Leopard Receives Unix Certification

We all know that Mac OS X is based on BSD Unix, however, up until Leopard, Mac OS X was just "Unix-like". It looks like Apple has put more effort into the Unix roots this time, as The Open Group has awarded Leopard UNIX 03 certification, meaning Apple joins the ranks of Sun, HP and IBM as the only certified vendors. The spec covers numerous parts of the Unix system, but if an OS is compliant, it means that software vendors can easily port server and non-GUI apps to and from OS X.

 

It's good to see that Apple is sticking to, and using OS X's Unix roots to their full advantage.

Where is the article? You linked two wikis, but no article?

Where is the article? You linked two wikis, but no article?

Here you go, John! From MacWorld.

Note this is just for Intel Macs. PPC Macs are left as the {censored} child in all this.

That's great!

Unix is the best platform out there (IMO) and has been pretty rock-solid for a very, very long time.

OS X is one of, if not the best, flavor of unix, and it's nice to see that recognized.

Note this is just for Intel Macs. PPC Macs are left as the {censored} child in all this.

I hate how Apple is abandoning PPC so quickly...

...

The above statement is a joke, right?

This is great news because it means more compatibility. You don't know how many times I have tried to port some unix code only ending up with a slew of reference errors.

I hate how Apple is abandoning PPC so quickly...

It was slower and Apple LIED about it until they were forced to switch. It's time to upgrade.

It was slower and Apple LIED about it until they were forced to switch. It's time to upgrade.

The main reason why Apple switched to Intel, and one which really ticked them off, was becuase IBM were lagging behind on the chips...not meeting deadlines accordingly...this is what tipped off Apple to finally ditch PPC and move to Intel. Yes, the G4's and G5's were slower compared to the Intels at the time...but that's not the prime reason why they switched. It was because on top of faster competition pressure, IBM was taking their own sweet time to deliver performance that could be matched with the Opterons and Xeons of the time.

And how about now? I don't know jack {censored} about IBM's processors, so how do they stack up today against Intel's and AMD's? It's because from time to time I still hear people say that those PPC's were/are faster and now I hear the opposite >_>

And how about now? I don't know jack {censored} about IBM's processors, so how do they stack up today against Intel's and AMD's? It's because from time to time I still hear people say that those PPC's were/are faster and now I hear the opposite >_>

Well, even today, Intel has the lead for the most part. The IBM Power6 architecture is really powerful, however is not designed for personal computers. Most people confuse the Power series (Power4, Power6, etc) with the PowerPC series (970 aka G5), which is what Apple used. In terms of home personal computing, I still think IBM has a long way to go to catch up to Intel...The current dual Intel Xeons will be able to do laps around the dual G5 in terms of speed, and work using only a fraction of the power it takes to run those monster G5's at.

I hate how Apple is abandoning PPC so quickly...

There is no sense in Unix certification for PPC. This certification is aimed on X-Serve market. Is anyone going to buy PPC X-Serve this days? Even more. Something which is working now on PPC will work later. But something which is gonna be ported to OSX as "result" of this certification, going to be ported much later, when PPC X-Serve will be even more outdated. And keep in mind, Leopard isn't here yet even.

This certification has nothing to do with most of PPC users, why would they spend money for that?

In some sense, this certification is just marketing step to improve X-Serve sells. Why they will certify PPC, if they sell Intel?

Because a lot of PPC users will be using Leopard?

Yes, the G4's and G5's were slower compared to the Intels at the time...

Yes and just what I said, Apple lied about it. Thank you for confirming exactly what I had said was true.

finally - sheesh.. it really pisses me off to say "unix-like"

Because a lot of PPC users will be using Leopard?

*ahem*

There are still lots of us out here - at least 40%, I would say.

Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest Apple hardware

Yes and just what I said, Apple lied about it. Thank you for confirming exactly what I had said was true.

The way in which you said...it means they were forced to switch becuase they were slower. But that was not the prime reason. That was my point. Yes, Apple did lie when they said that the PPC processors were faster or equal to the equivalent Intels....BUT, that was NOT the reason why they finally ditched PPC. I was not talking nor care about the lying part...if you misunderstood me to thinking I do care...in order to "confirm" what you said.

There were times where the current PPC processors WERE faster than the Intel chips. It wasn't very often, but those were the times Apple bragged the loudest. It came and went, and Intel updated a lot more often than the PPC did.

You never know maybe they will adopt the Cell processor since it has a Power Architecture

Never in a million years.

The rumor is that as soon as Jobs came back (late 90s) he passively told Motorola in a meeting (G3s at the time) that they were already on their way out the door. It just took him years to actually do it. Intel Macs were never plan B, they were plan A all along.

And now he's calling Apple a "Software company" above all else. Once the iPhone and iPods are making Apple enough money to place that bet, you might just see Mac OS X retail boxes for other PCs.

Maybe... but it wouldn't surprise me anymore.

=)

Yes and just what I said, Apple lied about it. Thank you for confirming exactly what I had said was true.

Please RESEARCH this idea called the "Megahertz Myth" before pontificating. PPC chips (and AMD) were indeed faster than Intel chips at the same clock speed, which came from pipelines and all that wonderful {censored} that is too technical to really get into.

So what happened? Well, first off, Intel pimped out their chips with insane clock speeds. It was the only way for Intel to compete with these faster PPC (and AMD) chips. Then Intel got smarter and finally figured out that their chips needed to do more at lower clock speeds.

Now Intel is producing faster, smaller, cooler, which is the current computing mantra (since we all saw how insanely successful liquid cooling is, lol) and is producing them at lower clock speeds.

That and PPC produced more heat as far as I recall. Also, I heard that they dropped IBM and Motorola for the PPC CPU's because they couldn't meet a 3Ghz agreement.

Please RESEARCH this idea called the "Megahertz Myth" before pontificating. PPC chips (and AMD) were indeed faster than Intel chips at the same clock speed, which came from pipelines and all that wonderful {censored} that is too technical to really get into.

 

So what happened? Well, first off, Intel pimped out their chips with insane clock speeds. It was the only way for Intel to compete with these faster PPC (and AMD) chips. Then Intel got smarter and finally figured out that their chips needed to do more at lower clock speeds.

 

Now Intel is producing faster, smaller, cooler, which is the current computing mantra (since we all saw how insanely successful liquid cooling is, lol) and is producing them at lower clock speeds.

We've already acknowledged that the PPC chips were slower when benchmarks were done, so why you trying to avoid that? Yes PPC Chips were faster as the SAME clock speed, but intel P4's weren't at the same clock speed, they were higher. So again, it doesn't matter if PPC was faster at the same clock speed, Intel had even faster chips then that. And at the time, AMD chips were even faster then Intel's. In other words, your point doesn't matter even a little bit. Fastest x86 CPU compared to fastest PPC CPU and the x86 CPU wins, that is what matters here. Your point is moot.

I am well aware of the MHz Myth since during that time, since I used nothing but AMD chips in all my custom built PC's. And now I got a custom built quad core system using the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 with 4 gb of ram. And it flies at video encoding.

We've already acknowledged that the PPC chips were slower when benchmarks were done, so why you trying to avoid that?

I never avoided that. I'm just saying your blanket statement of "PPC suxx0rs!!!!!one!!!!" is an inherently flawed statement.

Also, I heard that they dropped IBM and Motorola for the PPC CPU's because they couldn't meet a 3Ghz agreement.

Precisely , it was a small dispute between IBM and Apple for that speed acheivement. It was I believe the final nail in the coffin for PPC. Again, I don't blame Apple for wanting a 3Ghz processor at the time, becuase Intel had already broken into the 3.2Ghz range at that time...and all was amidst the Mhz race. In the mean time, ie during the ditching process was when the Quad G5's came along...to neutralize the power imbalance between PPC and X86. PPC took a turn for the worst, but it would come as a payoff for Apple later on (as in today/currently).