Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Hmmm | 21 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Hmmm' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Authored by: xander on Jun 12, '03 11:02:03PM

Hard to believe that 17% of people want to effectively put an end to Apple by porting OS X to x86 and eliminating the need for Apple hardware.

[ Reply to This | # ]
I disagree entirely!
Authored by: qryss on Jun 14, '03 06:29:02AM

This notion that allowing OS X to run on Intel processors will destroy Apple's hardware market makes the assumption that we are talking about Intel processors in a PC architecture.

Why on earth would they do this? Apple could use Intel processors to gain the speed they need on their hardware but that hardware can still be proprietary.

Forget PCs for OS X, yes, but don't rule out the processors!

[ Reply to This | # ]
Authored by: macubergeek on Jun 14, '03 12:13:17PM

Yeh but then Apple will have to write a load of drivers for 30,000 video cards, sound cards etc etc. Macos X would become like windows, with unreliable interface with peripherals etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Authored by: profet on Jun 14, '03 01:00:15PM

Its not the elmination of the need for Apple hardware that would kill apple. Its the lack of Micro$oft software that would be the end of Apple.

If Apple releases a port of OS X for x86 processors you would see Micro$oft turn around and end development of ALL software for Mac OS. These are the kinds of things that happen in a monopoly.

[ Reply to This | # ]
You DO NOT want this to happen!!!!!!!
Authored by: digitalone on Jun 18, '03 02:53:54AM

I wont even start on the inferiority of the x86 processor. Apple knows that RISC is the way to go, they just are looking FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE than we are.

x86's are full of "warts", IC engineer's terms for older instruction sets that are rarely used, if at all. But since they are forced to more compatible with poorly designed and antiquated PC hardware (because businesses and ancient users are cheap and won't upgrade unless forced, while still costing companies a fortune in invalid support requests (20% of all of our support calls are non-serviceable, meaning that the software or hardware is so old it is outside our "scope of support"- I do PC support). These issues are caused by poor standardization, unclear doctrines caused by technology driven political postures in standardization committees, in which the proposals are not only reviewed by engineers and lawyers alike (looking for loopholes to exploit and market new technologies- see SSE and Intel.)
Apple is smart- they don't pick-up a technology until tit is mature enough. Others will release popular technologies hot with the bleeding-edge crowd, and deal with "acceptable errors, necessary for compatibility and competitiveness within the industry" (Yeah, thats a quote from an unnamed hardware engineer.)

Also, Intel virtually sets the standards for x86 based processors. They decide who gets the information necessary to design a chipset for their processors, and if you not keep up with their product lines and release new products on their product release timeframes as an Intel licensed OEM, you are heavily penalized. AMD processors still fall under the same controls and constrains, although not by AMD but by proxy, necessary to maintain compatibility. DO YOU really want to be under that kind of control by companies so close to the monopoly (Microsoft)?

Also, I should not that EVERY technology used in a Mac is identical except for the processor and the chipset, although Apple uses the terms System Controller and I/O controller. they are still on the surface similar, one incorporating memory and processor pipelines as well as AGP, the other controlling PCI, other onboard devices, and other basic motherboard functions- like the northbridge and southbridge on an x86.

The x86 is faster for one reason alone: money. If you throw billions of dollars and man-hours from some of the best (and best paid) people, you WILL get a better product. Bottom line. We have been spending far more on x86 based processors, and virtually just the processors, for a long time now, since the early 80's. The RISC has improved greatly over the years, but mostly from "peripheral" improvements in the technology- leaps in technology caused by extra-industry organizations like universities and other companies that don't make processors per se. If we spent this much money on RISC, we would be kicking Intel and Micro$oft's asses right now.

Wait until IBM gets back in the PPC game, everything will change. IBM OWNS research and development, as well as the server room, and as soon as they see the money you will see some serious returns in product line development. There is no way that Apple will be able to control distribution as close, and we will see they in low-end servers soon at least. OS X will easily be able to run on one of these, with minor modifications-drivers really. We will certainly see lower processor prices, which is the principal reason for Apple's high prices.

Sorry to rant, every time I chime in on this subject I just go on and on, but I cannot understate how strongly I feel about this issue. You really do not want this to happen. It means poorer quality, high prices (support costs will jump dramatically) and less compatibility. Microsoft will, as previously suggested, cease all development for the platform, and drivers will certainly not be made by the manufacturers, at least for a while, if at all, leaving it up to Apple (see linux).

Also, why abandon an architecture that is used in supercomputers to this day? Just because it has been neglected doesn't mean that it sucks......

Anyways, if you have read this far, thanks for reading, I feel better now. Ahhhhhhhh......

[ Reply to This | # ]