Mac for PC

MacOSX · Post by **MacOSX** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:12 pm

Do think so?

willhart · Post by **willhart** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:39 am

Having a version of Mac OS X built for x86 processors does sound kinda cool. But somehow, I just can't see it happening. Something seems like a bad idea. It just seems like instead of an x86 having the powers of a Mac OS X, you'd end up with all the bad things about OS X and a PC mixed together. OS X isn't perfect, and PCs are even farther from perfection. I don't know. Unless you could make it dual-bootable I wouldn't consider it.

PPC_Digger · Post by **PPC_Digger** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:30 am

willhart wrote:Having a version of Mac OS X built for x86 processors does sound kinda cool. But somehow, I just can't see it happening. Something seems like a bad idea. It just seems like instead of an x86 having the powers of a Mac OS X, you'd end up with all the bad things about OS X and a PC mixed together. OS X isn't perfect, and PCs are even farther from perfection. I don't know. Unless you could make it dual-bootable I wouldn't consider it.

You're right. I also think that if apple will make an x86 version of OSX, it would cut their hardware line, and apple IS a hardware company.

Stephen Coates · Post by **Stephen Coates** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:25 pm

How come lots of people always say that apple should make an x86 version of MacOSX? I don't remember many people saying that when MacOS9 was apple's latest OS.

Anyway, I don't think apple should make an x86 version of MacOSX.

Kakaze · Post by **Kakaze** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:28 am

IT's because 9 sucked compared to X.

Plus, half the work porting X to PC is already done since Darwin has an x86 version.

Even though people say they don't and Apple denies it, knowing them, I'll bet you two to one that they really do have a full and working copy of X for x86 secreted away somewhere deep within the Apple campus.

Apple is a hardware company, but the software they've been coming out with is top notch. There's no reason they can't port everything to windows/x86 and still sell "Macintosh" computers. Think of it-people already buy Macs because they're stylish. When you can stick X into any basic beige box, people are STILL going to buy "Macs" because of their style...even if they have Pentiums or Athlons inside of them instead of PPC chips.

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:57 am

I totally agree with you., Kakaze.
But people around here have said that badly designed hardware for the x86 platform would make OS X as unstable as Windows; and that Apple would have to develop drivers for a gazillion more hardware devices. But I think that all that they would have to do is something like the Microsoft "Designed for Windows XP" thing, where people can be sure that their hardware works 100% with their computer.
Apple could even have digitally signed drivers that let only approved hardware work, make companies design their own drivers and get certified Apple hardware testers to approve them for minimal cost. If this sounds drastic, compare it with what they're currently doing!

bonehead · Post by **bonehead** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:23 pm

willhart wrote:It just seems like instead of an x86 having the powers of a Mac OS X, you'd end up with all the bad things about OS X and a PC mixed together.

Does the CPU _really_ matter that much any more?

What bad things about the x86 are you referring to? Make sure they actually apply to modern x86 processors and software.

Apple depends on hardware sales. Without hardware sales they would loose money. If Apple were to release and support an x86 OSX, other than cute designs, there would be little incentive to buy Apple hardware. They simply enter a market that their current model will be unable to compete in.

The PPC has more to do with cornering their niche than it has to do with the quality of the platform.

Would it be nice to have an x86 osx? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not.
Should Apple do it? If they can figure out how to make money off it, why not?

PPC_Digger · Post by **PPC_Digger** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:02 pm

bonehead wrote:
willhart wrote:It just seems like instead of an x86 having the powers of a Mac OS X, you'd end up with all the bad things about OS X and a PC mixed together.
Does the CPU _really_ matter that much any more?

Yes, it does. RISC's were always better than CISC's, because they simply work more efficiently. Did you know that a G5 2GHz works 70% faster than Pentium-4 3.4GHz? A G5 is almost 3 times faster than a Pentium-4 with a similar clock speed. And don't forget apple uses mainly dual cpu's on their "power" machines. A Pentium-4 will need a clock speed of at least 8GHz just to compete with one of the current G5's.

bonehead · Post by **bonehead** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:20 pm

PPC_Digger wrote:Yes, it does. RISC's were always better than CISC's, because they simply work more efficiently. Did you know that a G5 2GHz works 70% faster than Pentium-4 3.4GHz? A G5 is almost 3 times faster than a Pentium-4 with a similar clock speed. And don't forget apple uses mainly dual cpu's on their "power" machines. A Pentium-4 will need a clock speed of at least 8GHz just to compete with one of the current G5's.

First off, most of the numbers you threw out are useless and inaccurate, based on biased benchmarks not using the correct compiler optimizations for the competing platform. Remember that Apple was forced to pull some of its advertisement that made inaccurate claims about their speed. Also, if you'd like to compare a modern x86 cpu with the G5, you need to choose an Opteron or Athlon 64 based system. Don't forget that dual Opteron based systems are doing quite well against the dual G5 in many respects -- without water cooling, even on the quad and eight way systems that are simply not available from Apple.

There is no doubt the P4 architecture was developed to wow with clock speed, not performance, but, that does not surmise all x86 cpus and, for that matter, even with the less than lack-luster IPC of the P4, its higher clocks have given it the ability to compete in the performance arena, even with its terribly deep pipeline, massive current draw and unbelievably high heat dissipation.

Now on to RISC vs CISC. This has little to no bearing on CPU performance any longer. x86 CPUs have become very RISCy, just as the PPC has inherited many CISC features. The transistor count required to support x86 instruction decoding is relatively tiny in the grand scheme of things today.

So again, armed with facts, does it really matter what you choose? x86 or PPC?

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:10 pm

It does matter what you choose, x86 processors are much cheaper than PPC processors. I think that Apple could ditch the G processors for AMD/Intel ones, possibly at the next round of upgrades, or phase them in... or something.

If you're sure that Apple makes all its money on hardware sales... then here's another way the port would work: They can still make money off hardware sales. Remember the licence agreement in OSX? It states that you may only install it on Apple-Labeled hardware. Therefore, Apple can use cheaper x86 hardware for a higher profit-margin and/or more low-cost computers... AND still corner their niche... their OS niche.

You may argue that people will just disregard the licence statement, and install it anyway. I think that only a few computer-geeks would be able to do that. Any OEM that sells computers with OSX pre-installed would get the lawyer treatment.

bonehead · Post by **bonehead** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:47 pm

Dylan wrote:It does matter what you choose, x86 processors are much cheaper than PPC processors.

I would state it more like "a complete x86 platform is less expensive than a comparable PPC one", but yes, agreed.

Dylan wrote:You may argue that people will just disregard the licence statement, and install it anyway. I think that only a few computer-geeks would be able to do that. Any OEM that sells computers with OSX pre-installed would get the lawyer treatment.

I don't know if Apple is ready to test that portion of the EULA, and by releasing an x86 port, is much more likely it's going to get tested.

Still, I agree. I'm sure Apple could find a way to make it very profitable, even if they do allow clone makers... But Steve Jobs ego is still the biggest obstacle.

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:16 am

a complete x86 platform is less expensive than a comparable PPC one

Yes I realized my little mistake once I posted.

I can see how Steve Jobs's ego is connected to what kind of platform they use. (But didn't Motorola and IBM design the platform?) If nobody can find any argument besides that... then Steve Jobs has failed in his original dream of making computers that everyone can use. He failed because they are too expensive to everyone to buy, and if they don't buy them, they won't use them.
Seriously no average business is going to buy $1200 Macs when they can get just as powerful Windows computers for $600. And those employees that use the $600 Windows computers at work will probably get compatible Windows computers for home. And schools get pressured to have computers that are compatible with students' home computers.
Even schools are switching to Windows computers now. My high school uses only Windows computers. They have constant problems with them like every day. But when budgets get as low as they are, people tend to look for short term savings over long-term savings.

robojam · Post by **robojam** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:41 pm

bonehead wrote:So again, armed with facts, does it really matter what you choose? x86 or PPC?

Glad you answered that one, it's getting really tedious reading the uninformed RISC better than CISC/PPC vs. x86 posts.

bonehead · Post by **bonehead** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:36 pm

Dylan wrote:Seriously no average business is going to buy $1200 Macs when they can get just as powerful Windows computers for $600.

You're preaching to the choir

Don't get me wrong though, I like Macs.. especially since Apple finally made a real OS... It's just too bad that they keep them out of the reach of so many.

robojam wrote:...it's getting really tedious reading the uninformed RISC better than CISC/PPC vs. x86 posts.

Definitely. Someone should make a nice informative post on the subject and sticky it. There are just too many that visit here with this ill-conceived notion of (PPC == RISC) > (x86 == CISC), when every comparison in that evaluation is flawed.

Mac for PC

Do you think Apple should make a version of mac for PC?

Mac for PC