Mac OS X runs fastest on generic Intel hardware

[Colin Dunstan]

The cat is out of the bag: some inspired hackers have found ways to run a crippled developer-issued copy of Mac OS X on non-Apple machines (including Dell laptops, *gasp*). Instructions were posted everywhere on the Net this week; but what's really interesting is the fact that Mac OS X runs considerably faster on a standard Intel Pentium 4 PC than it does on a Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5. Wired.com says:

No one knows exactly why OSx86 appears to be running faster on the PCs than the Mac OS does on today's Macs.

"To be honest, we're not sure," said a hacker nicknamed "cmoski," who said he works for a large software company. "Some in the Pentium camp want to say, 'Because a Pentium is faster, of course,' some want to say (Intel chip architectures are better than Apple's) and some in the PowerPC camp just want to say that it isn't full OS X (running on the beta systems)."

What a blow this must be to Mac enthusiasts. And worse, where does that leave Apple who has always maintained control over its operating system by restricting it to hardware made and developed by the company only? Looks like future 'MacIntels' are going to be nothing but regular Intel PCs, available of course at the Apple-essential 50% price premium.

[MrSaint]

OK now if someone could sponser me with an Intel P4 Prescot, I'd be very happy to make some benchmark comparisons with my school Mac

sheepdog has compiled a list of 100% compatible x86 hardware: http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/viewtopic.php?t=548

[hacker]

Originally Posted by MrSaint

sheepdog has compiled a list of 100% compatible x86 hardware:

...none of which will be compatible by the time the final Apple-for-Intel is released.

Don't people get it? Pirating OSX now, simply provides Apple with the exact blueprint on how to tighten up the DRM when its finally released.. on completely "non-PC" hardware. They'll control all of the slots, the bus, the chipset, the interface, and the drivers.

It only works on "normal" Intel now, because it HAS to, in order to allow developers to make the jump. By the time its released on Apple's own hardware, you'll be working out a lot of issues to get the performance you see today. Who will write the drivers for the disk, ports, video cards? Who will support those drivers?

I find the whole thing kind of funny actually.

So lets picture this: You log onto dell.com, buy a big, bad Dell Dimension P4 machine with lots of RAM and disk to run OSX on. You pay the standard Microsoft Tax for that PC. You wipe the OS, install this pirated OSX/x86 image on your Dell, and Apple gets nothing.

So you just paid Dell for the hardware, Microsoft for the software you wiped, and all to run Apple OSX on your Dell... and not a cent went to Apple.

Do you really think this is fair? Do you really want to "stick it to Microsoft" by paying them instead of Apple? Or for that matter, buying that Dell hardware (subsidised by our friends in Redmond anyway, through cheaper volume licensing deals), instead of supporting the company who provides the OS you'll end up running anyway?

Seriously think about the implications of that before you get on your soapbox about how wonderful Apple-on-Intel is today.

[MrSaint]

Originally Posted by hacker

Seriously think about the implications of that before you get on your soapbox about how wonderful Apple-on-Intel is today.

All true! But still. Take a look at the claim at oh-how-so-wonderful-Mac-hardware is. Apple has been touting how the PowerMacs wipe the floor with any Intel x86 solution:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Apple praetorians have been telling us all the time how superior Apple hardware is:

http://www.architosh.com/features/20...-g5nem-1.phtml
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ormance_2.html
http://www.nforcershq.com/article2826.html
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10815

What a farce.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by MrSaint

Apple praetorians have been telling us all the time how superior Apple hardware is:
[...]
What a farce.

No, not a farce. It all depends on the task.

Windows users are used to a "Do everything with one computer" environment. Linux, Unix and other users are used to buying hardware that does what they need it to do, for that task (or configuring their hardware and OS appropriately for that task; something you can't do with Windows).

Its not as black-and-white as those fud-slingers would have you believe.

Anyway, use whatever works for your needs. A hammer builds houses, but a bigger hammer doesn't build better houses.

[MrSaint]

hacker, first of all I am Linux user as well. I use both at work, Windows and Linux. What I don't understand is why in the discussion of hardware you separate Linux from Windows as both run on X86, at least by most folks.

Second, the here cited claims for superiority of the PowerMac are based on numbers not on usablity.

Third, I agree with you that it all depends on what you do and how you configure your hardware for that task. Do you realize, though, that Apple, with its proprietary hardware, offers the least amount of choice here?

[hacker]

Originally Posted by MrSaint

What I don't understand is why in the discussion of hardware you separate Linux from Windows as both run on X86, at least by most folks.

For a couple of reasons:

1. Linux runs on 32 different processors, including those made by Intel
2. As far as I know, you can't reconfigure Microsoft Windows to perform say... real-time, or pre-emptible, or change the VM or any number of a dozen things that can change the "personality" of the OS on that hardware. Linux can be configured to run poorly on Intel, or it can be configured to run exponentially better/faster than Windows. It all depends on how you build the core kernel itself. With Windows, you're stuck there.

Second, the here cited claims for superiority of the PowerMac are based on numbers not on usablity.

Exactly, I could care less about usability, we're talking about processors here, specifically how well a processor is performing on certain tasks (not getting into the glaring ugly security holes in the core silicon of Intel's Hyperthread processors of course).

Do you realize, though, that Apple, with its proprietary hardware, offers the least amount of choice here?

The "least" amount of choice, in exchange for the most amount of control about EXACTLY how well their OS performs on THAT hardware. There is a tradeoff, and its not unlike PalmOS itself.

When you control the hardware and the software to the extent that Palm and Apple (and others like Cisco, Linksys, Nokia, etc.) do, you can make it do exactly what you want, at the performance level you expect.

Sure, you can yank the NIC out of a Cisco router, but why would you want to? It OS was designed to run with THAT NIC in the unit. You pull it out and replace it with a "better" NIC, the OS itself (IOS in this case), might not perform "better".

See my point?

Windows == Games
Apple == Media
Linux == Everything else (including games and media of course)

I'm not defending Apple's decisions, or the PowerPC processor (made by IBM, of course). I'm simply trying to show you that the "numbers" aren't as black-and-white as many would want them to appear to be.

And frankly, who cares. Run whatever you want on your hardware as long as it does what you want it to do. Do you need a 9Ghz machine? Of course not, but people will still continue to buy them in 2010.

Just don't try to screw over the company that is providing that OS for you, even if you run it on your own "whitebox, clone" PC, or on their hardware itself.

If you like it, compensate the people that spent their time, money and resources building and delivering it for you.

[MrSaint]

Originally Posted by hacker

The "least" amount of choice, in exchange for the most amount of control about EXACTLY how well their OS performs on THAT hardware. There is a tradeoff, and its not unlike PalmOS itself.

But that is the whole point of this thread (see first post). It was found that the OS runs faster on Intel 4 x86 CPUs than on Dual G5s - both by people who installed the cracked, leaked x86 developer copy and the developers who received the developer hardware package. Where does this put the G5 which was designed specifically for Mac OS, unlike x86-powered PCs?

I'm simply trying to show you that the "numbers" aren't as black-and-white as many would want them to appear to be. And frankly, who cares.

You're right. We shouldn't care about numbers. Neither should Apple or their most faithful defenders, who are the ones providing these meaningless numbers with much pomp.

Just don't try to screw over the company that is providing that OS for you, even if you run it on your own "whitebox, clone" PC, or on their hardware itself.

I am not running the developer copy and I am not trying to screw anyone over. Only wish the same could be said about Apple. It'll take them more than just proprietary hardware in future to convince customers that their x86 is superior to generic Intels.

[TadW]

Let's see it from the positive side: Apple is going to switch over to x86. Don't worry about the performance of Motorola PowerMacs... they are already passé.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by TadW

Let's see it from the positive side: Apple is going to switch over to x86.

Lets be clear on this one point.. Steve never said he was moving to x86, he consistently said he was moving to Intel. Yes, Intel provides x86 today, but they've also mentioned the desire to move away from it, but remain backwards-compatible. The WWDC keynote never mentioned their future roadmap and x86 in the same sentence. It may be x86 in the very short term, but if Apple survives the piracy, it probably will not be x86 in the longer term (3-5 years).

Don't worry about the performance of Motorola PowerMacs... they are already passé.

...for running OSX, I'd agree. Have you seen how blazingly-fast Linux is on a dual G5? It blows any suitable Intel machine so far out of the water, it isn't even funny. Run Bonnie or iobench on it and see for yourself...

[TadW]

Originally Posted by hacker

Lets be clear on this one point.. Steve never said he was moving to x86, he consistently said he was moving to Intel. Yes, Intel provides x86 today, but they've also mentioned the desire to move away from it, but remain backwards-compatible.

Interesting. I didn't notice it, but yes, you're right, the official press statement doesn't mention x86 anywhere. This may leave room for speculation. I still believe the new chips will be x86, based on the following three premises:

• Steve said that they've had OS X running on the x86 for the last 5 years.
• The Developer Transition Kit is an Intel Mac with a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4 CPU.
• You ain't going to see a Mac mini with an Intel Itanium ($$$) inside.

But this is no sufficient proof of course. I am very hopeful Apple with their talents and Intel with their resources will deliver a very compelling design for Mac OS. Interesting discussion

[macrotor]

Just gotta throw my hat in, since I use both OS X and WinXP Pro in my work environment.

First off, Macs USE to be faster. The G3 was incredible when it made its debut. The G4 was impressive enough (though it required programs to code for the velocity engine). The G5 represents "brute force" method of trying to squeeze more speed out of a chip that seems to be pushing against a pre-mature speed-barrier of some sort. I'm not sure what happened, but there are plenty of newsgroups threads of Mac-users lamenting on how the Mac seems to have lost its lead and is now falling behind. Personally, I'm glad Mr. Jobs had the guts to make the switch.

I am a little surprised that the beta of OS X runs faster on Intel already. Are they running the same feature set on both? Dashboard, Spotlight indexing, and journaling are resource-hogs. Are these already implemented for Intel? Faster speed means little to me if it sacrifices many convenient features.

If it was all about speed, we wouldn't have a GUI and still be doing everything on a command-line.

- Jim

[derekweb]

Intel has been trying to push people away from x86 cores for the last couple of years, ... however, AMD speared that when they (AMD) released plans for the 64-bit core under x86. Intel was forced to backpedal to release a 64-bit chip under x86 for backwards compatibility just to keep everyone (consumers and businesses) from jumping ship to AMD. They (Intel) didn't seem to like that. I'm sure you all remember this little series of press conferences between AMD and Intel, ... right?

[Alexander Turcic]

From http://www.osx86project.org/index.ph...d=29&Itemid=2:

MacBidouille.com, one of the first Mac sites to report on efforts to illegally run OS X on x86, has received a letter from Apple demanding that they remove videos of OSx86 from their site.

[Colin Dunstan]

The fun is over (at least for now), according to various sources the latest Intel built of Mac OS X doesn't work with the older hacks:

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000627058539/
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1268
http://twinmac.com/modules.php?name=...article&sid=34