Azat Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 I was just thinking. Do you guys know why the Mac cannot run on the Intel or AMD chip? They are still running on something like a 833 or 933 Mhz Motorola chip. The reason why I ask is because I know that new Mac OS X is built on FreeBSD and I do run FreeBSD on my old Pentium PC so why can't Mac OS X run on Intel? The reason why I wonder and ask is because I think that it will make Mac much more cheaper and more people will use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 MAC has always had this RISC processing philosophy. I don't know how much you know about RISC and CISC so I won't go too much into it. RISC basically stands for "reduced instruction set computing" (I think) while CISC stands for "complex instruction set computing". The entire architecture for each system is very different. There have been HUGE debates on this topic in computer science (system architecture and compiler) circles ... much deeper than simple "mac" vs. "PC" debates Sun Sparc chips for example I believe follow risc philosophies so it's not "MAC" alone. Anyway, the point is, with RISC, the basic architecture underlying the system is very different than with CISC (i.e. intel x86). So, even though on the front end they use "free BSD" or a unix flavor, I am sure the back end and the kernel is entirely optimized for their MAC processors ... ala PowerPC, etc. By the way, that is why simply analyzing a system based on "Mhz" numbers is very inaccurate. Mhz doesn't mean much since a superscalar RISC processor can execute multiple instructions per cycle. On the same note, a single CISC instruction may do what RISC would require 100 instructions to do!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 By the way, in my mind the battle has been won convincingly by intel with CISC! RISC is a conceptually simpler design and therefor could be optimized a lot. They were traditionally much more high performance than their counterpart CISC chips. But intel put all other chips to shame basically in the last decade or so. No one talks of an Alpha, PowerPC, or Sparc processor anymore. The trend setter and the chip which is pushing the envelope in general purpose computing is intel and x86 for now. New ones are on the way but somehow keep getting delayed ... like this Merced or the IA64 ... and AMD has a few new designs in the pipeline. But clearly, x86 is the dominant winner in the personal computing domain for now ... doesn't mean it's superior though ... as you know, a lot of other factors play into it. Why did Sony's betamax die? It was clearly a better technology than VHS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted February 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Well, I know and understand all that. But the curve ball came from the standpoint of the FreeBSD that OS X is built on. FreeBSD has no problem running on CISC or RISC processors. So why can't OS X be tweaked to run on a CISC based chip? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Let me tell you what I believe has been the major "success" factor for mac... they claim all these reliability things and how they are so superior to PCs ... Well of course they are because they have such tight control over their hardware. You and I both know their "OS" and software is nothing too amazing. The reason they can be so predictable in reliability is because their hardware platform is so well defined and constrained. Now you port MAC OS onto a PC with all the hosh-posh of different addon third-party peripherals, bus and memory architectures, video subsystems, multimedia stuff, it is totally obvious to me that MAC OS will just be yet another OS and nothing too amazing. So I personally don't see any value in porting MAC OS to x86. What do you think may be advantages of having Mac OS X? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted February 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Sip jan, it actually adds no value to me whatsoever. However I think it gives a cheaper platform for the mac users and much faster Mac PCs for Vava and his friends. I just think it makes great financial sense for Apple to produce the the OS and some of the hardware but to open up for third party hardwares to run their OS. I just think there will be millions of extra sales of their OS. OS X is actually pretty cool(not the GUI part). You have all the programming tools that you get with Linux/BSD as part of the OS, and it has a good GUI on top of it. I would not mind spending $100 getting a copy to install on my old PC for testing websites, but would never spend $1000+ for the cheapest iMacs that they have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Hi guy's Azat, there is projects to write MacOS X for the X86 PC's, the project is called Marklar(sound like a Turkish word to me ), and eventualy this project will come to light because of the problem we have with Motorala, and that after IBM Power4, there is no alternatives left on long term for the platforms. I predict that the MAC platform will unfortunitaly just die, and APPLE will work only on softwares and laptops based on IBM Power chips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Domino, I think Marklar is from South Park (not sure if you know what it is). Sounds like a typical word that a true geek would use!!! There was this eposide where they went to some alien planet (planet Marklar I believe) and the aliens there used Marklar to refer to EVERYTHING. It's one of the funniest South Park esposides ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 HEY! Domino's back! Nice to see your around! I hope you're doing well... quote:Originally posted by Azat:...However I think it gives a cheaper platform for the mac users and much faster Mac PCs for Vava and his friends.Yes, yes! We want cheaper! We want Faster! Let's elect Azat for President!! (I think the world would be a better place) BTW, I hear a lot about FreeBSD - it seems to be gaining popularity, non? But honestly, I have never had the time to do any research/exploration whatsoever. At the RISC of sounding lazy, can anyone give me a brief rundown? Is it worth it for me to spend the time to set-up/configure/ and otherwise learn the basics of this OS? Is it similar to Linux? What are the most significant benefits/drawbacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted February 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Domino Domino Domino Domino!!!I know there would be a way to bring you back here. After this if you disappear again, I am just going to post a Mac question and voila(sp?)Good to see you here. I prefer FreeBDS to Linux anyday. FreeBSD is a much more solid OS than Linux is. I know IBM Linux and some of the name brands are suppose to be very good, but in general the BSD kernel that FreeBSD is based on is better. They have MUCH in common. You can download any of the shells available on one on to the other as well. FreeBSD has much better performance and much better security than Linux. Because there are now so many versions of Linux, applications compiled on one may not work on another.(very common between IBM and Redhat). And last FreeBSD is real Unix while Linux is a Unix like OS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted February 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Couple of more things: The FileSystem on BDS is superior(UFS vs ext2) and applications compiled on linus or SCO will run on FreeBSD most of the time while nothing compiled on any other OS will ever run on Linux. Guess what OS Yahoo uses on their servers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Azat, why don't you ask MosJan a Mac for the next Christmass gift ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Azat jan MAC es uzzum ??var@ ary mi hat unem dzerq@ krakn em @enkel MOvses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted August 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2003 http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted August 24, 2003 Report Share Posted August 24, 2003 el MAC'i anun chtaq !!! 1 amis kytanq@s kerav et aylandak@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.