I’m wondering if anyone has had a chance to compile a Intel Binary and tried to execute it on a Darwin installation running on a generic PC platform?

This seems like a logical step. Darwin is OS-X ported to PC’s it would make sense that the binaries would work. The only question is rather, does Darwin have all the API’s necessary to operate the Interfaces?

I have been reading all of the pro’s and con’s for this CPU change, and I smell a ulterior motive.

A) The Pentium CPU is nearly at it’s end of life. Hence the Itatium story.
B) The Pentium 4 is maxing out at sub 4Ghz
C) The Pentium 4 is very hot.

The Pentium M is would make a better choice. But a better question is this, is the Pentium D (double) a dual core Pentium 4 or Pentium M?

So the future is Yonah? Some at the presentation were calling it a Xeon?

Is the future dual core and quad core? Are we going wide instead of fast?

Seems like a mixed future. I can only believe Apple is in possession of more interesting information than is currently available to the rest of us. Leading me to believe that there are unspoken words here, like DRM. The Hollywood connection. Lots of good conspiracy here in these unspoken words.

Another note, some of the ‘Experts’ have been claiming that there are serious Kernel problems porting over to Intel. What are they thinking, they saw a demo on stage of a Pentium 4 (so they say) that means the kernel has been ported. And what the heck, Darwin IS the kernel and it’s been on Intel, in parallel for ages.

Just a speculation, I have always been grateful that my old iBook G3 has gotten faster with each release of OS-X. And I could hardly expect this as the G3 does not have Altivec in it. Could it be, that Apple has been pulling Altivec code out of the kernel all along in anticipation of this change? This would make a lot of sense.

All the talk about Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips had be thinking one of the worlds greatest CPU’s was the Alpha. This chip was created by DEC and landed in Intel’s hands. And while Intel still produces it, I don’t think anyone uses it. It still contains revolutionary technology. The hyper threading in the Pentium 4 is a derived from the Alpha. But the amazing thing is that that the Alpha is micro encoded, and can emulate ANY instruction set. At DEC it was developed to emulate the aging VAX CPU. And guess what, it could emulate the PPC instruction set of the PowerPC, without requiring a PowerPC template or a license. Interesting thought, looking forward to Monday’s announcement.

This story on CNN Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips is burning up the wires Mac wise, and there is a ton of commentary pro and con, positive and negative. I won’t hazard a guess. The news coming the day before the Apple developers conference can only fuel this discussion. Let me inject my two bits worth.

Using Intel does not mean that the OS-X and the entire Mac line will switch to the Pentium CPU from Intel. Intel makes a lot of good CPU’s that are NOT x86 architecture. ARM, Alpha, xScale all come to mind. The truth be told there are intel chips are already in Apple Mac’s as controllers and what not.

What would make more sense is if Apple contracted Intel to produce PowerPC chips for the next generation of Mac’s. This makes more since for both as Intel has been cut off from the next generation of game consoles producing a competing PowerPC chip would be good for them. The amount of money to be make from Intel selling CPU’s to Apple, will pale in comparison to the game console market it could be buying into.

And for Apple, it could get the speed increase, power reduction, and those architectural enhancements that it has be unable to get IBM to provide in the current PowerPC line.

Win = Win or rather Mac = Mac

One more note: How about OS-X on the new Intel motherboard with firewire? How would that affect Longhorn?