Linux Format forums Forum Index Linux Format forums
Help, discussion, magazine feedback and more
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

OSX
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Linux Format forums Forum Index -> Other OS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
emyr42
LXF regular


Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:16 am
Posts: 147
Location: Cardiff, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:23 pm    Post subject: OSX Reply with quote

Anyone know if the OSX/x86 used at the press conference running on a P4 has been leaked by anyone, or if I'm gonna have to wait, any work out how it's locked to apple hardware?
_________________
OpenSUSE 10.2, WinXPHome
AMD Sempron 2400, 512MB DDR333, Twin 60GB Deathstars
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
M-Saunders
LXF regular


Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:14 pm
Posts: 2893

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:48 pm    Post subject: RE: OSX Reply with quote

No doubt it'll look for certain components in a genuine Apple system and refuse to run if they're missing. And even if/when someone does crack it to run on vanilla x86 PCs, come the next patch update it's possible that Apple will prevent such cracks from working. So it'll be very fiddly to run OS X on non-Mac boxes -- for real work a proper Mac will be pretty much essential.

And if it has been leaked, no links on these forums please Smile

M
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nigel
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:03 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: RE: OSX Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZebCarnell



Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:48 am
Posts: 81
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:38 pm    Post subject: RE: OSX Reply with quote

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
_________________
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." -- Linus Torvalds
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Dave2



Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:43 pm
Posts: 67
Location: Bath, England

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 pm    Post subject: Re: RE: OSX Reply with quote

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...
_________________
Bloat. The crappiest Perl script in the world? You decide!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
emyr42
LXF regular


Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:16 am
Posts: 147
Location: Cardiff, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:55 pm    Post subject: Re: RE: OSX Reply with quote

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?
_________________
OpenSUSE 10.2, WinXPHome
AMD Sempron 2400, 512MB DDR333, Twin 60GB Deathstars
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
wiz
LXF regular


Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 119
Location: In front of a computer

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZebCarnell



Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:48 am
Posts: 81
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Zeb
_________________
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." -- Linus Torvalds
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Nigel
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:03 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Re: RE: OSX Reply with quote

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 Smile


Last edited by Nigel on Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pins
LXF regular


Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:24 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Haggerston

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nigel
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:03 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blåtann



Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GMorgan
LXF regular


Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 684
Location: South Wales, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blåtann 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).

They do a cpu transition because they can.


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blåtann



Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hello
LXF regular


Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:51 pm
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont see the point it wont run great on normal PCs and I dont really like it as a OS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Linux Format forums Forum Index -> Other OS All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Linux Format forums topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


Copyright 2011 Future Publishing, all rights reserved.


Web hosting by UKFast