First Look at Apple's Intel Developer Macs

xyankee writes "Think Secret is reporting that developers have started taking receipt of Apple's Intel-based Mac kits. Along with some specs and photos, the site reports that Windows XP installs without a hitch on the systems and that casually trying to install Mac OS X for Intel on a Dell doesn't work... yet..."

Comments

Strategy?

[dsginter]

the site reports that Windows XP installs without a hitch

Perhaps this is part of the strategy? I wonder if they could run Windows on one core and OSX on the other.

Re:Strategy?

[BubbleSparkxx]

I would buy a machine that would allow me to run both OS natively w/o sacrificing/performance. And I believe that this would appeal to a great many Mac and PC owners. I hope that this will truly be the case, but somehow I doubt Apple will let their hardware get watered down in this fashion -

Re:Strategy?

[adjensen]

No, no we're not talking mainstream. We're talking people that like Mac hardware but want to run Windows, much like the gaming community. If that is ten people then that is ten more sales. Apple is not planning on chucking OSX so that is irrelevant.

Well, I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think that Steve Jobs' intent in the grand scheme of things is to become a boutique manufacturer. Apple sees the Intel roadmap as a path to a significantly greater market share, and that means hitting the mainstream, not picking up ten guys here and there.

This is an argument that I've seen numerous times over the years... Apple should just dump the OS and start selling PC clones with pizzazz. But distinguishing yourself in a design which, like I said, for most people is irrelevant because it's still just a computer that few people see, and a higher price, isn't going to bring people in the doors.

Logically, your argument is correct. Ten guys is ten guys. Realistically, it's not. That's not where Apple is headed. Well, hopefully not, because that's a dead end.

Re:Strategy?

[nickos]

"Apple is a hardware company."

I prefer to think of Apple as a consumer appliance company (allbeit a consumer appliance that runs Unix). The OS is an integrated part of that. It's only when you think of the PC market where the hardware has been commoditized do you think of the need to buy a seperate OS.

Re:Strategy?

[llamaluvr]

This is what I said a while back, and I got modded to hell:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151972&c id=12753570

I'm dead serious- I WANT this. I really like the Powerbook. I think it has one of the best feature sets of any laptop on the market. And it looks sexy. But, I'm not totally sold on OS X, probably because I'm really quite productive in Windows. If I could switch back without ditching the hardware if I ended up not liking it as much, I'd be really stinkin' happy.

Leaks?

[wiggly-wiggly]

Now that Think Secret has confirmed that developers have the Mactel machines, will it only be a matter of time before OS X leaks out onto the Internet? Perhaps the previous stories were a little premature, but as soon as the protection mechanism on these machines is understood, it's only a matter of time.

First Post of the Inevitable Post

[Ath]

I will say it before someone else does:

Nowhere did Apple say x86, they just said Intel chips! So maybe there is a brand new chip that Apple will use from Intel.

Now the truth: Apple did say x86 and that, if you are interested in which specific Intel x86 chips Apple will use, check the Intel CPU roadmap for mid 2006 to get an idea.

Just trying to be efficient...

OS X on a Dell

[DenmaFat]

Other versions of Darwin will run on that Dell. I'm not familiar with OS X innards, but couldn't someone figure out how to replace the handshake-enabled Darwin with the Dell-friendly bits?

Re:OS X on a Dell

[John Harrison]

Which is probably just fine with Apple. The more that gets pirated the more that gets sold. It has worked well for MS, it will work for Apple as well. Remember, if you pirate it and you like it and you want to use it at work then you are going to get your work to buy it.

Re:so..

[Anonymous Coward]

Need ISO....
Really i'm suprised the images have not leaked yet...

Missing the point...

[lxt]

I think you're missing the point - this is a developer's model. It's sole purpose is to enable developers to transition across to Intel based macs. Lets just wait until Apple start releasing actual Intel based products before complaining about the hardware?

Re:I can't wait

[grandmofftarkin]

Well by your logic you can build a Dell. But of course you can't, only Dell can Build a Dell! ;-)

So, the Grandparent was right. You'll be building a PC that runs MacOS.

Re:Why have apple just built a PC?

[Trigun]

Umm, the MAC is a bog standard computer, it's not just the same bog standard. Mac is not going to use OEM boards, you're not going to see a Tyan motherboard in there.

They don't throw shit on the motherboard that they don't need just to rice it out, Everything on your motherboard has a reasom for being there, and all of it is designed similar. Windows has to install on a lot of different flavours of hardware, so there's no big shocker when it installs on this one.

Just put wine on it

[nietsch]

Ok this may have been suggested before, but:
If wine runs on all x86 unix-like OS's, and OSX is unix-like, will wine run on OSX-86? It would open up a very large market for apple without having to invest too much money. They will need to do some tricks to get it to use native widgets and stuff, but that's not impossible to do.

The downside is that the better wine works, the better the adware/spyware works on it too. I am probably not the only one to infect my wine IE install with ad/spyware.

What works for OSX will maybe also work for linux. There are already ABI's to make use of executables compiled for *BSD, so maybe OSX-86 binaries will run on linux soon too.
(yup wishfull thinking and pie in the sky...)

Hardware sales == good for Apple

[LKM]

Isn't it unlikely they'd be keen to make it work, given that if the hardware's was any good and priced competitively, people would buy them and run Windows ?

I doubt Apple would care too much. They make money selling hardware. If you bought an Intel Mac just to run Windows on it, it's your loss, not Apple's.

Even so, Apple probably won't do anything to make it easy for those who want to run Windows on the MacIntels. They've said that they won't prevent, it either.

It's probably simply not an issue.

The reverse though, running Mac OS X on PCs, now there's a subject they probably worry about a lot :-D

Re:Apple's "Red Box" for Windows compatibility

[TheRaven64]

I'd be more interested in them reviving Yellow Box. Use the Mac as a development platform for deployment on Windows. If they can encourage Windows developers to use Macs (or even Yellow Box on Windows) then it suddenly become just a matter of a recompile to produce native Mac apps, which could be a huge benefit for OS X adoption.

IP to share

[unconfused1]

I think that a lot of people have forgotten that Intel didn't really have a plan to get anywhere. Shrinking the process doesn't buy you the world, and that was all they were doing.

Intel has ditched their own 64-bit platform in favor of AMD's, they have essentially reached many material limits in their process, they backpedaled to the PIII for the current Celeron and Pentium M designs, and their fake-dual-core designs are pretty lackluster also.

Apple has problems with IBM advancing the PowerPC and producing enough of them to give Apple a very good image in the processing power area. Sure...the PowerPC might have a lot more room to grow (and other such arguments), but if you can't get them fast enough for demand...you have a problem. And with Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony looking to the 970 and the Cell for their new consoles...supply wasn't looking better for Apple.

Intel is gaining new life with dual and quad-core designs that Apple has property rights over. Intel is also getting new VPU designs. Lo and behold they have already announced new processors with some of these design changes in them, and I bet Apple will use them in their new machines.

Apple get a product line that doesn't have the shortcoming concerning clock-speed envy. They get Intels successful marketing. And Apple gets a company that can meet processor supply demands. In addition Apple has a very smooth transition plan with fat-binaries for new applications, and Rosetta to run old binaries on the new systems.

They have obviously had this on the back burner for a long time. I personally think this is win-win for both Intel and Apple.

And additionally for us consumers and professionals, we may get a slightly cheaper machine...but will definitely get lower cost items like video cards, controllers, etc. that don't have to have special firmware for PowerPC platform.

How to Open the Intel Mac Bios

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold the delete key down at boot. It's a Phoenix Bios!

Now if you want to get really freaky, go into the 'boot' menu and turn off the quick and silent boot options. This will display the bios information at boot...

The bios at boot will display the same serial number that is on the chasis sticker, and another secondary id string. It also indicates the system as a Apple Transition Dev system.

Now on the first time you boot it, for 2 seconds you will see 'Darwin x86' on the screen - but we all figured that out all ready.

Re:Sigh.

[Doktor Memory]

My thought was that a gpu driver will exist in the darwin-x86 release [...] What part of this am I missing?

You're missing where the video driver lies and how it works. Darwin includes (or can use; I don't recall if they're actually bundled) X11 (x.org or xfree86) video drivers. Those drivers are specific to X11, and bear no relation to the video drivers that are used for Aqua/Quartz/QE on MacOS X.

(Well, if they're vendor-provided drivers there's probably some code overlap, but the driver interfaces are completely different, and that's what counts.)