Apple and Intel?

[ehabouf]

You are therefore defeating your own argument. You initially say:

To use x86 processor you must use the same hardware arechtecture (Motherboards, rams ... etc)

Then you say:

Xbox is a closed system, which means special GPU, special drive ... etc
No way to make it use any graphics card thru PCI/AGP bus and general IDE connection and don't be able to run the os for it with standrad system

Meaning you agree that you can use an x86 CPU in a system which is not fully compliant with the 'Windows Compatible' PCs that you say 'must' be able to boot into MacOS when they release an x86 based system.

Apple can release a unique piece of hardware based on an x86 CPU and thus stop different hardware configurations being able to use the OS.

As a side note, I am playing devil's advoate, as I totally expect it (MacOS x86) to be hacked to be able to run on ordinary windows whiteboxes, at the very least through a VM transparently using the CPU or, ideally, being fully bootable.

Take a look at this phrase to know exactly what I mean "After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac."

[gb]

Unless maybe hardware activation is required for future Mac OS X versions,

AFAIK, Apple was looking for BIOS engineers lately. Now, would they license and derive code from Phenix BIOS, I am unsure.

I could see a full speed Mac virtual machine being created for Windows.

I still have other visions for an alternative Operating System.

[Marc]

Take a look at this phrase to know exactly what I mean "After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac."

We are talking about running MacOS X on a standard Windows compliant PC, somethin which they said would be impossible at the presentation, NOT running Windows on a piece of Macintosh hardware, something Apple have always actively encouraged to try and get Windows users to use the Mac platform.

[ehabouf]

Take a look at this phrase to know exactly what I mean "After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac."

We are talking about running MacOS X on a standard Windows compliant PC, somethin which they said would be impossible at the presentation, NOT running Windows on a piece of Macintosh hardware, something Apple have always actively encouraged to try and get Windows users to use the Mac platform.

TO run normal version of Windows in new Apple computer this means that it is standard hardware and any operating system working on it must be able to run on any other brands of X86

[Marc]

No it doesn't. Apple could include a specialised piece of hardware on the board that OS X needs to boot but Windows woul dnot look for in the boot process.

[ehabouf]

Which hardware???
Motherboadr + CPU + RAM + GPU any modification windows will not run in that system
the ONLY exception is addon rom PCI card which will sure will be avliable with empty roms from other verndors and sure you know the rest
Let us face it, Appple now switch to only software company this will stop hardware within few next years

[Marc]

What are you laughing at? There are many ways to do it, and Apple has done far harder before.

Apple used to make MacOS install CDs that would only install on Macintosh Performa models, the same MacOS that would run any 68k, but would not install on anything other than the machine Apple had designed that particular CD from.

Amiga and Macintosh both shared M68k arc. and quite a lot of common components, yet you can't drop a MacOS 8 CD in an amiga and install it natively (although you can use VM software like ShapeShifter.)

Lets us look at another example.

To boot windows, say we need a computer which meets conditions x+y.
Say condition x is an x86 CPU and condition y is a standard arc. (BIOS, GPU, PCI Bus etc..)

Say MacOS needs conditions x+y+z in order to boot.
Again, x is an x86 CPU, y is our arc. and z is an arbitrary piece of hardware (say for example, a co-processor to perform AltiVec instructions, since no Pentium CPU supports them)

So Macintosh computer from Apple meets conditions x+y+z so can boot either Windows or MacOS. However, a standard Dell, for example only meets conditions x+y, therefore can only boot Windows.

Apple has done this before.

Say we change x=M68k CPU y=Macintosh ROM and arc (ADB Bus, NuBus, SCSI etc..)

To boot MacOS system 7 we need conditions x+y
Any Mac like the Performa 476 (based on a 68040 arc) can boot this system.

Say Apple ship a new machine (lets call it a Quadra 800, again based on 68040 arc)which has conditions x+y+z
Again, z is the arbitrary hardware (in this isntance a MMU)

Say another OS (lets call it for talking sake, A/UX) requires x+y+z
Quadra 800 can boot system 7 since it meets conditions x+y
Quadra 800 can boot A/UX since it meets conditions x+y+z

Performa 476 can boot system 7 since it meets conditions x+y
Performa 476 can NOT boot A/UX since it does NOT meet conditions x+y+z

Going by your logic, the performa MUST be able to boot A/UX since it has the same kind of arc and CPU (well, not identical but from the same family) as Quadra and they both can also boot system 7.

It just does not work like that.

As I said before, I don't know if this will be the case, but I am only illustrating it can be achieved, and I'd rather you didn't laugh at my posts since I am not being wholly outragous.

[ehabouf]

That was at other stadium
At x86 stadium IBM fighted for many years to make it'w own hardware and use the same software for the so named (at this time) IBM compatible computers - and didn't success by any meaning
That happened from whem envented the x86 archtecture, what about a new guest like Apple????
This story was closed from many years, PC is the PC no way to make PC+ PC???

[Marc]

Yeah, Microsoft never managed to make a new x86 system called 'Xbox' did they? Stop thinking in such an insular manner, just because it uses x86 CPU doesn't mean it has to be of the exact same arc. or capable of booting all the x86 OS that are available.

You will find that Apple have a lot more leverage than other PC manufacturers since they have no legacy to stay compatible with on x86 platform, just like Xbox. It is 'legacy free' (with respect to to be able to run DOS, and other stupid things PCs still have to be able to do), therefore does NOT have to be compatible with the specification of an IBM compatible PC, just like the Xbox, and therefore can be of a slightly different hardware config...just like the Xbox.

[ehabouf]

Again XBOX can't run operating system for x86 systems so, it is not success that is something to prove what I say
capable of booting all the x86 OS that are available????
Apple itself announced that it will be able to boot windows?????

[Havin_it]

Of course - that's why it is their masterstroke.

They probably can't stop teh h4XX0r from circumventing whatever protection they use (ROM, BIOS, hardware dingly-dongle or whatever). No doubt in my mind about that.

But your custom whiteboxen with hacked OS X86 will not be supported. A lot of people do actually need that support (and to stay legal in their computer usage). So, if they want a performance Win/Mac box with full support, they MUST buy a Macintel.

There may be a brief dip, but their hardware business is anything but dead. They just gave it a future.

[Marc]

Again XBOX can't run operating system for x86 systems so, it is not success that is something to prove what I say
capable of booting all the x86 OS that are available????
Apple itself announced that it will be able to boot windows?????

Xbox can boot Linux. And it is sucess, as it poroves you can make an x86 system that is not capable of just booting any Os since it is an x86 system, which is how you seem to believe it works.

And again, for about the fifth time, even if macintosh can boot windows does NOT mean that a standard white box can boot the mac os. I have outlined the reasons why this may be prevented above and i'm not going to again. Obvously your English isn't as good as it might be so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

[ehabouf]

XBOX can't boot Linux for standard x86 system

Any way, it's mutter of days and the specs of new Apple x86 system will be announced - when it is avliavle I'll get it to this thread to prove that it is a STANDARD x86 motherboard/system

[Marc]

It won't be a matter of days. It will be next year before the system is released. Why would they release the specs a year before the release of the system?

Anyway, at no point did I say it wouldn't be, my full point is that you can use an x86 in an architecture that is not the same as the one PCs use now, which you claimed. You also claimed there was no way to change hardware to prevent OS being booted, yet you agree Xbox does this and I showed you how Apple have done this in Performas and with their A/UX OS. Either you don't realise your arguments are going round in illogical circles or you don't understand what I am saying.

[ehabouf]

Your arguments which is going round in illogical circles
I said many times XBOX didn't do this at all
XBOX CAN'T RUN OS FOR STANDARD X86
Even IBM the FOUNDER of PC an x86 faild to do it
That is te last to repeate my words

[Marc]

Lets see how illogical your arguments are:

To use x86 processor you must use the same hardware arechtecture (Motherboards, rams ... etc)
Nothing prevent you from using maxos86 with other systems other than vioalting the license (macos laicense only for apple computers)

So you are saying that in order to use 'the x86 processor' (by the way, there is no 'the x86 processor' x86 is a family of CPUs from the Intel 8086 to the Pentium 4 and beyond, not a single CPU) you must use the same hardware arch. as the current 'windows compliant' PC. Which would be a fair enough assertation had you not said.

Xbox is a closed system, which means special GPU, special drive ... etc
No way to make it use any graphics card thru PCI/AGP bus and general IDE connection and don't be able to run the os for it with standrad system
C+O+M+P+U+T+E+R = and must = COMPUTER

Xbox uses an 'x86' CPU (a Pentium III based Celeron at 733 MHz, an Nvidia Geforce 3MX and 64 MB of shared RAM) but does NOT use the standard 'windows compliant arch (eg, motherboard, ram, GPU). You say in one post that to use this CPU you need to use the same components found in standard windows compliant system, but then you acknowledge that the Xbox - which uses the x86 type CPU - is a different kind of system using different components, therefore is not the same kind of system, even though it shares the same class of cpu as windows pcs.

In short, you are admiting you can use an x86 type CPU in a system which does not use the 'same hardware arch.' ...oh wait...see your first post and see how does NOT match.

You are clearly in disagreement with yourself.

Then you go on to maintain:

TO run normal version of Windows in new Apple computer this means that it is standard hardware and any operating system working on it must be able to run on any other brands of X86

Apple isn't designing its machines specificaly to run Windows (all they said was that they would not go out of their way to stop Windows running on Macs - they don't care if you buy a Mac to run Windows, you are still buying a Mac, from Apple), they are designed to run the MacOS, and even as I showed you with my x+y+z demonstration, not all OS are equal.

Another quote:

Again XBOX can't run operating system for x86 systems so, it is not success that is something to prove what I say
capable of booting all the x86 OS that are available????
Apple itself announced that it will be able to boot windows?????

So Xbox, based on the x86 CPU, which YOU claimed CANNOT be used with anything other than the same standard components you'd find in your local computer store, magically becomes unable to boot any other OS which runs on standard x86 arch, gee, since it does not share the standard PC arch. But wait, you said this was impossible in the first quote above?!. Yet you think Apple can't make an OS so tied to the hardware in the Mac (whatever that specialised hardware may be) that it won't boot on an ordinary pentium PC without hacking? That is just plain silly. Either that or Apple, who have managed to exhibit much tighter control over their OS in the past, must be a lot dumber than Microsoft.

Any way, it's mutter of days and the specs of new Apple x86 system will be announced - when it is avliavle I'll get it to this thread to prove that it is a STANDARD x86 motherboard/system

English withstanding, the Apple specs will not be released within a matter (not mutter) of days. It would be suicide for Apple to release the specs of a machine that will be released in a year today (Jobs predicted a 3GHz G5 would be on sale a year after the initial launch of that CPU and failed, and many commentators think that was the catalyst for the IBM/Apple divorce, so he is unlikely to band about specs a year in advance of the launch of his new system).

When you come back, I hope you post from Safari, in MacOS 10.5 (leopard), which no doubt will boot on your Dell, Gateway, self-made or whatever system without any hacking (which is what you believe will be the case).

Your arguments which is going round in illogical circles
I said many times XBOX didn't do this at all
XBOX CAN'T RUN OS FOR STANDARD X86
Even IBM the FOUNDER of PC an x86 faild to do it
That is te last to repeate my words

The reason IBM failed to control the market and create a closed system was that companies such as Compaq deconstructed the IBM PC and copied it, and since IBM used many cheap, non proprietry parts, they could release clone PCs easily. If someone tries this (reverse engeneering the x86 mac and selling a clone) with an x86 Apple mac they will find themsleves in serious hot water; Apple's lawyers are very fast to act in defense of their interests.

Your bad English (I assume it is not your first language, and therefore, I am trying not to be too harsh considering I cannot make ill founded, illogical arguments in a second language) make it difficult for me and, I assume, any other user of this board to make sense of your ramblings.

Good day, and I will not reply to any other post you will make to condradict yourself yet further.

[ehabouf]

http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObj ... wsID=14643

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1656622,00.asp

[Yukon Kid]

Marc
you said

The reason IBM failed to control the market and create a closed system was that companies such as Compaq deconstructed the IBM PC and copied it, and since IBM used many cheap, non proprietry parts, they could release clone PCs easily. If someone tries this (reverse engeneering the x86 mac and selling a clone) with an x86 Apple mac they will find themsleves in serious hot water; Apple's lawyers are very fast to act in defense of their interests.

which I do agree with partly, but I do remember a time when the computer of choice for home hackers was the apple. about the time the pc came on the market.
Apple also had the slap the hands of Franklin and Orange as they were selling clones.
the killer was when apple went to an odd scan freq in the video, there was no place to buy one and it was made by Sony for apple. hmmmm
so clone the pc as the monitor was a standard tv type set up, just no rf required.

to add a bit more backbone to your statements, most eary home computers ran a version of basic, no matter what cpu family they were from. if you had the time you could save the code as ascii files and run them on different computers. I know that basic is a program running after the boot/bios loaded. the thing that caused trouble was the slightly different commands that each system used to control the video and sound but for the most part the code worked from computer to computer.
I did a bit of this type of thing once upon a time. I also remember helping a fellow run a "basic" written bbs on a C128 but we had to write a module to change ascii to "petscii" so it would work with incoming non commadore computers.

well enough rambling, you are hitting the nail on the head, Apple could do something very simple but hard to duplicate to allow Macos to run on an otherwise PC designed computer.

one more little thing, the origional IBM pc was built with a motorola cpu, but Mot could not promise quantity. Intel did. (probably a version of pc-dos around to run on both). the kicker was that when IBM opened the door to sell the PC they had over 120 programs ready to sell with it.

I think Apple is still missing a few of the promised "soon" programs for the mac. they had a handfull to sell when the Mac came to market.

[Yukon Kid]

Oh yeah the Xbox..

forgot to mention that the new xbox test bed is a dual G5
my son's friend works at a software place that is making/testing xbox programs and he said the box is the same as my G5, he was surprised.
now would someone buy a g5 and butcher it to test games???? doesn't make sense to me if you are making mobo's for the new system. so there must be a lot of similarities. maybe the switch to intel is because the xbox will out sell the mac and the cpu's are already bought for the next few years?????

[Marc]

http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObj ... wsID=14643

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1656622,00.asp

So what? Development systems mean nothing. The test machine, for Xbox 360, as Yukon Kid points out, is a Dual G5 Powermac. That doesn't mean that the Xbox 360 is going to be a Dual G5 Powermac, or even be able to boot the Mac OS. The design available just now is a concept design, and it will bare very little resemblence to what goes on this time next year when the Mac ships. If you think this is what the Mac that will ship will be like you are frankly mad.

There is nothing substabtial in these articles, merely some specualtion and early guesswork about the arch. Oh, and the Marklar article....it's almost 3 years old and completely irrelevent.

Yukon, Microsoft bought a batch of G5s from Apple for early development for Xbox 360 because the Xbox 360 will use a custom made triple core G5 chip. Many people have speculated about what you suggest (that IBM was holding back the big guns for the consoles at Apple's expense). This would makes sense, since Apple is a very small customer of IBM's (somewhere in the region of 3% of its chip output) and the consoles are a much 'safer' bet.

[Yukon Kid]

Yes I do know that the xbox will use the triple core cpu. I was just pointing out the obvious about running different Os's on computers. Mac or otherwise.
Maybe Apple and microsoft came to an agreement about the ppc to prevent xbox os being ported to mac.. maybe Longhorn is Maxos X! or very similar!
I see that leopard will be released at the same time as longhorn...(which would be good for windows users)
the saga continues.

[Marc]

I like your conspiracy theories

[kybernaut]

Thanks Marc for your contributions!

[robojam]

Will PPC_Digger now change his name to x86_Digger?

[PPC_Digger]

Will PPC_Digger now change his name to x86_Digger?

No, since the 'PPC' in my name stands for PearPC. I don't see Seppel changing PearPC's name to Xear86 .