5 ms·

> Somewhere on Apple’s campus, ARM-based Macs are already running OS X. Okay. NeXTSTEP originally ran on the Motorola 68030, then the 040. Then NeXT fully po

> Somewhere on Apple’s campus, ARM-based Macs are already running OS X. Okay. NeXTSTEP originally ran on the Motorola 68030, then the 040. Then NeXT fully ported the operating system to run on the HP PA-RISC, Sun Sparc, Intel 486, Motorola 88000, and at least tentatively to the IBM RS/6000. This was as diverse a collection of processors as one could imagine. When NeXTSTEP was transformed into MacOS X, it was just one more minor step to include PowerPC in that list. When iOS was developed on the iPhone, it was obvious that it was little more than a modified version of MacOS X, and primarily NeXTSTEP. Surely that's how they developed it: Apple just ported MacOS X to ARM and did development on top of it. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not at all interesting or surprising that someone in 2014 prognosticated that MacOS X had been ported to ARM. It was clear as of 2006 that Apple had already done that. And given that NeXTSTEP had been ported to at least seven processor families prior to that, it was hardly a big deal.

tambourine_man 4y ago
The porting was obvious, the switching was not.
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  Agreed, but that's not what I'm annoyed by here.
- alwillis 4y ago
  The porting was obvious, the switching was not. It was obvious to me, knowing that MacOS is based on NeXTStep and how that ran on a bunch of different architectures—68000, Intel, Sparc, etc. I even wrote 3 years ago here on HN (before Apple announced their transition to ARM) that I wouldn't be surprised if there were ARM-based Macs in the lab [1]. And also knowing that Apple always wants to be in control of as much of the technology they rely on as possible. After Motorola/IBM dropped the ball with PowerPC and Intel couldn't deliver the performance per watt they needed, they weren't going to fooled a third time. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    No, the porting is obvious - I guarantee Apple has test rigs running Darwin on AMD processors and RISC-V, for example - but switching, as in, actually doing something with that portability, is less obvious.
dasil003 4y ago
This is a middlebrow dismissal. From what I can see this article played out exactly as predicted, and the idea that NeXTSEP rans on multiple architectures in the 90s is just half-assed retconning. In 2014 the conventional wisdom was that Intel was best-in-class and would remain dominant. Per the other thread, I'm not seeing the storyline that the author is arguing that Mac OS will run on ARM but still be first class on Intel architecture. We can assume that is not the case because Apple doesn't half-ass their transitions. Please highlight what you think the prediction got wrong so we can talk about that specifically.
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  I'm not dismissing the prognostication that Macs would ultimately run on ARM (though to be honest that was obvious a long time ago). I'm dismissing the breathless way in which the author announced that somewhere, somehow, a Mac was already running ARM in the bowels of Apple in 2014. Of course it was. It was doing that a decade prior.
imwillofficial 4y ago
You vastly underestimate the effort involved in a port of something like an OS. This comment left me shaking my head and facepalming all at once.
- scarface74 4y ago
  MacOS always ran on x86 chips. SJ admitted as much. There was always a skunk works project to keep OS X compatible with x86z
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    The parent comment wasn’t expression frustration at that, He was expression frustration at people thinking running OS X on arm way back when was some kind of feat. At the time, it was.
bluedino 4y ago
What made NeXT (and then OS X) so portable? NeXT never sold a whole lot, but I would like to see a breakdown of sales by CPU. And if certain platforms were missing things, etc. I've heard many answers over the years: Mach is a microkernel, they are easier to port NeXT never made their own hardware so they designed it that way from the start It contained 'very little assembly'
- piperswe 4y ago
  > NeXT never made their own hardware so they designed it that way from the start When I think NeXT, I think the NeXTcube (1990-1993) [0], which apparently also had a predecessor in the NeXT Computer (1988-1991) [1]. NeXT made their own hardware for a solid chunk (nearly half) of their lifespan, and NeXTSTEP was originally released with the NeXT Computer [2]. It didn't even support CPU architectures other than the Motorola 68k series until 1993, around the demise of the NeXTcube! I think its ultimate portability probably has more to do with being a UNIX at its core (so a battle-tested design written in somewhat portable C) plus a user environment written in a higher-level, easier to port language (Objective-C). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP
  - bluedino 4y ago
    I meant their own CPU
  - icedchai 4y ago
    The "NeXT Cube" was essentially the same thing as the "NeXT Computer" with an updated CPU. Basically, they renamed it after they released the "NeXTstation"[0] to avoid confusion. Otherwise, they'd have had two NeXT "Computers." Heh. Though fine in 1988, NeXT's own hardware was rather under-powered for the early 90's. Their main competitor, Sun, was transitioning to their own RISC architecture (SPARC) after originally being on 68K. DEC was coming out with the Alpha. HP had moved to PA RISC. Though I digress, it's too bad NeXT never ran on the Alpha! That would've been a killer 90's setup. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTstation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTstation
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alwillis 4y ago
I guess what I'm saying is that it's not at all interesting or surprising that someone in 2014 prognosticated that MacOS X had been ported to ARM. I literally wrote the same thing about NeXTSTEP here on HN 3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> When iOS was developed on the iPhone, it was obvious that it was little more than a modified version of MacOS X They said exactly this at the time. The OS on the original iPhone was explicitly “OS X”, it only gained its own name several iterations later.

tambourine_man 4y ago

The porting was obvious, the switching was not.

SeanLuke 4y ago
Agreed, but that's not what I'm annoyed by here.
alwillis 4y ago
The porting was obvious, the switching was not. It was obvious to me, knowing that MacOS is based on NeXTStep and how that ran on a bunch of different architectures—68000, Intel, Sparc, etc. I even wrote 3 years ago here on HN (before Apple announced their transition to ARM) that I wouldn't be surprised if there were ARM-based Macs in the lab [1]. And also knowing that Apple always wants to be in control of as much of the technology they rely on as possible. After Motorola/IBM dropped the ball with PowerPC and Intel couldn't deliver the performance per watt they needed, they weren't going to fooled a third time. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  No, the porting is obvious - I guarantee Apple has test rigs running Darwin on AMD processors and RISC-V, for example - but switching, as in, actually doing something with that portability, is less obvious.

dasil003 4y ago

This is a middlebrow dismissal. From what I can see this article played out exactly as predicted, and the idea that NeXTSEP rans on multiple architectures in the 90s is just half-assed retconning. In 2014 the conventional wisdom was that Intel was best-in-class and would remain dominant. Per the other thread, I'm not seeing the storyline that the author is arguing that Mac OS will run on ARM but still be first class on Intel architecture. We can assume that is not the case because Apple doesn't half-ass their transitions. Please highlight what you think the prediction got wrong so we can talk about that specifically.

SeanLuke 4y ago
I'm not dismissing the prognostication that Macs would ultimately run on ARM (though to be honest that was obvious a long time ago). I'm dismissing the breathless way in which the author announced that somewhere, somehow, a Mac was already running ARM in the bowels of Apple in 2014. Of course it was. It was doing that a decade prior.

imwillofficial 4y ago

You vastly underestimate the effort involved in a port of something like an OS. This comment left me shaking my head and facepalming all at once.

scarface74 4y ago
MacOS always ran on x86 chips. SJ admitted as much. There was always a skunk works project to keep OS X compatible with x86z
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  The parent comment wasn’t expression frustration at that, He was expression frustration at people thinking running OS X on arm way back when was some kind of feat. At the time, it was.

bluedino 4y ago

What made NeXT (and then OS X) so portable? NeXT never sold a whole lot, but I would like to see a breakdown of sales by CPU. And if certain platforms were missing things, etc. I've heard many answers over the years: Mach is a microkernel, they are easier to port NeXT never made their own hardware so they designed it that way from the start It contained 'very little assembly'

piperswe 4y ago
> NeXT never made their own hardware so they designed it that way from the start When I think NeXT, I think the NeXTcube (1990-1993) [0], which apparently also had a predecessor in the NeXT Computer (1988-1991) [1]. NeXT made their own hardware for a solid chunk (nearly half) of their lifespan, and NeXTSTEP was originally released with the NeXT Computer [2]. It didn't even support CPU architectures other than the Motorola 68k series until 1993, around the demise of the NeXTcube! I think its ultimate portability probably has more to do with being a UNIX at its core (so a battle-tested design written in somewhat portable C) plus a user environment written in a higher-level, easier to port language (Objective-C). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP
- bluedino 4y ago
  I meant their own CPU
- icedchai 4y ago
  The "NeXT Cube" was essentially the same thing as the "NeXT Computer" with an updated CPU. Basically, they renamed it after they released the "NeXTstation"[0] to avoid confusion. Otherwise, they'd have had two NeXT "Computers." Heh. Though fine in 1988, NeXT's own hardware was rather under-powered for the early 90's. Their main competitor, Sun, was transitioning to their own RISC architecture (SPARC) after originally being on 68K. DEC was coming out with the Alpha. HP had moved to PA RISC. Though I digress, it's too bad NeXT never ran on the Alpha! That would've been a killer 90's setup. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTstation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTstation

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

alwillis 4y ago

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not at all interesting or surprising that someone in 2014 prognosticated that MacOS X had been ported to ARM. I literally wrote the same thing about NeXTSTEP here on HN 3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21235236

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> When iOS was developed on the iPhone, it was obvious that it was little more than a modified version of MacOS X They said exactly this at the time. The OS on the original iPhone was explicitly “OS X”, it only gained its own name several iterations later.