more apple on intel guff.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave -, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. I just had a read of this.

    Which aside from being a kinda interesting read, the comments further
    down are very interesting.

    From ~1/3 down the page I found this.
    what I've had to beat out of everybody and their neighbor was that to
    run Windows .exe you would still need either a DOS-like partition with
    Windows, or run something Wine-like in OS X. I've got sources (not
    probly as cool as yours) that are implying that we could actually see
    some sort of Classic for Windows thing so you can make a gentle
    transition. not an expert on Wine or X-Windows, I don't know how well
    that would work...but now it's entirely feasible.

    Posted by: MacStansbury | June 9, 2005 09:25 PM

    Yeah. They're calling it "Redbox," from what I've been told. It's
    designed to be a full virtual machine. A Mac OS X application emulates
    the boot PROM (BIOS, whatever you want to call it) and allocates memory,
    then executes the Windows XP loader program and fires off Windows inside
    its own address space.

    Will it ever ship? Nobody knows. At least nobody that's talking.

    Posted by: Jeff Harrell | June 9, 2005 09:29 PM

    A friend and I discussed this at length, and we both came to the same
    conclusion. Follow the train of thought here:

    1) If Apple configures OS/X so that it can run native on an Intel chip;
    2) And if OS/X contains a Rosetta-Stone like program that enables 32-bit
    Windows apps to run (similar to what Sun is doing with Solaris 10 and
    Linux apps);
    3) And if OS/X continues down the open-source path with their UNIX support;


    Apple could do something never done before: Create an OS that can run
    nearly all PC software applications.

    Would corporations pay, say, 30% more for the hardware that could run
    all this stuff? Probably. Having a Swiss Army Desktop on everyone's desk
    would be a dream for many companies.

    Now, I don't think this is what Apple is intending to do with OS/X. But
    I can dream, can't I?

    Posted by: pianoman | June 10, 2005 12:51 AM

    And from a bit further down.

    Blame Intel for having a vast and confusing product line. There are
    32-bit versions of the Pentium family of microchips, and there are
    versions that include the EMT64 instruction set for 64-bit addressing.
    According to my sources, one of which is a high-level Apple executive
    who was happy to speak to me on not-for-attribution terms, the chips in
    the developer machines are specifically called "Pentium 4 660" chips,
    and they include EMT64 extensions for 64-bit addressing. Also, the Intel
    version of Mac OS X includes a 64-bit libSystem, which means it can be
    used to port existing 64-bit PowerPC applications and to develop new ones.

    Porting 64-bit applications from PowerPC to Intel is utterly trivial;
    you just put the compiler in 64-bit mode and you end up with 64-bit
    pointers. Piece of cake.

    It's safe to assume that Apple's Power Mac and Xserve products will have
    64-bit-capable CPUs in them, while their iMacs and Mac minis and laptops
    probably won't. In other words, no practical change from the existing
    product line.

    Well, I find them interesting atleast.

    -- <- My personal site. <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
    Dave -, Jun 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rich
  2. Rich
  3. Shane

    perl guff :-)

    Shane, Aug 11, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Aug 13, 2005
  4. GraB

    Apple sues Apple over iPod

    GraB, Mar 29, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Mar 29, 2006
  5. Rich
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011