Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?

[RacerX]

Q: Does anything like Database Kit exist for OS X?

Database Kit evolved into Enterprise Objects Frameworks. EOModeler still exist today, bundled with WebObjects. Even if you were not planning on a web base application, I think the only way to get EOModeler is via the WebObjects developer package. Apple started to combine WebObjects and Enterprise Objects starting with WebObjects 4 for Rhapsody and Windows systems.

Both of my copies of NEXTSTEP 3.3 and OPENSTEP 4.2 were bundles and came with the Users, Developers and Enterprise Objects CDs. I got Enterprise Objects 1.1 with NEXTSTEP 3.3 and Enterprise Objects 2.0 with OPENSTEP 4.2. I also got Enterprise Objects 2.1 with Rhapsody 5.0 (the first developer release), but that was before Apple had released WebObjects 4 (which came out about the same time as Rhapsody 5.3, aka Mac OS X Server 1.0).

As far as I know, Apple continued to release Enterprise Objects Frameworks as it's own product until version 2.2 (for OPENSTEP 4.2) which Apple made as a free upgrade for owners of 2.0.

I don't recall if WebObjects 3.5 and earlier came with EOModeler or if it was assumed that you would also need Enterprise Objects Framework (back then WebObjects was running as much as $50,000, so I would guess it came with it as Enterprise Objects was only going for around $500 as I recall).

 

[Palomino]

If OSX came to x86 as a pure operating system, I for one would buy it, as long as there was no emulation.

Jordan

 

[~loserman~]

If OSX came to x86 as a pure operating system, I for one would buy it, as long as there was no emulation.

Jordan

So would everybody else.

 

[cal6n]

Face facts. This is the closest you're going to get to OS X on a PC!

 

[Cooknn]

Face facts. This is the closest you're going to get to OS X on a PC!

That's SWEET

I loved this:
"Roses are red. Violets are blue. OS X rocks. Homage to you."
©2005 Google - Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages

 

[BeeWarloc]

I find this kind of obvious..

Oh course apple got an in-house version of OS X running on x86. Why? Because they don't control or affect the CPU-race.

Apple can't take the risk that if in 3 years x86 runs 4 times faster than PPC (although I don't see that happen), they're unable to make the switch. And also it gives them the possibility to give IBM and Motorola the finger, if not competitive enough when it comes to price.

But a x86 based OS X probably don't mean a IBM PC compatible OS X, at least not in the current landscape of x86 hardware. It probably means a Macintosh with a x86 processor (or rather a 64bit x86 CPU, AMD style).

They've done it before, switching from 68k to PPC, and they will do it again, if necesarry. CPU means very little for a portable operating system such as OS X, as long as they can get decent PPC emulation.

And then again, I might be wrong..

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Oh course apple got an in-house version of OS X running on x86. Why? Because they don't control or affect the CPU-race.

Apple can't take the risk that if in 3 years x86 runs 4 times faster than PPC (although I don't see that happen), they're unable to make the switch. And also it gives them the possibility to give IBM and Motorola the finger, if not competitive enough when it comes to price.

But a x86 based OS X probably don't mean a IBM PC compatible OS X, at least not in the current landscape of x86 hardware. It probably means a Macintosh with a x86 processor (or rather a 64bit x86 CPU, AMD style).

They've done it before, switching from 68k to PPC, and they will do it again, if necesarry. CPU means very little for a portable operating system such as OS X, as long as they can get decent PPC emulation.

And then again, I might be wrong..

I agree. Such a strategy is good for Apple in case of continued problems. However, Apple has had to endure TWO transitions of similar magnitude in the past (from 68k to PPC and Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X). I'm almost certain that Apple would like at least another year or so to pass before they seriously consider the need for another transition.

 

[BenRoethig]

Oh course apple got an in-house version of OS X running on x86. Why? Because they don't control or affect the CPU-race.

Apple can't take the risk that if in 3 years x86 runs 4 times faster than PPC (although I don't see that happen), they're unable to make the switch. And also it gives them the possibility to give IBM and Motorola the finger, if not competitive enough when it comes to price.

But a x86 based OS X probably don't mean a IBM PC compatible OS X, at least not in the current landscape of x86 hardware. It probably means a Macintosh with a x86 processor (or rather a 64bit x86 CPU, AMD style).

They've done it before, switching from 68k to PPC, and they will do it again, if necesarry. CPU means very little for a portable operating system such as OS X, as long as they can get decent PPC emulation.

And then again, I might be wrong..

It also protects them if IBM finds it more profitable to make processors for the three consoles than the 970. Freescale may be making PowerPCs, but they work better in the engine computer of a Monte Carlo than they do in desktop computers.

 

[Paul928]

OSX and AthlonXP PC

Most Intel processors fail to run Windows without being very annoyingly choppy (Windows XP, actually. Older versions are fine). I don't think Mac OS X would be bareable on most x86 processors.

My Grandma has a Celeron 1.7 Ghz and it can barely run Windows XP home edition. A window refresh usually takes somewhere around 5 seconds, honestly. Windows sucks, and it's making x86 look terrible, whether it really is or not.

I am a PC user, (don't throw stuff) but recently installed OSX10 Panther using CherryOS on my computer. It runs very well. I will be using it to test web designs on multiplatforms without needing two machines. I have two monitors and can run OSX full screen on one and regular WinXP on the other.

This gentleman has a misconception that WinXP runs slow and choppy on all machines. This is completely incorrect. If windows is run on a slow machine with insufficient RAM it will be slow and laggy (its called file swapping). A slow machine with 1GB of RAM will run circles around a fast machine with 128MB of RAM. Besides, it sound like his grandma has spyware and viruses....(on her machine).

PC guys know, when building or buying a computer we always look at several things, CPU speed, Memory (and memory timings), HD performance and capacity and motherboard architucture that supports all the above. You pick these things correctly and don't just go for grandma's cheap stuff and you won't have any problems.

I like OSX, but I would never switch to MAC because of the enormous software base, and hardware choices I am afforded through a PC platform. I build my own PC's. OSX and CherryOS work marvelous on a watercooled 2.4Ghz AthlonXP PC w/1GB of RAM, 350GB hard drives.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I am a PC user, (don't throw stuff) but recently installed OSX10 Panther using CherryOS on my computer. It runs very well. I will be using it to test web designs on multiplatforms without needing two machines. I have two monitors and can run OSX full screen on one and regular WinXP on the other.

This gentleman has a misconception that WinXP runs slow and choppy on all machines. This is completely incorrect. If windows is run on a slow machine with insufficient RAM it will be slow and laggy (its called file swapping). A slow machine with 1GB of RAM will run circles around a fast machine with 128MB of RAM. Besides, it sound like his grandma has spyware and viruses....(on her machine).

PC guys know, when building or buying a computer we always look at several things, CPU speed, Memory (and memory timings), HD performance and capacity and motherboard architucture that supports all the above. You pick these things correctly and don't just go for grandma's cheap stuff and you won't have any problems.

I like OSX, but I would never switch to MAC because of the enormous software base, and hardware choices I am afforded through a PC platform. I build my own PC's. OSX and CherryOS work marvelous on a watercooled 2.4Ghz AthlonXP PC w/1GB of RAM, 350GB hard drives.

That's a great point you mention about memory - generally, more memory helps system performance (on Macs and Windows PCs). To be honest, I'm surprised that you're happy running CherryOS on your PC. For that matter, I'm surprised anyone could be happy running Virtual PC on their Mac. Both CherryOS and Virtual PC use emulation to do what they do - emulation is inherently slower than "the real thing" (real hardware, in this case); sometimes, MUCH slower. I support your decision to stay out of the Mac world because build-your-own types can't easily be satisfied with a Mac - the parts simply aren't (widely) available to build a Mac.

 

[BenRoethig]

I am a PC user, (don't throw stuff) but recently installed OSX10 Panther using CherryOS on my computer. It runs very well. I will be using it to test web designs on multiplatforms without needing two machines. I have two monitors and can run OSX full screen on one and regular WinXP on the other.

This gentleman has a misconception that WinXP runs slow and choppy on all machines. This is completely incorrect. If windows is run on a slow machine with insufficient RAM it will be slow and laggy (its called file swapping). A slow machine with 1GB of RAM will run circles around a fast machine with 128MB of RAM. Besides, it sound like his grandma has spyware and viruses....(on her machine).

PC guys know, when building or buying a computer we always look at several things, CPU speed, Memory (and memory timings), HD performance and capacity and motherboard architucture that supports all the above. You pick these things correctly and don't just go for grandma's cheap stuff and you won't have any problems.

I like OSX, but I would never switch to MAC because of the enormous software base, and hardware choices I am afforded through a PC platform. I build my own PC's. OSX and CherryOS work marvelous on a watercooled 2.4Ghz AthlonXP PC w/1GB of RAM, 350GB hard drives.

I can attest to the RAM thing. My 900mhz iBook G3 with 640mb of SDRAM runs circles around the familiy's brand new 2ghz Sempron box with 256mb of DDR Ram when it comes to everyday tasks. I also hear what your saying about the hardware. I love my iBook to death, but Apple's desktop options interest me about as much as being forced to use windows. It's like you have to choose between a good user expirience and good hardware.

 

[andrewm]

I suspect that, if Tiger is to come to PC, it will not be at the same time as the Mac version. Even as Apple retains the ability to compile for x86, and even supposing that Tiger is portable enough to compile quickly on non-PPC, Apple would need countless hours of testing to ensure that everything worked as planned.

One day, I suspect, Apple will have OS X rely more heavily on the open-source core; file copies in the Finder will employ the 'cp' and/or 'ditto' command-line tools; file compression will be supported at a high system level through the command-line; and the system will, essentially, be a proprietary GUI wrapper with some nifty, new, and convienient features, and a user-friendly look to ever rival Microsoft's.

Until that time, Apple can't rely entirely on the testing of the open-source community for other processors.

Anyway, this is good: we can stick it to the PC people: your games take six months to get to our platform; our OS, should we choose to release it for your platform, will do likewise! :-D

 

[BenRoethig]

I suspect that, if Tiger is to come to PC, it will not be at the same time as the Mac version. Even as Apple retains the ability to compile for x86, and even supposing that Tiger is portable enough to compile quickly on non-PPC, Apple would need countless hours of testing to ensure that everything worked as planned.

One day, I suspect, Apple will have OS X rely more heavily on the open-source core; file copies in the Finder will employ the 'cp' and/or 'ditto' command-line tools; file compression will be supported at a high system level through the command-line; and the system will, essentially, be a proprietary GUI wrapper with some nifty, new, and convienient features, and a user-friendly look to ever rival Microsoft's.

Until that time, Apple can't rely entirely on the testing of the open-source community for other processors.

Anyway, this is good: we can stick it to the PC people: your games take six months to get to our platform; our OS, should we choose to release it for your platform, will do likewise! :-D

A lot of that six months is dealing with big edian-little edian stuff. If OSX and Windows used the same type of processor, game ports would be a lot easier and probably about equal on speed.

 

[FYA]

OS X on PC !!!

This idea makes my stomach turn !!!

People who think this is a good idea should have their head examined !!!

Stop thinking cheap and stupid !!!

I want Apple to stay exactly where it is, not much use writing a virus that will might only affect 5% of the computer users in the world.

I use OS X because it's a great system and a joy!!!

but also I like the idea that it's not something that is widely used. I like to be part of the minority.

If you want to use an OS that the masses use then sell your Mac and buy a PC!!!

Don't think cheap... think different!!!

 

[Underbelly]

What?

That's the craziest post I think I've ever read? Never once does it say why it a bad idea except he likes being in the minority. It a "I want it and you can't have it" Weird!

I've been a Mac user since the late 80's. I've got every Mac i've ever owned. About 12 of them. I never plan on using any but a Mac. And I used it because it is a tool that does what I need it to do. I don't care if everyone uses it of just me. I'm not so selfish. Apple is, after all, just another company that is out to make its stockholders a profit.

But there a lot of people who don't need a mac. About 10 years ago my brother went to buy his first computer. I knew he only needed it for email, the web and some games. A PC was fine for him. He's happy with it and only payed about $800 for the whole system rather then $2000-$3000 for a mac. I think he'd rather have the Mac OS but it's not worth the extra cost.

Remember Apple owners. You are paying way to much for you computer. The cost of making a Mac and a PC are very close. What you are paying for is the development of future computers and ipods. One reason PC's are so inexpensive there is very little development costs. PCers always have the last laugh because we, the Mac users, pay for new features and they get them for a third of the price. (granted, mac's are always a step or two ahead). Up until a few years ago, PC's were only a bit behind. Now they are falling farther and farther behind.

This whole "Us against Them" thing is just worthless. They are both just tools as as long as they do what you need them to do, that's wonderful.

But I really don't think Mac would ever do it. That would take a whole change in the company, from a Hardware to a Software company. Mac makes software to sell computers and computer sales would probably sink if they ever did that.

And so the bottom line is: I give you a real reason why I am against it. Apple as a software company would slow down or stop the development of computer technology since they would be making software for other computer and not there own. It has nothing to do with childlike selfishness.

 

[BenRoethig]

If anything makes my stomach turn, its elitism.

 

[FYA]

Tough !

Elitist... Damn sure I am.

There are many reasons that would make OS X on Pcs a bad idea.

Do I want to start a dialog about it? No.

 

[Panu]

OS X on x86 is possible

It is entirely possible for Apple to release OS X for x86 CPUs. OS X is based on UNIX, as is Linux, but they use different kernels. If Linux can be implemented on x86, so can OS X. OS X already supports nearly all the same protocols and standards that Windows does, and the more important OS X applications have the same file formats in both operating systems.

So the real question is not whether it can be done but whether Apple has a motivation to do it.

Right now, Apple sells a package that includes both the operating system and the hardware it runs on. That means that their developers can produce a more stable, more reliable product more easily, because the hardware enviroment is limited and known. They can actually test on all possible hardware configurations.

As soon as they support x86, they would have the same problem with OS X that Microsoft has with Windows--they would have to support all possible combinations of all hardware. It wouldn't be possible for them to test all possible hardware configurations. After the operating system is released, someone somewhere would have a reasonable but unanticipated hardware configuration on which it wouldn't work well, or a manufacturer would introduce an attractive peripheral that Apple has to scramble to support. That would give Apple's OS X developers a lot of agony and it would impair Apple's corporate image.

Implementing OS X on x86 could shrink Apple's market share, because even if OS X is superior to Windows, it would no longer appear that way, and because of that perception, people wouldn't see the point of OS X.

Implementing OS X on x86 also causes Apple another problem: piracy. Right now, since the operating system is tied to proprietary hardware, that isn't much of a problem, but as soon as OS X is unbundled from the hardware, the problem will reach epic proportions. Not only would the market share shrink, the portion of it that actually pays for the product would be even smaller.

So I think Apple will not implement OS X on x86

 

[nucFlash]

Removed by me.

 

[steviemix]

tHe FuTurE iS noW...

Darwin runs on X86 (without emulation?)
BSD runs on X86
iTunes runs on (OMG) Windows
Quicktime runs on the same
Both systems use the same memory, display, hard disk, USB, Firewire, network, etc. technologies. (the only difference is MB and Audio as far as I know)
Drivers for many PeeCee hardwares are written by the developers, not M$.

Somebody needs to sell a better OS for X86, why not Apple?

Linux is a good start, but OSX is light years ahead.

Maybe Steverino (is that like Steve and Cupertino) is just too scared?

 

[natarix]

The More I read on This Forum Makes sense why Apple will Never Enable OSX to run on a intel or AMD based PC.

Has any one out there got any good websites for Apple Mac Mini info & upgrades etc.

 

[36183]

this is purely fiction, firstly this software claims to be able to port software form one say powerpc to x86 hardware, but i think all optimization will be manual. if such a thing ever happened all pc users will just pirate the operating system anyway meaning no profit for apple mac sales will go down apples share holders will be pissed.

beyond shareholders being pissed, there is the important issues that x86 mac os x will not be able to run powerpc mac os x software.

so such a effort to port mac os x to x86 would not only be stupid but also
pointless.

 

[36183]

The More I read on This Forum Makes sense why Apple will Never Enable OSX to run on a intel or AMD based PC.

Has any one out there got any good websites for Apple Mac Mini info & upgrades etc.

there is http://www.byodkm.net for mac mini related stuff. but most info you can find on this site.

 

[~loserman~]

this is purely fiction, firstly this software claims to be able to port software form one say powerpc to x86 hardware, but i think all optimization will be manual. if such a thing ever happened all pc users will just pirate the operating system anyway meaning no profit for apple mac sales will go down apples share holders will be pissed.

beyond shareholders being pissed, there is the important issues that x86 mac os x will not be able to run powerpc mac os x software.

so such a effort to port mac os x to x86 would not only be stupid but also
pointless.

A little short sighted.
It doesn't matter if end users pirate your stuff that much. The real money is in Corporations. Companies stay fairly legal in their software aquisitions because the penalties are so high.
That's where the real money is made selling software anyway.

 

[rainman::|:|]

i'd say PC users will certainly buy (or pirate, i guess) OS X for x86... But it will probably cut the switcher rate in half, because people won't have the incentive to buy the hardware! I know it's been said but it's the truth. So would Apple really make enough money off of the software, which would be freely floating around every P2P network in like 3 hours, to justify cutting into the switcher margin? That's not even counting Mac hardware users who might switch to x86 hardware because they were just too broke to afford a PowerMac... There's just no way to make it a good move, financially, for Apple.