kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,930
The rumors were true.
- Thread starter kookbreaker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rumors
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Unbelievable. When I saw that on Slashdot, it had all the hallmarks of an April Fools joke that was too late.
I take it Jobs won't be doing any smart @@@@ demonstrations of Macs doing a highly specific benchmark against an Intel processor based system any more.
I take it Jobs won't be doing any smart @@@@ demonstrations of Macs doing a highly specific benchmark against an Intel processor based system any more.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Beanbag said:
I would assume that it would indeed just reduce Macs to the ranks of Windows machines, so you'd be able to install it quite happily* - possibly without many of your peripherals though.
Strange decision. Does this mean that Apple's current hardware is going to become unsaleable as people wait for the next generation machines, or will they go out of the door like hot cakes before it's "too late"?
*Edited to add (after a cup of coffee) - although having said that I suppose although the processor would be the same there's no particular reason to suspect that anything else would be, and indeed Apple could even put in some stuff to make sure it only worked on Apple hardware.
Wudang
BOFH
At the press gig they said OS X can compile to Intel.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/jobs_intel/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/jobs_intel/
Beanbag
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,468
richardm said:
Common mistake is to assume there is some magical difference between different processor families that means the same algorithm can't be implemented across them. There is absolutely NO REASON why the Mac OS couldn't be ported over to Intel architecture. All the hardware-specific coding would have to be modified -- you know, where you start getting down to individual bit-flipping. There might be some issues with how longer data words are stored in memory, like does the hi-order byte get written first, followed by the low order bytes, or the other way around. I gave up assembly a long time ago, so I've become blissfully unaware of the Big-Endian vs. Little-Endian issues.
A lot of hardware drivers would need to be rewritten, but then again, every time MS comes out with a new OS, that has to happen anyhow.
Mac OS's appear to have been written in an intelligent fashion according to a well-defined standard, whereas Windows XP (and its predecessors) appear to have been cobbled together from scraps of old code to maintain backward compatability.
Beanbag
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Beanbag said:
Well, obviously not since they're planning to do it! That's what compilers are for, after all, to give the programmer some abstraction from the underlying stuff-going-on.
However, running software on an X86 processor is not necessarily the same thing as bunging it onto your old PC and having it work.
Beanbag said:
It could but you'd lose the one major advantage of the current Mac and OS combination i.e. an OS designed to work on a very specific hardware platform.
Without trying to starting an OS flame but there hasn't really been much of a logical reason to be buying an Apple PC for many years.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Darat said:
A lot of people think OSX is a better OS for them than the other available OSs. It has some neat features Windows does not, there is no known malware that attacks it, and you can do most things on it that you can do in Windows.
On the cost front it is very hard get a significantly better deal on hardware of comparable quality without assembling your computer yourself, and you get a bundle of excellent software with it for free that you would have to pay money for if you went the Windows route. Unless you prefer to pirate your software of course, in which case Windows edges ahead again.
Plus Apple computers are aesthetically pleasing, and if having neat-looking things around makes you happy then that is a logical reason to buy an Apple machine.
I'm not one of the zealots who thinks nobody should use Windows, but you have to be either pig-ignorant or intent on starting a flame war to claim that there hasn't really been much of a logical reason to be buying an Apple PC for many years. There are lots of logical reasons to buy Apple PCs, as well as lots of logical reasons to buy something else.
Kevin_Lowe said:
OSX is nice, it also looks nice. It does have some features that Windows doesn't have (especially Windows out of the box), but then Windows has features OSX (even Tiger) doesn’t.
Kevin_Lowe said:
I disagree about the cost - I would hold you can buy ready built PCs that are significantly better value for money, and they will also come with bundled software.
As for the pirating issue - well from my knowledge that has always been just (if not more) as rife on the Mac platform as it is on Windows platforms.
Kevin_Lowe said:
And this is the reason to buy a MAC, but I don’t normally call aesthetical judgements logical judgements.
Kevin_Lowe said:
I would disagree about the assessment that I am either pig-ignorant or trying to start an OS flame war. On the pig ignorant side - I own three PCs, one Intel Windows XP which is my main PC, one AMD Windows XP/Media Centre/Linux box which is my "play box" and one Mac PC (a Mac mini), I use all three regularly so as a user I have a wide knowledge of three distinct PC OSs. I have also been writing software for a wide variety of computers since I was a teenager; I have produce/directed commercial games for platforms such as the original Atari home computer to today’s latest consoles. (Which have included number one games for the Mac and the PC.) So whilst you may disagree with my opinion I am not ignorant of the various pluses and minuses of the many computer platforms/OSs.
As for starting an “OS flamewarâ€, I have no intention of doing that, however I do still maintain that it has not been logical (or read “good strong objective argumentsâ€) to purchase a Mac PC for quite awhile. (That is not to say that has always been the case; there have been long periods of times when Macs provided a combination of hardware and software functionality that was almost impossible to achieve on an x86 platform - whether that was running a Unix variant or Windows, sadly Apple lost those advantages many moons ago.)
I think the latest news is Apples recognition that its future lies not in producing a world beating hardware platform but producing a world beating combination of design and software on a customised hardware platform.
CFLarsen said:
Well that would explain why it works so very well...
Nothing new really, just making it more widely known (and supported?).
"Every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for Intel for the past 5 years. As a matter of fact, this system I’ve been using here…†the keynote’s been running on a P4 3.6GHz all morningâ€
- from the keynote
It just means Apple are being more realistic. Now that they've had a hardware win with the iPod (and the Mac mini to some extent) their egos don't depend on the Mac being so true to the ideology.
Running on Intel mean people like myself that boycot Macs for the overpriced wank-ware that they are might consider running OS X, at least just for giggles at the cartoon interface.
Let the fan boy flaming begin!
"Every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for Intel for the past 5 years. As a matter of fact, this system I’ve been using here…†the keynote’s been running on a P4 3.6GHz all morningâ€
- from the keynote
It just means Apple are being more realistic. Now that they've had a hardware win with the iPod (and the Mac mini to some extent) their egos don't depend on the Mac being so true to the ideology.
Running on Intel mean people like myself that boycot Macs for the overpriced wank-ware that they are might consider running OS X, at least just for giggles at the cartoon interface.
Let the fan boy flaming begin!
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
heath said:
Not so fast... you might be able to run Windows on your pretty new box, but you won't be able to run OSX on your PC, at least according to this article.
Interesting.
Oh, and for people worried about backwards compatibility...
... Keep worrying.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,930
Darat said:
Except for being the standard in all photo, video, and musical fields. Not to mention the catalog and much of the publishing industry.
Yes, one could run these things using Windows machines, but there are reasons why they do not.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,930
heath said:
Looked at XP lately?
kookbreaker said:
Conceded. But that is because (as I said above) there were times that Macs were undoubtedly superior to any other platform (that mere mortals could afford) for certain types of applications - publishing being the major one.
However I would contend that is not the case now and hasn’t been for many years. (And even some of the traditional Mac supporting software houses have shown signs of turning away from the Mac, e.g. Adobe.)
kookbreaker said:
Inertia?