May 14, 2002

12:32 PM

Speaking of Apple...
Rumors of OSX for x86? The Inquirer reports that ATI and Nvidia are investigating ports of their graphics chipsets for a port of OSX to an X86 CPU, suggesting that something of the like might not be far away. It just might be enough for me to jump ship, in a way.
posted by Hackworth (28 comments total)

Actually, that should say "ports of their drivers for their graphics chipsets".
posted by Hackworth at 12:35 PM on May 14, 2002

I've been wondering why such a thing hasn't shown up yet. Now that Mac runs a flavor of Unix, seems like it'd be pretty simple. Of course, I'm not a programmer in any way.
posted by me3dia at 12:37 PM on May 14, 2002

Apple had better have a lot of faith in OpenOffice and Mozilla if they intend to jump to X86, because MS would kill the Mac Business Unit in a second. Surely the situation with Motorola can't be *that* desperate yet.
Darwin (the BSD underpinnings of X) has been ported to Intel, though.
posted by darukaru at 12:39 PM on May 14, 2002

I've had this conversation a million times (as has Metafilter), but here we go:

Apple makes their money off hardware and being a tight, integrated solution. Buy a Mac, it will have firewire. It will have USB (even back in 1998 when that was a big deal). It will have the ability to do all kinds of hardware/software integrated stuff. They haven't been perfect, but they've had a pretty clear goal. This is what makes it such a good digital hub, and makes software development braindead easy.

Bringing IBM clones into the equation (potentially) guts the hardware market and completely throws tight integration out the window. And that's just not something Apple is interested in. It's not like they're hurting for sales these days -- despite their niche, they're bringing cash in by the truckload.

Plus Steve Jobs tersely responded to the perceived benefits of this at a stockholder's meeting, saying "that is an opinion", and moving on.
posted by jragon at 12:42 PM on May 14, 2002

Robert Cringley asked for OSX for Intel back in February. As a new Sun admin I'm still having fun with Solaris 8 for Intel (free as in beer, no source) on my home peecee, and I've run Linux since Slackware kernel version 1.0.13, but I'd definitely give Intel OSX a try.

And it might, ah say might, be enough to make me want a piece of Apple hardware since they fired Woz and I retired my App][.

posted by jfuller at 12:44 PM on May 14, 2002

(1) OS X on Intel is not going to happen, period. What jragon said: Apple uses its (often free) software to add value to its hardware, where it makes its money.

(2) Link to a five-week-old article.

(3) Woz was never fired. Are you kidding?
posted by mcwetboy at 12:52 PM on May 14, 2002

> Apple makes their money off hardware and being a tight,
> integrated solution.

Well, they haven't made any hardware money off me since before the Lisa. I build my own and I've always built Intel boxes since you can build a peecee without using any IBM-brand parts but you can't build a hackintosh without using any Apple-branded parts.

Haven't noticed much difficulty integrating the hardware I wanted, either.
posted by jfuller at 12:54 PM on May 14, 2002

> (3) Woz was never fired. Are you kidding?

My memory is that he lost control of the company to that dork they hired from Pepsi, who knew nothing about computers (and proceded to hand the market over to Microsoft/Intel) but did know boardroom politics better than either of the Steves did. That's what I mean by "fired."
posted by jfuller at 12:58 PM on May 14, 2002

Darukaru said: Apple had better have a lot of faith in OpenOffice and Mozilla if they intend to jump to X86,

This is an interesting comment.

I've always been a Windows guy. I've used Linux as a back-end solution before, but for a workstation, nothing beats Windows. It has all the software, all the drivers, and is easier to use and install than Linux.

However, Mozilla is better than IE now, and I've been playing with the latest OpenOffice, and I could certainly use it for most of my 'Office' needs. It seems very capable. Finally open source software is reaching a level where it can rival the professional stuff.

This means that Apple could have a lot of faith in Mozilla and OpenOffice, because we've finally reached a time when Microsoft's biggest products can be better done with free software!

So.. I've been thinking of 'going over' to Linux in the past few weeks.. and it's only Mozilla and OpenOffice that have made me think that way.
posted by wackybrit at 1:04 PM on May 14, 2002

Another point. If OSX is ported to x86 (not just Darwin, I mean the whole Darwin+Aqua kaboodle).. surely it's just a case of recompiling/tweaking the drivers, and recompiling the native MacOS X software.. and nearly all MacOS X apps would run on the x86 port? That's how it works in the Linux world, and this could mean big things for Apple.
posted by wackybrit at 1:06 PM on May 14, 2002

My memory is that he lost control of the company to that dork they hired from Pepsi, who knew nothing about computers (and proceded to hand the market over to Microsoft/Intel) but did know boardroom politics better than either of the Steves did. That's what I mean by "fired."

Your memory is correct about Jobs, but not about Woz.
posted by mcwetboy at 1:10 PM on May 14, 2002

woz is, technically, still an employee of apple. after the plane crash he was in, i think he physically wasn't up to working full time anymore, and probably didn't want to. he's always been much more interested in simply helping people. particularly kids. which is, unless i'm horribly mistaken, what he spends most of his time doing these days.
posted by aenemated at 1:28 PM on May 14, 2002

This sounds like it could be really good. I've got a older G4 & no money for a new one. If OSX runs as well on a newer, faster, cheaper machine, I'd be for that.

Do you think that they might offer the AMD chips inside a mac box? I guess Jobs would really piss off Motorola if they did that, but Motorola hasn't exactly knocked my socks off since they released the G4. I heard rumors of a G5 a while ago, but haven't heard anything else in months.
posted by password at 1:28 PM on May 14, 2002

Bringing IBM clones into the equation (potentially) guts the hardware market and completely throws tight integration out the window. And that's just not something Apple is interested in. It's not like they're hurting for sales these days -- despite their niche, they're bringing cash in by the truckload.

Based on the available market research those truckloads must be getting hijacked before making it to the Apple HQ.
posted by srboisvert at 1:37 PM on May 14, 2002

Here, you can find out what Woz does these days directly, rather than through the "filter".
posted by jkaczor at 1:42 PM on May 14, 2002

To clear it up, once and for all, from the horse's mouth:

1. Q&A: WOZ: I never left Apple's official employee list, but I left direct work inside on a few occasions. After a plane crash, I took a year off to finish college and then sponsored a couple of rock concerts. I came back to Apple and worked as an engineer. Eventually I wanted the fun of the early days and left to create a universal remote control. But I always sort of represent Apple when I make appearances or give interviews.

2. Biography: [From] 1996 [onward,] computer support for Los Gatos Unified School District ... classes for 5th graders each year covering homework preparation, computer understanding ... Provide funds for almost any computer proposal in our district ...

But apparently he also gives out AOL accounts. Eek!

...and I see that while I was working to make this pretty, jkaczor sorta beat me to it. Ain't it always the way.
posted by Marquis at 1:44 PM on May 14, 2002

y'know people they are porting OpenOffice.org to OSX (currently you need XDarwin) so you don't have to wait for Apple to move their OS for you!

And for all of the reasons above I think Apple on x86 won't happen for a while, if ever.

traditional disclaimer: I volunteer for the OpenOffice.org marketing project. Feel free to contact me if yoiu've got any questions or problems
posted by nedrichards at 2:10 PM on May 14, 2002

" but you can't build a hackintosh without using any Apple-branded parts. "

Sorry, but I have a PowerComputing system with a G3 that I built from parts on ebay. Nothing Apple except the ROM. IBM Drives, Kingston RAM, SGI Keyboard. I also run OSX using the little "UnsupportedX" software. So, yes virginia you can build a Mac without Apple Hardware.
posted by mkelley at 2:41 PM on May 14, 2002

"surely it's just a case of recompiling/tweaking the drivers, and recompiling the native MacOS X software.. and nearly all MacOS X apps would run on the x86 port?"

Oh, if only it were that simple. Taking software from one platform to another is not a simple task. There are issues like the order the machines store the bytes in (endianness), and limitations how data is laid out in memory (byte boundries). Going to a whole new instruction set with a new compiler will find/add bugs to your code that are often very hard to track down. There's loads of issues with display hardware.

As far as "That's how it works in the Linux world" I urge to to look at the source for the linux kernel, or any other major piece of open source software. You find loads of kludges, hacks, and not so pretty things to make the code work on a variety of platforms.

For example, I use OpenBSD quite exetensively on Sun Sparc hardware. I've got both 32-bit sparc machines and 64-bit machines. Not only was getting the kernel ported a large task, but now they are going through all the "ports" (basicly the OpenBSD package system that contains all the different apps that OpenBSD should support out of the box) finding little bugs (little in the sense that it's not a lot of code causing it, most of these bugs keep the software from doing anything useful) that are brought out by the small differences between these platforms.
posted by betaray at 2:50 PM on May 14, 2002

I think that Apple is preparing to move OSX onto AMD's new 64-bit architecture and that is why these ports are being made. I like Motorola a lot, but if Apple could make the move to the AMD-64 it would leapfrog MS/Intel's problems moving win to a 64-bit architecture and get a 2x-3x clockspeed boost. BSD on 64-bit x86-like hardware has already been done to boot... and the early reports say that AMD is hitting 2+Ghz on thier prototypes with much faster speeds on the way. Only problem is AMD doesn't have anyone to buy these chips from them as they are not Intel compat.

It might be everything we always wanted and more.
posted by n9 at 3:14 PM on May 14, 2002

Building a computer around an X86 processor does not mean building a clone. You can build a PC with an AMD or Intel processor that is incapable of running any extant MS software.

Plus, the reason Apple may be interested in AMD's chips is that they are not just X86 chips, but are a superset of the X86 architecture with key enhancements available at every level of operation.

mkelley - You're comment disproves itsself. Your system can not run Mac software without Apple chips, the ROM you speak of yourself. But your comment is good for illustrating that a processor is not a platform.
posted by NortonDC at 4:13 PM on May 14, 2002

Apparently, Apple abandoned a working port of an earlier Mac OS, for the same good reasons that Apple won't release a port now.

n9: Highly improbable, since the PPC architecture was designed from the start for a graceful transition to 64-bit. (as opposed to x86, which was designed to torture compiler writers and college students who take a course in assembly.)
posted by Llama-Lime at 4:28 PM on May 14, 2002

Based on the available market research those truckloads must be getting hijacked before making it to the Apple HQ.

So, your explaination for their ability to post positive earnings last quarter while everyone else was bleeding cash is...
posted by RevGreg at 6:04 PM on May 14, 2002

(nods to RevGreg) The strange thing about being Apple is how much damn money you can make regardless of your small marketshare.

If you take a look at the numbers, you'll see they're one of the best run computer companies out there. Each of their current products is highly successful, has a higher margin than any of the PC makers, and has a reputation for quality. The Apple brand is their biggest asset.

Maybe 400 million in profits per quarter and 5 billion in the bank isn't a truckload of money for you, but most companies will kill to have Apple's financial sheet, leadership role, and strong momentum.
posted by jragon at 6:45 PM on May 14, 2002

Er, would kill, not will kill. I'm not making any predictions about the mental state of Michael Dell.
posted by jragon at 6:46 PM on May 14, 2002

llama --

I agree that the plan was to stay on the ppc platform, but Motorola is now 1.5 years behind on delivering the G5 and their clock speeds are way behind schedule as well. When I saw the original G3-4-5 roadmap in 98 we were supposed to be near the end of the G5's life right now. With IBM no longer committed to further ppc development, I think Apple is working to find a way out of Motorolaland. When classic mode is gone on OSX with the new devel tools designed the right way from the getgo a hardware platform might be in the cards if Moto can't get their act together.
posted by n9 at 7:44 PM on May 14, 2002

Yep, that's exactly my take on it too n9. I'd love to dream about IBM's 1 gHz g3 in my newly purchased ibook, but I doubt that's gonna happen, mostly because of capacity issues. I'm betting Apple's hedging their bets and getting cozy with AMD just in case.

I just hope one doesn't buy the other. Big company mergers rarely work *cough*HP*cough.*
posted by Tacodog at 11:03 PM on May 14, 2002

osnews thread on this.
posted by davidgentle at 2:34 PM on May 15, 2002