Slashdot Mirror
Apple Switching To Intel Chips In 2006
telstar writes "According to C|Net, Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems. This change was rumored last month. The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech." From the article: "Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines."
Wasn't April a couple months ago?
I suppose C|Net could be right, there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel, but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever.
GPL Deconstructed
Looks like they will want to snap up a bunch of developers from the PearPC project!
Have you Meta Moderated t
remember though, guys, that this doesn't mean that the rest of the system will be compliant with *ATX or the new BTX... so it might not work on your whitebox computer
Investing forum
How odd, Microsoft uses apple dv kits for the xbox 360 and IBM power pc chips and now apple drops IBM for Intel, how freakin' strange is that?
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
There's nothing to substantiate their story. It's all down to "CNET has learned..." and nothing else.
Is this yet another rumour? Is there anything to be read in Apple meeting with Intel above the idea that they might go PCIe instead of PCI-X?
so... OS X86. Maybe it'll be called Chameleon instead of these cat names? crossing platforms, it will be!
How will they make sure MacOSX doesn't run on cheap X86 machines? Or will they use a different chip family?
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
If they can make a G5 powerbook possible..
Best regards, A.C.
cool i guess...
Really, this has been on the table many times. When will this rumor die? Oh, and on tuesday, Steve will announce that Disney is purchasing Apple.
Welcome our brethren Mac users to the unwashed masses of the x86 world.
Your system is not inherently better than my POS E-Machine.
Emulating 68k stuff is easy, thanks to the cumulative efforts of some very talented individuals working on multiple platforms. But what about decent PPC emulation? Are they going to force recompiles of new software, and completely abandon support for old PPC binaries, or are they going to have really slow support of PPC software?
Interesting. I wonder if Apple even approached AMD (or vice versa).....
Damnit.
:)
Just after I bought a bunch of AMD stock.
When will those damn execs at Apple stop thinking different!?
I doubt they will be able to emulate a G5 on an Intel chip like they could old 68k on PowerPC. So, the Apple customer is now forced to figure out whether they buy the PPC or x86 version of a package. Same goes with hardware. Aside from OS X, Apple is just going to become another Dell. What really distinguishes them if they start using the same junky platform as everyone else?
Join Tor today!
Like the wintel monopoly is not large enough. Now Apple has joined it. This is not good for the Geek world
Talking to geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
Does this mean Apple is going X86 and that I will be able to utilize my spare AMD Sempron 2800+ soon?
This doesn't make sense on many levels.
But if they were to switch to x86 it would make more sense if they switched to AMD than to Intel.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Microsoft goes for the IBM Power PC chips as Apple signs on for the Intel Chips.
I can hardly wait until tomorrow to see what other strange things are afoot.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
I'm not familar with how programs are developed on the Mac these days. I'm assuming that they're not using Pascal anymore. How are programs being developed on the Mac and will that change if Apple goes Intel Inside?
NOOOOO!
I just hope they keep them cool enough. Some of our P4 systems at work sound like jets taking off.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
1. Say they're going to switch
2. Then deny they're going to switch
3. Then they do it anyway
4. Supposedly with profit about here somewhere
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
So sad.
Dream on x86 fanboys...
Hell has officially frozen over. My god they sold their souls.
Apple switching to x86 next year. Debian sarge released on Monday. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
From the report IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story. How the hell does that make official?
So while this is technically feasible, I doubt that Apple is planning a wholesale switch to Intel chips as there is too much invested in both marketing and developer relations. From a technical perspective, Darwin runs on both platforms and there have been long standing rumors of Apple maintaining dual codebases for current OS X releases, so making things run would not be a problem. Developers however, would require significant resources to recompile their code for compatibility. I suspect that the News.com story is only partially correct. Apple has for some time been using Intel chips in their Xserve, and their may very well be additional products yet to be announced. However, think about this possibility: Apple has significant resources devoted to Altivec just about everywhere in the OS, functions that are not available in any currently shipping Intel chip. But imagine this: What if rather than OS X being run on x86, Intel were to produce a PPC chip with Altivec? I do not know what the current licensing agreements are with Apple, IBM and Motorola, but if the licensing were prohibitive, perhaps Apple certainly could help with the reverse engineering of such a chip.
Even that seems like a bit of a stretch to me as I suspect the reality is more like Apple will be using Intel chips in a potential variety of new areas. Chips for networking and WIMAX for example. Or.....given the performance of Intel mobile chips relative to Motorola chips, perhaps as a warning shot across the bow of IBM, Apple will announce that Apple portable systems like Powerbooks will move to Intel chips. Even though I am quite the Apple aficionado, I have to admit that Intel is doing some pretty impressive portable CPUs. Near future plans for Intel portables include built in WiFi and dual cores. However, I realize that this would introduce more than a little difficulty for developers who have a "portable OS" and a "desktop OS" which would suck.
So....perhaps what is really going to happen is that Intel will produce a "portable" PPC chip for something new? Something like a new Newton? If I recall correctly, my Newton 130 ran an ARM chip, and I believe that Intel has the license rights to develop ARM based CPU cores..... Oh please oh please oh please.....
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Why wouldn't Apple consider using AMD processors or the new Cell processor?
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
"All your base are belong to us"
Apple will put big money into the WINE project within the next 2 years
God Fucking Damnit
They're going to make hell freeze over, then blackmail satan into giving them Microsoft.
;)
Just kidding, but right after hell freezes over, I might just be installing OSX on my AMD chip
Jay | http://oldos.org
. . . run OS X on whatever Intel system you want, folks. I'm sure that there will be a dozen "I can't wait to put this on my blah-blah-blah Dell blah-blah-blah".
Apple is a hardware company. They will make damn sure that you can only run their software on their hardware.
What does this mean for the edge that Macs have traditionally held in graphics/video areas of the industry. Will an Intel powered Mac be able to compete? I know the software has played a part in their success, but the PowerPC architecture is still one of the most capable and robust.
...for Apple as all their current operating systems depend on correct floating-point results.
Cuz, y'know, C|Net owns Apple and all, so they'd know.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
We can't deffinitively deny this, and anyone that can is under an NDA.
However, I think the consensus is that we'd have to see it to believe it. And that means it'll have to come from Steve's mouth, not some IT rumor mill.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Isn't MS Longhorn supposed to come out that year?
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
Please tell me this doesn't mean Apple is going to support the hardware-level DRM model.... I read earlier on Slashdot that Intel was going to try to implement DRM on its new line of CPUs. If Apple supports trusted computing, the world is coming to an end, so someone please tell me that I'm just overlooking something.
As Seen on TV, where are you? Speak up, dear friend!
This has got to be a joke. CNET scooping the rumor sites? That's gotta be unheard of.
Seeing as how PearPC is at about 20% real CPU and qemu can emulate Linux/PPC apps quickly, both having no apple insider access I'd say the PPC emulation will be fairly fast like about 60-70% real CPU speed because the overhead will be lower.
Expect that your Mac will be uniquely identified (just like PCs with Intel CPUs have been for a while). It's Christmas for **AA and law enforcement agencies.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I just can't believe that they would require all the software to be recompiled for x86.
This could just put apple back in the pre-OS X era.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
More likely, knowing Steve Jobs, he couldn't get his way with IBM, so he threatened to go to Intel. IBM decided to call the bluff.
what else is there to say really.
Keep booting with OpenFirmware
...and so are Apple. I'm out of computing for good. Apple were wrong to put all the eggs in one basket with IBM who clearly had no intention of delivering better G5s anytime soon.
But we really are at the end, at least of Apple's computing platform, ipods and stuff will probably still keep selling but computers are history for Apple, and they will get very few switchers anyway. They won't be able to sustain their increased price margins now if they go with Intel, so that business model is dead. They have no leverage at all to make a dent in Window's dominance at somewhere between 2-4% coverage and anyone who thinks otherwise is in total cloud cuckoo land, especially with Longhorn on the horizon.
See you later Apple. You've changed a lot since Jobs came back, and I hated Tiger anyway to be honest, it's quite clear it's not aimed at Mac users but at the vapour PC Switchers.
I'm sure that others have surmised this. There is absolutely no way that Apple will invest the money in an expensive-for-the-consumer line of computers that will be partially obsolete in less than two years; who in their right mind would buy them?
It also occurs to me - another point that I'm sure others have already thought of - that this may be why they are forced to switch to Intel. They can't get chips small enough for a Powerbook G5 line.
Hello a hell of a lot easier buffer overflows...
It is all clear now, folks...
What has Intel been showing off their Mac Mini clone if their chips are going to be in real Mac minis?
Clear, Dark Skies
1) IBM has opened up Cell, royalty-free.
2) Apple will never let MacOS run on an open platform/commodity hardware again.
3) AMD has virtually no non-x86 CPU tech.
I predict that Intel will either manufacture a Cell derivative or a big-endian, possibly non-x86 propreitary CPU and chipset.
Good. I'm tired of empty promises and hyperbole when it comes to Mac performance. As a faithful user and creative professional I couldn't be happier with the prospect of faster Macs. However, I just got done reading about the Cell processor in Business 2.0. Man, I'd love to see what one of those could do with Final Cut Studio. I don't know if that would ever be on the horizon but I guess it would be out of the question if Apple goes Intel. I wish Apple would have tapped AMD as Intel is too close to Dell for my tastes.
I strongly suspect there will be a whole bunch of Linux distros "ported" over to Apple machines. :)
A whole new world of anyone who can afford the boxes putting Linux on prettier machines.. That's the only real advantage I've ever seen in Apple machines anyways.
[ducking from all the MacFans]
Ok, for the MS fans, I'm sure someone will put together something to make Windows work.
I would have prefered to see them go to AMD64.. That would have been a seriously impressive jump.
I wonder if maybe it's just a rumor. Or maybe someone at Apple leaked the word they were going to X86 compatible. I know there were plenty of rumors Apple and AMD talking in the past.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Uhhh.. did anyone notice that they just have a "souces said" tagline? Who are these sources!? They do no even attempt to substantiate this "announcement."
I guess everything's coming up Intel these days if there is real truth to the matter. First Sun and now Apple switch to x86. At least Sun is going open source. And from the beta blogs its looking like they are integrating some nice open source projects such as GRUB and Xorg.
The OS X calculator sure doesn't: 9533.24 - 215.10 =9318.139999999999. Another user wrote in to MacAddict magazine about this with some number around 40, I believe.
everybody who thinks now, P4 in Apple thinks wrong. If Apple will switch, then intel will build them PPC compatbile chips. Its very likley that Apple wouldn't use stock P4 stuff in their boxes.
:)
But well, it could also but a rumor
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
My take... they could not produce a portable version of the G5 and needed something else then the aging G4 in their line of laptop for 2006.
Since IBM could not deliver and AMD/Intel are preaty hard to beat on the perf/cost ratio they made up their mind.
Phil
How much did Apple just spend optimizing for Altivec and now the 970/G5? Seems rather stupid to switch now.
Dream on x86 fanboys...
:)
Oh, if only those of us with x86 Intel and AMD CPUs could have the sluggish performance and high prices that one can get with a PowerPC system. I feel the jealousy welling up inside of me...
Seriously, grow up. It's just a CPU. Intel's CPUs offer more bang for the buck than IBM's PowerPC CPUs. It's not surprising given how many more Intel sells and how much more they have for R&D as a result. If the story is true, then Apple recognizes this and realizes that they can make more money with Intel CPUs while giving their customer base better performance. It's not religion. It's business. Just like the past Apple decisions to support PCI bus, IDE drives, USB, etc. Apple is a for-profit company and they base their product design decisions on that.
I can see one HUGE advantage in the performance of PC emulators. Mac OS AND the ability to run "legacy" windows apps at close to 100% speed.
Nice.
I recall last year Steve making the promise of 3.0GHz G5's by the end of the year when the G5 was first released. Did it materialize? No, not even a year and a half later. From his history, Steve doesn't like being made a fool of, and he may be feeling like that right now. IBM didn't live up to the expectations steve had asked them for. They lose. Time to switch partners. And with the rumored x86 version of OS X that I will rumor once again is still floating around, it's not to hard for this to materialize soon.
The article hardly mentioned x86. The author assumes Intel == x86. Upon reading the headline I assumed it would be Intel making PowerPC chips. In my opinion PowerPC was the best thing Apple had going hardware wise.
...chips change YOU!
My supreme G5 rig
If true, that'd be a major shift in gears for Apple - industry pundits have proclaimed Intel as 'the right way for Apple' for 20+ years.
But if anyone can pull it off, it's Apple. They've gone through several large and highly successful architecture changes - namely 68k --> PowerPC and OS1-9 ==> OS X. Major.
Well, we'll see what happens. It'll certainly level the playing field with Windows hardware.
One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.
I fail to see the logic there...
This change is easy to understand. Apple has the first OS that can really begin to challenge Windows on the average consumer level. The limitation was the hardware of an Apple Computer. The only way they can fight Windows is by using the same hardware. Open hardware means more sales, plain and simple.
The article doesn't state exactly which Intel chips they'd be using... Is X86 a foregone conclusion, or is it possible Apple could be migrating to Itanium? Or is it possible that they want Intel to manufacture a PowerPC clone chip?
Microsoft will soon announced a new partnership with IBM to bring back the WinIBM alliance and a 64-bit version of OS/2. This will keep the bookies in Las Vegas busy as they are now taking bets on who will get screwed over this time around since IBM lost the last round in the 1980s.
how many times was this brought up and shot down as ludicrous? like i have said many times, steve jobs often plays outside the lines, and he doesn't read slashdot.
Especially when you notice that when MS wanted a TRI-CORE, 3.2Ghz PPC IBM was all over it. I see corporate favoritism...but Intel won't be much better...
I really, really, really hope you are rigbht (that is how right is spelled while drooling).
Let it be ARM and a new Newton.
If that were the case I can't wait to see the result. Say what you will about Apple, but they do innovate. And they do make classy stuff.
It would be really nice if they could do something for the handheld market.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Is that the new Macs will be based on Intel's PCIe chip/standard, etc.
MrX_TLO
Wait, let me guess...you get all your chip info on x86 faboy websites...
Fuck off x86 clown.
Given that their basic operating system is based on BSD, it shouldn't be that hard to port everything over ... should it?
I would have thought that changing their basic operating system would have been a bigger jump.
Apple's not switching to Intel. They'll add Intel support to OSX and ship Intel boxes in addition to PPC.
OSX has multi-architecture ("fat") binary support since NEXTSTEP days and it's trivial to build Intel+PPC Cocoa programs that run on either platform (the Mach-O executable contains code for both processors, and Cocoa makes sure that all data-streams are endian-independent).
Legacy Carbon software (i.e. Adobe) would take a bit more work, but I'm sure Apple will be giving a lot of help to the large legacy ISVs (i.e. Adobe), and they probably already have the endian issues worked out.
Once Apple has trained developers to build and ship FAT binaries, Apple can pick and choose Intel or PPC according to the price/performance du jour, and you won't really care whether you're running Intel or PPC.
I just bought a Mini, and I'm not happy about this, if it turns out to be true. So two years down the road, the powerPC architecture is going to be obselete, well that's just great.
God is real unless declared integer.
They won't do it - not yet at least. I mean, I'd really like to see it - inexpensive Macs that are as fast as they are beautiful, that'd really be a seven-sigma experience, but it's not going to happen. With increased interest in IBM processors from Sony and Microsoft, it seems like IBM will continue to be a good place for Apple to stay, at least good enough to outweigh the benefits of switching to AMD or Intel. There's no way Apple will want to compete directly with commodity PCs (the Clone Wars showed that much). Apple could do it, but the cost to the community would be severe. Is it me, or is this story simply more uninformed rumors?
...that Apple was getting creamed with their underpowered notebooks. It looks like one of the big reasons is that they couldn't get the G5 into a notebook. I wouldn't expect Apple to start shipping desktop replacements anytime soon, but at least they now have the option.
I doubt I'll be buying anything except notebooks for the near to medium future. With the new Sagers, I can even upgrade the video cards. I just don't see the reason for a tower or even a form factor.
all the "think different" twerps gravitate to?
Life is a bitch when all you have is "being different".
I for one was looking forward to the G5 64 bit on a portable machine (a powerbook or even ibook) in the near future. I have been doing some intital development with Linux distributions on a AMD64 system and most recently with a PowerMac G5 and have been impressed with the results so far. It looks like this announcement of using Intel chipsets will kill this option and leave Apple with 32 bit chipsets for their laptop line for at least the next 2 or 3 years. A huge step backwards from the promise of a G5 in a PowerBook.
AMD would have been a more logical choice for the 64 bit computing path of the Mac OS X operating system and Apple Hardware.
Bullshit.
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
Cheaper, higher GHz..?
Why not?
Hasn't c|net heard of Think Secret? Disclosing trade secrets!
First, I'll believe this when I hear it from Apple.
Second, at the D conference, Jobs had this to say in response to porting OS X to other platforms (the transcription was apparently written hastily):
I don't think the xHz is the issue. The current G5s are pretty much faster(in application speed, not in clock speed) than the current Pentiums.
Besides, because of the architecture of the G5s, they require quite a lot of power. It's true that being able to run a G5 coolly on a laptop would be very neat. But I'm not really convinced about the switch-to-x86-because-of-laptop idea. To justify that, the sales of laptop vs desktop must be overwhelming or that Apple project that to happen in 2006.
So, 2 things which IBM-Apple can do: (1) Make G5 run cooler, or (2) develop a G5-M for mobiles which is effectively a cooler type of G5.
So an error of 1 part in 100 billion is worth getting excited about?
Clear, Dark Skies
In this article, benchmarks seem to show that performance problems seem to come from Mac OS X more than the G5 CPU: though with altivec-optimized applications, OS X + G5 do very well, the combination is just plain horrid compared to their rivals with almost anything else. There is also this older benchmark which showed OS X and Linux on the same G5 system, the upper hand going generally going to linux.
Bear in mind that the above only measure performance, not usability or software availability. However, if OS X does indeed have serious performance issues and that when it does well, it is often because of Altivec, would a change to an x86 CPU really help?
Before you say anything, I started using Macs in late 1984 (and Apple ]['s before then), so you can count me as someone who usually views Apple in a favourable light. However, I didn't drink the kool-aid, so I often question logic of certain decisions made in Cupertino. This one is just an example. We'll see, maybe it will be for the best.
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
NOOOOOOOOOoooooo!!!!!
Dual core PowerPC G5 on the way, not Intel.
s p
... I'd say it's [Apple power management] software."
... and it's a limited-size market. A redesigned core might be attractive for future multicore processors" for desktops and servers as well, he said.
... and it's designed for the network world," he said. "It would require some modifications. But it's doable."
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823282,00.a
Analysts: Dual-Core PowerPC G5s Due for Apple
Building a G5 PowerBook could be an aesthetic challenge for Apple. The G5 chip tends to consume more power and produce more heat than the G4. Hotter, more power-hungry chips tend to require a thicker, more spacious chassis and larger, higher-capacity batteries--all of which might lead to a more portly PowerBook.
But, analysts say, versions of the 970FX technically already fit into the power envelope needed for Apple to offer a mid- to full-size laptop in the 5-7 pound range. At the moment, two of its three PowerBook G4 portables weigh in at over 5 pounds.
Aiding portability, IBM has also added a power-management feature to the PowerPC 970FX. Called PowerTune, it can cut the chip's clock speed, therefore lowering its voltage, in order to save on power.
Therefore, a 1.8GHz PowerPC 970FX would be a good choice--it would top the current G4 processor--but power management might still be an issue in some other ways.
The 1.8GHz chip "might be 35 watts or something like that. There are plenty of 35-watt [notebook] processors out there. The big problem is you want to get average power [consumption] to be a lot lower. That relies to a large degree on software management," Glaskowsky said. "If I had to pick a reason why it hasn't shown up yet
Still, not everyone believes that the Power PC 970FX makes a great notebook chip.
"Right now, from IBM's perspective, the [PowerPC] 970 is a pretty competitive part, but they definitely lack a low-power version," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of the Microprocessor Report, in San Jose, Calif. "The question is, can you get it low enough--25 watts to 35 watts--in order to get it into something sleek enough for Apple?"
To arrive at the right mix of frequency and performance, Krewell suggests that IBM and Apple might need to consider creating a new G4-G5 hybrid instead of delivering a low-power 970.
"The best route would be to develop a new [processor] core that's somewhere between the G5 and the G4," Krewell said, "But that's a significant design undertaking
Apple could also adopt a multicore G4 derivative from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., once the chip arm of Motorola Inc., for its portables, Krewell said.
"That's still a 2006 thing
Representatives from Apple and IBM declined to comment for this story. A Freescale spokesman did not return a call.
Editor's Note: This story was updated to reflect the fact that an Apple representative returned a phone call to eWEEK.com but declined to comment.
These Intel rumors have surfaced every once in a while since like 1988. Whatever. I'll believe it only when (if) Steve Jobs says it.
It's more likely that Apple will be partnering with Intel for something *completely* different. Steve Jobs isn't predictable. Wait till his keynote address on Monday.
Intel is capable of manufacturing and designing many types of chips.. not just the x86 architecture
Linux kernel hacker Pavel Machek claims to have received a job offer from Apple to hack on things ACPI and BIOS related.
The most significant indicator as to whether this announcement will be a success or failure for Apple Computer will be the announcements from the large third party developers (Microsoft, Adobe/Macromedia, etc.). Some of these developers stayed with Apple through the transition from OS 9 to OS X but dropped several of their products.
If this move from PowerPC to x86 causes further losses of major products or companies from Apple this would be disasterous. If the major companies make the transition with Apple with all of the existing products intact this would be IMHO a success for Apple and the OS X platform.
It's simply a waiting game now to see what happens....
Running on "open hardware" means supporting a myriad devices, from thousands of vendors, of varying quality and who only care about Windows drivers. OS X "just works" primarily because of the limited amount of hardware that it is required to support. Move it to an open platform and you will quickly run into the same hardware support problems that Linux has only worse because unlike OS X, Linux has had over 10 years to work on it. That is not a winning position to be in for Apple.
STFU about slashdot bias.
It will make perfect sense for Apple to ditch the sucking FreeBSD+Mach (Mach is the crap, not FreeBSD but well..) crap and instead switch to just Linux. They would gain wide variety of hardware support and they can compete in the server market as well. God knows why Jobs does not understand this.
... then he said, "Man, we stink. Call Intel."
/ 1859245&from=rss
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/03
Rumor is that in 3 months he'll be placing a call to Tiemann.
1. Since when does CNet get news like this before the Mac rumor sites?
2. This won't go over well with 3rd-party developers: "Hey guys, remember when we moved from 680x0 to PPC, and from OS 9 to OS X, and you had to rewrite all your apps? Well, guess what?"
Oh yeah-- all you idiots who will see this article and immediately start creaming your jeans thinking about running OS X on some POS x86 box you put together from random spare parts: Forget it-- even if this alleged Intel switch takes place, you won't be running OS X on anything but a genuine, Apple-made Mac.
It's just a CPU. Intel's CPUs offer more bang for the buck than IBM's PowerPC CPUs. It's not surprising given how many more Intel sells and how much more they have for R&D as a result. If the story is true, then Apple recognizes this and realizes that they can make more money with Intel CPUs while giving their customer base better performance.
With all things being equal, of course. But taking Altivec out of the picture (which gives the MacOS and selectively written apps such a boost) probably takes away a big chunk of the performance differential. MMX's successors (written like that cuz I can't remember the acronym) aren't in the same league.
(Not that this matters, cuz I don't believe this story.)
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/03/ 1859245&tid=179&tid=142&tid=3&tid=106
If true, this is certainly the most exciting story I've read on slashdot.
I look forward to my next notebook: beautiful design, powerful hardware, and my favorite x86 linux distribution running without a hitch.
After reading "No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux" in the "G5 vs. x86 and Mac OS X vs. Linux" thread, this is teling article. I mostly have questions.
Is Apple going to make up for the slow speeds of OS X by using faster chips?
Will future versions of OS X run on regular WinTel boxes or will Apple hardware be unique? Is Gil Amelio back at Apple?
Or, are they just looking at a way to kill their stock price... Inventories are going to go nowhere if the hardware in the stores is going to be obsolete in one year.
No flames, I have 5 Macintosh computers and no PCs in the house. They run from older G3 powerbooks and iMacs to G5 stuff.
What choices will this leave their customer base?
I would believe at least from an architectural perspective that the IBM chips are probably more efficient clock for clock than mostly anything from intel aside from just maybe the pentium M, and its not like its hard to develop for either since they seem to have been doing fine so far. It would take a big chunk out of their being different approach and although most end users would never know the difference I don't want to be stuck with one architecture since everything has its applications. Such a move would however boost sales for other companies that make systems still based on RISCs like sun and sgi, or any other company that decides to adopt the power series.
If this is true, it looks like we won't be in for a 18-month wait for 10.5.
Although it will be interesting to have an OS that will be able to run on PowerPC (PowerMac) and some type of Intel chip (Mac Mini). Or do we get "Classic2" to emulate PowerPC OS X on Intel hardware, since the machines that will have to do double-duty will probably be dual 3.2GHz (a guess) PowerMacs by then?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
It seems to me this is, in large part, a marketing gimmick. The article makes a good point about how Apple's BSD based OS makes a transition to x86 architecture ideal. But I wonder why a deal with AMD isn't more cost effective? Other than being able to claim a large market share, what else does Intel have to brag about? Last I checked, the raw performance of AMD's offering is relatively on par with Intel's chips but often drastically more attractive price-wise. Has AMD slipped *that* much as of late? Apple has always seemed pricey by comparision to comparable IBM-clones for as long as I can remember. I would think that the recent push by Jobs with the introduction of the Mini was an attempt to enter the low price market, but now this news of switching to Intel chips just confuses the hell out of me. Interesting times are ahead, that's for sure.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
If TFA is correct, and Apple is phasing the mac-mini in next year and the PowerMacs in 2007... then the bigger issue is what kind of emulation technology will they have to support two achitectures completely simultaneously??
Could they update and XCode to be released next Jan. in San Fran. that would compile to both architectures simultaneously.
I can almost hear Steve Balmer juming up and down screaming.... "Devlopers, Developers, Developers"
Somehow Steve Jobs will have to keep developers happy.
Come on folks, there's a reason Via was able to enter the x86 market so easily. And there's a reason why IBM started making PPCs after Motorla. These folks know how to make computer hardware.
Would anybody be that surprised if Intel started making PPC-esque architecture chips? Don't be. Intel knows Si's at 14 as well as anyone and better than most.
Too many people have taken these rumors to mean Apple's going to release Macintosh for x86. I'm not quite ready to jump that gun just yet.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
What an angry little man you are...
In answer to your question, I'm an engineer. I get my chip info from the vendors and I get my benchmarks from independent, respected benchmarks like SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation). Where do you get your chip info?
Yeah, I have. Performance has always been a red herring. The important factors are color management throughout the whole system and the user interface design.
A graphics workflow on Windows is jerry-rigged at best. You can do it, given enough third-party utilities, the right custom hardware, etc.... you can also just buy a Mac.
Of course, most people don't really care about colour-proofing. If you're not in charge of making sure the print matches, you never really see how much your work is varying from setup to setup.
Use your magic eight ball for this.
Would you be able to run Windows on an Intel Mac?
I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't want it, but can they prevent it? After all, you can run Linux on an Apple machine, so why not Windows? If it was Intel I mean.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Wait, let me guess...you get all your chip info on x86 faboy websites...
Fuck off x86 clown.
Wow... this story has obviously sparked a nerve.
It's pretty clear that Apple fanboys are the ones needing validation. The fact that an x86 based Mac is suddenly unappealing to the fanboys shows they care more about being different than about the actual Mac "experience."
I love Macs. I've used them for 10 years. And I also trust Steve... If he thinks that Intel is the way to go, I'll support that. I don't really care what goes on inside my Mac box. It's everything else--design, MacOS X, software, etc.--that matters. That won't change with an Intel CPU.
If and this is a big IF this happens it will be all custom. Apple is not about to give up its hardware lockin ways. Remember they are a hardware company that just happens to sell software people like. Not the other way around. IMHO with x87 they can continue overcharging customers but make even better profit margins.
Anyway I'll believe it when I see it. And somehow I don't think I'll be seeing it anytime soon.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I have heard rumors that Apple has been talking to Transitive Technologies about Quick Transit which is a code translation system that can re-map system calls on the fly as well as do very fast optimized recompilation of native code. Think of it as a JIT for processor emulation.
If the claims about Quick Transit are true, and there is no reason to believe that they are false as evidenced by the product's success runix MIPS code on Itaniums (see here), then we should actually see a performance increase for PPC applications (not recompiled) running on OS X x86.
If you were Steve and your apps (as well as everyone elses) ran unmodified on intel hardware faster than it ran on your own, you would probably build some boxes based on intel as well.
There may actually be no need for developers to recompile anything. With Quick Transit built into the OS (let's assume it becomes part of OS X), it would be possible to target x86, PPC or even other architectures and yet run at essentially full speed on any deployment architecture. I know this sounds a bit wicked. It did to me as well. I am sure there will be a bit of a performance and memory hit when your applications are not native, but those hits may be completely overwhelmed by silicon horsepower.
If done properly, this could be a very good move for Apple.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..it was time to worry about DRM being hard coded into the new Intel chips, Apple announces that they're now switching to Intel? Someone please wake me up, this 'big brother' Orwellian nightmare isn't really happening, is it?
I posted this somewhere else recently, but it applies here today.
== On having two architectures to support (x86 and PPC) ==
So a developer has to compile for two targets, optimise for two targets and ship fat binaries? What will that do to development costs, and ease of development for the platform? What if a developer like Adobe decides to only support PPC development, and tells the x86 customers that they support Windows on x86 and that's it?
And then there are Apple's own issues. They've got to effectively double their Mac hardware R&D to support the two completely different architectures.
And what do they gain?
== On Everyone and Their Dog Switching en masse ==
When I talk to people, they buy a PC because they don't know about Macs. When they do know, they often go PC anyway because they're used to it. There's also pricing. Apple's machines do come at a premium, although I maintain that the iBook line is nicely priced (well, it was when I bought this one a year ago).
Suppose Apple sells a box with an Intel inside. For starters, why would the cost drop? A powerful Pentium is not so much cheaper than a G5. The other components are similar enough. Maybe Apple would use PC motherboards? So why would anyone buy their hardware from Apple?
I don't see any evidence that hordes of PC users are going to drop Windows just to get OS X on x86. I see lots of people on hobbyist sites say that they'd buy it, but they're a tiny minority of a large market. Would that translate to actual sales, or would there be a reason why many of them still wouldn't buy it? What about piracy? How many people would 'try it out' for an extended period of time and never get around to purchasing the boxed copy?
And make no mistake: to make up for the lost hardware sales, Apple would need hordes of switchers to buy those shrinkwrapped boxes. If sales aren't what they hope, there goes the business.
That's a point to remember too - if a CPU switch goes wrong, that could pretty much screw the company. A few billion in red ink, combined with potentially facing near-zero sales when you give away your flagship OS (I'm thinking software piracy and commodity x86 hardware here) and we'll see Apple closing its doors. Some mistakes can only be made once.
==On Software==
I mentioned earlier that developers would likely have to support two completely different architectures, even in the 'best case' of Apple going entirely to x86. There's a legacy of PPC Macs out there that you have to sell to, after all.
That means that initially, there would be zero third party applications for OS X on x86. Not a single one. Maybe iLife really *is* all you need, perhaps with iWork. Over time, new apps would come out, but who would buy the new OS in the first year? That would be a hard sell to Herb and Judy Customer. "Sure, there's nothing you can do with it now, but give it a year or so and... Wow!" (I'm exaggerating of course, but you can go only so far with the iXxxx software before you itch to run something else.)
And what of the developers? I mentioned in an earlier post (not well stated though) that this would be the last straw for them. I'll modify that to "last straw for some of them." They have to learn new optimisation techniques, recompile all of their existing code for the new platform and re-release it - and that's the best case for consumers! Realistically we'll see more developers follow the Adobe and Quark path of holding off for 12-24 months for no apparent reason, and only when the market is safe, releasing their product as a new version with new features for the new platform.
The cost for any app being developed will increase. Not by double, as this would encourage more platform-independant code (well, CPU-independant at any rate), but there would be a definite increase. Who will pay for that? We will! Hooray! Software price rises!
And what if the developers simply say that the OS X platform is too unstable? After all, in five years we've seen a lot
I'm pretty sure the apple marketing department would rather commit hari-kari than have to allow 5 seconds at the end of each tv ad for the mysterious yet charming "intel inside" xylophone riff.
What was that ad for? Oh yeah... intel
For that reason alone I just can't take the c-net story seriously.
So sad.
Dream on x86 fanboys...
I refer you to http://www.spec.org for any microprocessor evaluation purposes.
If it's true, that is.
Intel chips take ridiculous amounts of power, and give off huge amounts of heat. The current PowerPC chips use a fraction of the power. This makes no sense for the Mini or the iBooks.
iBook battery life will drop by at least a third, maybe one half. Unless of course they could use slower chips, but there's no way that's going to fly. We all know the canonical Mac argument - "yeah the clock speeds are lower but the chip is totally different so it's not a one-to-one correspondence. Trust me, we're faster". Except this time, there _will_ be a one-to-one correspondence!
In market where clock speed is the main thing marketers latch onto, putting a genuinely slower chip in an iBook is suicide.
In a product line which relies on a marketing thrust of reliability, putting a frigging heating element in a notebook is likewise suicide.
Executive summary: either this is a hoax or Steve Jobs has finally gone off the deep end.
AsSeenOnTV, please tell us it's not true!
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
But taking Altivec out of the picture (which gives the MacOS and selectively written apps such a boost) probably takes away a big chunk of the performance differential.
Congratulations, you can read Apple's ad copy.
In the real world, Intel's SIMD extensions (SSE, SSE2, SSE3) are almost identical to Altivec. It's just that Intel's solution doesn't have a catchy name, and they don't market it as much as Apple.
If I had nickle for every time someone brought up that Intel doesn't have Altivec OR VMX, I'd be a trillionaire.
These may just be Apple negotiations tactics - rumors originating with Apple to light the fire under IBM's ass.
Or, as I pointed out in a previous post, Apple may have a real ace up it's sleeve.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Holy Shitballs!
"That's all I have to say about that" --Forrest Gump
"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And oh yeah, Apple shall moveth to Intel x86."
What if Joe user that's pissed off about the damn spyware that he can't get rid of could make a switch to Mac OS X without buying new hardware. "Mac" users would increase 10x in the first year.
Well, I'll believe it when I see the official announcement.
But it's worth noting that Intel does more than just x86 chips. I could see Intel manufacturing a PowerPC-type processor. That would get Apple access to Intel's faster-paced chip development without any software redevelopment at all.
Well, the benchmarks show that AMD CPUs are better than Intel chips, so why not go even one better and use AMD chips in Apple systems. They are almost the same anyway!
John C. Dvorak actually predicted something that happend!.
I'm scared. Hold me.
Fast forward to 2005. Apple's market share is in danger of slipping into third place, behind Linux, and nowadays their hardware really is vastly overpriced compared to the competition. My wife's iMac was $2000, versus $300-600 for my generic PC that's just as fast and does all the same stuff.
There are now a lot of users now who paid $2000 for a Mac that is getting pretty long in the tooth. Apple convinced them to pay $130 for MacOS X, and then $130 every few months after that for the latest 10.x version. They also paid lots of money to upgrade a bunch of their software to run MacOS X native, instead of in MacOS 9 compatibility mode. After laying out all this cash, does Apple seriously expect them to buy an intel-based machine for their next Mac, and be forced either to pay for all their apps again or run them in slow-as-hell emulation mode?
Sorry, but it doesn't make sense. I don't think Apple is that stupid, and it makes me not believe the article. If they did this, I think their market share would drop so low you'd need to state it as a decimal.
Find free books.
No one has brought up the fact that PowerPC's have a SIGNIFICANT performance advantage over Intel because of Altivec. Even if they somehow manage to emulate everything on an Intel CPU, they won't be able to won't be able to achieve 1% of the speed that native Altivec can provide. And yes I've heard of MMX... What a joke. You can't even do simultaneous floating point and MMX, making it basically impossible to run multimedia apps and scientific apps (or whatever) at the same time.
I'm betting this very fact alone will keep Apple in IBM's camp.
Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips
9 15
http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4
Some high lights:
1) However, Tucker ducked questions regarding technical details of how embedded DRM would work saying it was not in the interests of his company to spell out how the technology in the interests of security.
2) Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.
3) Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller.
Hey, OS X might run on your standard Intel / AMD box and they might compete with MS. I would rather have Apple stay on their own hardware and keep the DRM (hardware based) out of the picture.
This is so blatantly obvious I'm shocked we keep seeing the "Mac OS X on x86!" stories. Intel is not x86. Apple is co-owner of PowerPC. Why would it shock anyone to have Intel making PowerPCs?
I submit that normal USERS (not some geek with an odd political fetish) really don't care what the hardware is. I am sure the OS will still be "Mac OS X".
Sheesh, do I care if my snail-mail letters are carried via pigeon, car, truck, plane or train, as long as the bill is marked "paid" on time!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.
Because it's friday, and no one was in the office to laugh their ass off at this.
Well, as long as speculation and wishful thinking is rampant, how about an x86 version of OS X to compete with Windows? Apple won't need Microsoft for Office anymore after Office 12 with its new default open format is released. Apple could easily come up with an office suite that's compatible with Office 12's file formats.
Cutie Pi 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841972....
:)
Actually, the last digit shown should be a 1, not a 2, if you are going to end with "...". The 2 is the result of rounding up because the digit that follows is a 6.
No, I didn't have to look that up.
Read carefully. Do the research. It sounds nuts, but this might just be the key to this craziness.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
This is a ridiculous rumor. I could see it, perhaps, for XServe, to run on Intel hardware, seeing as it doesn't really have a UI to speak of, and is pretty much just Darwin. Apple could write all of its own system management apps to display remotely, no problem. THAT is the only option that makes sense.
Now, ponder what would happen if they asked, say, Pro Tools "Oh, hey, yeah, ummmm. We need you to produce two more copies of your software. One for old PPC macs and one for new x86-64 macs. Why do you look so angry?"
I can virtually guarantee that after such a move, no version of Quark Xpress would ever be produced for the mac ever again. Let alone Photoshop. Adobe's been itching to jump ship since the whole PPC thing happened in the first place.
It's absurd to imagine Apple selling out their G5 RISC AltiVec whizbang-think-different tech for something that drives the computers that go "Beep Beep".
But, then, it IS Steve Jobs and Apple. Everyone thought for sure they'd buy out Gassee and new macs would run BeOS. I suppose I should never underestimate the RDF.
And you think that Intel does not have SSE/MMX similar technologies awaiting to be USED by Apple engineers??? Where do you live? in the 486 era?
...for your comment as all Slashdot's current moderators depend on jokes being less than ten years old.
Hasn't Intel been one of the biggest "innovators" when it comes to DRM and other similar nastiness? This is what really saddens me about Apple's decision. Not a strong selling point, mind you.
It might not work on the hardware level, but this is huge for emulation -- instead of translating the CPU calls, you just pass them through.
Apple has always craved publicity. This looks like what could be their smartest move in a long time.
s p - it's about Dual-Core G5s.
Okay. You've got a keynote coming up on monday, you want people to listen. What do you do ? Leak a very, very controversial story to the mainstream technological press. This story is sure to get every Mac fan riled up.
And they'll be thinking about it all weekend, and they'll be listening to the keynote. Apple has generated massive interest in their keynote speech.
So, what will they actually announce on Monday ? Well, there's another leaked story today, at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.a
So here's my prediction for Monday's announcement. Apple announces Dual G5s and confirms that the PPC architecture is moving forward - also mentionning the amazing new PPC chips made for the Xbox360 and the PS3.
Apple also announces a new chip supplier: Intel. Those chips will not be used in Macs; they will be used in a new, low-end computer line that Apple will sell. This new line, which won't be called Macs, will not compete directly with Macs. Here's my guess:
For the sake of argument, let's call the new Apple computer line the e-Ntels. Low end machines, powered by Intel chips. They're computer appliances. They come pre-loaded with OS X x86-64 and Apple apps.
You can't install conventional software on them - every piece of software comes pre-installed by Apple, and gets automatically updated. The only software that you can run on it is approved by Apple, and is automatically deployed on all the e-Ntels.
The form factor might be a tablet, or it may be an HTPC, or both ! It's not going to be a conventional computer form factor. It's not going to be a general purpose computer. It's going to be an extremely inexpensive computer appliance.
You can pick one up like you pick up an iPod or a console. Costs at most 300$. You don't need to know anything about computers to use one - they run the incredibly user friendly OS X, which has been stripped down to be even easier.
So, what about the Macs, then ? Well, if you ever overgrow your i-Ntel, if you ever become a power user.. If you ever need software past that which is preinstalled on the i-Ntel (and it'll include everything most home users need), you get a real Mac.
And those Macs will be powerful. They will have fast dual-core PPC chips, and everything you expect from a Mac. They'll be able to network with your i-Ntel appliance, without any configuration, thanks to Rendezvous.
You're a current Mac user ? You'll want an inexpensive i-Ntel tablet and HTPC. It runs OS X and communicates with your real Mac.
Not a Mac user right now ? Tired of your shitty old PC ? Apple has a very inexpensive solution to your problem. Pick up the tiny i-Ntel box availaible at all good computer stores, plug it in, and you're good to go.
I can't wait to know what they're going to announce on Monday. But trust me: they're not dropping PPC - and the use of Intel chips is going to enhance their offerings. Everybody is going to be pleased, including hardcore Mac fans.
What about if they support both x86 and PPC ?
... in addition to the G5s or whatever
.. if needed drop the weaker line at a future date.
MAybe they;ll Release a line of x86 OS X boxes or laptops
OR maybe they are planning Darwin based x86 servers?
Users will get to decide. Apple can then
Intel might make RISCish (PPC compatible?) cpus for Apple. It would not be a big stretch, and their production volume could outstrip IBM. Also, they have more experience with consumer low power cpus than IBM.
Or, Apple might be chomping at the bit to port to Itanic.
Agree with you. If they can figure out a way to run 10-20-30% faster on the same chip, or cost 10-20-30% less for the same performance, what's there to lose (for the consumer)?
And OS X, to boot? Count me sold!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
What are you talking about ? Altivec is Apple's MMX. It barely does anything in real world situations, usual overhyped baloney.
Really the world will survive without Altivec.
We'll be destroyed for sure! This is madness!!1!!!11
Can we all switch to PowerPC?
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
STEPHEN KING DIES NEAR LOVELL HOME Popular Maine Writer Killed While Taking Afternoon Walk Insider Climas Man Driving Lethal Van "Took eyes off the road" As He Approached King On Route 7 ...
Commala-come-come
the iMac G5 is THICK, my friend.
I would go with AMD over Intel. AMD has a better 64 bit implementation and is dual core for much less than Intel. Plus Apple can better muscle AMD for a better price. But then again...
So now...what advantage will Mac hold over the PC?
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
Much wailing and knashing of teeth if Apple moves to Intel as their primary CPU vendor and dumps the Power line...I for one might just cry....
I'm not convinced that's true. PowerPC is used in a lot of embedded systems. The next generation of video games consoles are exclusively PowerPC. I've got PowerPC chips in my household appliances and various comms devices. Even the PowerPC design allows functionality to be optioned out of the fab to save money during printing.
All of this evidence suggests to me that the PowerPC is excellent value for money. Embedded designers will redesign an entire board to save $1 per unit during manufacturing. If the PowerPC wasn't the best "bang for buck" then I'd expect to see it used far less often. Basically this is the same argument for ARM. The ARM is not a fast processor, but ARM is used in lots of systems because it represents exceedingly good "bang for buck".
I don't disagree with you about the sluggish performance of PowerPC. If you can afford it then you will get much better performance from a P4 than from a G5. The Apple fanboys annoy the hell out of me as well. I'm running a G4 here but I've no allegiance to the cult of Apple.
The story is almost certainly false. They don't give any names nor any quotes and even say that IBM and Apple were not available for comments. There are numerous technical hurdles involved in CPU transitioning and although Apple managed it once before, the transition almost kill them. The third party vendors nearly committed mutiny the last time.
...s**t.
That's all I have to say about that.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Altivec 32 registers
MMX 16
Altivec 128 bit
MMX 64 bit
difference = night and day
Altivec is astounding and makes a pc look like a sick piece of crap
okay guys.. time to sell your Apple stocks (if you have any)
OSX-x86 or Intel-PPC
both way
Apple will lose its customers
Who says OS X is going to run on x86? Perhaps they have a next-gen OS in the works? OS X has been out for quite some time, and it would be great to lap longhorn and come out with the Future before microsoft can even catch up with OS X.
Currently, getting a scared Windows user to switch to a machine without the "Intel Inside" ding-a-ling is like telling them to get a car that runs on vegetable oil. Intel chips would go a long way towards gaining market share even if it doesn't mean that OS X could run Windows apps.
It feels to me like Apple software and hardware have always been emulating each other. First we had a bojangled system of PPCs emulating 680x0 code, then we had more and more OSes that still allowed that code, then we had OSX, which emulated OS9, then we had 64-bit CPUs, which sort of emulate 32bit things with the OS, now we're going to have a whole new slew of CPUs that emulate code designed to run on PPC cpus!!! Make up your mind Apple. PCs have survived for so long because there has been a basic unified architecture allowing code from all generations run on all CPUs, provided the software is right. I can go and install windows 3.1 on my brand new PC, but i can't go install system 7 on my brand new Mac. This is why businesses have stuck with PCS - banks for example, who spent millions on expensive dos-based terminal and account systems have been able to upgrade for years while still keeping their rock-solid systems in place, because the CODE STILL RUNS! If apple had decided on a 64 bit system years ago, and built on that (it would have been expensive but possible), they would be the dominant force in the galaxy.
That being said. I believe that Apple greatest strength has shifted from it hardware to its software. Apple notebooks are no longer the thinest, lightest, or the lowest powered as Intel has addressed a lot of those issues in the centrino technology. Though, Apple has made strides in desktop design they do lose out to price/performance offer by Intel/Amd systems. But the things that Apple gets the most applause is their software. Everyone lauds the security and ease of use of Mac OSX. The iLife suite gets a lot of praise for its usefulness and ease of use. So, maybe what lies under the hood may not be so important, so long Apple can keep delivering the goods with its software package.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
OTOH an x86 chip is not much better. The cheapness of x86 portables come from the cheap parts, and often slow bus, not the cheap processor. They tend to run hot and suck power. And my GHZ Compaq runs at glacial speed compared to my Powerbook of the same vintage. Even on a fresh unifected install.
But I think the end analysis has to look at three things. First, I can't imagine that Apple would use Intel. They do not have the 64 bit chip. So if the do go x86, I would look at AMD, or even a transmeta type chip. Second, Apple may be moving because they can't get good product due to IBM concentrating on consoles. Would life be any better in the x86 world? Could Apple ever hope to get a chip suited to it's needs?
Third, and probably most crucial, a one year time line to transition is way too fast. Even though Darwin and quicktime work on an x86, they still need to get Quartz and Cocoa running, although they may have already done this. Not to mention the applications that run on top of it in Objective C.
So I will wait and see. Perhaps we will see snow in the Texas Summer.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
With Sony (PS3), Microsoft (XBox 360), IBM and others all developing next gen game systems, workstations and servers on the PowerPC platform Apple would be consider a minor player in the space and have no real negotiating power with the platform/pricing/availability compared to these much larger companies and the quantities of chips they will be selling each year.
The PowerPC chip has eclipsed Apple systems and will have a brighter future on other companies platforms and operating systems in the future. That is not a slight on Apple but merely a fact of these companies specifications on their new systems and the impact they will have in the consumer and enterprise market place. The future is indeed bright for PowerPC.
Since everyone else is throwing in their 2 cents...
If Apple has contracted Intel to produce chips for a new system down the line, who's to say it has to be x86-based? Remember the alliance responsible for creating those chips... Apple is the first letter in AIM. Is there any reason they couldn't license the architecture to Intel?
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Any takers.
How about this. If CNET is wrong all DNSs should redirect all cnet.com traffic to foxnew.com for a month.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You can find an explanation of the architecture of the OS X kernel here. As you can see, it is in no way a "BSD variant", it's a Mach kernel with BSD grafted on top of it. In particular, the things that make porting hard, I/O and drivers, are Mach components, not BSD components.
Assuming Apple is entering an agreement with Intel on CPUs, I think they will erode their current userbase (think platform longevity) and more importantly relations with CPU manufacturers.
... maybe #1 w/ the 3rd gen consoles??), it won't be a vote of confidence for Intel to do business. More importantly, if IBM become the new "CPU King", they might refuse to do bueiness with Apple.
Apple's hardware puts it in a different position than other companies. The Motorla G4 lost its appeal as a primary desktop CPU for those staying current with CPUs and for people who need the power. It made good business sense to stop doing some business with them. IBM though is a different . If within 2 years they dump a major CPU manufactuer (they, I imagine are second only to Intel
I don't believe it logical for Apple to enter in the CPU business with Intel. I think, more likely, they might make agreements for Wireless chipsets or something to do with their Flash memory. Or, maybe, they plan to acquire licenses for its intellectual property of which I do not know the depth (SSE, MMX, Indeo, programming stuff....). I think the intellectual property is the more likely angle. The hardware, in and of itslef, is too risky.
I just bought late this week a G5 which I am awaiting shipment on. I'm still going to keep it because the Apple Software is the value-added for the Mac platform.
One of two theories, here. Either they're using a P-M (makes sense, if they're going x86), which AMD can't quite touch, or Intel does not mean x86. It may mean Intel's got a PPC, or even Apple's going to ARM.
You will hear two sounds (if you haven't heard them already):
- A flushing sound as the future for Apple goes straight down the toilet. Oh, I understand all the arguments that everyone has had about how the normal end user won't give a damn about the processor and how it'll be the same performance, etc, etc. But in the long run, this is a negative, I feel. Sure, I don't own a G5 because I'm not made of money. But I sure as hell would if I could.
- A *whiz* and a *splat!* as the shit hits the fan in the user community. Everyone buys Intel because it comes bundled with cheap PCs and they can't afford differently. Fair enough, I can't blame you. But Apple holds a certain market share, a share of people who don't give a damn what the hardware (or software) costs, they want their Mac. You know how obsessive Appleheads are. Do you blame them? You'd lick the keyboard on a Mac if you owned one, too, admit it.
Good luck, Apple. If this is the move you're making, I hope you've done your research. I like your shit...I can't afford it, but I like it. I wish you well.Why? You just *know* there's something good about them. Macintoshes are built like computers SHOULD be built. There's a lot of love and care in them, engineering prowness, etc. It all comes from hardware lock-in, of course, which is why you pay out the ass for them. But on the upside, you're getting a fine piece of ass.
Intel makes decent hardware but they're nothing like a PPC or an AMD chip. Everyone knows it.
With this comes a disdain for the PC market and Wintel in general. Yes, I realize that a switch to Intel for the CPU won't mean that the rest of the hardware is Intel or that any other piece will be from the PC world. But a lot of how you operate in a market depends on how you are perceived. Users might not understand the complexities of hardware, but they will realize that Apple has switched which company provides a major component of their Macs and that company is part of the Wintel world. That, in and of itself, is enough to produce backlash.
Blog,Twitter
Basically this is the same argument for ARM. The ARM is not a fast processor, but ARM is used in lots of systems because it represents exceedingly good "bang for buck".
But it doesn't mean that it's got adequate performance for a modern desktop system. So, in that usage, it has incredibly poor bang for the buck, regardless of price.
I don't disagree with you about the sluggish performance of PowerPC. If you can afford it then you will get much better performance from a P4 than from a G5. The Apple fanboys annoy the hell out of me as well. I'm running a G4 here but I've no allegiance to the cult of Apple.
Nor do I have any allegiance to Intel (as I compose this on my AMD-powered system). I get annoyed with all of the fanboys on all sides. It's a CPU, not a girlfriend. You don't owe it loyalty, fidelity, and love. It's like getting misty-eyed about the brand of RAM in your system.
Not to mention the story says in 2006. Shades of Osborne.
I didn't comment on the benchmarks story earlier as I was way too busy but it is now 4:40am and I have nothing better to do...
A lot has been said about the speed of various systems and benchmarks but at the end of the day the only real test for the performance of a computer is how well it runs your work. I have been developing some pretty compute intensive software for the last three months and I have to say that the G5 is a very quick processor. In my benchmarks a 2.3Ghz PPC was able to handily beat a 3.06Ghz Xeon EM64T chip with my code. This is only with gcc at the moment, I expect using the IBM compiler will make a significant difference just as using the DEC compiler on Alpha produced far faster code than gcc could. Opteron is also a very fast chip. So is Centrino. P4 and the Xeon based on it are also fast but clock for clock they are seriously underpowered.
Do not think that because some benchmarks showed what you want (that some cheap tatty Intel box is faster than a high end PPC970) that it is in fact the case. Write your own code and give it a whirl. Heck, my G4 Mac mini (1.42Ghz) is quicker than my Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8Ghz) running my code and it isn't even using Altivec yet.
As for Apple using Intel chips, far more likely it is something derived from the iPod part of their business than the Mac. The PPC970 is not underpowered, it is very quick, very efficient and easily a match for anything Intel has. AMD on the other hand has a very nice CPU in the Athlon64/Opteron and I would be torn to choose between the G5 or Opterons in a cluster as it would come down to performance running our apps as well as price.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
$130 every few months??? Are you sure cause my friends who own macs haven't mentioned a thing and let me tell you that a few of these guys are cheap. Either they arn't buying upgrades or they arn't being charged that much. I highly doubt someone would put out $130 every few months.
I could be wrong but I really hope I'm not.
There is more to being an IBM PC Compatible than using an x86 CPU. Apple could basically take their current proprietary designs and replace the CPU, leave everything else as is as much as possible. It makes no difference for them, the only OS they need to worry about is their own. As a matter of fact, doing anything else would be insane. They would destroy their business if they built yet another PC clone. Keep in mind that they are a hardware company, their excellent software is merely the incentive to buy their expensive hardware, Mac Mini not withstanding.
If your using cocoa or higher level api's I'd wager it will be a xcode target switch.
Alas, the windows emulator software will rock because its all on the x86.
Interesting. Probably a smart decision. Though, x86 does have its baggage but larger market share will be enabled. I wonder if they are just going to dump the hardware buisiness altogether. Maybe ipod will allow them to reaugment their buisiness.
Steve Ballmer suddenly "gets it", and decides that Microsoft will open-source Windows, SQL Server and IIS.
Apple can announce a switch to Intel if they want, but I won't believe it until there's a Mac on my desk with a Pentium in it. Of course, there hasn't been a Mac on my desk since 1986 or thereabouts, so holding my breath I'm not.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I just blew all my mod points, but this is exactly it - if this rumor is true, it means Intel will start making PowerPC chips.
The idea that Apple would switch to x86 simply doesn't make sense. There are no drivers, and no applications. Of course Apple would continue using their own hardware and would port their own applications, so such a machine wouldn't be a complete paperweight, but seriously, without backwards-compatibility (via PearPC etc.), why would someone want one?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I'll eat my hat if Jobs announces a switch to Intel chips (and I'll even be there at the Keynote). The most glaring giveaway in the article that this will NOT happen is this:
Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.
So Apple's going to force their Developers, the people who need to have the latest, greatest and fastest machines, to use Mac Minis to develop their software on? Not in a billion years!
There's no way in Hell that Apple could ever get away with switching low-end Mac Minis first and then top of the line Power Macs a year later. No developer is going to torture himself on a Mac Mini when they could be developing on a Dual 2.7 GHz (or higher) G5. Sure there are those that will say that Apple will let you compile on a G5 and then just test on a Mini - that will never happen either. It would increase development time by at least a factor of 2 and probably more. This would effectively kill the Mac platform.
If Apple would ever consider this (which I doubt, AMD is far better than Intel and I believe the PPC platform has a far brighter future than the x86 platform, just look at all the next-gen gaming consoles) then they would need to transition their high-end machines first if not at the same time as everything else.
Not to mention the fact that SSEx pales in comparison to Altivec. Why does this matter? Because Apple has invested heavily in vectorized libraries, especially CoreImage. CoreImage & Quartz 2D Extreme rely heavily on Altivec when you don't have a graphics card capable of running them. SSE just wouldn't be able to cut it. Also, what's Apple to do with all their engineers that have so much experience with PPC and Altivec? I could go on and on.
It would take 4-5 years or more for Apple to make the transition and optimize OS X on Intel to where it is today (Apple might have a version of OS X running on x86, but I'm sure that it's nowhere near as optimized as Tiger is for PPC). Does Apple really want to give Microsoft that much time to catch up? I think not! They'd much rather run circles around Microsoft. It will be a cold day in Hell before this happens.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
You can say the same thing about Apple too, they both make a *great* team.
Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
will they be using the x86 instruction set or will intel be making a new line purely for apple computers. if it does use x86, imagine the possibilities! no longer are we restricted to one OS on an apple system.
HD Trailers
What's so funny about your bitterness in your comment is that Apple notebooks are woefully underpowered and overpriced compared to "something that drives the computers that go "Beep Beep"".
Watching the OSX fanboys (who wouldn't know microprocessor architecture from their asshole) get their panties in a knot is too funny.
Perhaps Intel will make PPC chips for Apple ? Isnt PowerPC an open spec?
Hell just froze over and he's building a ski resort in the 9th circle. Lift tickets will be free, as will all the food in the lodge and all the rooms in the hotel.
SPEC???
HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa !!!
Go back to jerking yourself off to Intel and their SPEC compiler scores back on aceshardware.com
I would run os X if I didn't have to buy a whole damn computer just to run it. Good move by Apple imo. Had they been open-minded like this back in the IIe days and allowed for cloned apple machines the computing world would have turned out very differently.
"One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium."
Actually, it's a lot easier than that for Apple -- MacOS X runs just fine on x86. For background, NeXTSTEP and Rhapsody (the pre-release name for MacOS X) ran just fine on x86, and word has it (I don't want to get anyone in trouble...) that Apple's made sure that MacOS X still runs on all of the CPU's that NeXTSTEP ran on -- x86, SPARC, PA-RISC, etc., in order to make sure that they keep their options open. to make it even more obvious, keep in mind that Web Objects is the _same_ as the Cocoa runtime, and it runs on all sorts of processors. The only reason that Mac developers can't ship applications that run natively across all major OS's and hardware platforms is that Apple won't license the Web Objects runtime for that purpose, because they'd rather control and sell the entire platform.
"developers will need to rewrite their programs to run on intel" (paraphrased) is just wrong. For Cocoa app's, all of the development tools support building "fat binaries" that can contain the executable versions for numerous processors. Back when I was a NeXT developer, I used to build app's that ran natively on 680x0, x86, SPARC and PA-RISC all the time. Admitedly Apple has hidden this capability, but it's obviously still an option for Apple to allow developers to build fat binaries again.
For non-Cocoa applications, it's theoretically possible to get developers to recompile their applications, if all of the frameworks, etc., are ported, but I wouldn't be surprised if, just like the PPC migration, the answer was to use emulation to run legacy code.
"every time Apple migrates they lose customers and developers" Actually, the PPC migration was good for Apple. Without it, they would have dead-ended with the 680x0 chip line. Instead, while migrating did lose some developers who didn't want to port, the PPC's power triggered the arrival of plenty of new, exciting applications and developers. Similarly, Apple's migration from MacOS 9 to X weeded out some developers, but attracted many new ones, to the point where is far more popular with developers than any time in the last decade.
Of course, there's the basic issue that the PPC is a faster (per clock) and lower cost processor than the x86. Look at all of the next-generation videogame consoles -- all based on PPC. The main reason to run x86 is legacy code compatibility (i.e. Windows app's) and that's no more an issue for Apple than it is for the videogame companies. So there's not much reason for Apple to migrate to x86.
So aside from there being no reason that Apple would want to move from PPC to x86, there are some strong reasons not to.
First, it's logistically impossible to support the infinite range of PC hardware. They tried, under NeXTSTEP and Rhapsody, and it simply wasn't possible for them to generate enough device drivers to support even a tiny fraction of the cards and motherboards out there. So Apple can't sell MacOS X to run on generic PC's, only on Mac's with x86 processors in them.
But even if they could ship an infinite number of drivers in order to run on generic PC's, I doubt they'd ship it, because MS would immediately kill MS Office for MacOS X in retaliation. This would wipe out Apple in the corporate market, and hurt everywhere else. So just as when MS got Apple to kill MacBasic, etc., MS will be able to keep Apple from competing with them head-on unless Apple has nothing to lose.
Another reason not to sell MacOS X for generic PC's: As much as Apple is limited by being tied to hardware, they're also protected by it. That is, if 5m people use Mac's, they can count on those people continuing to use Mac's unless Apple really, really screws up, because they'd have to replace their hardware, applications, etc. But if a user is only committed to MacOS because he can dual boot his PC into it, not only is it easier for him to "migrate" to MacOS X,
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
OSX already runs on x86. Apple has had a project running now for a few years called "Marklar" that has OSX up and running on x86 hardware. If Apple does move to Intel chips and x86 hardware they are shooting themselves in the leg with a 5.7mm round that will tumble around in their flesh. Apple simply could not compete with the x86 market. They would be offering the same thing Dell would be, for twice the price. On the plus side, we would see OSX for x86 which would be kind of cool.
If Apple move to Intel, then they are just another clone maker. If you could then get OS X on any x86 PC, how much more would you pay for the pretty box? Their hardware margins would go in the toilet.
This would be the beginning of the end for Apple as a *hardware* company. They could then focus on iPods, software and the like.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Fast forward to 2005. Apple's market share is in danger of slipping into third place, behind Linux
Since when? Most Linux figures are completely fudged by zealots. Apple is stronger than ever and its market share is growing.
There were major upgrades of Mac OS X in August 2002 (10.2), October 2003 (10.3) and April 2005 (10.4). 10.2 was either $99 or $129 (I forget); the others were $129. 10.1 was a minor update, either $29 (through Apple's up-to-date program), free (by borrowing the CD), or the cost of a CD (from a dealer).
Of course, Mac users who care to upgrade their OS every version are by definition a bit cutting edge. So they've probably bought a new Mac since 2001 (10.0), and haven't paid for all those upgrades.
So I figure the typical Mac user's probably spent abut $260 on Mac OS X upgrades over the last 3-4 years.
What does make sense is if they were to move the x-serve to x86-64. I could see something like that happening. I can see that with the PowerBook line that Apple may be feeling vulnerable but they are still very competitive machines.
Who are these "sources familiar with the situation?" Microsoft execs who want people to think Apple's going to switch hardware every few years so you better not buy any Apple hardware because they might switch again and you'll be forced to upgrade? Seems shady to me that this keeps coming up, even after Apple has denied that they will switch to Intel CPUs.
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
It's also worth considering that if they can run on Intel, they can run on AMD as well..
Certainly BSD is highly portable and parts of the MacOS includes bits of NetBSD which is especially portable...
But if you get over the "mine is bigger and faster than yours" basically the shift the marketing message from "Speed vs Speed" to one of technical merit about UI and so forth... because once they switch (if they switch), WinTel and Mac "computers" will have the same speed, in the same time frame.. so the Gigahertz #'s about speed/performance disapear.
It's also clear w/ the IPOD that see the value of a greater marketshare and customer acceptance. Price is a big part of that and like they have done with IDE, PCI, USB, etc. switching to Intel probably means they can lower their price without cutting profit(s), that means greater marketshare, etc.
http://www.hawknest.com/
moving to intel allows them to explore a range of processor options -- amd or transmeta -- since they're still designing the whole widget, they can ensure a tightly compatible platform like they did on powerPC.
:-P
i remember the day we bid farewell to the venerable OS9 -- apple generally dignified termination releases with a forward migration path that worked transparently for the user (68k->ppc; os9-> classic -> carbon).
if i remember correctly, don't they have XML directories for processor binaries, and darwin has bean maintained for intel processors? if so, they'll have to port the 'crown jewels', provide a processor 'blue box' emulator, and for those they can coax into doing so -- have developers recompile their binaries for the new system; and then have a cascade version upgrade across the board which will take at least two years to grow in some new roots after a transplant.
they can also further couple their strength with the linux community (sometimes contestuous, but they have given back, and along with ibm have been much more accomodating to open source than the likes of microsoft or dell. linux users on intel will just be that much closer to a hop into apple-land...
regards,
j
"I won't believe it until I see an Intel Inside sticker on a Mac. The anti-mac journalists love running articles like this just to get attention every now and then. There's something about this article that doesn't seem right."
The arrogance of the Mac crowd is astounding. Do you really think that people bother being "anti-something" that is so insignificant in the market? They simply are stating the obvious: the platform has no future.
Sorry, I just had to follow the trend.
Why not AMD? This recent slashdot posted article shows the opteron being quite adept at outpacing the Intel Xeon and IBM PPC970FX. Ugh another Dell.
I seriously doubt they'll be able to pull it off. OS X is a very portability-friendly OS and the parts most crucial to creating a port are open source in the form of "Darwin".
If Apple wants to keep unauthorized ports of OS X from occurring, they've so far screwed that all to hell at almost every level. I'll be very surprised if we don't see an unauthorized port of OS X to the XBox 360.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'd definately go for an Apple built laptop with Intel inside. Think about it, you should be able to boot it into any major OS. You get to have your cake and eat it too. Any OS you may need in a beautiful and lightweight design.
Concerns from each party
1. Intel senses the following
1a. IBM/Sony knocking hard with Cell processor console. Worst of all, Microsoft joint the party to attempt transform more and more services to network and console. And frankly, Microsoft looks like it has more idea about how it want to achieve its goal than depending on Intel to get the job done.
1b. P4 issues enabling AMD to gain more and more market share and mindset, cutting in to its profitable Xeon sales, and there's no likely short-term answer. Margin-loss is tolerable, mindset loss is a dangerous issue in fast pace Hitech industry.
1c. Itanium problems.
1d. Dell is getting too big to handle
1e. Microsoft cntinuous Longhorn problem means no sensible short-term industrial upgrade prospect, thus less revenue.
1f. Internal Intel transition. Intel everywhere in the world are seeing changes now. I know some of them.
1g. Std computing stablize. less need.
1h. New markets are low-cost and not Intel-centric
2 Apple senses the following
2a. Apple i-everything will eventually see competition, which is now.
2b. Steve Jobs is not a one-hit wonder. His cotinuous revival with media-related businesses
2c. Apple fully realises elitist can survive for certain market balance, but upheaval time is approaching. There's an oppurtunity to go up or down, he must choose a way to go forward. something must change
2d. Apple/IBM chip problem. IBM will not yield to other demand on more flexible arrangement required by Apple for its new strategies.
2e. Apple is REALLY in media/image/PR business, not strictly performance, so u need not bother stating performance arguments. let it pass.
2f. I strongly believe Apple is MORE interested in Pentium M. Apple may force the pace of 64-bit Pentium M as it does not want to conduct another round of transition again
2g. Apple senses the imbalance with Intel/Microsoft/AMD/Dell/HP with IBM/Sony/Microsoft on the other camp, and changing market conditions. It senses a new life and it is going for it.
2h. Cell-based devices will eventually give Apple problem as Linux desktop fast maturing.
2i. Truely Mobile-computing and services will rapidly eat into many corners of IT. Apple intends to become hunter rather than prey. SJ does not intend to be forced out again, not without a gigantic fight.
2j. Microsoft busy fighting Google and Yahoo, secret plan in console, security bad PR, legal issues everywhere, corporate duels with Linux leaves the venerable Longhorn in disarray, (note more and more Longhorn feature cuts and changes) Apple senses a STRONG oppurtunity.
2k. This is a LIFELINE for APPLE, and it will not be deterred by an un-cooperative IBM which has its own plan. It also senses Intel need some good partner amid a hosts of its own problems.
For plan by IBM, Microsoft, RedHat, AMD, stay tuned
for now.
So would this mean that PC users will now be able to run MacOS once they switch?
Let's look at the reality:
- Intel and AMD are shipping dual-core CPUs *today*. IBM's Antares is still in the design phase.
- PPC970 has not scaled as IBM anticipated. It is approximately 10-20% slower, clock for clock, than AMD64. AMD64 has scaled well with process improvements, and it easily reaches 2.6GHz with moderate aircooling. PPC970 is only clocked at 2.7GHz, and it needs watercooling to do so.
- PCI Express chipsets are available for both Intel and AMD CPUs. No such chipsets exist for PPC970. PCI-X and AGP cards are being quickly replaced by cheaper and faster PCIe solutions. The latest GPUs are often not available in AGP variants at launch, and the lag time is increasing. AGP GPUs often now cost more than PCIe GPUs.
- IBM's semiconductor fabrication business isn't doing well. Ripe from failures such as NV30 (fabrication at IBM was such a disaster that NV35 was fabricated by TSMC), IBM is realizing that being able to deliver world-class server chips in small quantities doesn't necessarily translate into being able to deliver low-end chips in high quantities. Numberous supply problems delayed the launch of the XServe G5 and new Apple desktops. Intel and AMD, in contrast, have extensive experience shipping in large volume.
- The PPC970 is expensive. Apple's new lower-end products need inexpensive CPUs to remain cost-competitive. Right now, that niche is filled by Freescale's G4. The G4 is a dog, though, and Apple needs to replace it. Inte's Pentium-M CPUs are considerably faster, similar in power draw, and are constantly falling in price. Intel's Celeron-M is even more affordable, and it still offers superior performance to the G4.
C|Net, the same friendly people that compared Tiger to Longhorn on Tiger's release date and called Tiger vaporware. I may not be remembering correctly, but the last time I relied on C|Net.... oh wait, I haven't.
...given the 'details' that are available.
However do not forget Apple just moved a huge chuck of their OS (Quartz) into the GPU. Meanwhile IBM wants to sell Apple on their Sony-by-product, the CELL, which is sort of an ANTI-GPU. Not the direction Apple wants to go.
Lots of OS X apps run without Altivec (eg. they are G3 compatible) and their standard compiler is already gcc which fairly excels on the x86. So for low-end and portable Macs with a thrown-in PPC->x86 JIT a Pentium M would more than suffice. The Linux, BSD, OOo, Mozilla and other camps juggle 5 to 7 processors. The Apple camp can handle 2.
OTOH, Intel wrote an x86 compatability layer for Itanium so why not a PPC mode as well? I bet Intel would *love* to make Apple a happy Itanium customer because that chip will become a boondoggle if it doesn't find such a customer quick.
Glad to see you understand floating point arithmetic.
If most statistics were correct to one part in a 100 billion, I'd trust the government more.
Clear, Dark Skies
On the contrary, I can see one downside for Apple in this: They might be less important to IBM's PPC strategy, relatively speaking.
They might be going to a split Intel/PPC production as a test -- and as a cluestick to IBM to pay them a bit more attention. If IBM has to fight Intel for Apple market share, they might be that much nicer to Apple.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
um, so what's next, an announcement from microsoft that longhorn will be using linux as it's kernel?
One reason I've held off on getting a PC is the mess of an architecture it is, down to the CPU. If Apple switches to x86, I'll have nowhere to turn and my life will be meaningless! Please Apple, don't do it!
Apple in general and Jobs' Apple in particular is known for doing things its own way. Apple has invested so much in PPC development that it's not going to ditch it in favor of something else.
IIRC, Apple is one of the patent holders for the PPC, so I guess it's possible that Apple will hire Intel to produce PPCs in one of their fabs.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
*snicker* Someone's been snorting the fairy dust again.
What have they been doing the last half dozen years? "Streaming Media Extensions... to unlock the power of the internet; only on Intel's Pentium III processor. Do dum dee."
They have advertised the fuck out of SSE.
Both have their advantages. SSE2 can make Prime95 run really fast, which is good with the high P4 clock speed. Altivec (I believe) is the reason distributed.net's apps rock on Macs. Both also speed up multimedia work by a bunch.
"It's absurd to imagine Apple selling out their G5 RISC AltiVec whizbang-think-different tech for something that drives the computers that go "Beep Beep"."
What's absurd about it? Apple's G5-based machines don't offer good cost/performance ratios.
Anything that will give me an x-86 version of Shark is Good News!
x86 fanboys? Ha, we need not be the fanboys, for we are the majority.:-) We are just hoping to get something that we preveiously could not get.
Yay, I have a sig.
Steve, Steve, Steve...I certainly hope this isn't true. I would think that if Apple _were_ thinking about switching that they would at least switch to the more advanced AMD processors, but even that would be problematic.
Maintaining two different binaries for the two architectures (for a while, at least till they allegedly dump the PowerPC) will be problematic. And eventually, those of us who have just bought PowerPc-based machines will be frozen out entirely. A few years from now when my Powerbook is no longer supported I'm not going to think very favorably about buying another Apple. Hey, I'll be able to run Darwin on my own homebuilt AMD-based boxes, why will I need to buy Apple at that point? Quartz you say? Well, KDE is working pretty well for me now - in two or three years it'll work even better. Heck, I can even run Cocoa apps under linux if they're recompiled with GNUStep.
If this rumor is true, it's also rather odd timing, isn't it? Now that Microsoft has decided to use the PowerPC in the XBox360 and multiple PowerPCs are included in the Cell processor that is being used in the PS3, one can argue that this is exactly the wrong time to switch to Intel. Instead Apple should be looking at the Cell processor which is a much more advanced architecture than the rather tired Intel offerings. The Cell could offer much greater performance and efficiency than Intel's processors can offer.
Going with Intel is akin to going to the dark side. Ok, that's a bit melodramatic, but at the very least it's a step in the wrong direction.
What ever happened to 'Think Different'? Moving to Intel would be to join the bandwagon.
Such a move doesn't make sense for Apple. They have a really nice OS, but their business is selling hardware at absurd markups. They can only justify those markups when the hardware is drastically differentiated from commodity hardware. Even if they create some licensing/DRM scheme to limit OS X to Apple hardware, such a slim difference will make consumers look hard at what exactly they are paying for. If they do try to limit the OS to the hardware, I expect an explosion of interest and development in GNUstep on Darwin that will steal their thunder fairly quickly. Then all they're left with is a pretty stylish case (which in the end is probably what sells the most boxes anyway.)
For great justice.
Apple has significant resources devoted to Altivec just about everywhere in the OS, functions that are not available in any currently shipping Intel chip. But imagine this: What if rather than OS X being run on x86, Intel were to produce a PPC chip with Altivec?
You can translate Altivec into regular x86 instruction sequences. It won't be as fast relative to the base processor performance, but it will be fast enough in absolute terms. In fact, since Apple would be using the latest x86 chips, it would probably still be faster than most of their installed based.
Apples's market share is so low (a whole 1.8% of the worldwide PC market TFA says), it's not gonna make much change in intel's profits (which has 81.7%).
How is getting a 2% increase in CPU sales _survival_ ? (Especially when CPUs is only a small part of what they sell/market)
As long as Dell and other major system builders stick to Intel (and a few fanboys), their CPU division is gonna keep raking in money.
They don't need Apple for anything.
First of all, Apple likes to keeps things under wraps until they're ready. Second, such an announcement is financial suicide, as nobody would buy a new Mac until the intel versions came out. If this is one of those "test the source" leaks, someone's about to get fired.
Yikes. I wonder who will believe this one. There is no way. None. Let's drop it and move on.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
the inevitable death of Microsoft anyone?
If Apple made a succesful transition to the x86 architecture, even something SIMILAR, it would put Intel and Apple as the forefront of a whole new way we look at Computing in the next few decades. Should Microsoft be scared? VERY! Should they be more concerned about product quality, security, and listening to "the little person" or the developers they love so much to squeeze every penny from yet post enormous profits?
If Apple does manage an Intel transition - I'm sure it would not take long before there was an Applie-Linux OS floating around that could run everything and anything useful (so non-Microsoft)
for the first time ever you'd hear me say- GO JOBS!
"The PPC970 is not underpowered..."
Nobody seems to think that the PPC970 is underpowered - it's just that the majority of computer users have already realized what Apple is now dealing with - that IBM has been unable to live up to its promises to shrink the size of the CPU, lower the power consumption, reduce heat output, increase the clockspeed, and lower prices. Two years ago the G5 was a great idea, now it's just what people expect to get from Apple - half the performance for several times the price.
The real question is how many people pay for linux? Not many. There is no "market" share there. Basically a bunch of people who want stuff for free...
Flight attendants please prepare the pig for takeoff
OS X wasn't released every few months. There were about 18 months between 10.3 and 10.4. The intervals between 10.0 to 10.1, .2 and .3 was about a year.
Execution remained to be seen, but for now:
Congratuation Apple. You're on the right track.
I'm shocked, I tell you - shocked!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
it would be easy to trace Jobs' path through this latest episode:
- IBM bends over and hands them the PPC970.
- Jobs publicly trumpets that the chip will hit 3GHz in a year's time.
- Jobs gets humiliated by the fact they didn't even come close and still aren't there after 2 years.
- Jobs throws constant fits and IBM suddenly considers using their tech for more gracious customers... say, game console manufacturers
- Jobs get jealous of the attention paid to said console manufacturers
- Jobs delivers an ultimatum, IBM calls his bluff, and Jobs is suddenly looking elsewhere for the future of his platform.
Sound crazy? Consider the Altivec debacle and how IBM backed away from the AIM alliance after that. Consider Moto's redirection to embedded processors (hello game consoles) and Jobs' resultant fishing for new tech. Jobs may be running out of corps that will put up with his, uh... particularly demanding negotiation skills. Then again, maybe Monday will bring a nice surprise... a choice of chips for the Mac platform. Here's hoping.
There is *NO* good reason for Apple to switch to x86 or x86-64...
What we could see, is MacOS X SERVER on Intel Iron sold by IBM and/or HP...(or Apple)
Apple sells UNLIMITED Client licenses of MacOS X Server for a fraction of what MS sells seats for... They would seem to be in a good position to add MacOS X customers and also sell additional support packages if they did this..
Also, the issue of 3rd party apps would be far less of an issue for Server systems compared to moving their Pro (xServe, PowerMacs/PowerBooks) and Consumer (Mini, eMac, iMac, iBook) MacOS X Client systems to Intel x86...
Shrug.. Or, we may just see an ARM based super-iPod, or an announcement re: an Intel Made PPC chip...
My $0.02US
My wife's iMac was $2000, versus $300-600 for my generic PC that's just as fast and does all the same stuff.
...Bueller?
Hello? Mac Mini? eMac?
The fact that your wife bought more computer than she needs doesn't mean that's all you can get from Apple.
Sheesh, do I care if my snail-mail letters are carried via pigeon, car, truck, plane or train, as long as the bill is marked "paid" on time!
At the very least it would be something to discuss.
Quack, quack.
The new line of computers will come with an advertisement campaign around the slogan "Apple Outside"
The PowerPC is certainly adequate for a modern desktop system. The popularity of Apple desktops is proof enough of that. The CPU hasn't been a hinderance to desktop performance for many years now; even the lowliest Celeron or G4 has enough computing power for word processing, web browsing and email.
I don't see how it's possible for you to argue "bang for buck" while disregarding the price.
An why do it?
More performance? No.
Lower cost? No. Look at the specs The PPC 970FX is on par with what Intel is making while using 3 TIMES fewer transistors. Transistor count = die size = cost. Why do you think playstation/Xbox/nintendo are ALL using PowerPC? Because it is the best cost&performance around!
Lower Power? No. This is one of the myths of the G5. It is a very low power device for the performance. Why is apple not making a G5 laptop? because unlike their windows counterparts who make big clunky laptops to accomodate a P4, Apple is more concerned about sleak design. Why water cooling? Cause they want quiet computers. Get this: at the same clock speed the G5 uses less power than the G4. There is no reason for apple to switch. These are dumb rumors.
If this were a hoax, Apple would have denied this report rather than simply refused to comment. Intel's incentive to do this is obvious; they get to squash this gnat that has been flying around their heads for a few years. Since AMD now has significant market share, Intel can do this without worrying about antitrust problems with the government.The article pointed out that Apple's recent market share was 1.8%. Intel doesn't give a rip about that 1.8% in terms of their overall strategy; they're worrying about AMD.
I think Apple's incentive to do this is to give themselves a way to bow out of the desktop and server market in a gradual way without taking an instant hit to their revenues. Apple believers will keep buying Apple systems for a while until they realize that they'd be better off to buy a white box and install a Linux distro that they can skin to have the Apple GUI look and feel. why pay a premium for an OS that is just a freeware Unix bolted onto middleware that let the freeware run on a PPC chip?
Microsoft will now kill all of it's wares that were targeted to Apple OS.
I could see Microsoft Longhorn running on AMD crushing Apple OS running on Intel.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
And here are a couple more for your list that makes AMD seem to be a better choice IMHO.
6) Both AMD and Apple are part of the HyperTransport Consortium. They're already been partnered up and working together for a while on technologies.
7) AMD is a scrappy little company that has come from behind Intel and pushed the x86 limits, often forcing Intel to scramble to catch up. On a tech level, AMD has proven itself. On a corporate culture level, I'm sure Apple appreciates AMD's "we're the underdog and still kicking ass" attitude.
Of course, Intel has been dumping loads and loads of money into research on a bazillion different fronts. AMD just seems to make sense though.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Steve Jobs just wants to make sure the news media is listening when he speaks at WWDC. Everytime he makes an appearance, it's preceeded by some controversial rumors.
Itanium processors are finally coming into their own, and you can bet that by 2006 the special compilers you need to make the most of them will have advanced enough to best the x86-64 chips in a lot of areas.
Think about it.
Apple:
1. gets a company that can finally meet their growing production demands
2. is still on a fairly proprietary platform which still allows them to differentiate themselves from white box pc manufacturers
3. is still on a processor architechture with tons of head room for future developments, and incidentally is designed from the ground up for multiprocessor systems
intel:
1. no longer looks *quite* so foolish for sinking billions into a marginalized processer
2. gets an important new source of revenue, seeing as the they are slowly but surely losing ground to amd
I am just curious to know if microsoft will support itaniums again in their desktop products because of this.
intel has a little chip in the works for nintendo, it just so hoppens to be a powerpc chip called the broadway http://reviews.cnet.com/Nintendo_Revolution/4507-1 0109_7-31355104.html?tag=txt
or at least that is what cnet says,
i am not going to make an AMD taking over x86 comment here, intel just wants to expand, apple wants faster cheaper chips, why not... those powerbook G5 don't look like they are going to happen
must I
LD R0, #b10
LD R1. #b10
ADD R0, R1, R0
ST R0, IntelCanMakePPC
Nope.
And..
In response to all the "how will they keep OSX from running on all x86s?" comments, maybe that is exactly what they want. Maybe Apple has decided to go into software as well. At a time when the public is more disatisfied with windows than ever (ok, so maybe they don't _know_ it is windows, yet), it would be a good call to at least test the water, IMHO.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
The article, and rumors have been carefully worded. There's no reason intel can't produce a power pc clone chip. You'll note the article carefully sidesteps any mention of x86 or power pc platform. My guess is that all that's happening is Intel will be making g4's and g5's for Apple, rather than IBM.
moox. for a new generation.
It sounds even better than Wintel! I went through a lot of different failed combinations to come up with that, including Intapple and Applintel, among others.
sig.
Get something that you previously could not get? Um, you can buy a Mac any time you want. And even if Apple moves to intel chips, that's not going to change... they'll just make it so that OS X only runs on Apple-blessed motherboards. Don't expect OS X to suddenly be available for installation on any random $200 Wintel box.
Apple is not married to AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) so let 'em use the latest 64bit offering from IBM (and maybe 'suggest' some AltiVec extensions to the chips)
:-)
As long as Apple retains its production facilities, QA, R&D and control over the hardware, swapping CPUs doesn't mean a thing to Joe Schmoe.
I just bought a G5 iMac do I care that in a few years I'll be switching to an Intel chip (or AMD? Competition gets prices down
Ultimately no, it really doesn't matter any more than it did when they switched off of the 680x0. Or when they switched from Mac OS10 to OS X.
They've proved very wise at fixing flat tires while the car is racing down the track.
Just wait and see... If Apple was having enough trouble with IBM to make switching worth it, you got to wonder what Microsoft didn't know when they got into bed with IBM.
And IBM may just be stringing Gates along by his privates just before they cut him off. They're a software and service company now. They just happen to still make great hardware but they could be planning something Phirric for the PowerPC.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel to find problems in a C|net article, but why not?
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994...
Nitpick: More accurately, "Apple has used PowerPC processors since 1994." The way C|net wrote it, it sounds like IBM is the only game in town until you make it halfway down the page.
The earliest PowerPC chips were from IBM, the G3s were from either Moto or IBM, and G4s were from Moto (and now Freescale). Only with the G5 has it come back to IBM's PowerPCs in a big way.
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel
No, the Wall Street Journal did not. The Wall Street Journal's rumor page -- on par with such publications at The Sun and the National Enquirer, and not intended to be taken as factual -- printed this as a rumor. Not that this stopped Reuters or anyone else from reporting it as fact.
Keep also in mind that the shadowy mystery figures in the rumor are "two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies" -- not Apple or Intel employees. Maybe it's Darl McBride and one of his other personalities!
"I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.
Apple has changed architectures once, from the 68K to PowerPC. This change was, for the most part, completely transparent to users and developers. Why would they lose customers over something so painless? Next thing you know Detroit will be losing customers because their latest cars have a V8 and anti-lock brakes where last year's models had a V6 and a dashboard Jesus.
Even if you count OS 9 to OS X as an "architecture" change, nobody was forced into it and OS X did and does still run OS 9 -- and earlier -- apps.
Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.
In other news, transferring $1.07 from your checking account to your savings account is likely to raise your savings balance by $1.07.
WiMax? Sure. ARM? Sure. Hell, might Intel even be getting into the PPC biz? Stranger things have happened.
If Steve Jobs stands on the stage at the Worldwide Developers Conference and announces Apple's moving to x86, Satan will rise up from the underworld and devour the souls of every innocent puppy and kitten. And then emit the fart that ends the world. This is, of course, completely unlikely to happen, as we all know Satan prefers chunky peanut butter to the souls of small animals.
Nexstep ran on solaris and windows via a little layer, full speed, as long as the app was created on nextstep it could even run on pcs.
The dev tools has a checkbox to compile binaries for the other platforms, even fat apps(run on more than one).
gnustep tries to do the api like that. not yet really.
Applications just need to have different low level code. THe api is the api, if it is ported it is there!!!! even inside windows, like any other dlls
Assume for the moment that this is true (as implausible as it may seem, there is good reason to believe Cnet on this); What should Apple developer do? 1) Applaud it because it could open up Apple's platform to new possibilities. 2) Boo it because now they will have to transition another time after just completing the OS-X transition and support another version. 3) Walk out of WWDC because Apple has now destroyed the Mac platform and "Osborned" the company 4)Wait 2 years to develop any new Mac software until after the Mac/Intel platform is released (and to see if the Mac is still around)
They can still lock the hardware so that OSX won't run on generic boards with some simple chipset tweaks or even just in the bios. You can buy non-Apple PPC boards RIGHT NOW, and you can't load OSX on them
[threadjack]
5.7 MM? A fan of the P90 eh?
It is a darn good mix of firepower, size and accuracy when you need something bigger than pistols and smaller than an M16, and damn it looks cool on Stargate SG1. I want one.
/Never allowed to have a gun as a child
//Loves guns anyway
[/treadjack]
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
Emulating 68k stuff is easy, thanks to the cumulative efforts of some very talented individuals working on multiple platforms. But what about decent PPC emulation? Are they going to force recompiles of new software, and completely abandon support for old PPC binaries, or are they going to have really slow support of PPC software?
Apple already has full support for Fat Binaries, and uses it to support both 32-bit and 64-bit. Adding another architecture really is just a matter of a recompile. And with GCC's x86 output being much, much, better than it's PPC output, it would make hell of sense to do so.
1. Apple has been losing the MHz war for years, and looking worse each year for it (even though Intel has even begun to back away from MHz claims).
Two years ago Steve Jobs said, "We'll be at 3GHz next year!". Next year came, and they were 2.5GHz with excuses. Now a year later they're at a whopping 2.7GHz. It's embarassing, even if it isn't a real issue.
2. Apple doesn't need more difficulting in getting products built and delivered on time.
IBM has thus far not been as reliable as Intel in getting processors out the door quickly.
3. We already knew that OSX worked on Intel, as it had been reported many times that Apple had a working port in-house.
4. Adding "Intel" to the Apple ads will help legitimize Apple computers to some of the people who assumed Macs were just second-rate computers.
Average consumers don't know PPC. They do know Blue Man Group and "Intel Inside". Incidentally, that's why I believe Apple didn't go to AMD, even though AMD has a better product (in the Opteron).
5. Lastly, it's a stock-boosting move.
Every few years tech companies must reinvent themselves, replace their CEO, or otherwise make a radical change. Just look at AAPL closing price, and then compare it to tomorrow's (which is actually today's now!) price.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
You're right. For this to be true, Steve Jobs would have to hold everyone -- from users to developers, from partners to competitors -- in complete and utter contempt. ... Holy fucking shit, it's true!
as long as they keep hardware/OS single vendor so less headaches and withing a reasonable budget, thats why people buy macs so they dont have to F around with thier computer 24/7 like windows which has to work with 5 gazillion retarded components...and shows it!
Might be a coprocessor of some kind, but I seriously doubt they're going to change architectures. The most I think Apple can go for are Intel PowerPCs.
If the deal was with AMD, it might almost be believable. But not Intel. And certainly not on stock 32-bit x86 processors.
... Intel is about the last place on Earth that would want to help make faster/better PPC cpus; they have too much invested in competing technologies and (afaik) none of the licensing for PPC.
Further points:
1. How do they expect to able to announce this and not kill their laptop and desktop sales for the next 15 months or so?
2. Steve Jobs is notorious for hating leaked announcements. "inside source"? This could be one colossal troll.
3. None of the typical Apple rumors sites seem to have heard anything more on this.
4. Just because IBM has had problems with designing/manufacturing faster PowerPC chips doesn't mean the architecture is at a dead end; by all accounts PowerPC offers many advantages over x86 on a very basic level.
4b. The x86 instruction set would be a pretty significant step BACKWARDS, architecturally. x86-64 fixes this, more or less, but it's AMD whose proven most successful at this, and not Intel. Intel has tried to come out with a way to move beyond x86's limitations, and has consistently fallen back to favouring designs that instead manage to make x86 faster (and it is to their credit that they've managed this for so long). Nonetheless, the *only* reason to choose straight x86 is its backwards compatability -- which has no value to Apple. The possibilities for a gradual transition to 64 bits -- a transition Apple is currently halfway through -- under x86 are, at best, no better than that posed by PowerPC and the G5.
5. If Apple is sticking with PPC, but simply "shopping elsewhere" for future chips
I agree: I don't think Apple is this stupid. But it's one helluva way to build anticipation for an announcement on Monday, and if the result is egg all over CNet's face, well, that would be pretty funny.
1) they are actually licensing OS X to intel manufacturers
which is a ballsy move, but quite doable. Some serious risk of losing the high end to a bunch of cloners on the low end, but with the ITMS revenue stream to buoy them it's a good time step up. That would be the full court press on longhorns debatable or at best irrelevant release.
2) it's some sort of new device that uses intel chips (tablet, phone, or magic marker) like the patent designs of late. This is probably most likely since Ars is pointing out that they just extended an offer to hardware (zaurus and nokia) hacker Pavel Machek
3) it's complete subterfuge so Jobs can keep his real surprise which is to announce the iTunes Music store is now the iTunes Media store. Begin your downloading now.
The cnet article for all it's authoritative stance is really just the same tired rumors. The work involved in making an outright switch would be huge, not to mention the work of trying to convince developers to invest in all new hardware... (you can have my PPC Powerbook when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers..) If they did switch it'd be to AMD's Opteron anyway not Intel. The rumors will definitely kick up the stock price though.. if you bought today.. sell on monday because it will shoot up and then crash when people figure out that, no they are not switching to Intel.
amd is a far better cpu company... and they aren't nearly as evil as intel.
their products also perform far better than the competition.
apple doesn't need that much volume that AMD cannot provide...
seriously, this seems far more a hoax/rumor than anything else.
makes you wonder though, now maybe x86 people can finally have a cheap upgrade path to osx...
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
2. IT WON'T BE ANYTHING LIKE A DELL. I'm fairly certain that it will have all kinds of encrypted ROM built into it, preventing you from buying OSX and installing it on the some no-name POS (cough) compaq (cough) computer you bought used at the monthly flea market at De Anza college for $50.
3. This could be where the rubber meets the road for Microsoft. Their OS is criminally unsecure, third rate, hard to use, and Just Plain Ugly. With Apple on x86 (either via Intel or AMD), and Linux on x86, they will finally have the competition they deserve.
4. This will force the Linux community to really get serious about user-friendliness.
5. This will force Apple to get off their ASS and fix their server software. Anandtech's recent article on how incredibley lame the X-Serve is illuminating....
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
These are some of the down sides:
A: By announcing they're going to x86, it will basically destroy their computer sales. For example: recently BOTH of my apple Computers blew up. Seriously: motherboard failures, out of warranty on my powerbook and my Yosemite. I'm borrowing a Yikes to access the internet for now. If Steve announces it's all x86 in 2006, I have ZERO incentive to go buy a PPC Macintosh. I'll just pick up some no name POS (cough) Dell (cough) and a Kick Ass firewall and run that for the next few years until I can afford the new x86 macintosh. What I want is G5 powerbook, but why would I even want to get one, when I'm going to have to replace all the software when i get the x86 powerbook?
I own literally over $9000 of software that I've collect over the past several years. I have Zero Interest in replacing it, and if I must, then the money's got to come from somewhere, and it will come at the expense of a second Apple computer...
B: This is going to open up a can of whoooop-ass on AVID. Their video Editing software is the flagship on Windows, but was cut down at the knees on the Mac platform with Final Cut Pro. With FCP on Intel hardware? Even Pricey Apple Intel Hardware? AVID will have a really tough time justifying their expense.
C: Apple will NOT be able to maintain the margins they have, and the Pricey Apple Harware will be (as usual) more expensive than your typical Windows boxen, but it won't be by very much. Apple will also begin feeling the heat from Linux (especially as Linux feels the heat from Apple, and they make their OS Truly "Ma and Pa" friendly like OSX.
That's my speculation. I think it's fairly resonable.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Some mentioned Apple is interested in Intel DRM technology; however, this is not true at all because the whole Intel DRM rumor is not true.
The following is what Don Whiteside, the VP of Technical Policy & Standards in Intel Corporation, responded to the inquiry of Prof. David Wagner in UC Berkeley.
The article grossly misrepresents the discussion that occurred. The rights management technology referred to in the article was not a secret DRM from Intel, but the DTCP-IP technology publicly offered by the 5C Entity; which Intel is a Founder. Intel believes that the DTCP-IP technology is an important element in enabling protected transport of compressed content within the home network, and we continue to promote DTCP-IP for this application which enables greater consumer flexibility & use of premium entertainment content.
Details can be found at http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intereYeah... They'll make *allot* of money when 3rd party devs tell them to feck off and no one buys the new and crappy Intel Macs, because there's no software for them... Cause you know M$ will be more than happy to port Office over to MacOS X on Intel competing head-to-head w/ Winblows.. And sumers will rush out in droves to buy systems that can't run Office... And I'm sure Adobe will be more than happy to port their software over... So there'll be plenty of apps for us all to rebuy (upgrade? ha! no that's a new platform you need to buy the full version! Ha! I mean sorry sir...)
x .shtml
Yep lots of $$$ to be made...
If SJ does this he needs to trip to FL so someone can have him mentally evaluated under the Baker Act... http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/mentalhealth/laws/inde
Somone just hit Lucifer with a snowball.
Umm...you included the price of a fairly good quality LCD monitor, keyboard, and mouse for your computer as well right?
OS X is, like its predecessor NEXTSTEP (and many other UN*X), architecture transparent. The Darwin system has always been portable to x86 and I've always believed Apple has maintained a complete x86 port of OS X internally. (As everyone is probably tired of being reminded, NEXTSTEP ran identically from a user/programmer point of view on 68K, x86, SPARC, and PA-RISC.)
you had me at #!
PPC is well documented... don't need insider access to emulate the CPU.
Darwin is open source... don't need insider access to get hardware info.
Luke-Jr
What, you think the best rapper is white?
Synergy is your friend
Virtualization software, like QuickTransit from Transitive, might make running OSX on Itanium or Opteron a possibility. Transitive CEO [hardware virtualization software] Bob Wiederhold had this to say on Tom's Hardware in September:
"Wiederhold said that hardware virtualization could have a much broader future than just the use in entrprise-sized environements. Especially the embedded devices and consumer electronics industry would be able to benefit from this approach. He sees no opportunity in the x86 desktop market: "We have seen few people who would like to move away from the x86 appplication market," Wiederhold said. If desktop, then it might be rather the Apple computer that would receive a software solution from Transitive, he said."
Ok, now its understandable that everyone is looking at this from a technical standpoint, after all this is slashdot! But I am a Business Admin. student and maybe I am looking at this from a different angle. I am trying to look at this whole situation from the point of view of Apple's CEO, and what is the main goal of the company? You guys might not want to hear this, but the main goal of Apple isn't to make badass computers, its to make money for their shareholders. That being said, try to think of the largest opponent Apple must face... -> Microsoft. Apple has done a good job showing how it's operating system is in some ways superior to Windows. Additionally, lots of consumers have also expressed how they've been unhappy with microsoft and certain aspects of their software. It is my opinion that if any single company has the ability to directly challenge Microsoft on it's own turf, it would be Apple. At this moment in time most people in the world own x86 computers and a lot of people regularly install and reinstall their OS for a multitude of reasons. What would prevent someone from getting fed up with windows and switching over to OSX? What's the worst thing that can happen? I'll tell you, the worst thing that can happen is that if someone doesn't like OSX they'll just reinstall windows or run a dual boot system. It has already been proven that Unix based OSes can run windows based software with the help of WINE, etc..and if anyone could implement a flawless cross-compatible system I would definitely put faith in Apple to get the job done. I'll tell you what, I would have no qualms about giving up windows all together and running a dual boot OSX/Debian machine, especially if OSX could run steam (counter-strike) at a high FPS rate. Of course I'm just speculating about all of this, but think about the possibility of Apple using barbarian tactics. Right now they're like the barbarians making unpredictable attacks on the roman empire, this never destroyed the romans. They only fell once the barbarians assimilated and blended with the romans...maybe my historical analogy might not be 100% perfect, but I'm sure you get the picture.
A recent article posted on slashdot has indicated with evidence that apple's kernel performance is harrowing factor in the server market. Apple's hardware is pretty, and they have kept themselves away from supporting a million drivers by using hardware that nobody else wants to. G5's may be nifty but they are also expensive, by the shear fact that their production volume is so low. So here's the plan:
1) Make changes to darwin/osx that would require recompiling and possibly partially rewriting some software.
2) Design some DRM/Piracy Prevention into OS X
3) Only release this new version on X86.
The advantages here are two-fold. First you get to move to a varied processor market, that is already cheap due to mass production. Second, you get to have a much faster operating system so someone might actually WANT to run MySQL on an xserve without installing linux.
I don't know about you, but, to me the only reason to pay out the fat cash for the low performing apple machines is the awesome OS X operating system. Perhaps apple thinks that it's a good time to compete in software. I firmly believe that software is Apple's boon anyway.
I see this move as making Apple more potentially competitive in several markets. Operating Systems, Servers, and their current market of 'designer personal computers' or whatever you want to label computers chosen for asthetics over performance.
Furthermore, once they are on x86, what would stop them from inviting WINE to play natively in Aqua and giving some of that Apple magic action to get installing windows software onto your non-windows machine a pleasant experience for once?
So to recap:
- Lower priced hardware due to pre-existing volume production.
- Broader software customer base.
- Opportunity to compete where they do best.
I would pay $300 for OS X, $100 for point upgrades at their current schedule, if I didn't have to pay $2000 for a decent machine to use it on!
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
Finally, now OS X is going to step into the same proverbial ring as Longhorn...
No time to hate...
...this would be a _great_ publicity tie-in to the upcoming "Chicken Little" movie.
... uhm, Windows, I think we should see other people. Really, it's you, not me. What?! Get real - I _NEVER_ loved you! Seriously, you were just a mercy fuck, at best. Get away from me, you smell funny.
And
As long as it works like a Mac and runs all my software as well as a current Mac can, I couldn't care less what CPU it's running on.
Either way, it's not as though the x86 is totally inferior to the PPC. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to its rival.
Short of the zealots (who happen to gravitate to this site), I would tend to think my fellow mac users would feel the same way. The experience is what makes a Mac, not the cpu.
All I can say is that it would be kickass to have a Mac with WINE or VMWare to run 'doze in a pinch without sacrificing too much performance.
> Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will
> use Intel processors
And OSX will still suck.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
I wonder now... What will people who were Intel haters AND Apple fanboys say now on /.? I mean, it seems that many of the same people here fellate AMD and Apple in the same postings. What to do? What to do?
;)
Note for the humor impaired: this posting meant to be ironical
He just switched to Mac stating "the only architectures that matter are G5 and x86_64..." Well so, x86_64 is the only one that matters I guess since apparently the G5 is out.
Watching morons who think that anyone gives a shit about microprocessor architecture outside of /. is also too funny.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
This rumor is false, and the proof is in the news cycle this week:
1. Intel pre-announces, e.g. 18 months away, a dual core laptop chip. The last time they made a move like and pre-announced a product days before a "SteveNote" was right before the G5 announcement.
2. Intel demo'ing the Mac mini knock-off over the past couple of weeks.
If Intel had a deal with Apple, they would never be pulling this type of PR which would anger Jobs to no end. This, for me, is the smoking gun.
I suspect Apple has some very big things up their sleeve, and they are still burned about the leak over the Mac mini, so they are doing some misdirection at the expense of Cnet. (Cnet has never been very pro-Apple.)
Jobs at D3 said they have a huge year coming with breakthrough products, and since most leaks seem to happen a few days before the "SteveNote" what better way to keep people pre-occupied than with an outrageous rumor like this to distract the media and rumor mongers.
I think this is misdirection, pure and simple.
How did this get rated as insightful? Virtually every statement is wrong.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
For $2000, you can get a top-of-the-line iMac with a 20-inch LCD monitor, 2Ghz processor, 512MB RAM, 250GB hard drive, SuperDrive, and a full 3-year warranty. And no, spending the most you possibly can on your iMac (when they start at $1299) is not very efficient. Tell me, please, where I can find a $300-$600 PC with a 2Ghz processor, monitor included (a nice LCD preferably), half a GB of RAM and a quarter terabyte of harddrive space. I'll take 2. Or are you comparing a 2-year old iMac to a current PC? 'Cause that would make lots of sense.
The 680x0 emulator wasn't all that fast, and much of the operating system was running in emulation mode for years. Early PPC chips didn't have enough cache to contain the translation tables of the emulator, which resulted in cache trashing. And the change in floating point formats (the 68x00 floating point units could do 80-bit arithmetic, but the PPC only had 64 bits) broke all the engineering applications. Many of them never bothered to convert to PPC, and Apple exited the engineering market.
And that time, they didn't face an endian change.
Worst news ever. In fact it's so bad let me go back to sleep and when I wake up I know it will be nothing but an awful dream. What happens to all the old g4s and g5s? No point buying a mac now if everything is Intel in a year.
Mac on Linux. Fantastic on PowerPC, for running OS X as a task under Linux. Simple porting will likely get this running on Intel-based distros. Hello!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
AMD hasn't been slipping, it's been gaining on Intel in both technology leadership (x86-64, integrated memory controller, HyperTransport, etc.) and performance and is now the innovator in the enterprise and desktop market that Intel once was.
All Intel can claim these days is size and a large wad of cash to throw at things. They have given up the performance crown to AMD and now live largely off market momentum and their laptop chips.
You mean like "implement a 99 44/100%-compatible version of x86-64"?
now that apple is making good cash, news like "apple is going out of business in the next 6 months" are not viable anymore...the industry got a new headline: "apple is switching to intel" ..which disconcerns the apple community and calms down the pc users once more.
Ok, this is assuming that Mac OS X will be ported to x86 or x86-64 (hopefully both).
You wanna real competition with Microsoft? A partially open source operating system that even Windows users prefer to Windows on the system platform of their choice: low end x86 from Apple, prepackaged, high-end x86 on that PC you've babied, frankenstiened and bit-and-pieced into a behemoth of computing, or go really expensive, and get a high-end mac.
I predict that the week OS X is ported to the x86 in this switch effort, OS X-86 will be all over the internet with a crack-patch to allow it to work with a regular BIOS (cos you know Apple will have it set to run only on their BIOS).
Seriously, a week. Both Linux and Windows geeks have been awaiting this. And don't think that Linux device drivers won't be included. I mean, how difficult, exactly, is it to compile a Darwin kernel?
Imagine it - a cpu that uses AMD's 64-bit extention architechture on top of an entirely revamped 8/16/33 bit instruction set. Appealing to programmers familiar with AMD's 64-bit instructions (with 16 registers, half GPR), while at the same time eliminating outdated legacy elements that waste precious silicon.
(Not that Apple could convince Intel to make a revamped hybrid CPU of the sort just for themselves, but I think it would be a nice road to take.)
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
1. How come they didn't switch to AMD, which actually has the superior dual core architecture, instead of implementing dual core by stuffing 2 old chips into the same package like Intel does 2. How will Apple prevent me from running their OS XIV on my cheap Intel (or AMD) box?
Want to bet? Forget "emulation modes". Need to run a PC app on your Mac? No problem. One non-virtual-machine Windows window coming right up.
Now THAT would be a killer box....
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Which Darwin project is it that has the Airport Extreme driver? :-)
Besides, it's not as if apps talk to the raw hardware a lot; they generally go through drivers, supplied by Apple in the case of Apple hardware.
Hey, you know what? I don't think Apple would lose money on this.
Say you unbundle sales for Apple PC's and OS-X. The PC's still come with OS-X, but the OS is available as a standalone for your PC.
Dell sells more computers than Apple, so it's possible to make money on systems, x86 or PPC.
Meanwhile, releasing the operating system on x86 means that more people will use OS-X. Why?
I will bet you don't know a windows or linux user who, while happy with their Intel system, would jump at the chance to make it a mac, so long as they don't have to spend too much money on it.
And as OSX preliferates into the mainstream, they gain competitive advantages: games, applications, utilities, every open source project on the face of the earth, all start being target at the Mac. Mac's hardware demand increases, as more and more PC vendors start begging to license OS X.
Meanwhil,e for the first time in 20 years, Microsoft has real competition; On the server front, we have Linux and the BSDs, and on the desktop front, we have OS-X and specific Linux distributions, such as Xandros, Ubuntu and others.
For once, Microsoft will have to work very hard to maintain their market share, innovative edge, etc. They can't just copy the ideas of these "lesser" systems anymore, because that won't keep them ahead.
Wow, that's starting to sound like an anime plot. Next thing I'll be on about is the Microsoft Giant Robot XP.
Assuming this trickled out of Apple (and isn't just some reporter's grab at headlines), step back and ask: why is this coming out now?
This isn't a light decision to make. If it was true, it would have been in the planning for ages, and "sources" (ha! I love it!) could have leaked it a month ago just as easily as the weekend before WWDC.
I've heard the suggestion that Apple leaked this fake rumor as a jab at IBM. Possibly.
I think the most likely cause is that Apple is sick of what happened at recent Apple rollouts: the rumor sites stole their thunder, so the actual Apple events couldn't possibly live up to expectations. Apple ended up looking bad at their own product announcements -- ouch.
So, Action: Apple leaks some fake rumors that people *hate*. Consequence: everybody pays close attention at WWDC, and is relieved that the bad rumors are false. Rumor sites lose credibility, and most people go back to ignoring them.
(Of course, I think it's also possible that Apple signed Intel to fab G5's for them -- which could mean lower prices on Macs next year. As long as Macs have PPC chips in them, Apple users will be happy.)
If they are going to switch why not switch to AMD instead of Intel? AMD has a far better and cheaper processor for gaming, which is what matters!
This is a viral signature. You are now infected!
...that they are planning on running OSX on a Pentium4 chip aka x86 of some sort.. It may very well be the case that intel will provide a proprietary chip.
Depends what you mean by "few".
The actual intervals were:
10.0-10.1: 6 months (March 24 to Sept 25)
10.1-10.2: 11 months (Sept 25 to August 23)
10.2-10.3: 13 months (August 23 to October 24)
10.3-10.4: 18 months (October 24 '03 to April 29 '05)
For an average interval of 12 months.
...when Intel (along with Genentech) filed a court brief several weeks ago in support of Apple's lawsuit against the operator of ThinkSecret over his publicizing Apple-confidential information. Genentech's involvement could be explained by its CEO, who sits on Apple's board, but Intel?? The only reason Intel would get behind Apple in such a public way would be because of a blockbuster deal being negotiated between the two companies. And Genentech's involvement actually seemed weird--only explicable really as an intended distraction from Intel's far more bizarre involvement. Then a few days ago, a top Intel honcho says publicly that Macs are more secure than Windows PC.
It all adds up!
Having become so enamored with IBM PPC processors while developing the XBOX360, Microsoft has decided to switch future Windows development over to this platform.
Okay, maybe not, but it'd be a hoot.
From the article: "Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006" So... To meet this rather ambitious deadline Apple certainly has to have at least some fairly concrete hardware specs lined up. So maybe... perhaps this Mac Mini clone debuted by Aopen is in fact the next Mac Mini (or at least a preliminary mock up)... devious. You can't help but think that if you saw the pictures posted on the x86 Mini clone story (Sorry I forget where it is) they look amazingly similar to the Mac Mini too similar for a major OEM to "slip up" and give Apple too much canon fodder to sue them. And also if you read up on the x86 Mini clone it was resquested of the channel by Intel. If this story is true Apple certainly has to be talking to Intel on some level. So perhaps Intel is doing Apple's "dirty work" in slipping in ideas of what's to come. Intel of course benefits from MacOS working on x86 so that every major OS would now be running on Intel (and perhaps but less likely AMD) chips.
Apple sold a lot of G4s to nervous switchers on the understanding thatthey could run all their x86 software under Connectix's Virtual PC software. Microsoft bought Connectix and Virtual PC for OSX hasn't exactly been top of Microsoft's priorities (I assume the Connectix staff are probably working on making the Xbox360 run Xbox software).
This leaves Apple with a hole in it's marketing. If Apple does launch a Mac with an x86 in it, I'm betting it's there as an addition to the G5s, and being effectively a hardware accellerator for an own-brand 'Virtual PC'. It wouldn;t be the first time Apple has done this.
A cheap, headless x86 coprocessor in a Mac Mini sized box that lives on the other end of a firewire cable could be a very interesting proposition.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
But it doesn't mean that it's got adequate performance for a modern desktop system.
p rocessor.html
They could use more than one.
http://www.arm.com/news/5346.html
http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/ARM11MPCoreMulti
Huh, 2005? You mean when Apple's market share is supposedly growing again? More importantly, how can you compare the high end $2000 iMac to a $300-600 machine when they don't have similar specs or equipment? I mean, the point is to make a real comparison, yes? The lower end iMac comes with a bunch of items (high quality LCD, firewire, usb 2, wireless extreme, DVD, etc.) that aren't always included in other machines and starts at $1300. Why not start with that and then match the configuration from various competitors? It certainly won't be $300! Or compare to Apple's bottom end at $500. Don't forget to break out included software -- can't do much with the hardware alone. Play fair, eh? Oh, I suppose there's cost of ownership, virus software if you're running windows, and whether the software does what you want and is enjoyable to use, what else? Design? There some products that you just don't want to look at it. All this stuff gets pretty hard to price -- pretty subjective. But at least don't compare a $2000 machine to a $600 machine and call em equal! Geez.
Come on guys, of COURSE Apple will talk to Intel, and make it seem legit, it's standard tactics for getting a better deal from the primary supplier.
Almost as laughable, is a big Oracle-user shop, calling Microsoft for quotes on converting in-whole to SQL Server, right before it's time to renew the enterprise Oracle contracts.
So now we'll finally be getting turbine noise-level macs that hurl up like a growling tiger with a cold when booting? Yey, way to go apple. (If we don't, macs will have to be quite a tad slower than anything in the ibm compatible world)
NeXTStep ran on Intel for version 3.[1,2,3,4] and 4.[0,1,2] and DR1 and DR2 of OS X also ran on Intel, in the day, they (and developers) shipped 5 way compatable binaries (yup, 5 different chips, 68k (Next), PARISC, i386, SPARC, and Alpha(?)).
So all they have to do is keep things up to date (and they do quite a bit that way with Darwin) and they have their port.
Plato seems wrong to me today
Frankly I suspect that the easier and hence more likely CPU related news is dual-core G5s for the Power Mac line, and possibly (probably?) some major refresh of the laptop CPUs (dual-core G4? new, low power G5-like chip from IBM in the laptops in 1/2 - 1 year?).
My only Mac is a Macintosh IIsi, and all I use it for is a ROM ripping box for my system 7 emulator. Other than that it's a great little machine, though.
In Soviet Russia, "Pentium-killer" CPU gets killed by Pentium CPU!!!
Christ, I'd take 0% faster and 30% less in cost. I'm an x86/Windows user, but I like to tinker in other OSes, and I'd like to play with OS X, but the cost of mac hardware is unacceptable.
Lick it up, bitch!
Reading this news made me physically ill.
Don't be rediculous. Apple has a history of going into business with arch rivals, be they actual or perceived. IBM was a real rival, IBM once "enjoyed" the position of "Satan" in the Apple universe. Then the Universe turned upside down and Apple partnered with IBM, it was quite Orwellian. So now if, and that is a pretty big if, Apple partners with Intel, a perceived rival rather than an actual one - Intel does not sell computers or operating systems unlike IBM, we have yet another swapping of enemies and allies, again quite Orwellian.
Personally I doubt it will happen, Intel sells many chips that are not CPUs. Although for low-end models like the Mini where people will probably not buy much software and pretty much stick to the bundled software I supposed it could work. It would not be as smooth as 68K -> PPC, x86 and PPC are too close performance-wise for effective emulation.
It's entirely conceivable that either Intel will create a new PPC chip
That's another more realistic possibility. Remember the original PowerPC slogan, twice the performance for half the price. Neither happened of course but it was not so much of failure on the PPC side but one of unexpected miracles on the x86 side. No one expected Intel would be able to get x86 performance to where it is today, they are miracle workers in some respect. If they can apply the same sort of resources to desktop PPC we might see some amazing things. Unfortunately IBM seems more interested in high end workstations and such and Motorola is more interested in embedded. Maybe it makes sense to add Intel to the PowerPC fammily to get some desktop attention.
While Itanium2 would be a plausible solution for MacOS servers, I somehow doubt that Intel will be able to cool these wafers down and manage them in a way that is suitable for laptops and low-end desktops.
The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]
you know the world is coming to an end when the best golfer is black, the best rapper is white, apple goes to x86 and microsoft goes powerpc.
No, to use Apple terminology, "been there done that" . An alliance with Intel is less shocking than the alliance with IBM. How soon people forget that IBM was once the "Satan" of the Apple universe. IBM actually was a competitor unlike Intel who merely supplies competitors.
As for as MS going PowerPC, well, "been there done that" again. Windows NT 4's retail CD has x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC binaries. I remember Byte magazine comparing WinNT4 dual PPC 604s against WinNT4 dual pentiums. The verdict, dual PPC scaled better under WinNT4. The only problem was no one cared, Alpha had the performance, Intel had the price, unless you could dual boot the box into WinNT4 or MacOS there was no real point to PPC.
"Announcement"? Did I miss something? Where's the press release on the Apple Web site for this announcement? (If Apple haven't announced it, it's only an "announcement" to the extent that C|Net are "announcing" that they have what they're claiming is a reason to believe Apple will announce this.)
Presumably by "32 bit chipsets" you're indicating that the support chips for the 64-bit Pentium 4's from Intel aren't fully 64-bit, because you can buy 64-bit Intel x86 boxes from Dell, so it's not as if you can't get 64-bit x86's from Intel.
Watch this one closely folks, because it gets tricky...
1) Get totally unfounded rumor about Apple switching to Intel posted to major news sites about a month before WWDC.
2) Let rumor mill churn.
3) Right before WWDC, get article posted to cnet about how Apple will jump ship to Intel.
4) Get cnet article posted to slashdot weekend before WWDC.
5) Let rumor mill churn at high speed.
6) Prep Steve Jobs keynote full of buzzwords and bleeding edge technology goodness ready for June 6.
7) Pump rumor mills on Saturday, June 4, with something really outrageous.
8) Have a respected online news source post complete rebuttel of unfounded rumors on June 5.
9) Have the whole frickin' geek world drooling and panting by 9:59 on Monday.
10) Announce something neat at WWDC.
11) PROFIT!!!
This has been a public service announcement.
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
The reason there won't be a wholesale transition to x86? The education market. There are schools that are still running Apple ][ software. Most schools are firmly entrenched in OS 9. Their software investment (including grades, etc.) is OS 9. Apple doesn't allow its resellers to touch its education customers.
Dell may be selling a lot of hardware to yokels who think that x86 is essential because "that's what business is using" but most school districts are hooked on PowerPC and pre-OS X software.
Apple WILL NOT SCREW ITS EDUCATION CUSTOMERS! Write that down. The education market won't allow it to happen, either. There may be a mix of PowerPC and x86 offerings, but there will be no wholesale transition to x86.
Ooh... So in 2006 we can expect Apple to compete head on with Microsoft over OSs?
April fools joke, eh? Would it be even more of a joke if I said that Apple was going to raise the Itanic? The only fools here are people who think Steve is going to port MacOS to the x86.
Think about it. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Stevie will put an x86 processor at the heart of a Mac because it'd basically open the door to clones and homebrews of white-boxes running MacOS. Apple wouldn't dare give its users that much freedom.
No, we're talking ITANIC, baybe!
It makes logical sense, and it's a match made in heaven. AMD64 killed Intel's Itanium game plan in the short term causing sales of the machines to make a huge belly flop, plus it killed Intel's long term plans of eventually replacing the x86 with Itanium rather than slapping on 64-bit capability to the x86 architecture, which AMD did anyway and Intel was forced to adopt.
Intel sure as hell won't let billions of dollars of R&D for this new processor to go down the crapper. The solution? Move the processor to a different platform!
Intel can simply offer its wares to other architectures like the Mac. Plus, Intel has the fabs to make sure that Apple won't be starving for chips, which is a problem Apple constantly griped about with Motorola and IBM.
It'd also give Microsoft one more reason to fear Intel. If Intel is playing both sides of the PC vs. Mac war and suddenly becomes smitten with Microsoft (as they're reported to be lately), Intel would be in a position to play dirty.
I wouldn't be seen dead with an Intel Mac. If they go down this road then I will desert them, and I'm a really devoted Mac fanboy.
This guy are sick.
We must wait with interest to see if its real. But I think it would be smart. Surely the point is, this is a last chance to move out of being the Louis Vuitton or B&O of computing - elegant designs, high prices, brand conscious well heeled clientele, no discernible benefit for the mass of buyers for the extra cost. x86 is as a matter of fact the platform you have to go for if you want any more than niche share. OS9 was never going to cut it against XP, so migrating with that was a non-starter. But X really can. There is probably a window of about a year to get going, before Linux becomes the alternative desktop automatic choice, and before MS fixes security. Do it now, and you could make Apple a player again. Wait a year or two, and its game over. If you were to do this, there is no reason not to carry on making PPC machines either. There is a profitable niche for them, just as there is a profitable niche for LV. The question though is, do you want to go for the mass market. Its a big bet, but SJ probably has the guts, probably could take the company with him. Yes, he should go for it.
Why does everyone think that adding x86 support is an all-or-nothing proposition?
NeXTSTEP ran on four different CPUs, and all it took to build an app for all four was checking the boxes in Project Builder to say that you wanted to build a fat binary.
If Apple dusts off their existing multi-CPU tech, there's no reason to drop support of any existing architecture. As new CPUs come down the pike, they can just add them, too. You can already build fat binaries for Mac OS X, if you want to have different executables for g4 and g5 machines.
Tiger already has multiple versions of system libraries optimized for different CPUs, and the one you get when you run an app depends on what the loader knows about what kind of hardware you're on. You don't get the same libc binary on a g4 that you get on a g5.
I'd love to see Apple add x86 support to their software. I'd keep buying Apple hardware, whether it had an x86, PPC, Cell, or (insert future architecture here).
exactly. How much is Microsoft currently invested in apple? I know it started at 500M or so.
A blog about stuff.
Maybe they only let Intel make a G5-platform with Centrino technology for their Powerbook and Mac Mini systems?
Well, since the only source quoted for the story by Slashdot is CNET, I wouild like to remind you that Intel is an investor in CNET.
No comment.
A hungry bear does not dance!
AMD is not the logical choice for Apple. AMD struggles to produce its own x86-64 chips, let alone a PPC chip for Apple (which would be more likely). This is why you see AMD target the high-end of the x86 market, the gamers and so on, because it doesn't have the ability to produce for the lower-end. Intel on the other hand has the means for production, has lots of R&D to pool from, and importantly, can produce in a timely fashion. This is why I don't think it's too difficult for intel to produce PPC chips for Apple. Intel is truley massive, compared to AMD at least, has the cream of the cream working for them. PPC is an open spec, producing these chips, I'm sure, would not be difficult.
if Apple moves to Intel chips, lets OS X run on machines built by other vendors, if longhorn proves itself more/as stable, then what advantage will Apple have over Microsoft? the iPod? great...
Sure, there's some possibility that Intel could make a special PPC type processor for Apple. Yet, consider the snail.
You remember the snail right? Remember the tank?
Well, you don't have to remember too much, go to Apple's G5 page and read all about how the G5 is umpteen percent faster than the fastest thing Intel has to offer.
So Intel is going to keep making billions of their lowly, pitifully slow PC processors, the best they've been able to come up with all these years that still fall well short of the remarkable PPC, AND a few million PPC variant processors that are so far beyond their grasp that Apple had to show them how it's done?
So what will their new slogan be? Yeah, it's Intel inside, but it's not the good Intel that we make for Apple, it's the sucky slow Intel that's the best we could come up with on our own.
Won't that look really funny on Apple's site when they show how their Intel PPC variant is umpteen percent faster than the fastest thing Intel could come up with on its own?
Yeah, I can see that happening. heh
Apple might consider using some Intel products in the near future. But I can't imagine that the Macintosh line will be involved in terms of an Intel CPU used instead of IBM or Freescale ones.
Maybe some subsystem technology will be on topic between Intel and Apple (e.g., increased support for Intel's USB to the disadvantage of Firewire). Even more plausible to me, some new gadget in the "digital lifestyle" area using an Intel DSP or CPU chip might be in the works. Something like an enhanced iPod (including video capability, wireless and/or Bluetooth functionality, etc.?) or some home entertainment device comes to mind, too.
All in all, a change in Macintosh hardware that would require essential changes to the Mac OS and thus affect all the remaining third party software developers for the Mac platform would be a completely irrational move in Apple's corporate policy at the moment. But then again, this does not mean this scenario were completely unlikely...
There's a whole ton of comments here so I haven't read them all but... isn't anyone else but me thinking that this and the tablet rumors are related?
My prediction is an Apple Tablet running an Intel CPU... most probably XScale based. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
If isn't the case and I'm way off base and Apple does switch to some other architecture (not necessarily x86), I'm thinking this is where fat binaries come in. Sure, sure, they're already used for making OS X applications work with older version of OS X and/or making binaries with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions in one file, but isn't it also possible to have multiple completely different architecture code in one file?
In any case, WWDC should be interesting, as usual!
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
So an error of 1 part in 100 billion is worth getting excited about?
:-)
It certainly might be, it just depends on the application, viz:
if ((9533.24 - 215.10) != 9318.14) {crash_probe_into_Martian_surface();}
In general, you can't generalize.
The x86 processor is just a CPU, not the computer architecture. Nothing says it has to be anywhere near compatible with a modern PC.
Apple's hardware is already virtually identical to a PC other than the CPU. They use the same bus, the same cards, the same interfaces and peripherals. Their operating system is open source and already runs on x86 PCs. If they used the same CPU as well, then the only thing that would stop anyone from running Mac OS X on a clone would be a collaboration between Apple, ATI, and nVidia to hardware-lock the video cards that Quartz supported.
HP is already doing this, porting OpenVMS from Alpha to Itanium. They are also porting HP-UX and Nonstop.
0 -0-225-121.html
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-
"HP Integrity and Integrity NonStop servers offer you:
* Broadest choice of the industry's leading operating environments: HP-UX 11i, Linux®, Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003, OpenVMS and NonStop OS"
As I see it, this will take away Microsofts benefit of cheaper hardware. Now it will only be down to what the OS and the apps can deliver.
Mac rumor sites not reporting it actually gives a lot of credibility to the claim.
I emphasized the important part of your quote. Yes, they've managed so far and will manage in the future to trump PPC chips. Your argument is purely technical and geeky. The x86 just works as empirical evidence clearly showed that time and time again. Instruction sets don't matter that much anymore anyway. They are just a way to tell the CPU what to do. They don't dictate the internals of a CPU. To call x86 an architecture is kind of a misnomer.
x86 instructions are of variable length. This leads to more compact code and thus a more efficient use of code caches. x86 has rational arguments going fo it.
Actually it would be business as usual. I highly doubt that this incarnation of an ancient rumor will turn out to be true.
But if it were true, now that would be really entertaining. I would take great pleasure in watching all of the Mac zealots denying all of the previous anti-x86 propaganda they spread and all of their PPC apolegetics. Mhz myth? We never seen no Mhz myth.
Could someone please hand me a stick to scrape this article off my shoes. :p
Apple believers will keep buying Apple systems for a while until they realize that they'd be better off to buy a white box and install a Linux distro that they can skin to have the Apple GUI look and feel.
I've been a developer for FreeBSD - the open source UNIX that Apple is already using - since it was a set of patchkits for 386BSD. I've not been using Linux quite as long, only since Red Hat 2.1. But the thing is, I've used Linux and FreeBSD and KDE and Gnome and I finally tossed it all over and "upgraded" from a 1.7 GHz P4 to a 400 MHz G3. And it's been like moving from a crummy New Jersey apartment to a private villa in the Bahamas while still being just as close to New York. I can run all the same software I could before, plus a whole lot more, and it just works.
No, if you think you can produce OS X by adding a translucent Enlightenment skin and glowy blue theme to Gnome, you simply have no idea.
I've got news for you: it's neither spelled "rediculous", nor did Intel get x86 to the performance it sports today, AMD did (remember, x86-64 implementation as it exists today was invented by AMD, Intel just copied it).
Microsoft, though, are they actually a huge rival? I mean, they've got a competing OS, but that's it. The XBox doesn't count as a computer, because it's sold as a console.
Microsoft and Apple have been partners since 1977, IIRC, and they most definitely WEREN'T enemies then... if it weren't for Apple, MS would have died in about 1978.
Apple would kill their entire user base if they went down this route. If Apple were ever serious about this, they wouldve done it when first migrating to OSX. That would've been the perfect time, since OSX needed completely new application support and Motorola had hit a wall with the PPC. But come 5 years later, Apple now has more developers and users then ever before.
OSX also relies heavily on Altivec which is PPC only, so just take this article for what it is, BULLSHIT.
Just imagine if Job's were as stupid as the peeps at C-Net. Like you I would not upgrade and would dump Apple all together. It would mean a huge loss tor me financially considering how much I've invested in OSX software. But fortunately Jobs is not stupid, so Apple and Intel have something else up their sleeves. I think that Intel is either working with Apple on a new PDA, or with an Airport with H.264 streaming, something that would allow a Mini to act as a hub for HD content.. These are just thoughts. But definately not desktop CPU replacement. This would mean certain death for Apple in the personal computer areana.
I'm sure that my Mac-user friends are feeling quite sick right now. :(
They switched because of the Intel's, now Intel comes back to them... Oh dear.
Surely you can run Apple ][ software at many times native speed under emulation if your real chip is a Pentium M or Pentium D.
... effectively building a PPC core into their chips.
But not OS 9.
Emulation allowed Apple to dump the aging m68k and move to PPC
That's because the PPC was so many times faster than the 68k that a PPC running an OS that was still almost all 68k was able to run about as fast as the last-generation 68k and almost as fast as the contemporary-generation 68k, and they didn't bother with the next-generation 68k.
But to do that required a CPU that was not just a little better, not just twice as fast, but fast enough to beat the emulation overhead.
It normally takes a processor about 10x faster to emulate another processor at full speed. Apple did better than that, but that's because they had a particularly easy job: the PPC had twice the number of registers that the 68k did, so it could keep all the 68k register in PPC registers. That's the same reason that there's a scant possibility of the Xbox 360 being able to emulate the original Xbox: there's less register pressure on the PPC than the x86.
EVERY successful emulation I've ever seen has involved going from a slow chip with a small register file to a chip several times faster with a bigger register file. 68k on PPC, 68k on ARM, VAX and Sparc and x86 on Alpha.
Even if the emulation was Opteron-only (in which case they'd be talking to AMD rather than Intel) they'd still have to deal with register spills. Emulating the PPC on x86? They'd need every bit of that 10x speed improvement. I can't see that being practical unless the next generation of Intel chips jumps into the 30 GHz range with correspondingly fast ram or hundreds of megabytes of 1:1 cache, or unless Intel does the PPC emulation on their underlying microcode the way they're doing x86 emulation now
Maybe jobs and gates both visited intel and said
"yo mr intel, can you do us PPC chips of 5 variations and 20m/year, we'll -invest- $5b upfront for you to start and gurantee $3b/year in sales at 10% inc per year"
Intel has to thank Gates for making intel big, so its the least they could do.
MS gets their cpus cheap
Apple gets their cpus cheap in bulk
Intel finally can get some PPC IP/patents.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
There's a lot of badmouthing here, but just think of something first... This is a wonderful strategic move. Once they move to Intel chips exclusively, ANYONE can buy thier OS. This gives OS X *AND* Linux an opportunity to gang up on Windows. Would you buy OS X for your Intel box? You most likely would.
...I'll stand on my head and spit nickles on the town square...in the nude.
When the Cell processor was announced by IBM, I was very excited because Apple could take advantage of it. But what happens now?? Are they crazy?? Now that IBM releases a good uproc they drop it?!?!
They switched because of the Intel's
Speak for yourself, monkey boy.
It's the software.
It's always been the software.
"Hell, might Intel even be getting into the PPC biz? Stranger things have happened."
I thought something along this line as well. Why they announce a deal with Intel unless Intel were building something for them. If they were going x86 it would make more sense to be open to both AMD and Intel, not to mention that AMD actually has the better chips right now.
Though Apple doesn't build chips, I thought they had rights to the PPC architecture as well, being one of the original PPC alliance.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
You can buy non-Apple PPC boards RIGHT NOW, and you can't load OSX on them
Not legally, anyway.
But OS X isn't like OS 9, it doesn't run out of the ROM. To boot OS X on an unsupported motherboard you just need to have a version of Darwin that'll boot on that hardware, and replace the components of OS X that are locked to the hardware with the corresponding components from Darwin.
The only hook they have that would work is the Quartz acceleration in the video card. They control Quartz and they already have ATI and nVidia making custom video cards for them, so they could lock the GPU to Apple hardware and lock the Quartz acceleration to the GPU. So you'd be able to run OS X on a clone, but without Quartz Extreme or hardware OpenGL support.
====8<====cut==here====
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 10 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Whisky Tango Foxtrot, Over?
I agree this is the most likely course for this rumour, but then again, it may just be vapor.
By doing this Apple gets a dual supply chain, they will then get Intel and IBM competing for their PPC buisness.
Fast forward to 2005. Apple's market share is in danger of slipping into third place, behind Linux, and nowadays their hardware really is vastly overpriced compared to the competition.
huh? There have been more Linux users than Mac users for about 10 years now. Apple has gained marketshare in recent years, but so has Linux. It seems unlikely that Apple will overtake Linux in the low-cost market, as going into the sub-$500 market really wouldn't be profitable for Apple. (It's not profitable for Microsoft either, as nobody wants to spend $80 on a Windows licence for a $200 computer, which is why you only see Linux at such low price points.)
it started at 500M or so
c net
USD150M
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-202143.html?legacy=
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
AMD did
And it was the 32-bit Athlon that first pierced 1Ghz, and shook Intel out of it's monopoly-induced lethargy.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
What are you talking about? Microsoft is SHIT at R&D. They sunk a ton of money into Windows 9x, and it was a flop. They sunk a ton of money into the NT architecture, and it too was a flop. Yeah, they sold a lot of them, but they were shit. What's their best OS? Windows 2000, aka NT4 with a modern GUI and some marketing spin.
Yeah, they've got a lot of money to spend, but they just keep churning out crap. Linux developers have never had more than a fraction of Microsoft's cash to spend, but they absoutely kick the shit out of them where effective R&D is concerned, and have for some years now.
Microsoft has 2 things going for it. They churn out the volume, and they have good marketing. Which is more than good enough to keep them in business, despite the fact that they come up with lemons every time they try something new.
--- Now we know why Intel and Microsoft always got along so well in the past.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
if this means that macs will be cheaper for the consumer to purchase then thats the best option. Macs have been the best computer experience but comes at a costly price, but if that hardware cost could be cut down somehow then more people would flock to Apple. As for whether Apple's software might be on x86 arch, no one can predict how the people will react, especially if it were available for the whole x86 arch. I mean Apple do make some really good software and I would love to be able to run Mac OS X on my laptop. But whether it would be the same as on a mac or not, I cant say.
anyone that knows a modicum of computer maintenance can keep a Windows machine running well
Maybe 1% of the computer-using population know that "modicum of computer maintenance". If that.
I do support for software developers. They've got PhDs and everything. They're all in the top few percent of the computer using population. It's amazing the messes I've had to clean up over the years. Most people think they're doing well if they can install Windows after its eaten its brain.
but a LARGE and substatial portion of Apple's fan base literally hates Microsoft and Intel
Intel isn't Microsoft. Microsoft isn't Intel.
I have serious doubts about the possibility of Apple shipping OS X for Intel, but they're all about technical problems. I don't like Intel, I don't like the way they've been a barrier to progress in the processor world for a quarter of a century, but if they could bring about a crack in the Microsoft monopoly I'd happily take them up on it.
" You don't think they could fit a 1.5GHz G5 by early 2006 in a Mac mini?"
No. They haven't been able to fit a G5 of any description in a Powerbook for 2 years.
The PPC chip is the only bad part about Macs right now.
I was planning to get an iBook or PowerBook near the end of the summer.... But with this news.... I don't know. I don't want to get a laptop and have no new software for it 2 years later.... I mean, technology progresses, but it's usually 4 or 5 years with current systems until current software won't even run on it....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
If you list 1,000 applications that the PPC is kicking tail, all I have to do is point to the desktop where PPC is getting crushed right now.
When I'm sitting in front of my iMac G5 and its running like a P3, why does it matter to me that Microsoft uses it for the next XBox?
All the rest is bullsh*t. If my apps don't run fast on my mac, what do I care about the philsophy of the PPC line? Its like saying "Well, that Chevy sure runs good at NASCAR, I think I'll buy a Chevy from the local Bob's Chevrolet as my personal car".
My friends are bunch of programmers and they like PPC's much more than x86.
I like the PPC more than the x86, but unless you're programming in machine code you can only see the difference between one CPU and another in very remote and indirect ways, and any competant programmer who thinks they even notice those differences is fooling themselves. I've spend most of the past 10 years working with a processor that really is significantly different from either, one that Intel and HP conspired to "put down", and the vast majority of the time when the instruction set made a difference it was only because it showed up in bugs in third-party software that I had to fix.
And Tru64 on the Alpha did some very clever tricks taking advantage of the large address space. All shared memory could be allocated at unique addresses, so you could pass pointers to shared memory between programs and they kept working. The first gigabyte of address space in each process was unallocated, so that if you ran over the end of an array or otherwise had a loose pointer you'd trap very quickly, which made debugging much easier.
For the PPC and x86... there's not even that, not even in 64-bit mode, since neither Win64 and OS X use a dense memory model (neither, unfortunately, does HPUX on the Itanium). The biggest impact? There's a slight accidental security advantage in the relationship between the PPC's less compact instruction set and C's null-terminated strings. For the vast majority of programmers, that's pretty much it. For end users, there's no difference at all.
Have you tried Intel's compiler on your code? It's free (as in beer) for Linux, and often significantly faster than gcc. The auto-vectorizing is particularly good compared to gcc's efforts.
So from that we can guess that at least a PC-style bios could be involved, which AFAICS would be a huge step back for Apple. Hello buggy bioses!
If Apple were partnering with a mainboard manufacturer, and were to create their own Bios, they surely could port OpenFirmware (or whatever it's called that they are using).
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
When HP made its (insane) decision to switch to from Alpha to Intel, it didn't happen overnight: There were a couple more generations of Alpha. This could be the same.
will apple announces a rather odd strategy shift on monday?
t o+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.le de
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+
My guess is that The deal will be a manufacturing deal.
intel might make chips for apple, but I doubt they are going to be X86 chips. It's probably going to be a powerpc variant. I don't think apple can afford to get all thier developers to port everything to a differant platform. again. all thier users to change all the hardware, again. this would be the 4th major development-architectural shift in 20 years. mot68K to PPC macos to OSX and now a move to X86?! no freaking way.
what will apple get out of this?
virtually Unlimited chip production - no more production hickups like there were with motorola and IBM. no more relience on IBM (who are more focused of microsoft+sony's gaming platforms) and cheaper prices for chips.
what will intel get out of this move?
experiance in the powerPC architecture, needed since MS moves into ppc usage maybe a way for a future x-box design win? apple as a client. maybe an inroad to apple's ipod architecture (the portalplayer chip is an arm varient, aswell as dec's strongar.. sorry, intel's Xscale.)
we'll see.
Have fun with your stupid register-starved CPU which needs 5 times more power to achieve the same computing performance. While you are at it, load a niche operating system from Redmond that can hardly interoperate with anything different and finish it with a shitvidia video card with super-proprietary drivers that will delete every .c file it finds while installing. Me? I'm happily running NetBSD on a PPC powered box.
Well, one application which would see a HUGE performace increase is virtual pc.
I wonder what would happen if Apple decided to license virtual pc and include it within their own OS?
Before the lunatics start attacking me, just consider this: Before going with NextStep as their next generation OS, Apple had discussions with Microsoft to consider licensing NT on PowerPC as the basis for the basis for their next generation OS.
On the other hand, maybe Apple will bring back the Yellowbox. This was a NextStep technology that developers could program to that would allow your applications to run on both NextStep and Windows. Essentially, when you installed a Yellowbox application on windows, you installed an invisible Nextstep layer on Windows. In other words, the OS was included within the application.
- dj
Except for that in the PPC-on-X86, there will be less OS overhead because the PPC emulator box can catch the OS calls and send them to the X86 OS, removing the overhead of running a whole OS in the emulator, and making the OS calls out of the emulator run at near-native speed, making the only truly "emulated" thing the app's execution itself. For more on how this works see qemu's ppc linux on x86 linux emulation or x86 on ppc like Darwine(wine on PPC) uses.
Intel makes more then just ix86 chips.
With luck apple will stick with the more efficient PPC and not just become another 'commodity box' after the switch to a new *vendor*.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, Intel and Apple (though not x86) is mentioned in some rumor articles and you will now be surprised unless Apple switch to AMD x86 processors?.
My advice? Next time be wary of the difference between caffeine and cocaine.
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
neither Win64 and OS X use a dense memory model
... use a dense model' and when I edited it I missed the word.
Of course I meant "sparse" here. I started out 'both
My proofreader is obviously on vacation.
...may finally become a reality. The perfect laptop for parties: turn it over and barbecue, no switches to press. They could stripe the case and ship it with memtest86 for grilling.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Personally, I'm not a big fan of this move, because Apple loses some cachet as the "Think Different" platform. However, there are a number of pros and cons to such a move:
In favor:
- A couple of years ago, I read a report that Apple engineers maintained a current build of OSX on Intel hardware. I forget if this was as a clandestine endeavor or at Jobs' behest because he likes to keep his options open.
- Steve Jobs likes to make bold moves when it suits his purposes (e.g., switching from Disney to player-to-be-named-later for Pixar films, turning NeXT from a hardware/software company to a pure software company right before they were set to release their M88k-based hardware).
- Apple lost some face with the G5 rollout, when they claimed it would be the fastest PC on the market and then a bunch of bloggers went and proved otherwise.
- Apple needs greater CPU diversity in its product line, from Mac Minis to Mac servers. Diversification wouldn't be in IBM's best intersts as a supplier, because it force them into a producing lower volumes of more different chips. Economies of scale don't favor that.
- OS X on generic PCs??
Not in favor:
- Causes Apple to lose some credibility among the anti-Wintel crowd by embracing one half of that union.
- Resentment among customers that just bought Apple hardware that will likely not be supported by new software in the future, unless Apple has a NeXTSTEP-style fat binaries support planned.
- If Apple moves to Intel, that opens up the possibility of customers dumping OSX for Windows on their Macs.
- Forces Apple to support two CPU architectures until the end-of-support on G4/G5-based Macs.
- Seems to be pushing against direction of industry, with IBM providing the core Cell processor technology for all 3 next-generation console systems. A better move would have been to Cell technology.
... surprisingly, his estimate isn't too far off. Out of curiousity, I dug around to see what Ars' current recommended systems are, and hardware parity with the Mac you describe is somewhere between these two systems, except for the monitor and harddrive:
2 00505.ars 2 00504.ars/2
http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/system-guide-
http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/system-guide-
The drives listed are too small, but even huge drives are cheap, and depending on your preference you may or may not want to add another $200 for the monitor (that's the big difference).
So, his range is wrong... $300 is too low for parity. But, parity for $1000 should be easy, and $800 might actually be close to the mark,
Nevertheless, Intel still managed to get to where they are today. How much AMD helped push them along is another issue.
People would be running OS X on AUD$399 white-boxes instead of buying AUD$799 Mac Minis. They'd lose their hardware markup and a lot of control.
OTOH if people could "run Mac on their PC", Apple might just make money as a software company.
OTGH, maybe "x86" means AMD and being able to plug up to 8 low-power HyperChannel-connected 64-bit CPUs into your laptop. Well? I can dream if I like. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...for the new XboX? (-: ...and gets sued by IBM's mainframe department? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hey, stop kidding, Apple! We're way past April 1st. Not funny anymore, joke's over. PowerPC is one of the reason why I switched to Mac. I like to have performance w/o sitting in a windtunnel.
...not sure whether it's Insightful or Funny, but it's definitely +1. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Why is it always that Intel == x86? All chips these days are essentially RISC-based with a "front end" thrown onto them. Why can't Intel throw a PPC front end onto one of their kick-ass chips and make it essentially PPC compatible? Okay, I'm downplaying the true difficulty in this, but it's easier than migrating an entire platform to a new technology (and yes, I lived through the PPC migration, thankyouverymuch).
--Jim (me)
And if it wasn't for Microsoft, Apple would have died in about 1986. 'Word', 'Excel'- important keywords.
...may have tarnished that relationship for Microsoft.
However, I expect the XboX360 plus a hard disk to make a kick-ass (and take-names) Linux box.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Nope. Intel woke up in the 'super Socket 7' days.
1000000000 is just an arbitrary number that sells magazines when placed on the cover.
Then a lot of people stand around distrubing their nits and thinking... did that just happen? And if so... WTF?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Blind we are if creation of this clone cpu, we did not see
That pretty much sums up the article... 99.999% pure hogwash sprinkled liberatley on the populus as to enfalme and enrage current mac users. Underhanded CNet tactics and makes them look even less credible that ever... hmmm... now I know why I stopped reading their tripe back in 2000.
AMD's "amd64" architecture and Intel's EMT64 architecture are exactly the same thing, and are binary compatible. AMD and Intel have had patent cross-licensing agreements in place for years that pretty much guarantee that either company can make chips that are 100% compatible with the other's products.
The only reason Intel keeps the waters a bit muddied on this point is that for marketing reasons it's embarrassing for them to admit that they are following AMD's lead and not doing their own thing.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Apple gets most of its profits from its hardware side of the business. So Apple's not going to throw that away and allow us to install OSX on our Intel/AMD systems.
Also, the article said that Apple was in talks with both AMD and Intel, but Intel won. Obviously since AMD lost, Apple's software will not run on AMD. That's another clue that the solution Apple is looking for will be proprietary in some way.
Certainly this will lead to cheaper Apple products, as we NEED the consumer competition. But it will NOT lead to Apple becoming solely a software business.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Intel's CEO gives far better blowjobs !
And swallows too if required.
I really wouldn't want one of dvorak's predictions to come true. It will be exciting though. It is a good thing I will be there for that keynote. I'll see you in San Francisco.
So if in 2006, Mac OS X is available for some kind of Intel processor, what's to stop us from buying all of the components that make up a Mac G6 seperately (or better ones) and making home-made Macs ourselves?
Or.... is that what Apple wants, eh?
Then again, closed hardware means a tighter OS, which has always been one of their stronger advantages.
It's not official until Steve Jobs casts his distortion field over the WWDC attendees on Monday and tries to explain to them why going with the Itanic is a good idea.
AMD would have been a MUCH better partner, IMHO, as Apple will be "just another partner" to Intel, and the center of attention at AMD.
Anyways, Apple needs to stop complaining about chip problems and fix their P.O.S. kernel. Did you see the benchmarks from this article?
Good Lord does OS X suck as a server.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Will it run iTunes?
Hmm... at the time, though, Apple had DEEP market penetration (thanks to VisiCalc on the II), right?
Word and Excel wouldn't have even been around if that were the case. IIRC, WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were both ported to Mac OS, so that wouldn't have been a problem.
However, if anything were to happen, it would have been in 1986, as the lack of MS wouldn't change anything (Woz was working on adding floating point to Integer, and had he completed it, well, Integer would have kicked ass compared to Applesoft). The IBM PC would still have done what it did, just on CP/M. OS/2 development may have been slowed down, though... but if it DID come out, it would have been more successful (then again, it'd have to compete with GEM... I'm about sick of thinking of the possibilities...)
I think it's time for Apple to virtualize their software. Their O/S and binaries should run on a virtual CPU, translated on the fly to native instructions.
It would take a minimal performance hit (and no performance hit if the translation result is properly cached on the disk), but it would mean that Apple does not depend on any CPU vendor. They would be able to move from one architecture to the other "on the fly".
SGI switched and it ruined them ! Why not use MIPS or better for you if you use freescale ! Come on Steve Intel is just like IBM. Make a real switch ! Use freescale or MIPS !
"No, Viriginia. There is no Santa Claus."
Would Intel be willing to license the Centrino technology to Apple, maybe coupled with its own PPC chip? I think the only hurdle to making this into a laptop computer would getting Altivec integrated onto the chip (I'm not sure who owns the IP on Altivec). Afterall, the Centrino is doing well for Intel's reputation in the CPU market with enough bandwidth and energy saving features.
Note: I'm looslely coining Centrino here because the chip itself is x86 based. I'm specifically referring here to the power saving features of the Centrino chip.
IBM owns the patents to most of the SOI and strained silicon processes. That's why AMD and IBM have an IP sharing contract so they can combine process tech. Intel's strained silicon process is very cheap, but has pretty bad heat issues (gotta have the SOI to buttress the leakage caused by strained matrix).
Kinda leaves Apple in a funny spot. AMD worked with IBM to come up with the process for 90nm SOI/SS at their Fishkill plant which is used in G5 and AMD's chips. I really, really don't see Apple switching to Intel for anything. The reason IBM cannot supply enough G5's is that it is a really hard chip to make. Now, IBM could cross license AltiVec to AMD and AMD could design a dual core AMD64 ISA based chip with it. That would be interesting, an AMD64 chip with AltiVec and no SSE2/3...
That would fix two big issues with the G5...memory latency and production capacity (it's a slightly less complicated chip...although much bigger and more expensive die-wise). Also, both the Fishkill plant and Dresden plants can make such a chip...in addition, AMD has a new fab (FAB36) due to open in a year (for 65nm production). Very fun, but I give this near zero probability.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Apple's online store says the highest-end Dual 2.7GHz model is "Estimated Ship: Same business day".
(I'm always amused what passes for "Insightful" on /.)
Currently they're invested a total of NOTHING in Apple. They sold that nonvoting stock back to Apple several years ago. And it was only $150 million.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
The hardware in my mini is going to be or, as some have already pointed out, may already be outdated. I knew that when I bought it. What I didn't see coming was a massive code fork to x86, so that 2 years down the road, the newest mac software will possible be 'x86 only'. This boils my blood. I had to go through this crap with the first Windows CE devices, some software was compiled for ARM, and some for Intel, and I was always on the wrong side of whatever the program wanted to run on.
I have also paid a lot for the software I have. How long will adobe and Microsoft support the powerPC versions of their software once Apple goes Intel? I now feel like the lifespan of my machine is seriously degrading. I don't like it one bit.
God is real unless declared integer.
Perhaps IBM is bogged down with supporting Xbox and other PPC appliances and can't devote the manufacturing time to Apple. In terms of number of chips sold, I would imagine Apple is at least number 2 or 3 down on the list.
At least it was in response to an 8-bit troll.
It's better than the 2-bit trolls we typically get around here.
Don't know where to begin with your tirade of stupidity but it was so remarkably wrong that I had to say something.
Why would 3rd party devs tell them to feck off? Perhaps 3rd party devs (like me) don't want Apple's business. Errr... no.
FYI Microsoft have already ported Office to OS X! It's called "Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac" and it even supports Applescript.
I'd buy an Intel based Mac if the price/performance was right.
Some people just don't get that this will not be another x86 PC, it will still be a proprietary architechture, just using an Intel chip. You won't be able to run "Winblows" (you childish jerk) on it.
I think this makes a lot of sense for Apple.
Never mind. I suggest you increase whatever medication you're on.
Am I the only one who thinks this might be a new Apple handheld computer based on ARM?
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
The article itself is completely factless, and appears to be completely hearsay from "insider sources." There's nothing official about it. Heck, it could even be an Apple ploy to drum up interest in the WWDC, and C|Net is stupidly playing into it.
Even if Apple does announce a move to Intel, it's still not official at this point, and the C|Net articcle amounts to one more in a series of rumors.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This is like an airline switching from the beautiful, elegant Lockheed L-1011 to the "cheap", dangerous DC-10. Or switching from Rolls Royce to GE. This is horrible. Why does cheap, kluncky, inferior always win? We shouldn't tolerate this. Apple just lost one of their big advantages over the PC. So now there will be no real choice for the consumer or reason to switch. I used to buy from Apple because their hardware was better. Now why should I bother? Sure the sowtware is still better, but even that might change when it all moves over to the Intel. I suppose we'll start seeing blue screens on the mac now. Now I'm pining for the macsbug white screen. Everything is going Intel. UGH! Talk about monopoly!
What?
So reading the initial post I think: Bomb Shell.
Further reading and I think: Fluff.
Further thought and random comment reading and I think: Intel Inside.
What does that last one mean, that last one means, that I'm wondering if Apple isn't making a market move.
We have OSX based on FreeBSD. FreeBSD loves Intel hardware. Intel hardware has a natural market share over AMD/IBM and greater brand recognition.
Now think about this random idea. An Apple computer with a tastilly designed little "Intel Inside" sticker pasted on it and Apple becomes like Microsoft a "software is the future" company.
I think the idea of a sexy looking Apple PC with that "Intel Inside" logo would sell. To the average PC purchaser take the following equation:
Bigger numbers are better(Intel clock speed) + Intel is a good think (market share) + Sexy looking hardware (Apple designs well) + Sexy looking OS (Apple designs well) = +++ Which really means, "I want to buy it Mr. Salesman."
This of course is minus the technical issues, which I don't think are insurmountable with good developers and some help from Intel hardware-wise.
-Drunken K
Why don't many of these allegedly 'smart' slashdot users seem to understand that?
Even if it uses a Pentium M, it will be a totally proprietary system, and won't boot Windows. Nor will OS X ever run on a Dell.
Sheesh! If Apple decided to go head to head in the PC clone business they'd be committing corporate suicide.
Bah, I even proof read it 3 times..... That should read "Intel is a good THING" *sigh*
Let's see, a rumour on /. based on a rumour on cnet.com is "another reason not to buy an Apple"?
And the dumbest part is that you will use Windows on x86 instead, which will definitely have DRM, just in case Apple "might get" DRM!? WTF?
Or am I just feeding a troll now?
This is quite unlikely, but could Apple run an x86 processor alongside an existing PowerPC processor (not simultaneously) like in this old Quadra and so allowing for a dual boot into Windows or Mac os X?
I doubt that Apple is planning a wholesale switch to Intel chips as there is too much invested in both marketing and developer relations.
... if Apple do want to switch to Intel chips in the long term (e.g. perhaps to ultimately eventually compete head-on with Windows in the PC OS space?), then the best time to start is now, i.e. sooner rather than later. Because although Apple have "a lot" invested in marketing and developer relations, that's not going to get less over time, it's going to get much much more --- and the longer they wait, the (exponentially) harder it will become to do a switch.
Apple have only about 3% of the PC market right now (but growing). Imagine trying to switch to x86 when they have, say, 20% market share some years down the line, and many more customers, ISVs and applications. By comparison, switching now will be an absolute breeze.
The ideal is if they can put a system in place that keeps both options open, e.g. perhaps automatical compilation to a dual binary format. If any application developed from 2006 on could support both platforms automatically, they could grow in whichever direction they felt best, and not be left high and dry if e.g. something happens to IBM. And even more ideally is if they can emulate PPC on x86 reasonably well enough that existing software can run on the x86-based Apple too.
In fact the more I think about it, the more sense it seems to make to try run on x86. Although it does seem like a risky move.
If Apple plans to sell OS X for "Wintel" hardware, in direct competition with Windows, I'd understand this switch. (That would rule, IMHO.) But otherwise, it just seems like a giant step backward. Apple has always been an elegant architecture from the bottom up. Intel's nasty x86 baggage just doesn't belong.
I can't imagine Apple going for the P4 in any event. Pentium M possibly--but is there a 64-bit Pentium M? Or maybe Intel has at last found a home for the Itanic?
64-bit architecture
OS X's market share (wich in the end would be the death of Apple)
I figure that either
1) Intel will get in on the PPC game and sell PPC to Apple (which makes sense, because they may also be able to sell PPC to the next gen console makers)
2) Apple is wanting to buy Intel's Xscale processor. The Xscale isn't the best ARM processor out there, but it has a decent clock speed (620Mhz). If Apple is going after the Xscale CPU, then also expect a new product somewhere between an iPod and an iBook. Because the CPU is too power hungry for any iPod like devices (iPods use little dual core ARM7's), the new product will have to be "bigger" than an iPod. Maybe an iPod video that outputs to a TV? I don't think that it makes sense to run something as big as a tablet from the Xscale, something that side may as well use PPC and then run all the stock OSX apps.
Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
It could be Itanium. Or ARM. Honestly, I don't see Apple going x86, because of the whole "think different" attitude.
From a tech point of view, it would be a shame for Apple to switch from the beautiful PPC chips to the ugly duckling x86. Apple has been been making some top notch technical choices, resulting in lots of geek cred, with the PPC line and OS X, so I just can't see the x86 making sense here.
(Itanium is an interesting possibility, in that Intel knows that line of chips is floundering, so Apple could walk in and save the day.)
Well this is going to be fun... All the mac fanatics I know always say to me : "Intel.. omg.. don't talk to me about that crap. It's horrible!" Of course they never have any good justification except that well.. Apple dosen't use Intel so it sucks. It will be fun to see what they will say/think now :)
What makes Apple's current pricing seem absurdely marked up to you?
Do you know the true cost for Apple to develop, manufacture, market, distribute and support any specific Mac model? Are you on the Apple board of directors to have such privileged information?
I seriously doubt it. I doubt that you even understand how a business works and that a company like Apple exists to make money and that to make money by selling a product you have to have a profit margin in your products.
Just because the Ma and Pa's down at the computer fair can build you PC for only 3% mark up it doesn't mean that a real computer company has to follow the same deeply flawed business plan.
I'd thought of this too and I think it's feasible for sure. The problem is that one of the best things about OS X is that it's very very stable. Hacking support for other hardware is going to compromise that stability in the process, albeit only on the other hardware. I can see it looking bad for Apple if too many people try that, I can see it being bad for Apple of too many people succeed, but man, I can see it being so awesome to run OS X on any commodity x86 computer... :)
Whatever happened to that mysterious blunder Intel produced called the Itanium? As I recall it was actually quite good just too new for the x86 industry. Apple is crazy enough they may actually use the thing. Either that or I follow suite with the others who believe that a non-mac product (i.e. ipod, newton2, tablet?) will use an intel chip.
I was thinking the same thing last week, wondering if they could possibly get Intel to just make their PPC chips. As far as continuity goes with OS X that would be more logical. However, there were rumors way back that Apple had OS X running on x86b back to 10.2, I heard. It's conceivable that they've been keeping up on x86 specifically for this reason, and that there won't even be a performance hit when switching to x86 because they've secretly been keeping it in step.
This has been a long time comming though. It's not just down to a recent spat with IBM.
Apple have been considering this move for some time. It solves their two biggest problems (but gives rise to some other problems, that they feel they can live with):
1) Just can't seem to break that 3GHz barrier with G5
2) Just can't seem to package G5 in Powerbook format.
They really have to do something about this embarrassing state of affairs, and this is what they've decided.
The tech issues are really not as big as some here would have us believe.
My bet is that they will be using a straightforward Pentium M variant, not some Intel fabbed PPC or custom chip.
AFAIK Apple also designs their own motherboard chipsets. From the point of view of an operating system, this means that addressing any peripheral at all can (and probably will) be completely different from a standard PC system. In particular, it is likely that the Apple designs have mostly well-designed interfaces, as opposed to the layers on top of layers of backwards compatibility kludges in the standard PC systems.
The OS, of course. ;-)
Seriously though, I'd run OS X anything before choosing XP... except for gaming.
That's just as close for Dvorak standards!
You can't get a more EXPENSIVE system than an Intel-based one...
To break into the market of Apple-centered consumers, Apple will announce Monday that it will begin selling Apple-branded HP Pavillion computers, to be called the Apple Pavilion.
Sue the hackers who get OS X to run on commodity x86 hardware.
Yesterday when I woke up there was a rabbit sitting next to a blonde girl laying in the bed in my spare bedroom... shit has never been more weird. I'm going to keep an eye on the sky for unusual hue mid-day changes and to look for aerobatic oinkers.
>>The current G5s are pretty much faster(in application speed, not in clock speed) than the current Pentiums.
Sorry, that is just not true.
I regularly use the same app (Photoshop) on G5 (work) and a self-build PC using an AMD Opteron 246 (home). The Opteron PC is noticeably faster. Memory, graphics cards are roughly comparable between both systems. Ok, not exactly a scientific test, but I know faster when I see it.
>>So, 2 things which IBM-Apple can do: (1) Make G5 run cooler, or (2) develop a G5-M for mobiles which is effectively a cooler type of G5.
But it seems these are precisely the 2 things which IBM-Apple CAN'T do!
If they had not declined then that would've been conclusive. Instead, we have to assume by their silence that somebody has found them out. The same way that little Billy responds when his mother calls him, except when he's in the middle of stealing cookies from the jar when he shouldn't have even been in the kitchen.
How about if they put an Intel chip in a low end computer, like the Mini, recompile the Apple-supplied applications so they run reasonably fast, and then emulate PPC for the 3rd party applications only. This would serve apple's purposes for something like the Mini since they figure that most buyers of the Mini wouldn't run 3rd party applications anyway.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
You read it here first.
Intel will supply ARM CPU's for a new video-centric iPod released in 2006. The current CPU used for the iPod is not powerful enough to decode mpeg4 files downloaded over iTunes so Apple needs to make a significant update.
Expect the iPod Video to do for TV downloads what the iPod did for mp3s. While many players from other companies can do this today, expect Apple's to be the first to "get it right" and become a hot commodity.
(Note, x86 rumors abounded when Apple started buying chips from AMD only to find out they were for AirPort base stations. This will be a similar scenario)
oh, wait... wrong website... shits.
Cell has ties to IBM, so if Apple really is that mad at IBM then switching to Cell wouldn't be getting their point across.
"Have a look at how Core Image works (for example). It's not heavily tied to the PPC design - it's completely and irrevocably bound to the PPC design. It must have AltiVec to work. Sure, you could simulate AltiVec on x86-64 (but not x86) but it'd be crap. Apple would drop Core Image in an x86 transition."
/ 15
I'm not sure where you got this impression, but it's incorrect.
Currently, Core Image filter graphs are just-in-time compiled to work with two types of SIMD hardware: a GPU or AltiVec enabled G4 or greater processor. This decision is make at runtime based on the hardware present and other performance issues.
Apple could easily include additional SIMD targets for Intel (or even an IBM Cell Processor) to Core Image and any existing code will automatically utilize it if present.
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/coreimage.html
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars
Apple's mantra has always been use our libraries and you'll get new hardware support and optimizations for free. This could be one of those cases where it really pays off.
I love and run Linux probably as much as Linus himself, but the best computing decision I think I ever made was to get the PowerBook. It truly is the most beautiful machine on the planet.
I still have Linux running on my desktop/server though. (The PowerBook works immaculately smoothly with the Linux network, I might add. I never saw anything get configured so brainlessly.)
But don't be fooled. I won't hesitate to format the hell out of that beautiful Mac OS X software if Apple starts getting shady.
As a side note, there really is also a certain level of appeal and distinction (actually more than that) to the PowerPC processor. It's just so well designed. (I'm sure all those that have done low-level coding on multiple platforms can appreciate.)
The PowerBook is currently the way to go. (Until Apple decides to fsck up, that is.) I dare to say they currently have the best Unix in existence. The ball really is in Apple's court. Let's just hope they remain sensible enough to stay far away from anything Micro$oft.
That is some funny shit. :) Wish I had some mod points.. and... that I hadn't posted like a dozen comments in this thread.
at least IBM says it is. Intel has enough chops that they could probably put out a decent PPC core.
Intel's going to be making PPCs.
That's what increasingly seems likely to me.
Apple's switching to ARM.
Only on a new Apple handheld running Newton OS. The ARM is a good low-power embedded chip, but it's nowhere near fast enough even for an entry-level Mac.
Make a proprietary motherboard architecture just like they have now with PowerPC based boards, except with an x86 CPU in place of the Gx chip.
The only thing on an Apple Motherboard that isn't regular PC hardware is the PPC CPU. Other than the CPU there's almost nothing proprietary there. PCI, AGP, PC RAM, PC USB chips, PC firewire chips, PC everything.
Then just make it so that the OS requires an Apple mobo to run. How?
They can't do it. Darwin is already out, it's open source, it's the Mac OS X kernel, and it runs on x86 hardware.
And in any case, the performance gap between PPC and x86 is tiny, sometimes PPC even gets ahead of x86 despite having a fraction of the resources spent on it. So there's no significant performance win for Apple going to x86, and a huge performance downside because they will have to do emulation for some apps, and that will be agonizingly slow.
So the only possibile reason for going to x86 would be to leave the hardware business and go head-to-head with Microsoft on x86 clones. And they MIGHT be able to pull it off, but it'd be a big gamble and a big loss in the short term.
At least the P3 had a hardware bit rotate function. My dnetc-rc5 scores when to shit when I got a P4, which emulates the function over 4 clock cycles. Coincidentally my scores went through the roof when I got a G4 which does 4 bit rotates per clock cycle.
hmmm... Apple software on Intel... does this mean Apple software on x86? maybe on standard PC hardware? hmmm.... Mac OSX on my PC, we can only hope
If this is true, i'm thinking Intel went to Apple first. The reason is, that Intel wants to be the top 64bit CPU supplier which now is AMD and they can't stand that. Also, MS is lagging with their 64bit OS, and although they have something available _now_, they advise everybody to _wait_ until longhorn.
If Intel and Apple get together, and they use the 64bit cpu this could mean a serious boost for Intel. And it would put pressure on MS, possibly making them very-much-way-to-late into the 64bit game. We all know that linux does the 64 dance for some time already, but presumably not as good as Apple does with OSX and Apple has better marketing. If Intel could make Apple cheaper it would even be a greater recipy for success.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
"Apple convinced them to pay $130 for MacOS X, and then $130 every few months after that for the latest 10.x version"
Huh? How long has OSX been out? Four years? With major updates every twelve to eighteen months, that pretty reliably increase the performance of your existing hardware?
OK, you don't think your wife's iMac was a good deal. Doesn't mean I don't think it's a good deal...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Assuming that the emulation/translation would be mostly transparent:
Cheaper motherboards that keep up with Intel/AMD's speed and price competition.
Possibly easier to port PC games to it (lack of games being one reason that a lot of people give for not going with Macs).
Better 3d application performance from what I understand, which would make it easier for people in the 3d creation business to go with Macs (they would probably love to).
For that matter, what if their Intel machines were actually able to run Windows and OS X, while still preventing other clones from running OS X? That would remove another big barrier for people scared to go with Apple because of price/incompatibility. This could also lead to more sales in the business world.
Or what if they actually built-in the ability to run windows (a la virtual PC) or windows applications directly in OS X? Wouldn't this be easier using the same processor?
I can see a lot of short and long-term strategic advantages to doing something like this.
What, no BSD? And what's wrong with Linux?
The PowerPC was a good fit to replace the 68k range. It was significantly faster, and could be used with the same endianisms[...]
How about a big-endian x86? That'd put the kibosh on the clone problem.
(no, I'm not serious, it'd still be stupid, because it'd effectively be a new architecture... and a really really horrid one...)
The deep technologies inside Mac OS X that are very important to Apple involve the use of the PowerPC vector instruction set which are quite powerful. These, coupled with the use of a graphics card's memory and processor, give substantial power to the Mac's professional editing suites.
There appears to be a mis-match between what the Intel processors and the PowerPC offer in this area - which means a LOT of re-engineering so there is not a performance hit when Apple can't afford one.
Plus, unless there's an Intel Mac out like, tomorrow, won't Apple find itself selling "dead end" hardware? It's the ultimate Osborne situation - don't by a Mac now because the ENTIRE architecture is about to change and you'll be left with an orphan.
And, of course, the whole issue of support for two separate OS versions - an Intel and a PowerPC.
I guess the guys getting the Big Bucks will have answers for these but to me these seem like daunting issues.
Now if they started selling a $300 Mac mini tomorrow running the Intel chip set. Well, that would get some attention.
I note that Apple is already down 4% or so on reports of unexpectedly high iPod inventory. Or something else is up.
who here knew that steve jobs was a sith lord ?! why didn't you tell the jedi council ?! the republic is lost !
This is basically seperating the OPERATING SYSTEM from the Architecture. I believe this will actually help Apple become more profitable especially in the Corporate market be they have all Intel precessors. Also, Apple as a Computer Manufacturer will be able to sell computers to the Windows Market.
Didn't Jobs try to migrate NextStep/OpenStep to the Wintel platform? Soon after, Next had to close its doors.
Look, no flame war intended. I like Apple. I like OSX. I've been waiting for Apple to release a G5 powerbook.
But I'm not much of a Steve Jobs fan. I think he's possibly even more ruthless than Bill Gates, yet he seems a tad dumber.
(*sigh*) Woz, where are you?
Enjoy! Jon
If Apple now owns a large amount of PPC IP, why would they switch to Intel?
I can't think of a worse way to recoup on that intellectual property then to abandon PPC.
Apple wouldn't have to abandon the PPC to switch to Intel if they have the rights to the IP. Instead they can license the IP to Intel so Intel makes PPC. That's not to say I believe this, I don't know, but it could be true.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There are lots of possible outcomes here assuming Apple has PPC rights, this could be just as boring as getting a new supplier.
But there is a strong strategic case for Apple making huge market share gain here and not giving up on proprietary HW.
This is what I would do.
Get Intel agreement to build new x86 CPU with a few trivial Apple only extensions, and an agreement to only sell CPU's with this extensions to Apple. So Apple can now keep its HW monopoly. Still not too exciting.
Well pretty much any CPU going forward is going to be multicore and Intels Vanderpool tech will be ready.
So now you have the ability to run OSX and Windows simultaneously at full speed!
This is the real ultimate switcher box. I can switch and keep my legacy windows apps going. And this won't be some bad software emulation, all native windows and OSX x86 run natively at full speed.
If this is not what they are doing this is what they should be doing. It would cost no more than other multicore boxes but be the only game in town capable of running OSX and Windows.
I want one....
Well, they could put a G5 into a Powerbook if they wanted too. I've seen gaming laptops with an Intel Prescott in them. It's just that Apple chooses to not make a Powerbook like that.
Yeah they might be able to stick a G5 into the powerbook, but I don't think would appreciate frying their laps. Everything I've heard is that heat is the reason why they haven't released the G5 Powerbook. Whether true or not I admit I don't know.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Come have a drink with me!
FWIW, Windows NT 3.51 (a.k.a. "Daytona") was the first PowerPC release.
Well, I do have something against the x86 platform: Intel couldn't design a clean, simple processor if their life depended on it.
However, it's kind of a non-issue, because I wouldn't be writing assembler for the thing anyway.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It could prove to be a hurdle, keeping developers happy. Though some like change others don't, look at how long it took for Quark to release XPress for OSX. I'm not sure but I heard that at least in part because of this Adobe InDesign replaced XPress as the premier page layout software on the Mac. If switching to Intel makes current Mac developers hesitate though it could mean opening up the market to others eager to exploit the change.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of of x86 chip) this is the x86 processor. The x86 is a processor from Intel, but the x86 is now installed in MAC Mini. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!
Why would a x86 processor -- not even a PPC -- come be be found in MAC Mini with a bunch of Mac software? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this post? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this post! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a software developer posting on slashdot, and I'm talkin' about x86 on a Mac. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're sitting there reading this post and wondering where in the hell is Chewbacca... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this fine website, it does not make sense.
If x86 is now found in Mac hardware, you must accept it!
End Post.
Bet this
Where did you get a G5 Powerbook? Are you thinking of a G$, as Apple hasn't come out with a G% Powerbook yet? G5s get too hot for laptops. Here's an article, Apple denies eyeing Intel chips, about the possibility of Mac OS on Intel. The relevant part about G5 Powerbooks is down at the bottum, almost as in passing where it says:
"Of course there is every chance that this is all a smokescreen and next month, at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference., CEO Steve Jobs will unveil a 3GHz Power Mac and a G5 PowerBook. Two years ago, there was similar talk of a tie-up between Apple and AMD, though nothing materialised."
Personally the next computer I get I plan on making it a 17" Powerbook, and am hoping Apple releases the G5 Powerbook soon.
FalconShould there be a Law?
When Apple switches to x86 I propose the following:
After a while some sort of Windows emulation layer will come into existence. Whether this happens by a port of WINE, some Apple approach or another third party doesn't matter, it will only be a question of time.
Now this newly gained "feature" will result in some Application providers to "support" Mac OS X thru this Windows layer. That doesn't sound bad at the first look *but* in the end the support for native Mac OS X APIs will diminish: It is a lot easier for Software Vendors to program only against a single API and in that case it will be the Windows API.
Remember the retention big Software Vendors showed when pushed by Apple to support things like the Cocoa API. Adobe for instance was very reluctant to this, in fact there are virtually no big companies which offer Cocoa apps until today. This was the reason it took so long for Mac OS X to get out (after Rhapsody was a washout because of this) since they had to implement Carbon a overhauled version of the ancient Mac OS toolbox.
I think Adobe and others will be very happy to have to support only one namely the Windows API and therefore would welcome such a switch. But with more and more applications only supporting the Windows API the relevance for Mac OS X will disappear. In the long run it will end up with the same fate as OS/2 did: No more native Applications for Mac OS X and therefore no difference to Windows (since the use of the Windows API gives you no access to those nice features of Mac OS X). Mac OS X will die this way.
regards, sqar
if I could run Windows XP under OSX I would do so in a heart beat.
You can run XP under OSX now, you can run most any PC OS on Macs using Virtual PC to run them in a VM. Hopefully in a few months I'll be getting a Powerbook and that's what I plan on doing, though not XP. Unless M$ changes it's policy about activation Win2000 is the last MS OS I will willingly get.
FalconShould there be a Law?
When Apple switches to x86 I propose the following: After a while some sort of Windows emulation layer will come into existence. Whether this happens by a port of WINE, some Apple approach or another third party doesn't matter, it will only be a question of time. Now this newly gained "feature" will result in some Application providers to "support" Mac OS X thru this Windows layer. That doesn't sound bad at the first look *but* in the end the support for native Mac OS X APIs will diminish: It is a lot easier for Software Vendors to program only against a single API and in that case it will be the Windows API. Remember the retention big Software Vendors showed when pushed by Apple to support things like the Cocoa API. Adobe for instance was very reluctant to this, in fact there are virtually no big companies which offer Cocoa apps until today. This was the reason it took so long for Mac OS X to get out (after Rhapsody was a washout because of this) since they had to implement Carbon a overhauled version of the ancient Mac OS toolbox. I think Adobe and others will be very happy to have to support only one namely the Windows API and therefore would welcome such a switch. But with more and more applications only supporting the Windows API the relevance for Mac OS X will disappear. In the long run it will end up with the same fate as OS/2 did: No more native Applications for Mac OS X and therefore no difference to Windows (since the use of the Windows API gives you no access to those nice features of Mac OS X). Mac OS X will die this way. regards, sqar
Bad day today, third attempt:
When Apple switches to x86 I propose the following:
After a while some sort of Windows emulation layer will come into existence. Whether this happens by a port of WINE, some Apple approach or another third party doesn't matter, it will only be a question of time.
Now this newly gained "feature" will result in some Application providers to "support" Mac OS X thru this Windows layer. That doesn't sound bad at the first look *but* in the end the support for native Mac OS X APIs will diminish: It is a lot easier for Software Vendors to program only against a single API and in that case it will be the Windows API.
Remember the retention big Software Vendors showed when pushed by Apple to support things like the Cocoa API. Adobe for instance was very reluctant to this, in fact there are virtually no big companies which offer Cocoa apps until today. This was the reason it took so long for Mac OS X to get out (after Rhapsody was a washout because of this) since they had to implement Carbon a overhauled version of the ancient Mac OS toolbox.
I think Adobe and others will be very happy to have to support only one namely the Windows API and therefore would welcome such a switch. But with more and more applications only supporting the Windows API the relevance for Mac OS X will disappear. In the long run it will end up with the same fate as OS/2 did: No more native Applications for Mac OS X and therefore no difference to Windows (since the use of the Windows API gives you no access to those nice features of Mac OS X). Mac OS X will die this way.
regards, sqar
For what it's worth, the Cnet article claims that the Intel chips will initially go into the consumer lines (specifically the mini), and that the "Pro" computers will get one more generation of the 970s before converting over. So if the article's correct and you really do work in the PowerMac group, it's possible that these facts don't conflict.
That said, if apple is converting over to x86 or amd64, doing it first on the low-end would seem pretty backwards. People who buy their consumer kit aren't concerned about cutting-edge performance in the first place -- it's the high-end users who might be willing to consider the pain of switching if it'll get their Final Cut rendering times down by 20%...
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Would it be possible to create a system with BOTH chips in it?
The thought just popped into my head...and it's probably insane but could you make a dual processor system with two different types? Would/Could there be any advantage to doing so?
People still say that Beta was better than VHS for a bunch of esoteric reasons. But it wasn't. If it was better, it would still be around and VHS wouldn't.
It depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean better in marketing VHS was better, but if you mean better technologically Beta was better. Something may be better in one area than something else yet is worse in another and visa versa.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, as of a couple years ago Apple has been using Open Firmware which is a standard for boot firmware. It's IEEE 1275.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
I'm shocked. "Apple is beleaguered" used to be de rigueur, when mentioning Apple's future. Not as popular as "BSD is dead", but close.
http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+beleaguered
A) The Mac never had a twenty percent market share, the highest penetration was just under 12%. Perhaps you are referring to the Apple II
B) If you look at the historical market share you'll note the biggest drop in share occured when Microsoft introduced Windows '95. (market share dropped slowly, about a percent a year when the Power PC was introduced and got nearly cut in half when Microsoft unleashed '95) While causality is generally difficult to assign I think this case is an exception to the rule.
But for these minor factual issues, you're all over it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050 994,00.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology
"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule."
And as he says in his comments, ACPI and BIOS ugliness only occurs on the PC platform.
. html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pavelmachek/7323
I really hope it doesn't happen. Used to want it, but now just see it messing up Apple.
No doubt that a new breed of cool factor will come from having an x86-based Apple Mac G6 with Linux on it, but also with the ability to run x86-only Linux apps such as WINE, Nvidia drivers, VMware, Acrobat, Flash and NeroLINUX. (All subject to taste of course, but the ability to run them is there if you want it)
Also, Microsoft hater or not, imagine the possibility of a dual-boot system with Windows and Mac OS on it. It would be the ultimate developer's machine. Or just boot into Windows when you want to run Windows-only games. Triple-boot it with Linux too.
This is of course assuming that by "Intel chips" they mean something like Pentium or Xeon, and not Xscale or other non-x86 processors.
even if you use more or less standard pc parts its still pretty easy to change enough to break stuff look at the xbox for example
Yeh, it's a perfect example. All you need to do to unbreak the XBox is run some code... any code... on it. Once you can do that you're home free. The hard part about cracking the XBox is tricking it into running some code for you. A general-purpose operating system by definition does not have that protection, especially when you're trying to break it the other way: you're booting the OS into an environment you control.
and unless you have source to the os its bloody hard to deal with such breakages
That's why it's a ludicrous idea: we do have the source.
I'll pick on this one.
Intel != x86. Yes, they were the ones that originally built the architecture, but they neither own it nor are exclusive to it.
Why the hell would apple shoot themselves in the foot like that? THEY'RE A HARDWARE COMPANY. You think anybody would buy a Mac for $2500 if you could run OSX on a $1600 non-mac system with similar hardware?
All these nerds creaming their pants over something that's never going to happen. Snowball's chance in hell, kids.
Alcoholic: I cut my hand on a rubber band! Do you sell Band-Aids?
Randal: Band-Aids is a brand name. The proper term is "adhesive strips."
Dante: The man is bleeding to death, and you're getting into a semantics argument.
Randal: Name brand word association is one of the more subtle threats to this nation's free trade. It gives the larger well known companies an unfair advantage. I'm doing my part to keep the playing field level by weaning people off referring to generic products with brand names.
Dante: Way to show some backbone.
Randal: No spine of Jell-O here, my friend.
What have we learned?
What if the article is partially correct, It might be more interesting if OSX server was the only product making the move. If this provided more power to the enterprise server room than PPC would this not be a benefit? The client workstations don't care what processor the server runs on and running on x86 might allow more binary compatibility with the booming Linux/GNU server invasion. In this case only existing OSX PPC server applications, which are a niche market, would need to be ported over.
Itanium would at least give Apple a shot at outperforming Windows PC's.
Itanium's got a lot of registers, but it's a bloody awful emulation host because the best possible emulation technique, recompilation, is going to be agonizingly difficult. The Itanium instruction set architecture is so complex that the Intel/HP supercompiler does cross-module optimization... it actually moves code from one object module to another... and analyzes trace logs from actual code runs to get the kind of performance that makes the Itanium worthwhile. It's the only compiler I've used in 20 years where you want to turn off optimizations just because the compiler itself is significantly slowed down when it's using them.
yeah you can run linux on the xbox and some custom xbox homebrew stuff
i don't seem all that much sucess running xbox code on other x86 boxes (theres an emulator but from what i gather it still has fairly serious issues)
i also belive the only way windows has been run on the xbox is using vmware on top of linux hardly what you would call running anything like native.
and sure you have the source to darwin but not to things like apples grapics system which should be pretty easy to break on non-apple hardware
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
i don't seem all that much sucess running xbox code on other x86 boxes
Emulating an operating system is a much harder problem than patching an operating system to run on different hardware. An operating system is a much more complicated beast than any hardware.
In this case the hypothetical attacker would already have the operating system, as well as pretty complete documentation of everything that runs above it. All that would be needed is to replace the OS components with ones that don't do the same checks.
And on the Xbox there's the additional problem of emulating the GPU, because you're trying to run games that expect to have a custom GPU, whereas on the Mac everything's mediated by OpenGL.
you have the source to darwin but not to things like apples grapics system
I've already mentioned elsewhere that accelerated graphics is the most credible place for Apple to embed a lock, but you could probably still get unaccelerated graphics working: this has already been done for the earliest Powermacs and clones, as well as emulation under MOL (Mac on Linux) and PearPC.
The PowerPC is certainly adequate for a modern desktop system. The popularity of Apple desktops is proof enough of that.
Yes, but it has poor bang for the buck because it costs considerable more than an AMD or Intel CPU which has equivalent performance in a desktop system.
I don't see how it's possible for you to argue "bang for buck" while disregarding the price.
0 / any$ = 0. If the CPU has no value in a given application, it does not matter how cheap it is. A Zilog Z80 can be had for probably $5. That doesn't mean that it has great bang for the buck if your goal is to build a desktop system. So it's irrelevent to this dicussion. If Apple could build a system with a $20 gaming console PC and it satisfied most users, then that would be great. But they can't. So let's ignore those, ARMs, Atmel AVRs, Zilong Z80s, and every other CPU which really isn't viable for a modern desktop PC. They are irrelevent to this discussion.
Finally, some sanity. I cannot believe that the WSJ and CNET have degenerated to "NY Post" style journalism.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You keep changing your tune. First the chip isn't adequate for a desktop. Then when you're proven wrong you talk about price. Then when several people point out that PowerPC is cheaper than AMD or Intel you say the price is irrelevant and what matters is "bang for buck". Then when I point out that price can never be irrelevant when you're talking "bang for buck" you go back to your initial argument that the PPC isn't adequate for a desktop. Hadn't you noticed that PowerPC desktops are rather popular? Apple is selling millions of them.
I think I spot the underlying problem here; you don't actually know how much the PowerPC costs. The PowerPC is one of the most popular embedded CPUs - used in cars, phones, routers, consoles, multimedia devices - because systems designed around the PowerPC are inexpensive. Embedded systems are the litmus test for cost efficiency. They measure CPUs in $ per MIP; that's "bang for buck" by another name. Are all the embedded designers stupid? Would they save more money by listening to you?
Of course not. You're just wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
Have fun with your stupid register-starved CPU which needs 5 times more power to achieve the same computing performance.
.c file it finds while installing.
.c file it finds while installing", that's just plain hyperbole and stupidity.
Consumers of PCs don't buy them based on their register complement or their CPU wattage requirements. They buy them based on price, performance, and features.
While you are at it, load a niche operating system from Redmond that can hardly interoperate with anything different and finish it with a shitvidia video card with super-proprietary drivers that will delete every
Niche? I suggest that you invest in a dictionary. Microsoft is the dominant OS on desktops today and is probably the dominant server OS, too. As to your silly comment that it cannot "interoperate with anything different", open your eyes. It can operate as a web server, mail server, FTP server, Telnet server, SSH server, etc. It can print to Unix LPD printers, access servers running on Linux systems -- all using standard TCP/IP, UDP, and other standard protocols. Your inability to configure Windows to interoperate speaks more to your lack of experience than flaws with the Windows OS.
As to your comment than drivers for certain popular video cards "delete every
Just a thought. I don't really believe Apple is thinking of this.
(My prediction: Airport Super running on some Intel chip, with the video equivalent of AirTunes, and the introduction of the iTunes Video Store. Conceivably an Apple DVR.)
Write Only Memory: Another pointless blog.
You are in way over your head. You don't know the difference between an architecture and a specific CPU. We talk about the G5 CPUs that Apple uses for desktop systems and try to swing the conversation around to PowerPC CPUs for embedded systems:
.75 MIPS or 1000 MIPS. It's totally irrelevent.
"PowerPC is used in a lot of embedded systems. The next generation of video games consoles are exclusively PowerPC. I've got PowerPC chips in my household appliances and various comms devices."
So what? Are you suggesting that the PowerPC used in your household appliances comms devices are suitable for use in Apple's desktop systems? I have a couple of Garmin GPSs that use 80186 family CPUs and the CPUs only cost a few bucks. That doesn't mean that those chips are suitable for use in desktop systems.
Then when several people point out that PowerPC is cheaper than AMD or Intel you say the price is irrelevant and what matters is "bang for buck".
No, you speculated that the low-end PPC architecture CPUs for embedded systems cost less than desktop CPUs from Intel and AMD, which is irrelevent to the discussion.
Then when I point out that price can never be irrelevant when you're talking "bang for buck"
You didn't point anything out. You made an incorrect assertion. When the part cannot be used for your intended purpose, is has no "bang for the buck." If you are designing a passenger car, it doesn't matter how cheap a Weed Whacker engine is. 1 hp isn't going to power the car and a PowerPC CPU out of a thermostat isn't going to power your desktop computer.
you go back to your initial argument that the PPC isn't adequate for a desktop.
No, I never claimed that the PowerPC architecture was inadequate for desktop use. You are either a liar or an idiot. I defy you to show any instance where I said that the PPC isn't adequate for a desktop. Either show me where I said that or admit that what you just wrote was untrue.
Hadn't you noticed that PowerPC desktops are rather popular? Apple is selling millions of them.
Were you actually under the impression that the CPUs in the PowerPC desktops are the same as the PPC CPUs in embedded systems?
I think I spot the underlying problem here; you don't actually know how much the PowerPC costs. The PowerPC is one of the most popular embedded CPUs - used in cars, phones, routers, consoles, multimedia devices - because systems designed around the PowerPC are inexpensive. Embedded systems are the litmus test for cost efficiency. They measure CPUs in $ per MIP; that's "bang for buck" by another name.
Your ignorance has reached new heights! First off, it's "MIPS", not "MIP" and it stands for Million Instructions Per Second. Only a small percentage of embedded systems designers care little about CPU performance (as if MIPS were a measurement of that anyway!). They care about total system cost. For example, the AVR series of microcontrollers are incredibly popular and rather slow. Their cost per MIP is horrible when compared with a desktop CPU. But they include such things as A/D converters, built-in flash memory, built-in RAM, and built-in EEPROM. If they are designing a setback thermostat with 8 buttons and a 12 character display, they care about cost, not MIPS per dollar. It doesn't matter to them if the CPU is
Are all the embedded designers stupid?
No, but you clearly don't understand anything about what we do.
Would they save more money by listening to you?
That's why I've been paid to design, and review designs for, embedded systems.
I wrote:
Only a small percentage of embedded systems designers care little about CPU performance (as if MIPS were a measurement of that anyway!).
I meant to write:
Only a small percentage of embedded systems designers care about CPU performance (as if MIPS were a measurement of that anyway!).
EXAMPLE: Burger King...
How many Slashdotters remember when BK used Pepsi products exclusively? From 1983 on, they made a HUGE deal about how Burger King used Pepsi (obviously some sort of cross-advertising thing). Then, suddenly and without warning, they switched to all Coke products sometime in 1990. Like.. OVERNIGHT!
How many noticed that move? How many should have? Do you realize what a HUGE change this was in terms of marketing, advertising, and brand image? And yet... They made the transition with little or no fanfare.
I never heard the reason for the change - I suspect it might have had to do with Pepsi consolidating with KFC/Taco Bell/Pizza Hut though. Nonetheless, what runs inside the Mac is unimportant (from a marketing standpoint anyway) so long as it is competitive. Right now, PPC is not cost competitive with X86 and it is hurting Apple.
It may just be that Steve's had enough. There are also other considerations - like Apple's dabbling in consumer electronics. Sony is a huge competitor and yet they are co-developing the Cell with IBM. Maybe Steve couldn't get in on that action and needed a new partner. Time will tell...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
How amusing; yet another thing you don't know anything about that yet you feel to need to speak with authority. For the record, I'm a graduate engineer with specific training in embedded system design and over a decade of real-world experience.
Certainly seems that I hit a nerve there. You might want to clean the spittle off your keyboard.
Then I advise you to give them back their $3.50 because you were apparently overpaid.
I thought it would be interesting to point this fact since not many people seem to be aware of it.
For many years before the IBM G5, most people thought that only Motorola and Apple had rights to Altivec (aka VMX).
IBM (also) had rights to Altivec since the beginning. Further proof of it is that from Microsoft's own specs for the upcoming XBOX 360, the 3 core G5 chip each have a VMX (Altivec) unit. It's rumored that the PPC Gecko chip in the GameCube had modified VMX extensions.
With more and more programmers learning to program PowerPC and Altivec code, and Apple investment in integrating both in their own software, I really don't see Apple doing a move to another CPU platform anytime soon.
It would be a really bad timing IMHO...
You know, after some further thought I came back to my original conclusion, which is pretty much what yousaid: Intel PPC chips. It makes perfect sense that Intel's huge fab capacity could pump out some PPC chips for Apple since IBM is lagging hardcore and making Steve Jobs look bad all the while. I'm betting that it's Intel PPC. I was working in the fab at LSI when Intel was ramping up their fabs in Oregon and Japan... Wow, when I compared LSI's to Intel's it was just a joke.
Check it out http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714>
NeXT never shipped a DEC Alpha version of NeXTSTEP.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I still can't quite wrap my little grey mass around why apple hasn't moved away from hardware completely and simply done their OS. They would become the largest OS distributor within a matter of a few years so long as they could keep up with driver development. Yes, Apple's hardware is better and they could always offer their own top-of-the-line systems that have the faster busses, better drives, and zippier graphics that you expect from an Apple system. Microsoft has proven that you can charge people an arm and a leg for an OS and get away with it, finally making this a relatively viable business model for Apple.
The only thing keeping them back now is a(nother) transition similar to the 68x to PPC we saw over a decade ago. Apple's proven that they can do it (christ remember where they came from--the Apple I) and I don't doubt for a moment that they're capable of re-inventing themselves again.
Plus, by sticking to the nice margins they get from their accessories I'd still expect Apple to keep numbers up in their cam/mp3/monitor departments.
$400 is quite the lot of money meaning you're exceptionally keen on OS X on x86 HW, or put otherwise, quite adversed towards Apple hardware. Am I right?
The general consensus is that were Apple to adopt x86 architecture for OS X their hardware is doomed to extinction (because of low-end competition) and thus they will become a software + minor hardware (mice, iPods etc.) company like Microsoft whom they will also be competing head-on with.
Of course I can see a point in this, though I also see a point in Apple's well-supported, consistent hardware for less tech-centered users such as myself. But I really do not think Apple is ready to get into this game for a while yet. As mentioned before, if Apple manages to do the transition as smooth as ever there will still be a transition - which cost them a lot of their user base last time. And the market for non-zero priced OS alternatives for Wintel is tough at best, even the free 'nixes don't do that well against M$.
Apple do have some appreciation for their products but I think the boxes and current business model (subsidise software with hardware sales) are a little underestimated really.
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
Ahem:
How many coders out there can code purely object oriented relying on OS frameworks and got used to a elite userbase including many known, famous people requests? E.g. will Stephen King move to typewriter as he hates windows for obvious reasons? (cookie to first genius pops up and tells openoffice)
How many people has removed CNET from bookmarks as a "IT Source" as those morons doesn't even know Intel is world's number 1 MOBILE processor maker, licensee of Arm holdings?
Who can tell how much money has those illiterates made via amazing clicks from entire computer world?
Hardware Overview:
Machine Name: Power Mac G5
Machine Model: PowerMac7,2
CPU Type: Intel Pentium 4 with SSE2, MMX, SSE,
Number Of CPUs: 8
CPU Speed: 1.6 PHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 16384 KB
Memory: 640 KB
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 5.1.5f2
Geez - making outlandish claims is fun!
But a 16 CPU PowerMac with 1 TB of RAM would be cool, just for the boasting rights...
The kind of thing you put lights inside of and glowing fans, cut out case mods etc...
If this is true how do they get peopel to keep buying PPC macs?
I mean if you know the future is x86, why would you get a PPC mac?
Here's a quick question: would anyone here actually object if Apple made the switch to x86?
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
I mean if you know the future is x86, why would you get a PPC mac?
If this rumor had been around a couple of months ago, I wouldn't have bought a mini... I'd have stuck with my old "Beige G4". If I knew for certain? I sure wouldn't buy a new PPC Mac. If they do this, they better have the new models ready across the product line on day one, or a guaranteed affordable upgrade (substantially complete buyback, or a motherboard or CPU+ROM replacement) for all current models.
Either that or some kind of solid and credible commitment to OS upgrades for the current platform over the projected lifetime of the machines currently in service. The oldest machines supported on Tiger date to January 1999, so that means OS upgrades for 2005 models through 2010.
Apple's been using Intel chips for a long time and will continue doing so in their iPods. My guess is that this stuff only has to do with the rumored tablet computer, where some kind of ARM would be a natural choice. Considering their success with the iPod, the lack of tablet/palm style Apple-savvy devices on the market, they might just want to attempt a rebirth of the Newton. iPad could use an Intel-supplied revamped ARM CPU, sufficently hacked up and locked-in to make clones impossible. They already have all the Mac-only apps and gizmos (iCal, .mac, AirPort, iPhoto, Rendezvous,
iSync etc) to make the iPad the only reasonable
product for the Apple jet-setters.
I do speak with authority and expertise. It is you who seem unable to address even the most rudimentary aspects of this discussion.
For the record, I'm a graduate engineer with specific training in embedded system design and over a decade of real-world experience.
Exactly what is your "real-world experience"? Working on databases? Writing HTML? What kind of engineer are you -- perhaps a software engineer?
But I guess you're trying to fall back on questionable claims of credentials rather than answering any of the points I made in the previous post. Specifically:
- The fact that two CPUs share the same architecture does not mean that they are both suitable for the same uses.
- We were discussing the G5 CPUs that Apple uses for desktop systems and you tried to swing the conversation around to PowerPC CPUs for embedded systems.
- You incorrectly implied that the PowerPC CPUs used in your household appliances and comms devices are suitable for use in Apple's desktop systems.
- You speculated that PPC architecture CPUs for embedded systems cost less than desktop CPUs from Intel and AMD -- which has nothing to do with what Apple pays for the G5 PowerPC chips used in their desktop PCs.
- When the part cannot be used for your intended purpose, it has no "bang for the buck" in that application.
- You falsely accused me of saying that the PPC is inadequate for a desktop -- and then weren't man enough to admit that your claim was untrue.
- Your claim that embedded systems engineers normally choose CPUs based on the "$ per MIP[sic]" was simply wrong. Embedded systems engineers look for the lowest cost system implementation that meets the design goals -- not the most CPU performance per dollar.
Certainly seems that I hit a nerve there.You didn't "hit a nerve." You just pissed me off by falsely attibuting statements to me.
Now, answer the points or go away and quit wasting bandwidth.
Apple is pissed off that IBM is making 3GHz parts available to M$ for the Xbox before they are available to Apple. Apple leaks the possible move to Intel hardware to scare IBM, intending IBM to have a change of heart and give the 3GHz parts to Apple instead. If so, announcement cancelled; if not...
-- I speak only for myself
Based on my experience with NeXT, there is no reason why OSX on Intel wouldn't work. While AltaVec is not available for Intel, this is not necessarily a show stopper. Apple owns AltaVec. It could be ported.
If the report that Intel would start at the bottom is true, one could speculate on an OSX solution that could run most important Windows applications natively but without the maintenance cost, security and virus issues of the Windows OS.
A $400 Mac Mini that runs Windows applications natively, would not have Microsoft seat license, maintenance costs and security concerns. This would be a very big deal in corporate IT. This would allow seamless migration to a far superior system today for a fraction of the cost of an XP seat.
This would give IT a solution to security, their most pressing problem. Now. Not in two years. It would do so for a fraction of the cost and do so with the performance of Longhorn. Now. Not in two years.
While I agree with the main point that they could fairly easily ensure that OS X would only run on their own motherboards, I would like to point out that the Apple 'graphics system'*, as you refer to it, is, on any recent Mac, some form of standard issure ATI or Nvidia card, and thus would be a relatively easy element to match on a PC platform.
* Well, you said 'grapics', not 'graphics', but I won't nitpick.
In other news Apple announces they are switching from OS X to Windows as the operating system of choice for mac computers.
i was thinking more the software side of the grapics subsystem than the hardware side.
ie make the mac graphics software need to see the card in some special way (possiblly some addresses transposed or something) and make the motherboard allow for that.
the reason i mention grphics is because its 1: not the kernel and therefore not opensource and 2: its software thats closely tied to the hardware arrangements both in the motherboard and in the card itself
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Those two low level systems make ACPI and Bios look prehistoric by comparison.
As for the rest of your comment, it's not worth commenting on.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Can anyone give me a good buffing schedule for a high polish, catalyzed finishes? We use ML Campbell products and do painted and stain and clearcoat finishes. Once in a while we need a perfect finish on a top, and inevitably that means buffing it out. We used to use 3M products, but they only sell in large quantities.
If this rumor has any truth at all it will result in Intel manufacturing PowerPC chips for Apple, not Apple using x86 chips.
You are forgetting Open firmware which allow us to boot off firewire devices and the Power management subsystem which allow us to "schedule" power on and power off from within the OS.
That's nice, but I'm only talking about those things that are necessary to support OpenDarwin and thus OS X.
And since Mac OS X and OpenDarwin run on systems without Open Firmware, the absence of Open Firmware would not prevent Mac OS X from booting up on a partly-OpenDarwin kernel.
There's no way Intel could push out a PPC-like chip in the year or two timeframe that Apple has designated for the move, even if some inhouse developing has already been done. Rome wasn't built in a day, and building a CPU is about as complicated, if not more. I for one am very happy to see Apple going x86, be it Intel or preferably AMD. The main code would only require a recompile and then some retooling of the apps. Even assuming Intel made a PPC chip, the main complaint Apple seems to have with the PPC is that there are *major* heat issues with IBM's processors, and it's looking like there isn't much room to grow for them in the near term if IBM pursues this sort of chip design. Intel *could* produce the PPC, but I'm not sure how compatible their power management capabilities would be with the architecture, my guess is not very much :).
Also, it seems to me that IBM has kind of given Jobs the backhand by focusing more on console game development. It seems they've put more money into developing the processors for the Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution than into Apple's own metrics and goals.
While it may be that IBM has more revenue coming in from the game consoles than possibly with Apple, they did have an agreeement and it seems they've broken it. Brilliant as Jobs may be, he is most certainly itching for a bit of revenge.
There is one other thing I believe is motivating this that some have overlooked. As controlling as Jobs has proven himself to be, he has also proven himself to be pragmatic and in the end, he seems to be willing to adapt when absolutely necessary. Above all else, Jobs wants to leave his mark on the world and has done a great deal of work towards putting both himself and his company on the map. If moving to x86 will gain Jobs more market share in some way, I've no doubt he will eventually do it. He wants much much more than the 2 percent of the PC market he currently holds, and if the iPod is any indication, he will find some way of getting it. :)
Interesting times are ahead for sure.
Sorry for the long post, just been thinking on it for a long time since it was announced.
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
I would consider that only viable if Intel has spent about 4-5 years developing that chip, and has somehow managed to do so in complete secrecy. Those chips take a LONG time to design, and the chances of Intel keeping a design like that secret are about the same as a snowball's in hell. Intel has more leaks in it than the Titanic did when it was sinking :)
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
Reading this news made me physically ill. The last time I was this nauseated after reading an article was when Microsoft bought Bungie, my favourite videogame company. Do you realize how pathetic you are? So wrapped up in fandom the thought of a CISC chip running your code makes you ill? What the fuck?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
My personal favorite "explanation": MS cuts deal with IBM to make XBox 360... with the requirement that IBM specifically stop selling chips to Apple! Neat, huh? Right? Right?
Really, this is just part II of an earlier "Make it LOOK like MS was winning" conspiracy back in the 80's, when computer games and programs started appearing in boxes with the Windows logo on them, and stopped advertising that the game also ran on a Mac. The result was that it seemed that 90% of the games only ran on windows, when in fact about half of the CDs also contained a Mac version. (Remember, this was late 80's.)
Apple has decided that:
a) they can't compete with cheaper hardware (witness the mac "mini" clone that came out days after the mac mini);
b) there might be a big enough wave of dissatisfaction with adware, spyware, viruses, etc., to convince significant numbers of people currently running windows to try the OSX on their PC boxes; and
c) those users might all say "Hey! This OS is insanely great! Why did we put up with that piece of *%#$ XP for this long?"
And since Mac OS X and OpenDarwin run on systems without Open Firmware, the absence of Open Firmware would not prevent Mac OS X from booting up on a partly-OpenDarwin kernel."
That's nice. OpenDarwin is a testbed for technologies, not a shipping commercial OS.
Laptop users need working power management support. Perhaps that is why Linux is not popular with laptop owners.
Apple users expect consistent behaviour of their macs which include Firewire booting and Scheduled power ups. The current BIOS and ACPI do not support those features so a basic/primitive PC would not cut it.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I do recal pentuple fat binaries, but I don't recall all the platforms they were for.
By the way, we know each other, I was the best man at Aaron's wedding.
Plato seems wrong to me today
I'm not talking about what Apple users expect. I'm talking about what the operating system expects.
Here's the original comment in the thread:
Then Keeper wrote:
As far as the OS is concerned, the only insurmountable problem for someone wanting to install Mac OS X on an non-Apple PC is the CPU. Once you change the CPU you go from "completely incompatible" to "nearly compatible"... and the code to go from "nearly" to "completely" is already published.
My mistake, Intel are just 'playing with words' to do PR / damage control .. they're definitely moving forward with DRM.
The timing is crazy. The raving of the PS3 and Microsoft using the PowerPC for their power would make this decision look as if Apple were trying to screw up on purpose. This is a chance with stonger PowerPC chip demands to make the best hardware for a lower price.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06ap
Apple Plans to Switch From I.B.M. to Intel for Chips
The authors seem to have received confirmation from "industry executives informed of [Jobs']decision but there's little new info compared to the previous reports.
Anyway, Jayson Blair is not on the NYT's payroll anymore, so there must be some truth.
Here is my prediction: instead of announcing a switch to Intel in 2006 or 2007 and instantly killing the Mac business and Apple, Steve Jobs will demo Mac OS X Tiger on an Apple / Dell / HP / Sony x86 PC side by side with a 2-way Power Mac G5 with 3.2 GHz dual core PowerPC 970MP, which can be ordered immediately and delivered within 4 weeks.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't normally hype new products until they are nearly ready. In fact, no sane company would announce future plan that would put a stop to its current revenue stream.
There is just too much vested interest in PowerPC from Mac developers and users both technologically and emotionally, and it would be suicidal for Apple to dump something that has served the core Mac community well for over a decade. It's an unnecessary risk for no apparent reward.
Journalists prefer sensational stories, or they just don't understand Apple's business and technology. A complete switch to Intel makes a dramatic story, but is not going to happen if logic and common sense prevail.
Why on earth would Apple switch when IBM Power Everywhere is kicking Intel's butt from supercomputers to next generation Sony PlayStation 3 to Microsoft Xbox 360 to Nintendo Revolution?
Compared to the legacy ridden Intel Pentium 4, IBM PowerPC is a clean and efficient RISC architecture. For comparable performance, the 2.7 GHz G5 (PowerPC 970FX) chip is half the size of the 3.6 GHz Intel Xeon P4 with 58 million transistors in G5 instead of 169 million in P4, and the power dissipation is 59 W for the G5 and 110 W for the P4.
Apple is the last company on earth that would prefer an inferior technology just for market share. A CPU switch could have made some business sense a few years ago, but not now when PowerPC is gaining unprecedented momentum.
Perhaps more importantly, this is about Mac OS X embracing the market leading Intel chips in order to break the deadly Microsoft Monoculture that has been stifling innovations and become a national security risk. Supporting both PowerPC and x86 would give Mac OS X another huge advantage over Windows and challenge the Microsoft monopoly.
Read more Intel inside Apple may break Windows monoculture.
And IBM goes along with this because...?
Who exactly was doing this? I don't know of anyone -- publishers, developers, consumers, anyone -- who considered Windows a viable gaming platform in the late '80s. And Windows didn't even support CD-ROM drives until 3.0.
Your opponent did not say that. He did not say the other things that you said he did either. Stay on topic and quit whining about embedded processors that have nothing to do with home and office personal computers. Or go take your phone apart and make a Mac clone out of it. Dumbass.
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html ?tw=wn_tophead_1
The link above links to a story at Wired that purports to tell the real
reason for all of this:
Synopsis: Moving to Pentium D chips so that hardware DRM can be enabled to prevent free exchange of copyrighted materials so the inevitable iTunes movie store and Movie iPod can be created. It is being done so Hollywood can be on board secure in the knowledge that their property won't be stolen. It's the only way that Hollywood would apparently allow it.
I hate to think that this is the reason but it would make as much
sense as some of the stories I'm reading here.
I'd like to think it's Intel manufacturing PPC chips but if Jobs is
wanting to increase the marketshare to other areas this would
be a way of insuring that Hollywood can rest safe knowing that
lame movies such as "Dude Where's my Car" won't be stolen by
leeching maniacs.
Frankly? If this is it I don't see ANYONE buying it PC or Mac user
no matter how cool the store is. People buy movies to watch on
their home entertainment systems - I only watch on my Mac if
the wife is using the big system.
Thoughts?
Man, after reading this long thread, I am craving an ice cold, New Coke.
"It tastes just like Pepsi, and they are #1, so we'll sell tons of it."
Someone should remind Steve that the only thing new in the world is the history we don't know.
(webobjects == cocoa) ? 0 : 1
Would Microft still have EU monopoly problems if a Mac OS can run on x86?
Actually, while IBM and the clone makers skipped on the 80186 as a core system CPU, the Unisys ICON Series I and II desktop computers both ran off the Intel 80186 (running QNX at that).
So that chip was (at one time) suitable for desktop systems :).
Yaz.
If Apple moves to Intel, there could be far fewer flame wars. :)
Who senselessly hate on Intel: EAT THIS! God this is beautiful.
AMD may very well have the edge over Intel right now, but that would likely invoke a certain "hunger" within Intel to desire to catch up (and overtake) AMD.
As such, Apple going to the "FORMER King of the Hill" with an interesting deal (and possibly some PPC Intellectual Property?) would probably give Apple a good deal of leverage in negotiations.
-hh
In 1982, the Osborne Computer Company announced a successor, the Executive model OCC-2, with a larger screen and a cooling fan, and the Vixen, an even higher-end machine.
Unfortunately, Osborne made the announcements with a warehouse full of inventory of OCC-1's. Potential customers just stopped buying the OCC-1's while waiting for the newer machines. Sales plummeted and Osborne quickly ran out of money and filed for bankruptcy in September of 1983.
Osborne's true value to the industry for the last twenty years has been as a lesson for hardware makers. Unlike software makers, never pre-announce features that give customers excuses to hold off buying your current product. Intel has been careful that their various "roadmaps" have provided evolutionary paths designed not to scare off current customers.
Apple is creating anticipation for product that is a year or more away, but must keep selling their current product up to full availability of the new product. This may be "cross the beams" bad. As an Apple fan, I hope the Osborne Scenario (TM) does not materialize for Apple.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
Could be, but if Apple's doing this the odds of them ever releasing another Darwin source tree are pretty slim. What good's a DRM scheme if you're releasing the source to a lower layer than the one DRM scheme operates at?
I have to say that this is the most depressing reason for a processor switch ever.
Even if they could lock the OS to the hardware, i think they could not prevent other OSes (specially BSDs -the easiest- and Linux -the one with more developers-) from providing some not too special environment to run mac apps.
I don't think Apple could risk that
Actually, while IBM and the clone makers skipped on the 80186 as a core system CPU, the Unisys ICON Series I and II desktop computers both ran off the Intel 80186 (running QNX at that).
:).
There were also other 80186 PCs. The Tandy TRS-80 Model 2000, the Research Machines (RM) Nimbus PCs, and the Acorn Business Computer used the 80186. It was also used in the add-on PC-compatibility unit for the BBC Micro.
So that chip was (at one time) suitable for desktop systems
So was a 4 mhz Zilog Z80. I know because I had one. It was my pride and joy at the time. But I think that we can all agree (okay, except perhaps for my nemesis in this discussion) that the average embedded system CPU is not going to work for a modern desktop.
Yeah, but if you had a Beowulf cluster of those...
;)
Yaz.
What kind of hat is it?
I hope it's not TOO chewy.
Still want that free Mac Mini?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa HaHa !!!
What's so funny about someone referring to cpu-independent benchmarks published by independent organizations? As I asked before, where do you go for benchmarks?
Go back to jerking yourself off to Intel and their SPEC compiler scores back on aceshardware.com
Your ignorance is showing. Go to spec.org and learn something about the science of benchmarking. Or are you only interested in so-called benchmarks that give the edge to your beloved Apple computers? Maybe something like some obscure operation in Photoshop where the Mac optimizations eek out a win?
some ketchup to go with that?
heh, Sux 2b u...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Using the cross-platform nature of Web Objects as proof of the Cross-platform nature of Cocoa seemed a bit pointless. We already knew that.
And now it seems to have even less point.
But do I expect all the geeks who claimed they'd buy Macs on iNTEL to actually do so?
Oh glorious day! Fmaxwell goes head to head with the mac fanboys in the ultimate match up of arrogance and ignorance. I'm laughing so hard right now I could just shit myself. This is certainly all upside.
Long time no see Fred - I was beginning to think you'd died of a bout apoplexy brought on as a consequence of someone disagreeing with you. Glad to see you're still with us.
Warmest regards,
You Know Who.
Fmaxwell goes head to head with the mac fanboys in the ultimate match up of arrogance and ignorance.
;-)
/. for a while and figured that I'd stir the pot when the Mac fanboys started going berzerk about the switch to Intel.
You're mistaking confidence for arrogance.
I'm laughing so hard right now I could just shit myself.
Don't forget how young you are. Bowel control will come later, Seth.
Long time no see Fred - I was beginning to think you'd died of a bout apoplexy brought on as a consequence of someone disagreeing with you.
Nope. I just hadn't been on
LOL! noooo, *I* can still tell them apart
Kick some fanboy ass for me dude, but this thread is waaaaaay beneath you. Dueling with an unarmed man indeed.
No, but we are hoping that if it does, someone can make a hacked version to make it work. :-)
Yay, I have a sig.