Apple has released Darwin 1.3.1 for PowerPC computers ("which should work on all Apple computers supported by Mac OS X 10.0") and the first release of Darwin/ x86 for Intel and compatible machines. [PowerPC-121MB, x86--127MB]
by MacNN Staff
Comments
How does Darwin on x86 relate to porting OSX to x86?
I know about all the rumours and stuff - but what do these two things have to do with eachother given that OSX is based on Darwin.
If you go to the OS X site now, there is a blurb about the new features of OS X available through Software Update (I just tried it but it didn't update anything). Is this 10.0.1, sort-of?
I'm getting it now! First you update Software Update and then you get the 10.0.1 update. If can still boot after it's done I'll check back.. :-)
1) Just like the first poster asked: this Darwin update in it's bare form cannot be used to update OS X, correct?
2) What is Apple's reasoning behind porting Darwin to x86? I would think this is a huge, huge step towards porting OS X to x86...something that scares the h*** out of me for Apple's sake.
Darwin is the "foundation" of MacOS X, but MacOS X is a superset of Darwin. Darwin doesn't include Quartz (the graphics engine) or Aqua (the user interface).
The Darwin 1.3.1 update that Apple has released essentially bring the open source Darwin back up to parity with MacOS X (while MacOS X shipped with Darwin 1.3 as its core, until recently you could only get Darwin 1.2 from the open source site).
Having Darwin available for x86 does, yes, make it easier to ultimately port OS X to x86, but there would still be a great deal of work left to do such a thing. Even so, you would not retain binary compatibility, as apps compiled for PPC would require recompilation for x86 (not to mention tweaking to take advantage of processor-specific things like AltiVec).
this is it!! this is what we all need.....os x will most likely be ported to x86 computers, but the "client" only...
i assume apple will keep the server side "osx server 2" as proprietary mac hardware....and of course the client will always be "a cut above" the x86 client, ala microsoft products on windows vs all other os'es............
this is the linux killer we need to bring apple back to glory!!!
just a hunch, but i would have to be stupid to think the amd/motorola joint processor development plan didn't mean anything.......starting to make sense anyone?
just a hunch on my end, you can email me if you think i'm crazy postmaster@minimansion.com
just my .02’
by the way....the new apple store online and retail store business model will kick the SH@% out of anything gateway or dell can even dream of....
imagine cool a** apple stores in your area with real customer service and the funky apple style!!!!
and you know we dont only sell apple products, we sell everything...........
their (the others), fastest move will be too slow!!!!!!
wait and see.....
also, i'm not an apple employee or anything....i mean the "we" and all that in my earlier post.
just got a little excited...
to be continued..........
I think it's inevitable that there will be a port officially or otherwise of X for x86 now that Darwin has been ported.
I hope this doesn't kill Apple.
did it kill microsoft? l
et us not forget that software retail CAN be a lucrative business as well. especially if you control the server software AND hardware side.
let's think clearly here.
os x client for apple hardware will always be better, they will make it that way. more options, more integrated software suites, etc.
make sense yet??
my .02’
did it kill microsoft?
let us not forget that software, particularly operating systems, retail CAN be a lucrative business as well. especially if you control the server software AND hardware side.
let's think clearly here.
os x client for apple hardware will always be better, they will make it that way. more options, more integrated software suites, etc.
make sense yet??
my .02’
Would there be any link between friday the 13th and a strange feeling I have that Apple may be porting some of their software to x86 machines?
Whatever comes out of this I know/trust Apple will do what it thinks is best for the company.
Calm down guys, just 'cause Apple released darwin on X86, doesn't mean they'll release OS X as well. They've been saying from day 1 that they intend darwin to be an independent OS and get ported to as many platforms as possible. This is more like R&D for them, they know that if it runs on X86, it'll reach a bigger open source development crowd.
Of course, no hardware company in their right mind would wanna put all its eggs in one basket like Apple has had to in the past. This is only a step in a long term strategy, why do you think they built OS X on a microkernel and on BSD. Microkernels systems are more modular, and BSD is known to be the most portable OS on the planet. It runs on anything from Sega dreamcast to Alpha. In fact, it's the only operating system other than SGI's own IRIX that can run on their O2 workstations. X86 is not the architecture of the future, even Intel is trying to move away from it to IA64. How smart would it be for Apple to spend all the time and money porting OS X to an architecture that will be obsolete in a couple of years. Come on...
how big a team they have working on the x86 stuff. they obviously have to devote most of their resources to make us happy, right?
Note very carefully what another reader said...Darwin is the core of MacOS X. It does not include Quartz or Aqua. So, you can run Darwin on any platform you please, but Aqua is not open source, so you are left building your own GUI or using a text-only system. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.
There's a huge amount of work to get OS X running on x86, and as long as Cocoa + Carbon + Quartz + Aqua are all closed source, it's up to Apple.
I agree with the poster who pointed out that x86 will be obsoleted by IA-64. IA-64 is, at the moment, dog-slow running x86 and is not likely to improve much. Porting to x86 would make as much sense as porting to 68K.
As for binary compatibility, that's not an issue. Due to OS X's bundles, multiple architectures can be supported easily. You just have a seperate file for the x86 (or IA-64) code along with the PPC code in the bundle.
Apple always said Darwin x86 was going to happen.
Darwin is a pretty good OS, potentially faster than FreeBSD. I plan to try it on one of my pee cees.
Apple needs to remind Motorola who's dispensible
NeXT tried to sell OPENSTEP, an OS X-like OS for PCs, and didn't fare too well. I doubt Apple will make the same mistake.
Darwin x86 should be able to run the remote debugger, which is good news for me if I'm developing OS X drivers.
Apple wants Darwin to be fairly popular so bugs in the kernel can be caught. Remember how long we had that Open Transport DOS attack problem? Apple doesn't want to go through that again.
I love using ""
I don't think OS X will come to the PC world that soon, but I'm sure they want to be prepared. I'm sure Apple has some sort of OS X build for the PC they are playing with. Let's say OS X beta comes out for the PC next year, that could open up a whole new playing area for Apple. It could seriously get into the enterprise world. Okay, maybe not that soon. I don't know really, but the possibilities are huge, if the cards are played right. Here's a great OS for the PC market, but here are better computers to run it on than your PC's. Just a thought.
There is absolutely no way Apple will port Mac OS X, their OS means a great deal to Apple, as you can see by the elegance and stability of Mac OS X, If Apple ported it, there wouldn't be much of a reason to use Apple hardware, ya I know programs have to be recompiled and stuff, but if the OS was on intel, I'm sure more developers would code for the Intel version rather than the PPC version. Also, noone will try porting OSX on their own, because if they did, Apple would sue them in a heartbeat, you seen what happened with all the damn osx themes...
Oh man, so many "experts"! Darwin running on x86 hardware does NOT say ANYTHING about Apples plans regarding x86. Darwin is Open Source. That means everyone who is able to download the sourcecode and knows how to use his compiler can make a processor specific version. x86 just happens to be the most widespread platform. It would be no big problem to compile it for 68k Macs/Amigas, in fact there are several version of BSD available for 68k machines. You could also compile it for Alpha, StrongARM, MIPS, etc... That just says nothing about Apple's strategy.
Apple could not afford to port MacOS X to Intel. First of all none of the current MacOS X apps would run, they are PPC native. And secondly Apple earns its money selling HARDWARE!
I'm just an educator, so forgive my ignorance but we are getting TWICE the performance (Apache-PHP4-MySQL) on a dual processor 450 MHz G4 OS X compared to a 1 GHz AMD running Linux. Nobody disputes that Unix owns the server. We have switched all our Linux stuff to OS X and FreeBSD for security reasons. We should be talking Desktop if we want market share.
The key here is Microsoft. If not for Microsoft Office, I would have had to abandon the Mac 7 years ago for Desktop use. All Apple has to do is give the world a less than $1000 Unix box that will be as easy to maintain as windows (Does not have to be as easy as OS 9) and support Microsoft Office, Virtual PC, etc. and watch the business world desktop switch.
I agree with all the people who say that Darwin/x86 almost assuredly does not mean OS X for x86, especially since if you've been following the mailing list then you'd know a lot of the porting work was done by volunteers. However, if anyone wanted to build their own x86 OS X clone, they could easily take GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org/) , which is finally begin to shape up very nicely, and get something quite close. The foundation (non-GUI) libraries are now extremely stable, and the GUI portion is highly usable. With some Darwin-specific integration, a very nice OS could come out.
Personally, I wish that Apple would release Mac OS X Server for Intel, at least until they provide a rackmount server and hot-swappable drives. People who need that kind of thing aren't currently looking at Apple's hardware anyway. I also still wish that Apple would release Yellow Box for Windows. Ah, well. Keep your fingers crossed.
Now that Darwin has been ported to the x86, what is the time fram for graphical interfaces to start popping up? As I understand, now it is just a text shell. If I am wrong, please correct me, and please say if there is any remedy for the text as of now. It is not compatible with XFree86 released for Darwin (4.02), is it? Please answer these questions about the x86 port of this OS.
I'm getting it now! First you update Software Update and then you get the 10.0.1 update.
Don't forget there's a 3rd portion after the 10.0.1 update.
"Now that Darwin has been ported to the x86, what is the time fram for graphical interfaces to start popping up? As I understand, now it is just a text shell. If I am wrong, please correct me, and please say if there is any remedy for the text as of now. It is not compatible with XFree86 released for Darwin (4.02), is it? Please answer these questions about the x86 port of this OS."
As far as I know, the version of XFree86 for Darwin in the CVS directory may be compiled without modification for either Intel or PowerPC.
I want to retreive Darwin for x86, but it seems that i need a password.
Any help?
NOT! Why do you people think that Apple, which, very similar to IBM as a software AND hardware company, is doomed if they release OSX for x86?
Who is the biggest software company? Thank you. Do they make hardware? No, but they have enough clout to influence hardware makers because so many people run their software. If Apple EVER gets into this position then the world will be a better place.
Face it. Regular, non-technical people (i.e. not people who hang around on MacNN) do NOT buy a particular computer because it's better. If they did then Apple would have (100-apple's current %age) market share. Most retail people buy computers FIRST based on price. THEN they compare features and end up buying one PeeCee VS. another PeeCee based on benefits of one over the other vs. increase cost of the one they "want".
If you start getting people to use a better os, they will follow to the better hardware.
Do you really care if AAPL stock goes up because of it's hardware sales or software sales?
Be was a much better Operating System than Windows and it ran on X86 hardware, did anyone switch? No, Microsoft would never let that happen.
And if people started to eventually switch, all the OS X commercial application development would move to X86 faster than you could say Apple. Look at Linux, in runs on tons of hardware but you can't find commercial applications for anything other than X86 versions. Yeah, they have Linux on PPC, so how come SideFX won't sell Houdini (Professionals know it's one of the best 3D animation apps. out there) for YDLinux when they have it for Red Hat?
The PC world is full of cheapos, you can't get back your R&D money. Apple will never launch OS X86 because if they do, they'll lose the only edge they have over PC clones right now. One they've worked long and hard to achieve. A brand new, kick-a** operating system, that's solid, stylish, easy-to-use and powerful.
For those interested, there is a website at http://www.osxonintel.com that has a petition and discussion forum.
For now OS X should remain PowerPC only, but I would not rule it out for the future.
My view is this:
Let Mac OS X mature and pull as many converts as possible to the Mac platform. Already I know of various PC Windows and Linux users who have made the decision to switch platforms because of OS X. After July I expect many more to make the move.
Meanwhile Darwin will continue to grow and compete with Linux and Windows on Intel hardware. As PC users migrate to Darwin, they are one step closer to making the switch to OS X on a Mac. Developers writing software for Darwin on x86 will be able to also offer their software to Mac OS X users with little if any difficulty.
Meanwhile IBM and Motorola continue to improve the PowerPC offerrings. Mhz is a bogus way to measure performance, but that whole debate will be moot before long because over the next 2-3 years the PowerPC will completely close the Mhz gap and the we will even have the extra Mhz on our side (look at the roadmap for the G5 vs Intel and AMD).
The reason that I think Apple should consider eventually porting OS X to x86 is because of all the businesses and individuals who have invested a lot of money in their PC hardware. They can not be expected to just immediately throw it away and buy new Mac hardware. Instead, give them the option of running OS X on their existing hardware. Once these PC OS X users get a taste of the Mac OS, they will never go back to Windows. Since OS X will also never run as well on PC hardware as on Mac hardware, these users will want their next computer to be a real Mac. By providing OS X for x86, Apple will enable business to make a smoother transition to Mac hardware and OS X without the massive initial expense of switching everything at once.
I am totally opposed to any suggestion that Apple make Macs with x86 chips. The idea is moronic. AMD and Intel are trying hard to move away from the current x86 architecture, but Windows and backward compatibility make the move a hard one. It would be stupid for Apple to make a move in the opposite direction; not only is it a huge step backwards for Macs, it would be a step behind current x86 PCs.
However, I am in favor of OS X being ported for PC users and here is why:
1) Apple would profit from the PC OS X sales and OS X would have increased marketshare.
2) Apple could easily port and sell their OS X apps to these new PC OS X users. More software revenue streams.
3) Apple would instantly get a lot of press coverage. People who had never considered Apple before will give it some thought.
4) OS X would quickly attract even more developers than it has already.
5) Quicktime integration with OS X gives a boost to Quicktime marketshare.
6) Benchmarks comparing PC OS X with Mac OS X would greatly favor the G4 due to OS optimization and superior processor technology (ie RISC and Altivec). Inevitably this means more Mac hardware sales.
7) All of new revenue streams and increased sales will cause Apple stock to skyrocket.
What makes you think OS X will run better on PPC hardware. Macs and PCs are closer nowadays than they ever were, we use the same PCI and AGP cards and similar bus architecture, we use the same USB and firewire peripherals. The only things different are the CPU and chipset. Do you really believe that the latest Pentiums and Athlons won't be able to run OS X? Get real, they could run it just as fine. And believe me, a lot of people would much rather run Maya on OS X on Intel if they could, 'cause they'd be able to use faster OpenGL hardware than a Geforce3, like Wildcat or FireGL2 for example.
And don't discount me right away as a PC troll 'cause I'm not, I just don't think Apple should put itself at a disadvantage. OS X is Apple's leverage for more support, both on the consumer and developer sides. If Apple were to come out for OS X on both Intel and PowerPC, do you think AliasWavefront would bring Maya to Mac?
Besides, as I've pointed out earlier on this thread, X86 will be an also-ran by the time it would take Apple to port the entirety of OS X. That would be a huge waste. In a couple of years the entire computing industry will be moving to 64 bit architectures, and if Motorola can't deliver on their promise of the G5, there's always IBM with their 64 bit Power 4. It's supposed to use a 64 bit version of the PPC instruction set, so it shouldn't be too hard to switch. LinuxPPC is already up and running on Power 3. Intel is trying desperately to get rid of X86 with Itanium and AMD is trying to take advantage of the inconvenience of this transition with their X86-64, but either way X86 as we know it will be gone by the end of 2002, at least at the high end. Why should Apple waste their time and money supporting a platform that's on it's way out?
Whoever posted
Having Darwin available for x86 does, yes, make it easier to ultimately port OS X to x86, but there would still be a great deal of work left to do such a thing. Even so, you would not retain binary compatibility, as apps compiled for PPC would require recompilation for x86 (not to mention tweaking to take advantage of processor-specific things like AltiVec).
Is somewhat misinformed. Building binaries for either platform does -NOT- require recompilation. In fact in some situations,using certain APIs, compilation makes both PPC and x86 fat binaries. Which means the future of MacOS X has only yet begun. Check out the projects out there diligintly working on porting MacOS X itself to x86.
Remember, Cocoa, which was basically the API leftover from NeXTstep did in fact produce fat binaries once compile. Back then nextstep ran on both 68k and Intel. And yes, that was not left out of the darwin project, its still there. Read some ofthe old news from last year and you'll see what I mean.
Keep your eyes peeled on this one. Maybe Apple won't move to x86 but no telling what Apple will try to do with its Enterprise suite in moving the server version over to whatever platform. The server version really has been built to use Cocoa and not Carbon or Classic. If it did, then that wouldn't be very smart for the software companies making server apps. We may just yet see server mac clones sometime in the future, a market Apple is not in and would not have to worry about affect in its current hardware sales for desktop machines.
"We have switched all our Linux stuff to OS X and FreeBSD for security reasons."
If you had competent system administrators, you wouldn't have had to switch...
This is just like the morons accusing SGI Irix of being insecure a few years back - it's just a matter of how the OS is configured...
Linux can be just so secure as any *BSD-based system and accusing it of being otherwise is just plain FUD.
Learn how to *really* use TCP wrappers/IDS/etc., turning off unnecessary services, etc. before blaming a default or misconfigured install of an OS.
this is an incredible move by Apple, everyone's focused purely on OS X in the mean time, just a test bed for aqua, quartz etc, whilst in the background Darwin is recompiled and tested on every viable platform on the planet!
Apple will clear up with the open source approach. Any software written for Darwin will run on the client software (in this case OSX). Now bear in mind Darwin will be compiled to run on every major platform that exists now or will in the future. And best of all, Apple owns the client software... wow, great move Steve.
Traditionally, Apple has always kept its eggs in one basket. Now, after 20+ years it's Microsoft's turn, their OS runs on just the one chip, their source code tightly guarded.
Live by the sword die by the sword Microsoft!
A port of Mac OS X would not be good. Supporting all the Intel hardware configurations out there would be a support and development nightmare for Apple. In fact, I doubt it is possible to keep very high standards and do that at the same time (maybe that's part of why Windows blows).
Part of the advantage of the Mac is the hardware/software integration, and part of being able to do that integration is having control over the configurations. So many people think the defining characteristic of the Mac is the interface, but in fact that's just the most obvious element. This integration is a big part of it as well. It's just less obvious. Stubtle tings like this is the hallmark of quality.
Anyway, the intel release of Darwin may just be to satisfy the Open Source types out there. I don't believe that an Intel version of Mac OS X would necessarily do as well as some of these guys are thinking. It would require a significant reinvestment in software, not to mention time and work to move existing files and archives over to the Mac. If they like the system that much, they'll be willing to buy the hardware too.
Some people say they'd switch if only it was ported to the Intel platform, but I suspect they're blowing hot air for the most part. If they were that interested, they'd by the hardware too. Either that or they're complete geeks, and if that's the case, it's not a big enough market to make it worth it anyway.
But to port Mac OS X to intel would require the port of Quartz and a lot of other system software beyond just Darwin, so I wouldn't hold my breathe if that's what you're waiting for anyway.
I agree with the guy who said Cocoa apps are FAT binaries.
This is already here. Getting MacOS X over to intel is a peice of cake, and yes I think the server version will be the first to hit x86.
I don't think Apple will Clone servers. Apple has had high end AIX servers in the past. What I see is a return of low cost high end servers using 4, 8, 16, 32 processors. I think it will be Apple Enterprise who will be marketing this. Whether apple makes those machines is anyones guess. They could clone them but I would probably think they would buy the hardware from some other company and then resell them under the Apple Logo. This could be a whole new market for Apple Enterprise which was basically Next, which had a nice client base of corporate servers.
Though the idea of a Mac Server clone market does sound the best alternative. Apple can license the OS X Server software to someone like IBM or Dell and still make some money without the risk of losing their pants in a huge investment or risk in 30,000 dollar servers running OS X.
I think Dell is who Apple will try to partner with. Apple seems to do a good job sleeping with the enemy and has shown to do it many times in the past in order to survive.
Marketshare my foot. Cheaper hardware doesn't increase marketshare, marketing creates marketshare.
We had clones and that clearly did not work. NeXT had OPENSTEP and nobody knows WTF that was.
OS X for Intel would have zero chance for success. ZERO!
I'm with another poster, bring back the Yellow Box strategy. Cocoa development for multiple platforms where the best platform is OS X.
I can't see why this issue allways gets so hot. Many seems to wish that Apple should make software for x86 hardware, or use x86 chipsets. First of all, today Apples biggest benefit is that they have completely control over theyr hardware and software integration. This results in more stable computers, easyer inovation and easyer to use products for customers. As I see it, Apple doesn't sell hardware, or software, they sell a complete package, software and hardware bundle. Let's not forget that.
The second thing, is that, if Apple ports mac os x, it will give pc users yet another reson to not buy Apple hardware. And tell me, is the marked for mac os on x86 that big? Guess not, but Yes, perhaps Apple does make great OSes, but still, have anyone heard about the story about David and Goliat (=MS) ? Even if X is nice, it's still David. Come on! See what happend to BeOS. Apple have a great benefit over MS with its hardware and software integration, and it's theyr strongest card! By the way.. Why doesn't MS port THEYR os to us? Wouldn't mind that.
""We have switched all our Linux stuff to OS X and FreeBSD for security reasons."
If you had competent system administrators, you wouldn't have had to switch...
This is just like the morons accusing SGI Irix of being insecure a few years back - it's just a matter of how the OS is configured...
Linux can be just so secure as any *BSD-based system and accusing it of being otherwise is just plain FUD."
I am not saying you can't make Linux secure. I believe it takes less time to switch to OS X or FreeBSD and get a secure box. It only takes 4 hours to move from Linux to FreeBSD and you have much more control over the services you install and more security utilities come on the CD. On OS X Apple has addressed secuity and you get a firewall as part of the OS.
Someone earlier pointed out that Be failed. It failed for three reasons, all of which were extremely damning: no apps; no device drivers; and despite the fact that *R5* is a very solid OS, the first few releases left a TON to be desired. OS X for Intel, on the other hand, would really only have to deal with one of these problems: drivers. Cocoa apps can simply be recompiled as either Intel-only or combo binaries, and I while I don't know exactly how Apple designed Carbon, I'd be willing to guess that Carbon apps that did not have PPC assembly code and that made use of the endian macros could also be simply recompiled at singles or fat. (BTW, they aren't fat binaries in the OS 8/9 sense. They are packages that have seperate x86 and OS X (and potentially Yellow Box) executables. Very minor nitpick.) OS X's UI is significantly more developed than Be's. The major problem facing OS X for Intel, then, would be the drivers.
The thing is, if Apple wanted to, they could have the necessary drivers running very quickly. I would suspect that drivers for currently Mac peripherals (video cards, USB and FireWire hard disks, etc.) would take essentially some minor tweaking to compile for Intel, since most of the logic could be kept in-tact. At that point, then, the PC version of OS X would have just as much driver support as the Mac version. That's a reasonable amount of drivers. And unlike Be, Apple has the resources to add a considerable quantity in the future if it wished.
So OS X for Intel could be successful where Be failed.
However, Yellow Box is by far the best strategy. Keep the development tools Mac-only, for all I care. Just add a "Cocoa for Windows" build target in PB, like there was in Rhapsody. If the development had to be done on Mac, then the app would be highly tuned for Mac anyway. Making Cocoa for Windows (which is already done except for Quartz, since w*** through version 4.5 relies on it) available would only serve to increase the revenue of Mac development houses. I fail to see at all how this is a bad thing for Apple.
"A port of Mac OS X would not be good. Supporting all the Intel hardware configurations out there would be a support and development nightmare for Apple. In fact, I doubt it is possible to keep very high standards and do that at the same time."
I agree that hardware support is one of the biggest issues to be considered. However, I disagree with your conclusions. Apple does not have to accept responsibility for hardware compatibility. OS X for x86 would be a secondary market for Apple and as such, they can afford to be very restrictive in support. Apple can have a list of certified hardware that is supported; if anyone wants to use OS X with unsupported PC hardware then they are on their own. This is not really any different than Apple's policy of not supporting Mac OS X on older Macs. It would be the responsibility of PC hardware makers to get their stuff certified; if they want Apple to help then they can pay Apple to help. Of course since some of the hardware support is at the Darwin level, the open source community will help to build the hardware support much in the same way as Linux hardware support has increased over time.
"Part of the advantage of the Mac is the hardware/software integration, and part of being able to do that integration is having control over the configurations. So many people think the defining characteristic of the Mac is the interface, but in fact that's just the most obvious element. This integration is a big part of it as well. It's just less obvious. Stubtle tings like this is the hallmark of quality."
Which is exactly why Mac OS X will always be better on a real Mac than PC OS X will be on a PC.
"I don't believe that an Intel version of Mac OS X would necessarily do as well as some of these guys are thinking. It would require a significant reinvestment in software, not to mention time and work to move existing files and archives over to the Mac."
Although porting the rest of OS X will indeed require some investment in R&D, I do not think it will take as much as you seem to think. OS X is a very modular object oriented operating system (arguably the first of its kind) and thus by design it is very customizable and more easily reconfigured than the previous MacOS. Darwin is already mostly cross platform compatible; FAT binaries can be compiled that will run on both PowerPC and x86 hardware. Some of the other components of OS X are derived from NeXtStep which was also designed to be cross platform compatible. Cocoa is one aspect of this. Quartz should be fairly hardware independant as well as long as the proper hardware drivers are written; that may sound somewhat contradictory, but it really is not.
"If they like the system that much, they'll be willing to buy the hardware too.
Some people say they'd switch if only it was ported to the Intel platform, but I suspect they're blowing hot air for th
"If they like the system that much, they'll be willing to buy the hardware too.
Some people say they'd switch if only it was ported to the Intel platform, but I suspect they're blowing hot air for the most part. If they were that interested, they'd by the hardware too. Either that or they're complete geeks, and if that's the case, it's not a big enough market to make it worth it anyway."
How about a company who has 200 Windows PCs valued at $1000 each? How do you expect them to make the switch to Macs running OS X? It does not make much sense for them to get rid of their PC hardware and buy new hardware and a new OS. It does not make sense for them to retrain their IT staff for both new hardware and a new OS. The cost of such a major change will prohibit them from even considering such a change. However, just changing over to a new OS is not as intimidating; they are probably already looking at changing from Windows 95/98/ME to Windows 2K/XP or maybe even Linux. Why not give them an even better option with a PC OS X? Once they have switched over the OS then they will be more inclined to switch over the hardware in the future.
"But to port Mac OS X to intel would require the port of Quartz and a lot of other system software beyond just Darwin, so I wouldn't hold my breathe if that's what you're waiting for anyway."
If Apple does decide to port OS X, it will not be right away. They need to spend time perfecting OS X on PowerPC first. They need to get as much as possible out of the current and upcoming media attention. Hopefully many PC users will convert in the coming 18 months. Part of this will depend on how well Windows XP is received. Once XP hits the streets, the biased media will likely turn their attention to it regardless. So then Apple will need a something big to get the attention back on them. I think that a PC OS X announcement at MacWorld NY 2002 would be timed just about right. I doubt that Apple would have PC OS X ready by then, but they can still make the official announcement at that time.
"I am not saying you can't make Linux secure. I believe it takes less time to switch to OS X or FreeBSD and get a secure box. It only takes 4 hours to move from Linux to FreeBSD and you have much more control over the services you install and more security utilities come on the CD."
You obviously have not tried Slackware or Debian linux distributions.
Especially with Debian's package management dpkg+apt (that even Apple considered for OS X at one point), installing/maintaining a slim, secure Linux is easy - easier than with FreeBSD IMHO. All the basic security apps (OpenSSH, snort, TripWire, tcpwrappers, etc.) are included with just about every Linux distribution I've encountered.
For me, it takes roughly the same amount of time to lock down a Debian GNU/Linux box as it does a Free/NetBSD box (or any other UNIX) as the methodology and procedures are essentially the same.
If you're depending on a vendor's neat little text/GUI configuration tools (a la SGI Irix), then you're just waiting to get rooted. There are many ways to implement TCP/IP security depending on how the machine is deployed, and I've never seen a vendor's tool that can cover them all.
"On OS X Apple has addressed secuity and you get a firewall as part of the OS."
Oh, do you mean BSD ipfw?
Linux 2.4.x has stateful packet filtering and intelligent routing (iptables) - a lot more powerful and flexible than BSD ipfw.
I thought I read over a year ago that the guy who is heading up the darwin project was making it so that by default the correct way to compile any and all darwin/cocoa binaries would be as FAT binaries. Like this was something that was going to be the defacto way to compile Objective C apps.
Does anyone remember this?
Maybe Apple could port the whole OS X to x86 and release it as time-limited shareware! When your time is up (say, a month or two) you send the reasonable shareware fee in (how about US$2000) and Apple sends you
An OS X CD
An unlock code
A new G4
It has to work!
To the posters who say that APple having to support all the PC drives,etc will be "a nightmare": how do you think Microsoft does it?
Microsoft does a find job of support lots of PC hardware, Apple cna do the same.
Better yet, Apple can just take a look and Linux and copy its drivers. simple.
Apple will eventually sell X86 (or mainstream compatible) machines alongside OSX specific software solutions (think multimedia content creation software) that only run on OSX. They'll lower prices, sell more consumer stuff, sell more copies of OSX, because people will need them in order to run certain state of the art application suites available only from apple and its partners. M$ owns office productivity -- Apple still has a chance to own home and professional STUDIO productivity. Everything from movie houses on PowerMacs to amateurs messing about with miniDV cams/DATs and cheapo X86 hardware.
"Apple will eventually sell X86 (or mainstream compatible) machines alongside OSX specific software solutions (think multimedia content creation software) that only run on OSX. They'll lower prices, sell more consumer stuff, sell more copies of OSX, because people will need them in order to run certain state of the art application suites available only from apple and its partners. M$ owns office productivity -- Apple still has a chance to own home and professional STUDIO productivity. Everything from movie houses on PowerMacs to amateurs messing about with miniDV cams/DATs and cheapo X86 hardware."
When AMD and Intel are both working to get away from x86, why would Apple waste R&D to switch to it?
Your suggestion that Apple needs x86 for home and professional studio productivity software is abslolutely absurd. The G4 can process multimedia better than any x86 processor from AMD or Intel.
You are also wrong to think that Apple could sell an x86 based machine for less than current Macs. If you actually go out and check prices, you will find that Mac prices are very competitive with Dell, Compaq, and Gateway PCs equipped with all the same options (same HD, RAM, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, etc). Plus PowerPC processors are cheaper to produce than the high end x86 processors. If Apple spent the R&D to develop their own x86 PC, they would probably have to charge more than they would for new Macs. This would be really stupid.
I do not see why Apple would ever make a computer using Pentium or Athlon chips. Maybe things will be different when Itanium hits the streets, but by then IBM and Motorola should have the G5 out.
The reason why it is going to x86 is because it is Open Source. Darwin is the UNIX system, don't worry about the precious Aqua. It is on Mac, and will only be on the Mac. You people worry way too much.
I have always felt that Apple had a real winner with OS X. It is everything a modern operating system needs to be: Modular, Expandable, Easy, and Advanced. If you need MySQL installed, go get it. It is awesome.
Now, I agree that Apple may want to port OS X over to the Intel side of things. However I think the way they will want to do it is very simple. Remove the Classic and Carbon layers for the PC version. The reason why is because the hardware archetecture is completely different than that of the PowerPC. As such, it makes it impossible to do the Classic and Carbon layers.
This would be a huge benefit on multiple layers. It keeps the older Mac crowd because they keep their old Mac apps. The new PC people would be able to keep their existing hardware, while having the strength of the Mac platform. This, to me at least , seems like the perfect marriage of abilities.
Plus, if anyone wants to be able to use the older Mac software, or the Carbonized ones, they need to get a Mac Hardware.
This solution offers ease of transition, plus it allows the enterprise server side of things a killer server application.
Why would Apple want to have Darwin ported to x86 chips? Look at the quantity of them that are out there. It shows that they are interested in the Open Source movement. This way people can mess around with it to their hearts content. It will hopefully provide a good knowledge base. Maybe the Eazel interface may even end up on some x86 computers, with the Darwin base. Now that would be interesting.
That osxonintel.com is utter BS. What a greedy bunch of tripe. I had always heard of the site but today was the first time I've read it. Now I know the owners and followers of that site have nothing of significance to say on their behalf.
It comes down to this: if all of OS X were ported to wintel/amd hardware then all of the development would cease for PPC OS X. There can be no argument otherwise, we've seen it too many times. Apple would quickly become a software-only company like microshaft but PC'ers with massive software libraries would not switch over. Some new-to-computers consumer zombies may use X but it would be on wintel/amd hardware, and the superior PPC architecture would be dead. It's far more of an uphill battle than Apple needs right now.
And those cheapskate people at osxonintel need to go play with the myriad of hardware and software options that they've already got over us and forget about the one piece of software that may not even quell their gluttonous hunger if they DID have it - OS X.
OS X for Intel would end our platform of choice.
I said X86 or other mainstream chip. Apple is working to free itself from the IBM/motorola oligopoly, and take advantage of the competition taking place in other markets. It's all about the apps stupid! They could build a 100Ghz 8086XT for all I care! Obviously it doesn't make sense to port to X86, which should be all but dead within 5-6 years, but since X86 represents the current mainstream wintel offerings, that is what we have been using to represent wintel.
I don't think Apple will be moving OSX to the x86 architecture any time soon. Darwin is an OS in itself. I suspect Darwin will run on older Power PC computers as well as the ones that OSX runs on. Darwin on x86 is a good thing. It gives people who want to run another UNIX OS on their PC another choice. Apple needs to get OSX up and going good on Macs before they start porting to other platforms. Later, if Apple wants to build an OSX like OS that runs on Pentiums, that's fine, but they should not abandon their core hardware and users.
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
Logitech FabricSkin Keyboard Folio for iPad
Since the fourth-generation iPad didn't evolve much over its predecessor, the market for iPad accessories has remained somewhat static ...
Huawei Ascend Mate
The Huawei Ascend Mate is a phone that fits the screen-size gap between the 4 to 5-inch smartphone and the seven-inch or more tablet, ...
MaxUpgrades MaxConnect for 2006-2008 Mac Pro
Nobody outside of Cupertino's privileged bunch knows the future of the Mac Pro line for sure. Despite Apple's reluctance to tell us wh ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Joined:
Does this update X 10.0?
Hi,
So, I assume that this Darwin 1.3.1 release is not meant to update Mac OS X 10.0, correct? Darwin is just a separate OS that I can choose to install, or do I have this wrong?
So far all of the Mac websites are reporting that Darwin 1.3.1 is available, but none of them are saying if this is meant as an update to an existing 10.0.0 set-up.
Thanks in advance,
Ken