MacOS on Intel platform?

Lazarix

So the MacOS is coming to an intel platform near you sometime soon apparantly...
anyone have any insight on this? I've gotten it to work (a LEGAL copy of the development version) on an intel D915GMH motherboard (BTX format with 3ghz P775 cpu) and it works very well.

Any thoughts?

LaZ

davmigil

Lazarix wrote:

Any thoughts?

LaZ

Lucky you?

Can you set it up to dual boot?

Oriel

Until Apple make a proper version of it, it's pretty crappy.
Yeah, OSx86 runs, but there's no network functionality etc and you're lucky if you can actually properly use it for anything.

Oriel

davmigil wrote:

Can you set it up to dual boot?

Not as far as I know, no. The OS X install has to have it's seperate drive, rather than just a seperate partition.

tomMK1

i didnt realise there was a legal development version of this as i was under the impression that OSX running on Intel was a hack developed due to the idea that apple were moving to intel - even though they have never said they would run the Mac OS on any of the intel chips currently available.

Considering Linux runs on intel I wouldnt be surprised to see it happen eventually, but at the same time why bother?

ZENER

tomMK1 wrote:

i didnt realise there was a legal development version of this as i was under the impression that OSX running on Intel was a hack developed due to the idea that apple were moving to intel - even though they have never said they would run the Mac OS on any of the intel chips currently available.

Considering Linux runs on intel I wouldnt be surprised to see it happen eventually, but at the same time why bother?

I suppose if you've just arrived home from a 4 month holiday on Mars you may not have heard of it Apple are moving to Intel CPU's starting from next year and developers have had OSx86 for several months now.

ZEN

tomMK1

ZENER wrote:

I suppose if you've just arrived home from a 4 month holiday on Mars you may not have heard of it Apple are moving to Intel CPU's starting from next year and developers have had OSx86 for several months now.

ZEN

facts people facts!

Intel make chips, not CPUs. Apple will always be using their own CPU. Secondly, Apple more than likely will use intel to produce apples chips - apple own the intellectual copyright on a lot of the IBM/Motorola technology used in the g series of chips.

yes, people have been hacking OSX for the intel environment but afaik it isnt an official development.

Anyone who thinks apple are moving over to intel as used by windows I think will be in for a surprise - thats what I meant in my last post. the chip intel will produce for apple will bear no resemblemce to the current stable of intel chips and more than likely wont be used by anyone but apple .. they basically just changing chip manufacturers. Besides, who wants to run OSX on the overheated, power absorbing things microsoft software run on? thats going backwards.

and i totally agree I could be completely wrong about this

ZENER

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Apple announced that they would use Intel Pentium CPUs starting from next year.
They announced that Mac OS X, since it's inception, has been developed in parallel on Intel Pentium CPU's.
Apple demonstrated an iMac running an Intel Pentium 4 @3.6GHz at their expo back in April complete with OS X Tiger running native.

The versions of Mac OSX86 doing the rounds are copies of the development OS that shipped with the Pentium based development platforms to developers !

OK I concur that Apple MAY not use a standard PC type chipset with the CPU but they appear to be clear that an Intel P4 is their CPU of choice for going forward.

ZEN

Inspector Gadget

Yes, Intel make "chips". Among them happen to be "microprocessors", which when used as the core of a larger computer system, are often called "central processing units" or CPUs. In fact, the first such device, barring some obscure Russian or Eastern European thing, was the 4004, which was designed and manufactured by... you guessed it... Intel, around 1970/71. (Sorry if this sounds smarmy, but if we're going to start slapping peoples wrists on terminology grounds, I reckon the slapper should have his/her facts straight )

Getting back on-topic, I think, what I've read on the subject of why Apple are moving to Intel CPUs suggests the following: firstly, Intel were able to give them a better per-unit price on the CPUs than IBM could on comparable G5s (I'll leave the debate about what "comparable" means for another day, but this article on AnandTech makes for interesting reading).

The other reason is more significant. In the medium term, however, Intel have as much as admitted that the stupidly-named "Netburst" architecture (i.e. the P4 and its derivatives) are as good as dead - future designs are going to be based on the Pentium M, which is itself a heavily modified Pentium II core. The reasons are down to heat, and clock speed/operations-per-cycle, pretty much. (There are other obscure technical reasons, such as excessively long instruction pipelines and relatively high cache miss percentages, but that's a topic for another day, not to mention a hardware design engineer. There are some good articles on Ars Technica that go into this sort of thing in detail)

The big thing that the PowerPC chips had going for them - that I can pin down - was relatively low power consumption (in performance per watt terms); okay, you can argue historically that floating point performance was also relevant, but that's pretty much a moot point since AMD launched the Athlon, which is a while ago now. Casting the glaring eyeball of hindsight at how things have turned out, it seems clear that the PowerPC design partners (primarily Motorola and Intel) ran into a stumbling block with the G4; they were fast, and low-power, but they couldn't ramp them much higher. The G5 (aka 970FX, if I remember correctly) - when it eventually arrived - ramps up quite well in terms of speed, but is a hot beast - this is why Apple developed the first standard-fit watercooling system on a desktop PC for it, and why there are still no G5 laptops

Intel, it seems, have wooed Apple with the promise of high-performance, multi-core, low-cost CPUs (which they should be able to deliver). I'd strongly suspect that Intel have tipped their hand to Apple a bit in terms of how far along that is, and when they'll have these on the market, but chances are the P4 is merely a stopgap until these get introduced. This is probably why (if I remember correctly) it'll be another few years before there's an Intel-based Powerbook (2007/8?).

On another topic, for the record, (to the best of my knowledge) Apple had a semi-official x86 build of OSX before and at it's original launch; this was when Steve Jobs was hedging his bets over whether the hardware side of Apple would survive the following couple of years. As we now know, it did, and that project was shelved for a bit, but it's been resurrected when market economics dictated that it made sense. Anyway, it's based on Mach and BSD, so the base code is pretty good in cross-platform terms anyway, in as little as I can infer from what I've read as I'm no C++ guru

Hope this helps,
Gadget

tomMK1

im still not bought on that. we'll have to wait and see, but i still reckon itel will just manufacture the chips apple require. OSX is unix based so technically it should run on intel machines, but i cant see the whole mac development community moving to virtually a completely different platform.

All apple announced was a "transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007." ..... they have only stated that Intel will make them and not what the microprocessor is. I dont think they'll be using an off the shelf chip.

“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”

“We are thrilled to have the world’s most innovative personal computer company as a customer,” said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. “Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come.”

that quote from the apple press release to me hints at creating a completely new chip using intels technology, so my point still stands.

Dont forget what happened in the mid 90s with the clones. Macs were being hyped to run on PCs then as well. Personally i think apple is playing mind games and reaping the free advertising

tomMK1

Inspector Gadget wrote:

Among them happen to be "microprocessors", which when used as the core of a larger computer system, are often called "central processing units" or CPUs.

i think at times like this its handy to define what a processor actually is:

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

which fits what Inspector Gadget said, but in this case I cant find where apple have said they intend to use a ready made Intel CPU or one based on a current one

ZENER

I understand what you're saying but Apple make lots of reference to x86 when talking about the move to Intel.

For Example:

From their development site.

All PowerPC instructions are 4 bytes in size and must be 4-byte aligned. x86 instructions are variable in size (from 1 to >10 bytes) and as a consequence do not need to be aligned.

Conventions
The term x86 is a generic term used in some parts of this book to refer to the class of microprocessors manufactured by Intel. This book uses the term x86 as a synonym for IA-32 (Intel Architecture 32-bit).

IA-32 or IA-64 implies a Pentium or equivalent doesn't it ? Also why would Apple put themselves in a similar boat to the one they're already in with IBM where they are at the whim of IBMs development path. Using off the shelp Pentium CPUs makes perfect sense from an economic and logistics POV, altering them in any way just forces Intel to commit to producing "special" versions which would distract from their current processor development path. Which do you think they would shelve if things hotted up ? IBM slowed down development of the G5 when the CEL processor whas chosen for the PS. I know they announced some new processors around the time of Apples announcement but they weren't exactly earth shattering. The only fly in the ointment I can see is Pentiums in notebooks. IBM announced a G5 that uses 1/3 the power of the pentium M chip that Apple propose to use in Powerbooks.

There is of course another possibility, maybe Apple are privvy to some new CPU design Intel are planning to replace the "Pentium" name and so aren't saying "Intel PENTIUM based" but as you say just "Intel-based"

Just as an aside, would Intel insist that Apple put "Intel Inside" stickers on all their computers ??

ZEN

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dil999

I can't see Intel ramping up a brand new processor just to supply Apple. They don't do it for Dell or HP or any other PC manufacturer. Apple have a very small share of the personal computer market, approx 2% vs Dell's 18%. I think you will be seeing IA64 and dual core processors in the new MACs

Ham'nd'egger

Just my two cents worth here....

I buy Apple as the equipment is...

1) Easy to use
2) Looks good
3) Works as I want it to, ie internet, music etc
4) Utterly reliable
5) Totally ready to go, ie feck all installation to worry about
6) Well specced.

Intel, IBM, Motorola, Opel, Rolls Royce, Superquinn, like who gives a toss what processor is inside a Mac? I really can't give a **** who supplys a part of my computer that I never will see, so long as it hangs onto all of the above mentioned product features. Apple knows well what suits Apple best and by the time I get an Macintel, I will get it knowing full well that it will way way way outperform any current Mac that any of us own, which should be fine fo the rest of us.

tomMK1

we'll just have to wait and see. i just wouldnt be waiting for a windows mac

Inspector Gadget

Meh. It's not economically feasible for Intel (or anyone else) to develop a processor especially for Apple (lest we forget, the PowerPC family were not designed for Apple either - they were simply what Motorola chose to go with rather than continue the 68k family that Apple had been using up to that point)

I think the secret's going to be nothing to do with the hardware at all - I think it'll be software. Specifically, the BIOS. If Apple have any sense (which they do, I think it's abundantly clear, when it comes to retaining market share in hardware) they'll develop a new version of OpenFirmware for their production boards (remember, everything we've seen so far has been on the development boards...), which the OS will look for (and depend on) in order to boot. This way, it'll only run on Apple hardware (excepting the potential for bored hardware geniuses to upset the apple cart (no pun intended)), and they get to keep control over the third-party accessories market (graphics cards, etc.). They'll also be able to control what processors the machines "recognise" in the BIOS and so exert _some_ control over what's installed.

What do ye think of that as a possibility?
Gadget

Slice

Did the announcement that Apple are to switch to Intel give any indication as to when we will be seeing Intel based machines out? Specifically I intend to get an iBook at some stage and was thinking of holding off if it will be out soon....

Board@Work

Isn't this why IBM let the apple contract go so easily to Intel because it wasn't worth their while with R&D and production costs to produce chips to one supplier that has such little market share...


Thats what i figured but i could be wrong

davmigil

Slice wrote:

Did the announcement that Apple are to switch to Intel give any indication as to when we will be seeing Intel based machines out? Specifically I intend to get an iBook at some stage and was thinking of holding off if it will be out soon....

I guess it will be a while before you will see any Intel based Apple laptops. 2007 seems to be the date being talked about for the transition, and then it might be desktop machines first.

Dr_Teeth

The first intel macs will be out in 6 months or less I reckon.

tomMK1: anyone who refers to the whole of a PC's case and its innards as a 'cpu' is an idiot.

tomMK1

wow, is that so. so who has referred to a pc and its whole case as a cpu? Macs are pcs too you know.

tomMK1

i'll bounce this thread at christmas so you will be able to start wiping the egg off your face

tomMK1

Inspector Gadget wrote:

Meh. It's not economically feasible for Intel (or anyone else) to develop a processor especially for Apple (lest we forget, the PowerPC family were not designed for Apple either - they were simply what Motorola chose to go with rather than continue the 68k family that Apple had been using up to that point)

I think the secret's going to be nothing to do with the hardware at all - I think it'll be software. Specifically, the BIOS. If Apple have any sense (which they do, I think it's abundantly clear, when it comes to retaining market share in hardware) they'll develop a new version of OpenFirmware for their production boards (remember, everything we've seen so far has been on the development boards...), which the OS will look for (and depend on) in order to boot. This way, it'll only run on Apple hardware (excepting the potential for bored hardware geniuses to upset the apple cart (no pun intended)), and they get to keep control over the third-party accessories market (graphics cards, etc.). They'll also be able to control what processors the machines "recognise" in the BIOS and so exert _some_ control over what's installed.

What do ye think of that as a possibility?
Gadget

you could be on to something there alright

ZENER

tomMK1 wrote:

we'll just have to wait and see. i just wouldnt be waiting for a windows mac

Who's waiting ? I doubt you'll find a Mac user waiting to buy a mac to run windows anytime soon.

Macs were being hyped to run on PCs then as well.

That's like saying busses are being hyped to run on bicycles, a Mac is the hardware produced by Apple to run OSX just like a PC is produced by Dell or whoever to run Windows. If what you mean is OSX will run on PCs, don't bet on it. Someone else said here that Apple may make the logic boards hosting the Intel CPU a proprietry item, that is not an off-the-shelf mobo made by Intel or A-Bit or MSI etc. To me that makes sense, why would Apple invest so much and risk so much in yet another major change-over if they were then to open up OS X to the PC, surely that'd be suicide economically speaking. I personally subscribe to the belief that OS X will never appear on PC's in the legal and supported sense, at least not until Apple decide to become a software only producer and totally cease making macs.

Intel make chips, not CPUs.

Actually they make integrated circuits, McCains make chips . . .

Macs are pcs too you know.

PC was used by IBM as a brand when they made the original IBM XT PC. in that form it refers to DOS or Windows based computers, Macs are personal computers which some people acronimised (is that a word?) to the term PC as a cover all. It's a bit like saying Fords are Toyotas instead of saying PCs are personal computers.

ZEN

tomMK1

wow, arent we all very pedantic today.

Zen, may I ask ... why are you expressing my own points of view back at me? Throughout this thread I have said you wont see OSX on windows. Are you trying to say something iM missing, or have you just not read anything Ive posted in this thread, as thats what it looks like to me

Who's waiting ? I doubt you'll find a Mac user waiting to buy a mac to run windows anytime soon.

ehhh .. buying a mac to run windows?? and, prey tell, who said anyone would be buying a mac to run windows? I meant you'll be waiting a while to see the mac OS running on windows, not windows running on a mac.

I personally subscribe to the belief that OS X will never appear on PC's in the legal and supported sense, at least not until Apple decide to become a software only producer and totally cease making macs.

yet another thing ive been saying

PC was used by IBM as a brand when they made the original IBM XT PC. in that form it refers to DOS or Windows based computers, Macs are personal computers which some people acronimised (is that a word?) to the term PC as a cover all. It's a bit like saying Fords are Toyotas instead of saying PCs are personal computers.

here I dont know where youre going. No matter what IBM called their computer, PC generally means Personal Computer, which a Mac is ....

oh and ....

That's like saying busses are being hyped to run on bicycles.....

what? buses being hyped to run on bicycles? wtf are you on about?

where were you in the mid 90s when the mac OS was running on non apple made machines? or are you too young to remember that?

ZENER

Ya know what . . I don't care ! I don't think you know what it is you mean to express. . . . macos running on windows ??? "Macs were being hyped to run on PCs then as well"

ZEN

tomMK1

in the mid-late 90s the mac OS was running on non apple machines. sorry if you dont understand that.

ZENER

I understand that perfectly but that was not the subject of the thread. You seem to be confused over what a PC - personal computer - Mac - Mac OS - windows - is!

It's difficult to debate with you when you obviously don't have a clue what you're trying to say. Please re-read your posts and see if you can make up your mind about what the difference between Windows and a PC is then work on how MacOS could run on Windows in the context being talked about here.

When you've tried that look back through computer history and see what is generally meant when someone says - for example - "Office for the PC" then see if you can figure out why they make a distinction and say "Office for the Mac". Point: A Mac is not a PC in that context !!

ZEN

Cake Fiend

Isn't there some internet guideline out there that states if all you can do in an online discussion is argue over semantics, you automatically lose the argument?

Kind of like a Godwin's law for pedants.

ZENER

I apologise SICO but this guy has spent the whole thread discussing a non-entity and now my head hurts from trying to figure out what he's talking about. I'm going to leave this thread alone from now on and avoid this guy.

ZEN