Slashdot Mirror
Apple May be Intel Show Pony
Robert writes "Computer
Business Review reports that the implications of Apple dropping IBM as its chip vendor
in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing
landscape. Apple stands to gain a competitive edge by partnering with Intel because
it will have access to slightly cheaper stuff."
Is it just me, or are the headlines and summaries becoming more and more sarcastic and twisted, especially with regards to anything Apple-related?
Apple May Be Intel Show Pony
Indeed, twisted by the Dark Side of the Source, young Zawinski has become.
And that's just on the front page this morning! It's not that I have anything against a little editorializing, but these don't even seem like relevant comments any more...
You must be thinking of the fruit, because the computer maker has no such massive volume.
Linux will be hurt by Apple moving to Intel like fish will be hurt by someone adding a bucket of water to the ocean.
KFG
Anyone who thinks the switch to Intel is all about cheaper components has surely lost their mind...
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
There are a number of ways, and it's silly to think any will work 100%. I think they'll use custom motherboards along with a custom BIOS that OS X will have to recognize to run.
Of course the slashdot type crowd will find a way around it, but Apple will never sell copies for the general public, and they will never support it for non-macs. As long as they make it *difficult* for the general user to instal OS X on their Dells, etc.
I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't "allow" it.
*** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
For those of you who are wondering how apple is going to keep people from using it on any computer, just remember: almost everything used in an apple computer is proprietary hardware. You keep that portion, you have it. The dev kit was probably only leaked b/c they don't quite have the proper hardware, but that's a small problem. The actual version most like will not run on a normal x86 processor, and even if it DOES, most people will still buy apples, b/c they want it to be 'easy'. That's why you don't see many computer-illiterates installing linux. They hear it's 'hard-to-use' and that they have to install it themselves. That seems so daunting to them, when it seems like peanuts to me.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I'm confused by this logic. How would running Windows on a Mac lead to people stealing Mac software?
And how is this a new problem? Fair enough, it's claimed that there isn't as much software piracy on the Mac as on Windows, but it must still constitute more than half of the install base? At least for home users. I don't know anyone who has paid for Office or Photoshop, for example. It can't be that much difference, can it?
Off the top of my head, Apple will use some propritary chip on their motherboard, and an OS hook to check for it. Use the DMCA to prevent reverse-engineering it, cease - and - desist any website posting it. Bittorent will keep it alive, but the illegality under the DMCA and non-joe sixpack nature of the install will keep it relatively underground for quite a while. Apple will fight back with breaking compatability with each x.0.1 update, much like iTunes and DVD-Jon (fairtunes?)
./, the above won't stop you anyway.
If you read
Rule of the open mind
People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.
Apple will be able display the tons of technology Intel has developed. Look at the cool shit they have every year at the Intel Developer Forum. Look how little of it has been adopted into the mainstream (BTX for example). Intel can put Apple on the cutting edge.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Because AMD doesn't produce the motherboard chipsets as well as various other devices. I'd imagine Apple could buy the motherboard chipset and CPU from Intel at an enormous discount.
Nice try for a troll, but the truth is high-end Intel P4's these days dissipate more heat than high-end AMD Athlon64's.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Here's what I think is Jobs's plan. Apple sales will crumble anyway over the next year--he knows that--so I think we can expect massive discounts to employees of major corporations, of the order of 70 percent off with no restrictions on the numbers sold to individuals within those corporations for personal use--they buy them for relatives, friends, and so on. Apple will take the hit for a while because that way lots of powerbooks with OSX get into the hands of non-IT people in big companies--the people with the money. OSX is so spectacularly good they won't be able to help themselves being impressed. Then in 2006, just when MS begins its "upgrade to Longhorn" push, these managers who have had cheap Macs for a few months will think, "Er, no, we won't, thanks, lets look at these new Intel Macs." Then: Profit!
Why would Apple care about where else IBM is selling processors? The reason Apple is moving to x86 is because IBM has not been able to deliver cool-running PowerPCs. As we've seen from another /. article, laptops are now overtaking desktops in sales, and very clearly if Apple wants to retain the market position it has, or even grow it, it can't afford to wait for IBM to get its ducks in a row.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That is a 25+% profit margin on computer sales. To think this is going to chance is pure fantasy. It could if Apple did something totally radical to go head to head with Microsoft. But just switching a CPU will mean more of hte same thing.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Intel sits on every PC standards group and is the 800 pound gorilla that sees to it that those rules are not only followed to the letter, but that companies who deviate from them suddenly find themselves without Intel's support - truely a death sentence in the PC industry.
I'm on several of the JEDEC committees. Intel has no interest in developing hardware that breaks any rules.
I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't "allow" it.
Unless a big market for video cards, sound cards, etc springs up around the Apple machines, you won't have much in the way of drivers even if you do get OS X running on your Dell.
It would be a weak protection though.
So? What would some enthusiasts getting MacOSX running on their Athlon 64s mena to Apple? Nothing.
But it will stop a significant clone industry from developing. Even if it's relatively trivial to get MacOSX to boot on generic hardware, doing this as a business means you'd be a nice fat target for Apple's lawyers under the DMCA.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Until Apple has a Intel powered Mac out, I'd imagine that OS X will run on anything with supported hardware. However, if you check some of the MacRumors sites (thinksecret.com, MacRumors, Apple Insider to name a few), the general opinion is that they will use a different BIOS
Apple also makes excellent hardware designs. How about a Dual P4 iMac in a case the size it currently is? Apple is about hardware and software. Moving to Intel just means that they will be just as fast as anything you can get Windows to run on.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
One hallmark of Mac Advocacy is eternal optimism. No matter what, they're always saying the same thing:
With LATEST_APPLE_HARDWARE and the LATEST_APPLE_SOFTWARE. Apple is going to take over the world!!
The reality is that Apple is stuck at about 3% of market and some very loyal customers and few strong niches, but no real "momentum". They're profitable and make customers happy but they're never going to take over. Stealing desktop marketshare from Sun or Linux barely makes any statistical difference.
At this point, people have the right to be cynical about the eternal unpopularity of the Linux Desktop, but that only translates into Mac Advocacy because the editorial biases of this site.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I can't see Apple using some generic PC board in a production Macintosh. They WILL use a board that they design, and it won't be like a PC board. As the above poster stated, Apple doesn't need to support Legacy crap.
Just because the development machine is a standard PC, doesn't mean that the shipping product is going to be one. The development machine is to just get developers started in getting their code working on Intel powered machines. And Steve Jobs did say they would want them back (the machines). So, I'd think that in 6 months, a lot of Developers are going to be asked to send back the machines and receive real Intel Macs before they become available to the public.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Well, I don't necessary see what this has to do with Apple. One year ahead, the P4 line is in it's last year and being phased out. I doubt Apple will use any of the remaining P4 chips since the first Intel based products will be notebooks.
Intel and AMD are in a leapfrog games. AMD is ahead a few years, then Intel is a head a few years. From 2006/2007 and forward perhaps Intel will be infront.
The risk is that the sales of the game units falter, and the market of cheap computer components used by the Cell processor never materializes. On the other hand, the benefit is that the future Apple Macintosh will provide a graphical experience that rivals the very best animation created by Industrial Light & Magic. Another benefit is that Apple retains its status as a rebel fighting the establishment.
However, Apple management chose the evolutionary establishment-approved route: x86. It is a safer bet than the Cell. The next generation Apples will hawk significant price reductions due to the use of all those cheap Chinese components manufactured in the Taiwanese-run factories and R&D facilities in China[1].
side note
---------
The Taiwanese voluntarily invested more than $100 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China. More than 1 million Taiwanese voluntarily emigrated to China to live and work. More than 50% of Taiwan's GDP is now dependent on commerce with China.
Cell processors are in-order and therefore quite unsuited for general workstations and notebooks (unless all you do all day is performing matrix operations).
Donate free food here
i am sure they also like powering what is considered the cutting edge personal computer company. for their market share, Apple gets a LOT of headlines and that can only help Intel's public profile.
And it makes sense to support Apple on Intel.
Up until now, Intel has had to rely on their periodic festival of dreck, where they feature some cloners' ideas of cool computer designs, which usually suck (PC ottomans?), and generally include something that looks an awful lot like something Apple recently shipped.
It doesn't help that nobody is really betting their company on those designs succeeding.
Now with Apple, Intel doesn't need to rely on second rate designers or whimsical-but-useless designs produced without any concern for marketability.
And on top of physical attributes, these showpiece machines will be running OS X, which makes the Apple machines more distinctive. Otherwise, Intel has to say "It's an ottoman! That runs Windows! Isn't that... great?! Huh? Huh? Pretty cool, huh? Comfy, too! Haven't you wished your laptop was an ottoman sometimes? No? Oh. But, wait, you can get it with a Green Bay Packers logo on it!" (yawn)
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Now Intel has a partner that is willing to think outside of the clone box.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
One major thing they could do is to use EFI. EFI can boot the system straight into 32-bit mode from the start. Requiring that OS X be booted from EFI would eliminate the vast majority of hardware right off the bat, not to mention having a host of other benefits.
Arrggh! :-D I wish this fascination with the Cell processor would die. Yah, the Cell is derived from the Power architecture, but it is not a drop in replacement for a desktop CPU. It might not even be that great of a game console CPU. The Cell is designed to make graphics processing easier (well, to feed vector units, IIRC).
Also, as a game console oriented chip, the Cell isn't about ramping up processor power/speed. It is about cutting manufacturing costs while holding the processing power steady. Do you really want Apple to make major transition to an unproven CPU architecture that is going to remain at the same speed over its lifetime? At least with x86 Apple has five years experience with making the code run. Going to the Cell would mean starting with no experience.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
Licensing died the first time because the cloners were undercutting Apple's ridiclously high hardware margins. But, Apple is now a "cloner" themselves, which means the hardware margins are going to inevitably drop -- and that means Licensing will be back on the table for Apple.
Plus a HP or a Sony would be a much stronger partner than that crappy PowerComputing outfit.
Folks need to understand that Apple has just turned itself inside-out. You can no longer make any assumptions based on how they handled things in the past, their business model is going to have to change.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Looks like an ugly, extremely generic PC for playing games on.
Or Alienware, for that matter?
Looks like an ugly, generic PC for playing games on. That has been made shiny in an attempt at "style."
... and then they built the supercollider.
What an utter misguided falsehood. Are you actually trying to fool people, or do you not know better yourself?
While there are a few *compatible* modes from way back still supported in modern PCs (at no real added cost, financial or performance), these are almost unused in modern software.
Perhaps you have not noticed how modern PCs have highly complex interrupt virtualisation/routing capabilities, programmable edge/level sensitivity, prioritisation, etc in their interrupt subsystems, or how 'DMA' has grown in to a full arbitrated bus master/slave transfer system allowing zero-CPU activity transfers even between different IO devices directly, but that does not mean they are not there.
There is no legacy pc 'crap' as you put it, just a handfull of compatibility modes that are so immaterial as to mean nothing.
Do you really think the physical memory map means anything in these days of fully remapped virtual memory?
A modern 'pc' makes the system architecture of a 15 year old alpha server,a 10 year old sun workstation, or a 5 year old Macintosh look like a joke.
Lets also not forget that the internals of a modern Macintosh, other than the CPU and memory subsystem, are basically all PC hand-me-downs now anyway, IDE, USB, PCI, video cards, the list goes on.
You're the kind of person I'm talking about; willing to trade freedom for gaudy buttons and the illusion of occasional convenience, no matter how irrelevant that vaunted "convenience" actually is. I'm glad you fanboys are leaving Linux; you never understood the value of it it the first place.
I've been a corporate slave before, paying the yearly tithe and begging for scraps at the altar of Jobs. Jobs lets you "use" his software but when it suits him he pulls the rug out from under you. No longer. I'm more pragmatic than that. I figured it out long ago; freedom is more important.
You haven't figured it out yet. That's your problem. Linux will still be here when Jobs burns you all again and you finally get a clue.
Convenience is "irrelevant"?
"Corporate slave", "yearly tithe", "altar of jobs"? What planet are you living on? It's a computer, not a political statement. With a Uid as low as yours, you're too old to be blurting that sort of tripe.
And after all those stereotypical catchphrases, you're accusing me of being a "Fanboy"?
You appear to be rather emotionally tied to your choice of platform. Now calm down, and try to talk rationally. It's a computer with an OS, not your entire sense of being.
Have you not been paying attention to the entire point of the thread? The issue being discussed is what could Apple do to make OS X not boot on a standard PC. We're not talking about making the systems entirely incompatible, just making it hard to get the system started.
When you boot a modern PC, it turns on with the hardware set up just like the original XT. A20 line disabled, crappy cascaded interrupt and DMA controllers in use, etc. Yes, a modern OS will disable that stuff as part of the boot process, but it does have to work with the old stuff for the early stages of the boot process.
As to the physical memory map, that certainly makes a big difference on the boot process. See zImage vs bzImage in the Linux kernel. You still have to load your kernel and do a decent amount of setup work within the 640KB limit before you can enable virtual memory.
So as you said, this stuff isn't really an issue once the OS is running. But the whole discussion is about making the boot process different.
The architecture will be x86, or x86-64. This is not in debate anymore. The developer transition boxes are Pentium 4, and that's what the compiler targets. x86. It might not be the same exact chip, but it will be the same instruction set, otherwise you'd have a worthless lot of recently-ported software when all is said and done.
-twb
- dmix doesn't solve the problem, and we all know it. If it was as simple as plug-n-play-ing a program, it'd be done. But it's not. Even the dmix documentation admits that many apps do not take advantage of it yet.
- A $10 card that supports sound mixing, but not the other features he wanted. Oh, and a $10 card that you can't just go out and buy at a store. You need to hunt around to get it. Time is worth money.
- Quite frankly? Switching to Fedora 4 was the complex solution. Zawinsky has used linux for years. Why should he expect it to stop biting him in the ass over and over?
Your criticism is based on an experience that is at least 4-5 years in the past. This is 2005. Please join us. We're talking about Mac OS X, preferably 10.3 or 10.4. Switching to Mac OS X hurts this ideological Freedom a lot less than other moves, and certainly a lot less than linux hurts itself by being such a fragmented community. Vast swaths of OSX are open sourced and free as in beer, and the license is OSS-approved. The parts that aren't tend to fall under ESR's definition for what kinds of code shouldn't be open sourced, like the windowing system's video-card-virtual memory-system.Linux's fragmentation has some benefits, but it hurts them in many areas. For example, why aren't people jumping on Apple's 100% open sourced launchd for their distros? There is no code to port, just distros to reconfigure. It's a much better solution, and it's backwards compatible. Gentoo may have an excuse. But most distros do not. The common excuse for why? A bunch of handwaving about how XML sucks and completely untrue allegations of insoluable Mach dependencies.
How about ALSA adoption? Why would anyone use anything but ALSO and dmix-support these days? Dunno, but people refuse. Apps don't get support, and great features fall by the wayside.
And how about KDE? Dude, Qt is not good for the FSF movement. But people love KDE and it's gaining dominance in the market.
I recommend linux for server applications ever day. It's part of what I do. I believe in linux. But because of non-tecnical reasons, the various distros have a hard time keeping cutting edge and adapting as fast as MacOS X is. Did you ever notice how the biggest advances in the linux user experience tend to occur on distribtuion boundaries?
While freedom is nice, my first loyalty as a geek is to technical superiority and correctness. Call me a sellout, but I'd rather work on The Future, and let the OSS movement continue to play catchup to force commercial vendors to innovate in order to keep charging
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense