OSX-x86? OSX-x86-64?
Kenneth Hunt ponders if Apple will go x86. While this is an incredibly cool idea (I’d love to run OSX on an x86 box), it probably won’t happen in the short term. I say this because developers are still cursing Apple for the abrupt (and possibly premature) switch to OSX. I believe that the OSX Public Beta should have been an internal alpha, OSX 10.0 should have been the public beta, and that OSX 10.0.1 should have been the final product. I know that doesn’t mesh with Steve Jobs’ vision of getting OSX out there, but OSX 10.0 was dog slow and didn’t do a lot of things that users expected it to.
Things got a little better with OSX10.1. A lot of developers that were waiting for a stable development platform that they could actually use started coding at this point. How long did it take Adobe to get Photoshop ported to OSX? Just about forever.
Now, imagine taking those pissed-off developers, and saying in six months to a year, “Um, yeah, we need you to port all of your apps over to OSX-x86.” I doubt it would go over very well. Unless you ran native Windows apps, but that would be insane.
The other reason I don’t see Apple going x86 is the hardware. X86 hardware is commodity. You can put together a fairly decent system for a couple hundred bucks. This doesn’t quite mesh with Apple’s overpriced (but cool as hell) hardware. If you look at a $700 dell and a $1500 x86 Macintosh, the specs are nearly the same, which one are you going to pick now?
The other thing that bothers me is IBM’s recent PowerPC innovations. They appear to have pumped out some pretty powerful chips, with a good bit of MHz and a lot of raw horsepower. Why not throw those in a Macintosh?
I’m not as caught up with all the mac rumor sites as I’d like to be (it was more fun when I worked in a Mac shop), but I have a gut feeling that Apple will stick with PowerPC, at least in the short to mid term. Though, like Kenneth said, if project Marklar (OSX on x86) does exist, I’d probably go for it.