You got some of it right :)
MacOS X is not based on Linux. It is based on UNIX and the Mach 5 Kernal..
It uses the Mach 5 Kernal developed at Carnagie Mellon University. The
designer of the Mach Kernal, Avie Tevanian, just so happens to be Apple's
Chief Software Architect. That sure worked out well :)
Think of Avie as Linus Torvlalds. They both created the UNIX kernal that
MacOS X (Mach) and Linux (Linux) run on.
On top of that is BSD Unix 4.3.
On top of that is the MacOS X Interface.
Yes, it can be compred to Linux, as it's design is familiar, it just uses
different Kernals and Windowing systems.
Of course, the stability of both is superb. There is, however, no Windowing
Interface for Unix that can touch MacOS X for useability. That's why Apple
has succedded in getting Unix on the home-user desktop where others have
failed (so far).
Now, as for porting to X86. Is it possible? Not only possible, but likely
very easy to do.
MacOS X is based on what was originally the NextStep/OpenStep Operating
System that Steve Jobs developed for Next in the mid-80's after Apple
shit-canned him. It began life, as a matter of fact, as an x86 operating
system.
The original versions of MacOS X Server (called Rhapsody at the time - This
was before the MacOS X naming convention was initiated) was available in
both PowerPC and x86 flavors. I still have both of them around here
somewhere because I was a registered (but not paticularly active) developer
at the time.
Apple discontinued all x86 Rhapsody development at some point, and
concentrated on the PowerPC/Mac platform.
Which brings us to where we are today. MacOS X, as we know it today, has
very little resemblance to Rhapsody. Some of the concepts are the same, but
where Rhapsody mostly retained the NextStep/OpenStep interface (which wasn't
bad in itself), MacOS X uses what we see as a combination of the old MacOS
Classic Interface and new stuff/idea's/technologies. Most of it is great.
A very little bit of it bugs people. Such is life :)
So, yes. It is technically feasible. Politically, however, it is not.
Apple gets 85% of it's revenue from hardware sales, and at least at this
point they are not going to take a chance on messing that up. Look at what
the first thing Jobs did when he took over in 1996. He discontinued the
cloning program that had just barely gotten off the ground a year or so
before!
Do _I_ want to see MacOS X on x86? You damned right I do.
What I'm about to say now is also politically incorrect if you are speaking
amongst Die-Hard Mac Users, especially the more, um, 'verbal' one's. You
know, the one's that treasure the stupid 'Switch' commercials :)
IMHO (and many others), Motorola is NOT pulling thier weight in regards to
the PowerPC. Development is just too damned slow. We are just now getting
up to 1.25Ghz G4's. Now, the level-headed Mac Users amongst us, of which I
hope I'm considered one, never have bought into the "PPC kicks Intels Ass
and is 6 times faster at a given clock speed" horseshit. Is it faster?
Absolutely. Is it 6 times faster? No way. I won't put a number on it
because I'd be guessing or lying like those who say it's 6 times faster.
All the benchmarks that everyone throws around are useless because the tests
are massaged by one side or the other to make theirs look better. Both
sides are guilty of this IMHO. But the PPC IS faster at a given clockspeed
than the x86 family. That's just the way RISC is.
With that in mind, SOMETHING has to be done. There are some holding hope
that IBM will release a G5 processor, with Altivec (think MMX/SSE)
compatible instructions. They have to use a 'compatible' set because
Motorola owns Altivec exclusively and apparantly won't share it with IBM.
This would allow Apple to continue on the PowerPC road. It would, of
course, be the easiest road to travel.
Unfortunately, I don't buy unto all this G5 stuff. I think Motorola has
enough on their plate, especially in this dreadful economy we have, to be
involved in this at the level that Apple NEEDS.
I do hope I'm wrong about that. But, I'm certainly not the only one that
feels this way.
Now for the tricky part, and the part where you have to duck if you are in
strict Apple Quarters :)
First, Apple WILL survive. It does just fine on it's current marketshare,
and has 25 million (and slowly growing, actually) users. They make a fine
product that is fast, reliable and satisfies the needs of certain user
groups, especially home users, content creators, and certain
business/scientific segments. Personally, I think Education is a lost cause
for them. Microsoft has forced their nose into this in some interesting
(read that as you will) ways. I think Apple will always maintain a 20-25%
of the Education Market, but never get back to the 60-70% share they used to
have unless something truly spectacular happens.
It doesn't help to have billions in the bank and zero long-term debt :)
I firmly believe that MacOS X (and not stupid 'switch' commercials) will
build Apple's Market Share slowly but surely.
BUT...
If Apple is to grow, and I mean seriously grow, they HAVE to do something
about this processor (some real, some perceived) problem, and I personally
think their salvation is...
AMD.
This is about the time the shit hits the fan in this conversation :)
Too many people think this is just impossible. I know damned well it isn't
because MacOS X's roots are based on a Kernal/OS/Layer that was, originally,
x86 based. AMD is excellent at creating both processors and, more
importantly, the chipsets to drive them.
Some people say the developers would never go for it because they would have
to re-write all thier software. These people forget that Apple has done
this BEFORE, when they switched from the 680x0 processor family to the PPC
processor family. If anyone could pull this off, it would be Apple. Apple
is also very talented at gluing seemingly incompatible platforms together
and ending up with a pretty much seemless package.
Would developers have to, at a minimum, re-compile thier apps? Of course.
But I've read some articles on this that would indicate it's not as hard as
the die-hards make it out to be. Since some of these people were coders,
I'll take their word for that.
Others say that if Apple were to do this, it would put them in direct
competition with Microsoft and that would kill them instantly. Again, I say
horseshit. Just because Apple is using x86 processors does not mean they
are going to let EVERYONE use it. No, I do believe Apple would continue to
make MacOS X an APPLE ONLY operating system. They simply cannot, at this
time, give up their hardware sales.
Finally, the question that everyone asks everyone these days. Does Apple
need Microsoft to survive? Personally, I don't think so. Office V.x is
excellent, and is arguably the best version of Office for any platform that
MS has ever shipped. They even think it's the best version they have ever
shipped. It can, however, be replaced by someone else.
I personally think the most compelling piece of software Microsoft has
shipped for the Mac in a long time is also the most unlikely. The most
excellent TS/RDC client they shipped at MacWorld in August. For free. This
one little piece of software gave Mac OS X users full access and use of
nearly every personal and business software package MS has ever written.
Damn, I don't know how I got so deep into this so me go now :)
-Larry
> Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple not
> because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :)
> WPA has gotten me numerous times also. I finally just did a base install,
> created an image and I'm now done with WPA. Supposedly WPA uses the
vendor
> ID's of key hardware and should only prompt for WPA when you change 5 ID's
> in any re-install. Reality is quite different though.
> Those ad's are really annoying arent they? Gee I'm too dum to use a PC,
so
> I use an Apple... Gimme a break Steve...
> Mitch
> "Larry" <n...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:Mstb9.25270$Or1.1451252@news2.east.cox.net...
> > Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4.
> > I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes
about
> > the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance
> > improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, that
is).
> > MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't
> > experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the
> current
> > stupid 'switch' Ad campaign).
> > Anyway, back to MS.
> > WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If
your
> > legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass to
> > THIS legal user.
> > Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes
made.
> > I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call
> > Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system.
> That
> > just burns me up.
> > One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and the
> stupid
> > activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original
> > installation and activation.
> > And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded the
> Video
> > card. It's not supposed to do that either.
> > Bastards.
> > -Larry
> > "The Man With No Name" <no@email_sorry.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:6lummuo2fl7ij4dnsd1jpq1i8n9c9mh11h@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <n...@none.com> wrote:
> > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible
> than
> > XP.
> > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs
read more »