estadisticas web Skip to content

MacOs on Intel, other voices

logomacitynet1200wide 1

The word UNIX is an acronym that identifies an operating system as responding to certain technical characteristics. The DR3 version of MacOSX does not hide its UNIX nature. All UNIX systems have the operating system separated into at least three elements: KERNEL, SISTEMA and INTERPRETE DEI COMMANDI and possibly a graphical user interface: GUI. The Kernel is the only part of the whole system that actually communicates with the physical machine. All other parts communicate, if necessary, only with the kernel. In this strategy lies the strength of UNIX systems that mainly stability. The MacOSX based on the Mach kernel developed by Stanford University. The development program gave birth to many variants of the Mach kernel each compatible with certain architectures. In the Debina distribution of GNU Linux there are the Mach kernels for 680 × 0 architecture. The MkLinux and Linux PPC distributions, if I'm not mistaken, are both based on Mach (I think even of the same version 3 present in MacOSX). The operating system the BSD in the FREE version 4. The BSD a pure UNIX created and raised by Berkeley University . It exists in many variants, too, subdivided into both architecture and target. The FREE 4 version, the one chosen by Apple, has as its main limitation, compared to the ENTERPRISE version, support for only 2 processors. As the name says, the free BSD and OPEN SOURCE. The BSD exists for many platforms including the Mac both 680 × 0 and PPC. Personally I have seen a Mac IIci working with MacBSD for more than 2 years as a web server without a crash. In MacOSX DR3 there is a TSCH command interpreter. This element can make the blood of an affectionate and right Mac user freeze. In fact, a command line interpreter like the old MS-DOS or DR-DOS or like all unix and unix-like without a GUI that, although very powerful, is as far from what Apple has shown and appreciated so far .The AQUA theme is open-source and freely usable. The LINUX MANDRAKE distribution has this theme usable both in the GUI kde and in GNOME as a window-manager. So since the kernel, the system and the command interpreter are already available to the developer community for free what has Apple really done? .Apple has developed the video server that that component that integrates the technologies necessary for the management of the video. It does not seem to me that the code of the video-server is part of the darvin program, the fact remains that the port of an application that is already capable of running on Mach + BSD for motorola is very fast and painless. However, I do not believe that a simple recompilation of the sources is sufficient because the native MacOSX applications, as I hope is its video-server, must be written for the COCOA API which, if not er, usable only through the Objective C language, which cannot be recompiled on BSD by INTEL. (Lo instead on Next OPEN-STEP) A version of MacOSX for intel does not find for any strategic justification. Apple may even think of adopting INTEL (or more likely AMD) as a cpu provider for its machines, but it certainly has no interest in untying MacOS X from its hardware. Apple gets most of the profit from hardware sales, a migration to INTEL of its users would be fatal to it. The hardware based on cpu AMD or INTEL should fascinate an Apple user not so much for the cpu itself, but above all for the enormous choice of components that market has. A Pentium III @ 700MHz not much faster than a G4 @ 500MHz but a video card based on the Ge-Force256 chip even 10 times faster than the fastest ATI that Apple has ever adopted, and at the same price. Just to give an example. The only thought, however, that the support of any third party cards must, for architectural reasons, be integrated into the video server makes me shudder. In conclusion I see the MacOSX port on INTEL easy and feasible (Be port its BeOS, born on PPC-603, on INTEL after Apple denied the PPC-G3 specifications with a pool of 23 engineers, led by Jean Luiss Gase, former Apple manager, in 6 months), but admissible only from the point of view of an eventual "emergency" adoption of cpu INTEL or AMD by Apple for its machines. The rappoto with motorola in fact no longer seems idyllic and some recent fools (downgrade ed) must have convinced Apple of the danger inherent in a relationship of exclusive. At this moment, certainly not because INTEL can meet her since she can't even keep up with the demand in her market, moreover an agile and aggressive competitor like AMD (partner and participant motorola and IBM) has highlighted all the difficulties of movement of the giant. INTEL has not yet managed to solve the problems of its new chipsets and the new RAMBUS memories are still unobtainable, a factor that contributes not a little to curbing the abandonment of PC100 memories and 440xx chipsets. Behind the production agreement for the new Dresden factory between Motorola, IBM and AMD could be hidden something more substantial and dangerous for Apple. In fact, many houses of the caliber of Compaq, HP and Dell have already introduced AMD cpu product lines, rapidly increasing AMD's market share. Market that for Motorola could prove more appetizing than Apple's share in PPC. The return of Steve Jobs to Apple seemed to me since his debut, when in person he announced the purchase of 7% of Apple by Microsoft (which turned out to be a excellent investment … Bill Gates flair …), more geared to profit than philosophy. All subsequent choices confirmed this orientation. So I don't think it will be the technical reasons to slow down the MacOSX port on INTEL, but the choice will be made only in terms of useful, as befits a healthy company, and it does not seem to me that from this port it can be very useful for Apple.