Apple moves to x86 [Archive]

Jeff Wheeler

June 6th, 2005, 04:15 PM

I thought it was impossible, but Apple has officially announced their move to x86 processors.

Those are the same ones that are in all of your Windows machines, the Pentium line included! Now Apple will have to worry about people buying their OS without the hardware.

I want to cry! :hitman:

:upset:

grimdeath

June 6th, 2005, 04:20 PM

I guess now well see just how superior MACOSX really is when users try to use it with non supported hardware

kirupa

June 6th, 2005, 04:25 PM

( runs off and hugs the sharp, pointy P4 chip )

According to Jobs' keynote summary, it doesn't seem that difficult for you all to keep running your Mac software on an X86-based Apple system. The emulator he demonstrated seemed fast enough.

:flower:

grimdeath

June 6th, 2005, 05:02 PM

still if its emulated it wont run as well as its supposed to, performance will be affected lets see how this turns out

Jeff Wheeler

June 6th, 2005, 05:07 PM

It doesn't take long though for developers to change their program, two days as you probably read.

It's only emulated during the time it takes the developer to republish the program.

iloveitaly

June 6th, 2005, 05:31 PM

SWEET!
Looks like i'll have a good excuse for a new mac in a year or two!

lskywalkr

June 6th, 2005, 05:44 PM

I guess now well see just how superior MACOSX really is when users try to use it with non supported hardware

Except that's not going to happen. Apple is still going to make their own proprietary hardware, the only news here is that they are switching processors. You won't be able to install OSX on your dell at home.

The only good thing about this (other than faster powerbooks) is that windows emulators on mac will run MUCH faster.

Jeff Wheeler

June 6th, 2005, 06:14 PM

Butters

June 6th, 2005, 06:29 PM

Yeah PearPC, that was the emulator that got ripped off by CherryOS who got sued or something...

lskywalkr

June 6th, 2005, 08:19 PM

By the way you two, Mac emulation is already possible on ya'lls (I'm from Texas, it's Ok) sad Dell PC's. I posted the link a little bit back. It uses emulation, and is available here:

http://s87840517.onlinehome.us/pearpc.html

Because it uses emulation, it's a bit slower. Mike (http://mdipi.com) says it runs at about 1/4 your potential processor speed.

Right, my point was that now that OSX will be running on the x86 architecture, it should be a whole lot faster, since it won't have to run nearly as much translation work.

GW02

June 6th, 2005, 09:36 PM

I feel like going out and strangling myself to send a message to Steve.

ElectricGrandpa

June 7th, 2005, 12:57 AM

Hmm... Does this mean that once people finish porting/converting their programs over to the new system... that those programs will also run better when emulated on PC?

iloveitaly

June 7th, 2005, 07:40 AM

Hmm... Does this mean that once people finish porting/converting their programs over to the new system... that those programs will also run better when emulated on PC?
If i understand you correctly you are saying that once Mac apps are ported over to x86 macs with they run faster on pearpc? Although i am not totally sure, i dont think they will run at all. The difference from x86 & PPC is the way numbers/memory values are stored in the computer. The codes in PPC are shifted around a little while on x86 they are not. pearpc shifts EVERY SINGLE BIT from x86 style to os x style. since the new programs will be compiled to run on x86 with the different number storing style, they will not run on an emulator or mac os x (i think!:)).

ya3

June 7th, 2005, 08:04 AM

Except that's not going to happen. Apple is still going to make their own proprietary hardware, the only news here is that they are switching processors.
Um, no. Not really the case.

I think I mentioned http://maconlinux.org before, and how it lets you run Mac OS X on *any* PowerPC-based system AT NEAR-NATIVE SPEEDS! (because you'd have Linux running in the bg)

So if OS X was made to work with the x86 instruction-set, that'd cancel out the CPU-emulation part of emulation... which would make OS X emulation on PC (eg. PearPC) a lot faster :hugegrin:

AU$0.02

iloveitaly

June 7th, 2005, 08:22 AM

Um, no. Not really the case.

I think I mentioned http://maconlinux.org before, and how it lets you run Mac OS X on *any* PowerPC-based system AT NEAR-NATIVE SPEEDS! (because you'd have Linux running in the bg)

So if OS X was made to work with the x86 instruction-set, that'd cancel out the CPU-emulation part of emulation... which would make OS X emulation on PC (eg. PearPC) a lot faster :hugegrin:

AU$0.02
Sorry to break you bubble but this is right from the FAQ:

"Q: Does it run on i386 hardware?
A:No, MOL can only run on PowerPC hardware since no emulation is performed. However, adding a PowerPC emulator for x86 is under consideration."

Its on an emulator, its just a VM to allow you to run os x while running linux on your mac, not your PC. Its only being used on PPC hardware.

ya3

June 7th, 2005, 11:11 AM

Sorry to break you bubble but this is right from the FAQ:

"Q: Does it run on i386 hardware?
A:No, MOL can only run on PowerPC hardware since no emulation is performed. However, adding a PowerPC emulator for x86 is under consideration."

Its on an emulator, its just a VM to allow you to run os x while running linux on your mac, not your PC. Its only being used on PPC hardware.
nonono, you missed my point.

what i was saying is:
mac os x is currently made for the PowerPC CPU, so it can be emulated natively on ANY POWER PC machine (through use of maconlinux) - not just Apple PowerPC machines!

in much the same way, if the new version of os x was to run on Apple x86 machines, it could easily be run on ANY x86 machines.

MacOnWindows, perhaps? :smirk:

iloveitaly

June 7th, 2005, 11:42 AM

nonono, you missed my point.

what i was saying is:
mac os x is currently made for the PowerPC CPU, so it can be emulated natively on ANY POWER PC machine (through use of maconlinux) - not just Apple PowerPC machines!

in much the same way, if the new version of os x was to run on Apple x86 machines, it could easily be run on ANY x86 machines.

MacOnWindows, perhaps? :smirk:
Ahhh, I see what your saying.

It will be interesting to see how Apple creates their Intel based systems, will they let windows run on them (unlikely)? Will they let linux run on them? Will apple embed something into their motherboard/chipset to restrict os x running only on their Intel based systems? Will their protection be hackable?

June 7th, 2005, 12:04 PM

Will they let linux run on them? Will apple embed something into their motherboard/chipset to restrict os x running only on their Intel based systems? Will their protection be hackable?

I'd think probably the answer is "yes" to all of them.

If i understand you correctly you are saying that once Mac apps are ported over to x86 macs with they run faster on pearpc? Although i am not totally sure, i dont think they will run at all. The difference from x86 & PPC is the way numbers/memory values are stored in the computer. The codes in PPC are shifted around a little while on x86 they are not. pearpc shifts EVERY SINGLE BIT from x86 style to os x style. since the new programs will be compiled to run on x86 with the different number storing style, they will not run on an emulator or mac os x (i think!:))

x86 is little-endian and ppc is big-endian. So a value of 1 is stored in 8 bits as 1000000 on x86 and 00000001 on ppc (you basically got that right). What apple is talking about now is what they call "fat binaries" - an executable file where code for both x86 and ppc is included, so it can run natively on any Mac. A raw x86 binary will not run on ppc without an emulator, and a raw ppc binary will not run on x86 without an emulator. Let me get that straight.

ya3

June 7th, 2005, 09:19 PM

Ahhh, I see what your saying.

It will be interesting to see how Apple creates their Intel based systems, will they let windows run on them (unlikely)? Will they let linux run on them? Will apple embed something into their motherboard/chipset to restrict os x running only on their Intel based systems? Will their protection be hackable?
meh... YellowDogLinux is thriving quite happily, atm.
http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/
I mean, they even *sell* Linux-based Apple hardware.

Let's just wait and see what happens... for now all we can do is speculate.

KaiserSouze

June 8th, 2005, 08:28 PM

Mac OS X for Intel will not boot on machines sold by other PC manufactures, according to Apple vice president Phil Schiller. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac (http://macnn.com/rd.php?id=30755)," he said. Schiller calmed concerns that Apple might lose sales to manufacturers of cheaper PCs if Mac OS X could run on such machines. It is unclear how Apple will restrict OS X to Macs. Intel-based Macs might feature a motherboard chip that Mac OS X must detect on startup. Although hackers might find ways to run Mac OS X on regular PCs, Apple's restriction measures should keep average consumers from ever running OS X on a competitor's PC.

As for Mac users running Windows on Intel Macs, Schiller said Apple won't intentionally stop users from doing this. However, Apple will not provide any support, let alone a method, for running Windows.

"That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," he said.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/08/schiller.on.os.x.on.pcs

Jeff Wheeler

June 8th, 2005, 08:30 PM

Yep, saw that, I think on Gruber's site.

GW02

June 9th, 2005, 12:17 AM

MacOnWindows, perhaps? :smirk:

That would spell the end of Apple.

Thy

June 9th, 2005, 10:33 AM

First Adobe buys macromedia, then this!?

OMG!! What has the world come to!!!!!!

2nd day

June 9th, 2005, 11:21 AM

so if i understand all of this i can conclude that
- you can install mac os on my own windows (x86 processor) computer?
- you can install windows on apples with x86 processors?

i'm not into computer hardware really... so i don't really know about processors...

iloveitaly

June 9th, 2005, 11:24 AM

so if i understand all of this i can conclude that
- you can install mac os on my own windows (x86 processor) computer?

No. (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1120)

- you can install windows on apples with x86 processors?

i'm not into computer hardware really... so i don't really know about processors...
Yes.

ya3

June 9th, 2005, 09:00 PM

Meh...
It's always been possible to emulate Windows on Mac OS, and recently Mac OS X on Windows.

With emulation, the main problem is emulating the client OS's CPU architecture. The rest is easy.

So, it's easy to emulate Windows on Mac OS, since the x86 CPU instruction-set is smaller than PowerPC's, thus making it easy for a Mac to 'software emulate' a PC's CPU. Other hardware, such as video cards and sound, usually just use the hardware of the host machine.

Emulating OS X, or rather the PowerPC CPU, on Windows is possible but slower, since the PowerPC instruction-set is larger than the x86's, therefore it has a hard time 'software emulating' it (hence PearPC's 1/40th speed).

Now, if this CPU emulation aspect was eliminated (ie. both OS's are made for the SAME CPU architecture), emulation would be as easy as, say, running Linux on Windows via VMWare, for example. You'd just need a few tricks to fool OS X into thinking it was running on a real Mac ;), but that kind of thing is already implemented into PearPC.

Exciting, exciting :beam:
But who knows... perhaps Macs will get cheap enough for me to actually buy and we can throw all this emulation business off a cliff.

GW02

June 10th, 2005, 01:01 AM

You'd just need a few tricks to fool OS X into thinking it was running on a real Mac ;), but that kind of thing is already implemented into PearPC.

Exciting, exciting :beam:

No, no it's not. If that happens and becomes widespread, Apple is doomed.

Apple is a hardware company, and will always be a hardware company.
It writes software to sell its hardware.
If it loses its ability to sell hardware Apple will die. Fast.

ya3

June 10th, 2005, 06:04 AM

No, no it's not. If that happens and becomes widespread, Apple is doomed.

Apple is a hardware company, and will always be a hardware company.
It writes software to sell its hardware.
If it loses its ability to sell hardware Apple will die. Fast.
Lol... it's exciting for us geeky Mac-fans wanting to run OS X on our cheap PCs. *That's* what's exciting :P

I really doubt professional design houses would go hax0ring OS X onto their PCs. lol :D If anything, things like PearPC *enhance* Apple's sales by giving Mac fans a decent and very tempting taste of the software. The Emaculation.com forum (kind-of-official PearPC forum) is filled with 'PearPC made me get a Mac' threads ;)

So... no doom for Apple. I really doubt it.
Just coolness for us ;)

GW02

June 11th, 2005, 04:12 AM

If the protection is broken, there will be no "enhancing" or "tasting," it will be full-out theiving. At the point that the PowerPC no longer has to be emulated, the system will run almost full blast.

PearPC gives people a semi-taste, yes. A MacOnWindows type software will give far, far more than a taste, it would give a 100% valid alternative.

Yes, I know what emaculation is.... :P

Just look at your own motivations right now even. I don't see an ounce of "I want to taste OS X" in you, I just see plain-out "I want to run OS X on my cheap PC." That's what a lot of people feel.

June 11th, 2005, 04:19 AM

@ya3: Actually, PPC is RISC and x86 is CISC, so the PPC instruction set is significantly smaller than the x86 instruction set. I think it might be easier to emulate x86 on PPC because you can split one x86 instruction down to several PPC instructions, whereas for many PPC instructions there is no comparative x86 instruction.. but don't quote me on that ;)

Also, I think that the OS has to be modified slightly before it can be run with VMWare, so it might not be possible to run OSX on a normal PC at a high speed.. although, only the kernel needs to be modified and Darwin is open source, so it just *might* be possible, but only just ;) (I think soon Intel and AMD will release processors that take away the need to modify the OS, but once again don't quote me on that)