50 / 4) (#42)
by plastik55 on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 11:16:35 PM EST

The author speaks of "the best PDF-based GUI ever." I have no idea what this means. I think the author means to say "DPS-based" in reference to NeXTSTEP/OpenStep's innovative Display PostScript GUI.

In fact the graphics architecture is Display PDF.

Soon after, the author says, "And anytime you like it, you can bring up a console and telnet to 127.0.0.1 or do more productive things." I am not the world's foremost UNIX expert by any imaginative stretch, but what could one do in a telnet session to the same machine that one could not in a "console" on that machine?

That's why he says, "or do more productive things." It's a joke. But yes, it shows that a working telnetd is there.

Why would MacOS X succeed where OS/2, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, Desqview/X, Taligent, Geos (GeoWorks), and others have not toppled Microsoft? Why would someone want a proprietary operating system when they can have Linux or BSD?

It's pronounced "Mac OS Ten." And porting it to Intel would succeed if there is a large user base that would want to run it in Intel. Hence the petition.
w00t!
[ Parent ]

Riiiiiiiiiight... (3.16 / 6) (#33)
by 3than on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 03:01:18 PM EST

Right, Mac is going to want to port its OS to intel, because, you know, they don't really like selling hardware.
There is no way it will happen at all. And if it does, there's no way that it will be a quality OS. Mac has enough problems getting is OS to run reliably on Mac hardware...they don't have the resources to make it happen for intel, even if they wanted it to.
This is just so farfetched...don't get me wrong, I'd be interested in Mac OS X for intel, but I don't really see how it could be a positive thing. The BSDs already run extremely well, and have X servers...all that we would really be getting are the Mac abstraction layers in OS X, with their fruity names like 'Cocoa' or 'Carbon' or whatever. There aren't even apps for them yet, except for the Quicktime player. Mac Os X might be in beta, but it's got a long way to go. I've been intrigued in the past, but at this point, I have little faith in it even for Mac hardware.
I guess the bottom line is this: Looking at the mess that OS X is at this point, I don't see how and intel architecture port is viable. In addition, it's pretty straightforwardly in conflict with Mac's strategy. All this, in the end, makes it a little silly to even be talking about.

To quote George Bush Sr. (3.00 / 5) (#36)
by argent on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 04:26:59 PM EST

Not gonna happen. No sir! Do you have any idea what it would take to port this to a X86 instruction set? Nope, didn't think so. And 10,000 sigs aint enough to catch any corportations eye. That customer base wouldn't pay for the programming teams morning coffee during the development period.
cd /pub more Beer
Re: To quote George Bush Sr. (none / 0) (#68)
by Trygve on Thu Sep 28, 2000 at 06:28:15 AM EST

"Not gonna happen. No sir!"

That's right. Not gonna happen. Read my lips ...

;-p

[ Parent ]
Umm.. (3.40 / 5) (#37)
by nebby on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 04:58:59 PM EST

As far as porting to x86 goes.. how the hell do you expect them (Apple) to support all the crazy hardware on PCs?

I'd elaborate, but it's pretty obvious alot of work needs to be done on the driver front .. and that's just one niche of many about porting the beast.

Half-Empty: A global community of thoughts ideas and knowledge.
Bad Idea (3.75 / 4) (#39)
by Tester on Sat Sep 23, 2000 at 07:27:10 PM EST

Apple is never, never going to port it for x86 and they are extremely right not to do so. First, there are NO apps for MacOS X right now. I mean real MacOS X apps, not BSD apps or MacOS9 apps. So they have to have the apps written . And it is much easier for developer to support a closed box, where you dont have the same kind of hardware diversity that you have on a PC. To be able to support the PC universe you need a monopoly or a large pool of developers working for free. That's one of the things that explain the failure of BeOS. Second, there is the (in)famous network effect, and Windows has the apps, unix has some apps, the MacOSX has no apps, launching a completely new system out of nowhere is extremely difficult and what should really worry Steve Jobs are ISVs and I dont see him doing that right now. That quite hard especially when your main ISV is M$. I predict that MacOS X will be a commercial failure, it will shrink even more the MacOS user base. Supporting multiple platforms is also very hard, even M$ cannot afford to do it. Actually, only the Free Software Movement and "Open Source devel methods" actually manage to produce large bodies of portable software and OSes that run on multiple hardware platforms. IF Apple wants to x86 its software, they should simple abandon Darwin and use plain NetBSD has its kernel and then they get instant portability, as long as they dont do bizzare hardware access in their graphical shell.

Re: Bad Idea (none / 0) (#59)
by zavyman on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 02:55:40 PM EST

No native Mac OS X apps? Sorry, but they really do exist. Visit carbon tracker and search by platform for DP4 apps, and you'll see a bunch of apps already native to Mac OS X and the aqua interface. Because of the deep levels of abstraction (such as the core graphics services), most apps still do not have to worry about the hardware.

And Mac OS X instantly gains many of the open source applications that have already been programmed for Linux. For techies, the software base is accessible quickly. The rest of the users will simply need a new user interface, one that could be easily integrated into the soure tree.

So Mac OS X will have: A sizable portion of the open source linux apps; the entire old Mac software base via Classic, Carbonized apps that run on both Mac OS 8, 9 and X, and the ones currently being developed. And you say there is no software base?

[ Parent ]

Re: Bad Idea (none / 0) (#72)
by Luke Scharf on Sun Oct 01, 2000 at 03:08:12 PM EST

Um, you can download a version that runs on Intel hardware. Read about it here. Download it from a link on the page.

I've got an X86 machine that should be close enough to their hardware configuration to run it -- I'll report my results if I have the time and get it running.



[ Parent ]
Highly Unlikely (3.60 / 5) (#47)
by lovelace on Sun Sep 24, 2000 at 01:19:44 AM EST

Although I think it would be absolutely fabulous to have OS X on intel, I think there are several reasons why Apple won't do it:

  1. Microsoft owns a portion of Apple and any other OS for intel cuts into their market.
  2. Apple gets pretty much all of their money from hardware. If OS X works on lower cost intel hardware, Apple will lose sales.
  3. Steve Jobs doesn't want to cater to the lowest common denominator. He'd rather produce something that was "insanely great."
NeXTStep was my first experience with Unix and it really showed me how well put together a system could be. If OS X is anything like NeXTStep, then it will be really cool.

I don't make hardware upgrades because of an OS (2.28 / 7) (#48)
by C0vardeAn0nim0 on Sun Sep 24, 2000 at 08:49:38 AM EST

If you check the hardware requirements for MacOS X you'll see that porting it to x86 isn't a good idea. It takes a G3 with 128 megs to run, and this is for a bare-bones install. The recomended hardware is a G4 with 194 megs. There insn't too many 1GHz Athlons with 256 megs in the market to keep up with OS X's hardware demands.

http://www.comofazer.net
Re: I don't make hardware upgrades because of an O (none / 0) (#67)
by Trygve on Thu Sep 28, 2000 at 06:23:21 AM EST

True, but I was able to catch a MacOS X demo just the other day, and their rep quoted the 128mb sys req's, but also assured us he's seen a tech running it just fine on an iBook w/ only 64mb.

Here's to keeping one's hopes up! =)

[ Parent ]
Apple would lose money. (4.75 / 4) (#50)
by AndyL on Mon Sep 25, 2000 at 02:45:59 PM EST

Every copy of OS-X they sold for x86 would almost directly translate into less money for Apple. Honestly besides people alreadycommited to the Mac who would buy it? A few BSD fans might get it for fun and experimentation. But the main target audience for the Mac OS is Mac Users. Right now people don't have a choice. If they want to use a Mac, they buy one from Apple. And they pay a lot. If Apple sold "MacOS for PC" they'd now have two choices. And only one of them would give money to Apple.

Steve Jobs isn't crazy. Whether the OS is good or not is beside the issue. He's convinced them it is. He's got a group of followers that'll pay top dollar for his machines And his OS is the hook that gets people to buy the hardware.

Re: Apple would lose money. (3.50 / 4) (#52)
by cmiles74 on Mon Sep 25, 2000 at 06:03:31 PM EST

I feel the assertion that every copy of MacOS X for Intel sold would directly translate into less money for Apple is patently false. I would like to know what the logic is behind this idea. I see it everywhere, from magazines to technical articles, but no one ever explains why this is so "obvious".

MacOS X for Intel would not have the "Classic" MacOS 9 compatibility environment (it requires a PowerPC processer to run). People who currently run MacOS 9 on Apple hardware could not switch to Intel based PC's unless they tossed all of their OS9 software. Current MacOS 9 users would probably stay on Apple hardware.

The main market for MacOS X for Intel would, and always has been, old NeXT users. Of course, most of them are probably abandoning Apple because it looks like the Cocoa libraries for Intel are disappearing as well.

Which brings up an interesting point: does this petition include begging for Cocoa on Intel? Has anyone actually seen the text of the petition? I spent about five minutes looking at the site, but to no avail. In any case. Cocoa on Intel is just as important, if not more so. OmniWeb from the OmniGroup is a Cocoa application.

In any case, an Intel version of OS X would not eat into Apple's hardware sales until the bulk of MacOS 9 applications are ported to OS X, and even then I feel the point is arguable. People who buy Apple hardware do not want to buy PC hardware, and the people who buy Apple hardware now will probably want to buy Apple hardware in the future.

All the Macintosh core application software already runs on Windows.



[ Parent ]
Re: Apple would lose money. (none / 0) (#66)
by Trygve on Thu Sep 28, 2000 at 06:20:59 AM EST

"People who currently run MacOS 9 on Apple hardware could not switch to Intel based PC's unless they tossed all of their OS9 software"

Excuse me? How do you figure that? The *operating system* is bsd based, and we know it can run on intel just fine. Why then wouldn't their classic emulator be able to run on intel? It wouldn't take much effort for Apple to get that working. Then they'd be set. Users wouldn't have to throw away any more apps to switch from OS9 to OSX than they would to switch to OSX/x86.

Now your comment about needing the libraries for Cocoa seems a much more valid concern, but one I'm not qualified to comment on. Anybody else care to shed some more light on that issue? <sugar><sugar><cherries> Pretty please!! </cherries></sugar></sugar>

=)

[ Parent ]
Excuse me. (1.80 / 5) (#53)
by Didel on Mon Sep 25, 2000 at 06:16:02 PM EST

But how the hell did this make it to the front page? Pleas explain it to me. This seems like poorly written Flamebait at best.

Re: Excuse me. (none / 0) (#64)
by tinfoil on Wed Sep 27, 2000 at 07:58:35 PM EST

But how the hell did this make it to the front page? Pleas explain it to me. This seems like poorly written Flamebait at best.

Simple. People are looking for an alternative. An EASY to use alternative that doesn't have the script kiddie stigma that seems to be hangin around Linux. OSX is just that, and being that it is built around a BSD core, it will be fast and stable.


tinfoil.music
digital media, consumer rights and music news
[ Parent ]
Re: Excuse me. (none / 0) (#70)
by Foogle on Thu Sep 28, 2000 at 07:54:02 PM EST

Alternative? And alternative to what? To Windows? To Linux? To FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD? To BeOS? To QNX? I think we have plenty of alternatives... And porting OSX to Intel would just be putting a good OS on a lousy, non-standard platform.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
- They Might Be Giants
[ Parent ]

I hate to say it... (none / 0) (#55)
by Rand Race on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 10:17:27 AM EST

... but you can't polish a turd.

I really don't want to try a system that was meant for slick as hell RISC chips with standardised hardware on the decrepit CISC based mess that is the X86 platform again. I've already been through this with BeOS and I'm over it (especialy after having to file a half inch off of a TV capture card to make it fit in my machine... which then conflicted with my sound card).

The G3/4 macs I support at work are great, a joy to use and work on. And OSX, while I haven't used it since DP3, looks absolutely great. I'm gonna buy me a dual G4 monster and relegate my X86 box to server duty.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Re: I hate to say it... (none / 0) (#69)
by fuchikoma on Thu Sep 28, 2000 at 06:55:16 PM EST

...and likewise from the other point of view, I think Mac hardware is... ok at what it does, but if anything keeps me from getting a mac (other than costing an arm and a leg... through the nose (OUCH!)), it's the OS. I'd like to take OSX for a spin some time, but if it's ANYTHING like the previous Mac OSes, you can count me out.

Porting it to the x86 architecture? I doubt it would be possible (or at least practical enough to consider possible.) I've found that one of the things that keeps Mac performance... um... par, is the fact that the software is written precisely for the target machine (where on PCs you have to factor in compatability.) For example, Quicktime for Windows really sucks the CPU compared to the Mac version. Not because the Mac is more powerful, but because Quicktime is written for Macs, and ported to PC as an afterthought. (Which, being written by Apple, is totally reasonable.) It doesn't even use the overlay on my video card, which is a big performance hit when I'm trying to play 640x480 and up Quicktimes. Imagine if Apple put the same amount of effort into porting a whole OS?

"Yep... should finish booting by wednesday. Sure looks nice so far."

[ Parent ]
Re: I hate to say it... (none / 0) (#71)
by Luke Scharf on Sun Oct 01, 2000 at 03:00:36 PM EST

(especialy after having to file a half inch off of a TV capture card to make it fit in my machine... which then conflicted with my sound card)

Brilliant. As a general rule, this is the wrong solution to making PC, Macintosh, or whatever hardware work. :-)



[ Parent ]
Microsoft Would Be Pissed... (none / 0) (#56)
by harrisj on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 10:56:32 AM EST

I think the main problem that would prevent Apple from porting MacOSX to Intel is the wrath it would encur from Microsoft. Their investment in Apple is one issue, but the threat to cease development of Office for Macintosh has been far more effective in the past. Apple simply does not want to risk alienating Microsoft, so this will probably never happen.

Of course, this is one of the reasons why I'm for it...:)

More practically, there is also the whole issue of supporting hardware. There is a lot more variety in PC hardware, and it gives me a headache just thinking about the work involved.

There is one potential reason why Apple is interested in keeping support open for x86. Motorola has had some major difficulties supplying G4 processors at higher gigahertz and lower power consumptions (one of the reasons for delays to the Powerbook line). Some out-there rumors have indicated that Apple is considering switching to Transmeta's Crusoe. If this somehow became true, they would run OSX on x86, but probably only support limited hardware in the machine. So MacOSX might run on your own x86, but it might not recognize your video card, unless it's one found in the Macintosh boxes.

Two words: (none / 0) (#58)
by KindBud on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 02:18:12 PM EST

Solaris x86.

'Nuff said.

--
just roll a fatty

Oh the humanity! (none / 0) (#60)
by KindBud on Tue Sep 26, 2000 at 04:39:25 PM EST

I think it's far more likely that Apple would offer an OEM version of Windows on the Mac, than it is they would offer MacOS for the PC. Sounds totally blecherous, but the former would do more to help sell Macintosh computers than the latter, which would undermine sales of Mac hardware.

Look at Solaris x86. Why is this the red-headed stepchild of Sun's product line? Because it doesn't really help sell Ultrasparc servers. Oh, they make the rounds every now and then, asking their customers what they'd like to see in the way of improved support for Solaris x86. Nothing ever changes though. You're much more likely to see Sun sell Ultrasparcs with Linux pre-loaded than you are to see Sun make Solaris x86 a classy, well-supported Unix platform (in fact, they recently punted on the hardware support for Solaris x86, by releasing a toolkit to port Linux drivers). More than one Sun rep has told me they couldn't care less what you run on your Sun machine, as long as you keep buying more of them.

Apple and Sun are very similar companies: one focuses on the server side, the other on the client side.

--
just roll a fatty

Re: Oh the humanity! (none / 0) (#65)
by Trygve on Thu Sep 28, 2000 at 06:09:29 AM EST

Oh, but I disagree. It's been shown (by one certain businessman in Seattle) that there's money to be had in the operating system market, moreso than in the hardware market.

I could see them making this move eventually, but they've got to know that MS could still be a serious threat to their own business. I wouldn't be surprised if they waited until after the MS v. DOJ mess is all over.

[ Parent ]
MacOS X on Intel Petition (revised) | 72 comments (46 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!