Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Looking Back at MacOS on x86

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the as-science-fiction-as-teleporters-and-tricorders dept.

nutt writes "The MacSpeedZone's Apple Confidential column has a good Article which looks back at what happened to Apple's Star Trek project, (which was to "boldly go where no Mac had gone before." ... Intel hardware.) Its a very good read, and makes one wonder where Star Trek is now? The Article says the NDA's on the engineers was lifted in late 1997. It would be _very_ interesting if something like this could get out to the OSS. Note: Darwin currently compiles on Intel hardware."

3 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Chicken, McFly? by tooth · · Score: 5
    When Bill Gates heard of Apple's plan to put the Mac OS on an Intel machine, he responded by saying it would be "like putting lipstick on a chicken."

    Am I mistaken, or did Bill call Intel Chicken?

    the boy named Griff asked "What's matter, McFly? Chicken?"

  2. MacOS on Intel would have failed by maynard · · Score: 5
    And it's a damn shame, but the article alludes to why in this paragraph:
    Armed with the executive staff's approval, Mark Gonzales, the project marketing manager, made the rounds of PC clone vendors to gauge their interest in bundling Star Trek on their systems. Most were intrigued, but argued that they couldn't afford to pay much for it because their contracts for Windows 3.1 forced them to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every computer shipped, regardless of what operating system it contained. (This anti-competitive practice eventually landed Microsoft in trouble with the Department of Justice.)
    Apple didn't stand a chance on the Intel platform, and they knew it. Yes, it was anticompetetive behavior on Microsoft's part which was responsible. Yes, by all rights Apple should have had an opportunity to compete on a fair playing ground, just like Novell should have had their opportunity. And yes, Microsoft has yet to pay the piper for their past wrongdoing...

    MacOS was clearly superior to Windows 3.x. Hell, MacOS 7 was superior to Windows 95/98 in just about every way imaginable. That it was never ported and sold as a product may be a success and notch in Microsoft's belt, but it's one of the best examples of how Microsoft's (mis)behavior hurt consumers, and in so doing damaged the American economy. When your clueless office-mate asks you "how did Microsoft's practices hurt me?" you can point to the MacOS on Intel that never was and say "here's something you might have wanted that Microsoft made damn certain you couldn't get."

    And that's NOT a level playing field...
  3. Some reasons Apple won't release an Intel version by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 4

    As the article hints at, it would make no sense for Apple to release an Intel version of the MacOS, because all of the existing Mac software has been compiled for a PowerPC (or a Motorola 68K series). The Star Trek project mentioned in the article is source-compatible, not binary-compatible, so every software manufacturer would have to recompile all of their code for the x86, and some would have problems, and many just wouldn't bother. The biggest issue would not be with the major applications like Photoshop and Excel (I have no doubt Apple could talk Adobe and Microsoft into supporting any new type of MacOS they come out with) but the thousands of free, shareware, or small commercial applications that people wouldn't bother to recompile.

    When Apple switched from the 68K to the PowerPC a few years ago, not only was the PowerPC many times faster and able to emulate the 68K in real time, but it was the only significant change to the hardware, so many programs which accessed low-level MacOS hardware on the 68K still worked on the PowerPC. Also, Intel/PC hardware is too varied. Remember how long it's taken Linux to get support for all of the different PC hardware out there?