[Dr.G.]

Please don't shoot the messanger. I am just posting the website that discusses this issue.
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/smartstuff/computing/1341
My wife is visiting her brother in Sydney, Australia and saw this article in Smart House Magazine online,

 

[jfpoole]

MacRumors commented on the rumour here. It sounds like it's a false rumour (and one that just won't die).

 

[Dr.G.]

jfp, I don't frequent the mac rumor sites, so I never saw it other than in this online magazine, which seems to be a fairly reputable audiophile-oriented magazine. I am more curious as to what the MacMavens of ehMacLand feel the implications might be in such a decision on the part of Apple.

 

[Chealion]

I posted my thoughts in the MacRumors thread. With the new G5, this is utter hogwash. However Marklar in my opinion is always there as a backup and also to aid in the debugging process for more stable applications.

 

[Gerbill]

It's an absurd idea that has just enough basis in fact to keep it cropping up every six months or so.

I think that the reasons for the continuing life in this rumour are twofold.

First, your average PC doofus is uncomfortable with the idea of a computer that doesn't use the same architecture as his pathetic beige box. He can handle the idea of a non-Windoze OS, but it has to run on Intel or AMD to stay within his psychological comfort zone.

Second, I think that the slightly more knowledgeable PC type who runs a case modded anodized purple PC with a window in the side and sparkly doodads secretly dreams of being able to run OS X on his pride and joy. But he can't quite bend his tiny mind around the idea that running OS X requires buying a whole different kind of computer that won't run his favorite games, and owes nothing to Bill Gates.

So, that's my explanation for the continuing popularity of the rumour - it's a wish fulfillment fantasy for the various layers of PC doofuses.

Cheers :-> Bill

 

[MacGenius]

Quite a bit of this kind of talk last year before we knew anything about Apple's plan for the G5.

Back then the rumous were flying around because of the lack of significant developments with the G4 compared to the P4 and such. It reminded me of the 1995 1996 days when Apple was in a world of hurt.

Now that Apple co-developed the G5 with IBM and is most likely going to switch over to this chip and its decendants in time we can put the Motorola relationship to bed and forget about it in earnest.

Don't get me wrong, the G4 was a good chip, 3 years ago, (2 of them together ain't so bad either) but its pretty aparent the G5 is what we should have had 2 years ago.

Anyhow, IBM has the clout and the engineering to make this new chip go places (remember there is a 980 chip coming along next year) and we're along fo the ride while Intel figures out what to do for 64-bit on the desktop. AMD has got a good thing with the Opteron, we need to compete against that now.

 

[mycatsnameis]

Well when Steve was asked directly about this last year (re: the Apple AMD rumours and before there was any inkling about the G5), he commented (vaguely) that with OS X, Apple has "options" and "we like to have options".

I think that the rumour mill has been clear that there has definitely been continued (in-house, at a very crude level) development of a build of Darwin that runs on Intel iron. This has always been interpreted as a last resort hedge to guard against the complete demise of the PPC architecture.

Now that the G5 is not only announced but shipping and kicking @ss, this rumour makes no sense.

I can't imagine how this guy has such difinitive info where none of the other more established rumour sites are running anything similar (mind you who would've guessed that a French rumour site would have all the inside dirt on the G5?).

 

[(( p g ))]

Absurd indeed. I'm surprised that macrumors even bothered to post it.

 

[Chealion]

mcni - You can get Darwin 7 (the one found in Panther) to run on an x86 right now. Its available for download from Apple too. Darwin is Open Source, and is available for both Mac and PC, but the actual Aqua interface, and the non Unix part of Mac OS X is what is not available for x86 (Officially). Anyone remember Star Trek?

 

[jo42]

Only problem with OpenDarwin on x86 is that it runs on mebbe one or two Intel chipset motherboards...

 

[used to be jwoodget]

The problem that all of these recurring rumours skip over is that if Apple was ever to go to Intel iron, it would be via using ASICs that only Apple produced. You still wouldn't be able to run OS X on a Dell (perish the thought). This is because Apple simply can't afford to compete with Intel mobo shops and lose its hardware profit. Not to mention the nightmare of configuration testing and hard/software integration.

Indeed, Apple seems more likely to do an Infiniti/Lexus brand segregation to spin off a division that is focussed on enterprise. G5 X-serves would be the entry model moving up to 16 X cluster nodes. There's very little market cross-over and lots of upward potential... and it solves the problem of sysadmins breaking into a sweat when they hear "Apple....."

 

[Kosh]

This rumor just won't die.

I think Gerbill, Mycatsnameis, and possibly used to be jwoodget, have summed up my points on this subject. While Apple may have a version of OS X running on Intel in their R&D lab, it'll never see the light of day.

 

[jfpoole]

Getting OpenDarwin to work on x86 hardware is an interesting exercise. If you look at the supported hardware, it seems as if Apple wrote Darwin to run on one particular desktop system and one particular laptop system and that's about it. As one of my friends put it, "If you don't have Bob's laptop or desktop, I guess you're out of luck".