Linux Format forums

Re: OSX

GMorgan — Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:28 pm

Author: GMorgan

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:28 pm

How much of the binary 3rd party software was directly linked to the x86 platform though.

Re: OSX

M-Saunders — Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:19 pm

Author: M-Saunders

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:19 pm

Bl�tann wrote:

Anyway, unlike Win$, Mac Os X is based on kernels written pretty much indepndently of cpu type, they CAN do a cpu switch and they have the experience to do it (read: 68k to ppc, a seamless transition).

Windows has (or at least had) a fair amount of portability too -- there were versions of NT for the MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC architectures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

M

Re: OSX

Hello — Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Author: Hello

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:12 pm

I dont see the point it wont run great on normal PCs and I dont really like it as a OS

Re: OSX

Bl�tann — Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:43 pm

Author: Bl�tann

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:43 pm

Windows is not all M$, it contains lots of third party licensed bits and pieces as a part of their pactchwork and those have to work together.
It is not a few chunks of source code to be compiled to the next cpu.
Windows XP still even contains some 16bit Win 3.x and Dos code.

That makes it a LOT of expensive work to do the same switch as Apple.
But then the problems that M$ may have is not related to cpu.

Besides, i think the allways annoying short supply of new processors when introducing a new model was the main reason.

That short supply happened to the 601 (first ppc), 604, G3, G4 and the G5. Thereby reducing new Macs sold by introduction and producing an impatient Apple and customers.

The short supply was never an issue with the new dualcore MacBooks.

Re: OSX

GMorgan — Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:22 pm

Author: GMorgan

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:22 pm

Bl�tann wrote:

You do realise that software can be compiled to a specific architecture. If Binary Mac program A is compiled with optimisation for PPC its very unlikely to run on an x86 machine. This is why source code is so great, compile to whatever architecture you like.

As for the Cell processor. Yes its optimised for Games but given the similarity in the sort of work high end games do in comparison to the traditional areas Macs tend to focus on (like high end graphics and sound) is there a real problem. The only problem I can see is potential articles ridiculing the Mac for using a 'gaming' processor.

Re: OSX

Bl�tann — Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:52 pm

Author: Bl�tann

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:52 pm

pins wrote:

what I don't get about apples move to intel is that the main reason given *that I'm aware of* was because IBM wouldn't supply them with ppc chips affordably at the volumes they were buying.

There was allways short supply of ppc chips when Apple was releasing new top models. Thereby Apple sufferded some sales due to this.
I have neverd heard of this being a problem with Intel cpus
IBM would supply Apple but they couldn�t. At least that is Apple and Mac buyers experience.

If i was Steve Jobs i would do the same ting.
Now Apple can buy their chips from Intel or even AMD if they want to without too much transition costs.
Anyway, unlike Win$, Mac Os X is based on kernels written pretty much indepndently of cpu type, they CAN do a cpu switch and they have the experience to do it (read: 68k to ppc, a seamless transition).

They do a cpu transition because they can.

Re: OSX

Nigel — Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:23 pm

Author: Nigel

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:23 pm

The cell is, I believe, PPC architecture optimised for games rather than general-purpose computing. So it should be great in the Xbox 360 or PS3, but not so good in a Mac.
Another major reason for Apple to switch is the heat generated by the latest PPC processors... they never did get the G5 into a notebook, and there were tales of top-end iMacs frying capacitors on their motherboards. The Intel mobile chipsets apparently run much cooler for the equivalent processing power.

Re: OSX

pins — Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 pm

Author: pins

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 pm

what I don't get about apples move to intel is that the main reason given *that I'm aware of* was because IBM wouldn't supply them with ppc chips affordably at the volumes they were buying. But as someone else, somewhere else pointed out, the new Cell has a ppc as it's core. Wouldn't apple have been better served by jumping on that bandwagon? It would have been able to run most mac software nativley, the whole arcitechture of the Cell makes it ideal for all the things macs are supposed to be great at any way: video, rendering, audio, etc.... And it's not so far off in the future, people are already selling servers based around these chips.

Re: RE: OSX

Nigel — Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 pm

Author: Nigel

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 pm

emyr42 wrote:

I could take the engine from a 405 T16 and put it in a 405 1.9D, as they're both based on the same thing.

You could, but it wouldn't drive the same because you wouldn't have the T16's suspension, gearbox, brakes etc.
So OS X on the non-Apple x86 box might do some of the things a genuine Apple would, but not all of them properly, and would likely give you problems when you needed it most... and you don't dare tell your insurance company

Re: OSX

ZebCarnell — Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:05 pm

Author: ZebCarnell

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:05 pm

Now that load of Bull is good enough to match SCO's claims.

Zeb

Re: OSX

wiz — Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:11 pm

Author: wiz

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:11 pm

I have been working in a film studio for the past few weeks and I am outnumbered more than 20 to 1 by Apple users.

After a brief discussion about file formats, we had a chat about computers in general and I chipped in with my miniscule bit of knowledge about OSX, Darwin etc.

I was greeted by a room full of dour faces and politely told that, if I looked into it a bit more carefully, I would probably find that in fact it was the other way round and that Unix & Linux must be based on an earlier version of the Apple OS.

Being the new boy I know when to shut up so I did.

Re: RE: OSX

emyr42 — Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:55 pm

Author: emyr42

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:55 pm

Nigel wrote:

Look at it this way... one of the reasons that OS X is so slick is that it runs on a limited set of hardware that Apple can thoroughly test, support and optimise it for. I'll bet it would be no better (and probably worse) than Linux at running on the average home-built box of bits.
It would be like putting the seats, steering wheel & dashboard from a Lexus into an old Toyota Corolla & expecting it to drive like the Lexus.

to refine that metaphor a bit:

I could take the engine from a 405 T16 and put it in a 405 1.9D, as they're both based on the same thing.

Should I therefore be able to get the Apple GUI running on BSD (solving the hardware issue?) on x86?

Would it be easier to take something like Bochs and add modules to emulate the Apple/x86 hardware?

Re: RE: OSX

Dave2 — Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 pm

Author: Dave2

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 pm

ZebCarnell wrote:

There were people filling ISOs with txt files a while back that some people were getting sucked into.

A bit more than text...

RE: OSX

ZebCarnell — Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:38 pm

Author: ZebCarnell

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:38 pm

Dont download any "Leaked" versions of OSX you find. There were people filling ISOs with txt files a while back that some people were getting sucked into.

Zeb

RE: OSX

Nigel — Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:04 pm

Author: Nigel

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:04 pm

Look at it this way... one of the reasons that OS X is so slick is that it runs on a limited set of hardware that Apple can thoroughly test, support and optimise it for. I'll bet it would be no better (and probably worse) than Linux at running on the average home-built box of bits.
It would be like putting the seats, steering wheel & dashboard from a Lexus into an old Toyota Corolla & expecting it to drive like the Lexus.