Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

OS X Rumor

Discussion in 'Mac' started by powerhouse, Jun 28, 2001.

  1. powerhouse

    powerhouse Peasant

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    I heard a rumor that Apple was going to port OS X to Wintel Machines? Is there any truth to that to the best of your knowledge?
     
  2. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,758
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
  3. powerhouse

    powerhouse Peasant

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Hmm, I can't say I blame Apple for their decision. Maybe for the Itanium?
     
  4. Sparhawk

    Sparhawk Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    3
    Market Rating:
    0
    I think it's a non-starter. Apple's a hardware company. A good way for them to die is to completely place their reliance of survival in a place where their main competitor would like nothing better than to chop them into little pieces and poop on them.
     
  5. 0111000001100100

    0111000001100100 Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    no idea

    I have no idea, but i just wanted to say nice icon powerhouse!
     
  6. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    If you read that link it says that OS X can't be ported over since x86 processors are too inefficient, and unstable.

    --Haite
     
  7. XWRed1

    XWRed1 Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Darwin is already ported to x86, although only has drivers for 440BX chipsets.

    x86 processors are perfectly stable, and even if they may be less efficient clock-for-clock against a G4, that extra 1000Mhz they have over Macs (in the P4s case) would help overcome that.

    The only issue is that Apple needs to port all the other stuff that sits on top of Darwin. The only complication I see with that, other than politics and marketing, is how reliant that stuff may be on Altivec.

    But really, there isn't any point for Apple porting unless they want to strictly grow the user base of OSX. Use of bundles would make the simultaneous distribution of x86 and PPC binaries rather simple.
     
  8. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,758
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    :stupid:
     
  9. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    The P4 has the same floating point unit as my hamster (to put it bluntly :D).

    --Haite
     
  10. XWRed1

    XWRed1 Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    You must have a really special hamster then.

    But, if you don't like the P4, then I can use an Athlon 1.4 for comparison instead. Thats only got 533mhz over Apple's best.
     
  11. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,758
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    my uninformed, unsubstantiated, unsupported, completely subjective take on the matter is that P4s SUCK!!! =p

    Contrary to what Apple says, MHz does equal speed in many cases. Sure there are many other factors that contribute to speed. It all depends on the type of computing you are doing.
     
  12. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Ummm, there's a little more to processor architecture then just the FPU and how many cycles it takes to finish one calculation. The P4's FPU (singular, the G4 has two FPUs, dunno about the T-Bird/Athlon) is an old design, is very inefficient, and is easily beaten by the afore mentioned Athlon in arithmetic benchmarks. The P4's barrel shifter is also plain rubbish, it takes like 5 cycles to shift one number. It'd be more fair on the PC's behalf if you used the Athlon over the P4, but at any rate it still can't compete. Now to give us a rough idea, for example: say Apple's G4 takes 3 clock cycles to add two 5-digit numbers, and given the fastest singular G4 processor available on the market is the 867 MHz, this equates to roughly 289 million of these additions per second. Now take the 1.4 GHz Athlon, and we'll say that it only takes two extra clock cycles to do the same, 5 cycles, which equates to 280 million equations per second. I don't know the exact specs, but from several articles I've read the gap in numbers of cycles to execute certain formulae is even wider.

    --Haite
     
  13. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Amen to that. I've referenced this article several times before, and I'm starting to sound like Apple being so repetitive, but I'll direct one unenlightened individual to it one last time: http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm . Head there Red1, and believe me when I say I respect AMD, but Intel is just moronic.

    --Haite
     
  14. powerhouse

    powerhouse Peasant

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Re: no idea

    Are you a NiN fan?
     
  15. XWRed1

    XWRed1 Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well, I skimmed that article around the time the P4 came out, and watched it get ripped apart by processor engineers and asm experts in the Ars Technica forums, mostly for the author making mistakes.

    I'm not endorsing the P4, I just pulled it out of my ass because it had the most Mhz lead.

    Besides, doesn't Intel advertise the P4 as having a double floating point unit or something, so it ends up being effectively operating at double the core frequency on fp?

    Besides, it seems inappropriate for all this stuff to get dragged out from this comment:
     
  16. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    I wouldn't know how Intel advertises the P4 (aside from their... interesting... blue men commercials. I am pretty sure, however, that the P4 only has a single FPU. They also use an outdated integer arithmetic unit, and their "Netburst Microarchitecture" is a hyped up, extra fast pipeline (but with the crappy on-chip cache [16k of level 1?!] and other poor features [like the decoder, and barrel tumbler] it doesn't balance out).

    --Haite
     
  17. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Hey, isn't Elbereth an Intel Rep.? I'd be interested in his comments :).

    --Haite
     
  18. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    On a related note, the blue men group, ironically, use macs for their productions. No pcs. Just macs.
     
  19. XWRed1

    XWRed1 Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    I'm sure one of the questons that Intel asked the Blue Man Group when they were looking for someone to do their commercials was "Do you use our products?".
     
  20. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    Dude, Haite... is your hampster retarded or something... my goldfish has a BETTER 'Floating' point unit than a P4 :p ... also isn't it funny how P4 sounds like G4... hmmmmmm
     

Hitometer: 53,850,121 since 1995