PDA

View Full Version : Apple to use Intel chips?



LSlugger
06-04-2005, 12:23 AM
We've heard it before, but there is a lot of buzz around CNET's report (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede) that Apple will switch to Intel. Slashdot and all of the rumor sites have picked it up. The only corroboration I see, apart from last week's Wall Street Journal article, is a link from Ars Technica to a LiveJournal entry (http://www.livejournal.com/users/pavelmachek/7323.html) of a would-be Apple employee.

This just doesn't make sense. Considering that LightWave et al. (Maya and Office, AFAIK) haven't even moved to Mach-O, I don't think Apple can sell software vendors on "a simple recompile." Is it possible that Intel would manufacture PowerPC chips? CNET expects an announcement on Monday, so we may know soon enough.

ingo
06-04-2005, 01:58 AM
Its funny that whenever Apple talks to Intel (or vice versa) everyone thinks of Apple switching to Intel chips. Since Apple and Intel already have several connections (and afaik every G5 has a small chip from Intel inside) it could be everything, from the xScale processor for Apples movie-iPod to Intels WiFi chip for Powerbooks, or don't forget Intels move to Firewire now. And what about Darwin, i guess Apples developers need information about Intels chips to continue their developement.

Just my 2 cents

Captain Obvious
06-04-2005, 08:10 AM
If Apple switches to Intel chips, it's an Intel PowerPC chip. Apple will never switch to x86 (at least not in a forseeable future).




Its funny that whenever Apple talks to Intel (or vice versa) everyone thinks of Apple switching to Intel chips. Since Apple and Intel already have several connections (and afaik every G5 has a small chip from Intel inside) it could be everything, from the xScale processor for Apples movie-iPod to Intels WiFi chip for Powerbooks, or don't forget Intels move to Firewire now. And what about Darwin, i guess Apples developers need information about Intels chips to continue their developement.
This is what's more likely. If I recall correctly, the RAID controller chip in the Xserve RAID is built by Intel. That's probably not the end of it, either. I'm sure they use loads of Intel chips. Even an Xscale for an iNewton seems much more likely than Intel CPUs in Macintoshes. And, like I said, if they switch to that, it will be an Intel PPC, not an Intel x86.



Regardless of what happens, I would make it absolutely clear to the lot of you that there will be no compatibility issues, no need to recompile anything.

Darth Mole
06-04-2005, 09:15 AM
Regardless of what happens, I would make it absolutely clear to the lot of you that there will be no compatibility issues, no need to recompile anything.

Really? How come developers can't even recompile Mac LW plug-ins then? I doubt it's going to be THAT easy...

Johnny
06-04-2005, 09:40 AM
to me, the talk about apple moving to intel chips is just reader bait..designed to get mac people all whipped up so that the sites publishing this "news" can get clicks.

I guess Intel could make PPC chips, but would IBM willingly hand over all its hard-earned R&D to a competitor. Sumpin' tells me "no."

It seems strange that IBM can't work out manufacturing issues relating to producing faster G5-family chips, but it seems that they are the best candidate to do this since they are developing those chips.

Hasn't Intel had its own share of chip problems? Are Intel chips now in the 4, 5, 6ghz and faster realm now?

I'm no expert, but I'd like to see code optimized for OS X/PPC before any radical hardware change takes place. we are, after all, just now coming up for air after a 4-year OS migration..(some consider Jaguar to be the first usable version of OSX).

J

Captain Obvious
06-04-2005, 09:18 PM
Really? How come developers can't even recompile Mac LW plug-ins then? I doubt it's going to be THAT easy...
Err, I meant that there won't be compatibility issues because they will not switch to x86. Not that there won't be issues if they do switch.




I guess Intel could make PPC chips, but would IBM willingly hand over all its hard-earned R&D to a competitor. Sumpin' tells me "no."
PPC is an open architecture. Sure, IBM won't give Intel the plans for the POWER5, but I don't think it would be all that hard for Intel to design a PPC chip.

wacom
06-04-2005, 11:58 PM
Maybe they're going to make a Mac OS X for x86? Would sell A LOT of copies...but might produce A LOT of problems (drivers, drivers, and MORE drivers...)

ingo
06-05-2005, 01:51 AM
Well i have heard rumours from an secret Apple employer that Apple is going to buy Intel and close it, sounds pretty serious to me (the Microsoft way to handle competition). But who knows, maybe we will see a dualcore iPod on monday with a 20" screen....

jin choung
06-05-2005, 02:54 AM
hahaha,

what in the world?

ummmm, companies can't just start manufacturing logic chips ex-nihilo at the drop of a hat!

just a single FAB plant costs BILLIONS of dollars! and that's for constructing chips that you're already familiar with in making!

also, not to state the obvious but WHAT SENSE would it make for intel to start making PPC chips for APPLE just cuz apple wants it?!?!?!

WHAT would it benefit intel?!

between apple and intel, intel is the 800lb monkey in the room. if anything gives, apple is going x86.

and think about it... would intel do ANYTHING for the sake of apple? apple may have a certain mindshare and cache among a small but dedicated cult but think realistically - this market is NOT enough to sway intel on its future development goals.

i'm bettin' apple adopts an x86-64 platform and then 'customizing' it so that you can't readily run osx on a vanilla wintel box. but that will be 'defeated' within moments of release by modders.

and that will end apple's monopoly on hardware that keeps prices so ludicrously high and keeps the ram at least a generation behind wintel.

this is GOOD for apple fans who don't insist on putting the job's grandgrandgrand children through college for some reason.

stay tuned monday for the details.

jin

Johnny
06-05-2005, 11:07 AM
and that will end apple's monopoly on hardware that keeps prices so ludicrously high and keeps the ram at least a generation behind wintel.



yeah, it's about **** time apple spanked itself for charging 15 times more for a pro box than any other manufacturer on earth.

Heck..those Boxx boxes are..well, they're...they cost less, don't they??

Lynx3d
06-05-2005, 12:49 PM
Boxx cheaper than apple?
*lol* no way, those are among the most expesive workstations i know...apart from some exotic Itanium or SGI workstation of course...
though you can put some expensive stuff in them not available for Mac...like dual-core Opterons, SLI with Quadro cards or 16GB RAM...just in case your Ferrari is not enough as status symbol...

Johnny
06-05-2005, 01:09 PM
Boxx cheaper than apple?
*lol* no way, those are among the most expesive workstations i know...


yeah..exactly my point..I was being sarcastic.

It's always struck me as ludicrous the contention that PCs can be had for a couple of bucks whereas Macs are these exotic machines that might look good, but don't perform, AND cost many many times more than their PC counterparts.

J

avkills
06-05-2005, 01:50 PM
Not to mention the nonsense about the PowerPC 970 not being a strong performer. I will be VERY surprised if Apple ditches the PPC. I think they have too many key technologies optimized for Altivec to ditch the PPC.

-mark

Darth Mole
06-05-2005, 04:07 PM
Well i have heard rumours from an secret Apple employer that Apple is going to buy Intel and close it, sounds pretty serious to me (the Microsoft way to handle competition). But who knows, maybe we will see a dualcore iPod on monday with a 20" screen....

You're being funny right? Please say you're being funny, because that's probably the most ludicrous thing I've ever read.

jin choung
06-05-2005, 05:15 PM
you guys are hilarious,

you deliberately choose the most expensive possible pc alternative and then go nuts about how expensive pcs are!

perhaps its not an option for mac aficionados (or so the rumor goes) but i can put together an equivalent pc for thousands less if i build it myself.

and for the technically challenged, there are mail order places that will put together the components for you at extremely inexpensive prices (most mail order places will do it for you).

sure, M$ is villified (and rightly so) for being monopolistic but what is apple in regards to its hardware? it is every much if not moreso a monopoly than M$. just smaller in scale. sure, it's not a STALIN but surely it's one **** of a KIM JONG IL.

the thing about PCs is CHOICE. the thing about PCs is COMPETITION.

and that results in the ability to get a very powerful system for extremely low cost.

you guys are opposed to the idea of something like this... why?

jin

p.s. all external news sources seem to think the switch will be to x86.... hours away now from an official announcement from the turtleneck hippie himself.

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=8698892

p.s.2. personally, i think osx on x86 will be GREAT for further competition for the big M$. it may finally be the x86 counterpoint that linux has been trying to be.

Johnny
06-05-2005, 06:30 PM
Yes, jin, you are totally right. how incredibly foolish of us.


If OS X were ported to intel chips, those apps like Photoshop and FCP which are optimized in part or in whole for PPC features would have to be optimized for whatever new chip is used, but I wonder if just having an Intel chip on board would make, say Lightwave run better on a Mac?

Is LW optimized for just the chip, or for the chip/OS pairing?

J

Ge4-ce
06-05-2005, 06:40 PM
If Apple tommorow tells us that all software has to be recompiled for X86, not only the customers, but especially the developers will say SCR*W you. After a hard troubled road from 10.0 to 10.1 over 10.2 to 10.3 and now 10.4?? You really think developers go and start all over to recheck tons of code to be sure everything works? I think not. At this point, it would be Apple's suicide. In the long term.

Besides, what would Apple benifit from going to x86? only the speed? Wich is.. what? a bit faster than current G5?? The price? like what? X86 is that much cheaper than G4's? for the lowend, and G5's for the high-end?

Is that really worth loosing the thrust of all your developers?

Personally I think that even this CNET report is bad for Apple's reputation! All developers are now wasting precious time thinking and sweating: Oh no, no Intell, no Intell, no intelL....... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH

My odds for this to happen tomorrow? 1 out of a million

Someone on Macrumors said it well: "Steve better wears a kevlar vest on stage when he announces that sh*t"

jin choung
06-05-2005, 06:43 PM
be as sarcastic as you please,

i'm just talking about realities:

is apple gonna go intel? yes or no?

if apple DOES go intel, how likely is intel gonna start making ppc chips? likely or unlikely?

but i am indeed completely right about relative costs between apples and pcs as well as the advantages of competition for consumers.

if you think that shifting from ppc is a bad idea, take it up with apple. but if they go intel, it's highly unlikely they can stick with it.

jin

Johnny
06-05-2005, 06:53 PM
Personally I think that even this CNET report is bad for Apple's reputation! All developers are now wasting precious time thinking and sweating: Oh no, no Intell, no Intell, no intelL....... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"

I'd bet 'no' on that one..I don't think developers have anything sprung on them like that..I think they are given max lead time to work their coding hoo-doo.

but I would think that developers would say F-you to another wave of "re-code your apps for Apple".

Look how long it took to get a native Photoshop..or Quark...and quark is still hinky!

J

avkills
06-05-2005, 07:53 PM
I would like to think that Newtek attempts to optimize LW for OS and CPU pairing.

I still find this suspect. The only thing I can think of is a laptop chip. Maybe Apple is going to use Intel CPUs and then add a custom ASIC of their design to handle Altivec.

-mark

Johnny
06-05-2005, 08:33 PM
I would like to think that Newtek attempts to optimize LW for OS and CPU pairing.



based on what I've read here, that seems true of wintel, but not of Mac; some have pointed out how neither Altivec (PPC technology) nor OSX features are harnessed by LW.

So, as I'm thinking, take OS X, slap it in an Intel-based x86, and you have the combo which would have to be optimized for, but if that hasn't been done for OSX/PPC, why would it be done for OSX/Intel?

J

Johnny
06-05-2005, 08:38 PM
but i am indeed completely right about relative costs between apples and pcs as well as the advantages of competition for consumers.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are "completely" right, as this would mean that in all cases, Macs are more expensive, and this just isn't the case.

One thing which IS true is that the PC-manufacturing world does have the ability to puke out millions of cubic furlongs of cheap-O PCs. I personally don't want to work on a cheap-O machine, whether mac OR PC, but obviously there are plenty of people who do, as they seem to buy what industry vomits out.

You can, however, find bargain-basement PCs which do cost less than Pro-level Macs. You can also find Pro-level PCs which cost more than entry-level Macs. You can also find Pro PCs which are as expensive or more so than their Mac counterparts.

and on and on, ad nauseum.

So, the statement or contention that Macs are always more expensive, and vastly more so, than PCs is simply factually incorrect.

J

LSlugger
06-05-2005, 09:28 PM
some have pointed out how neither Altivec (PPC technology) nor OSX features are harnessed by LW.

I don't know how much attention SIMD has gotten on Mac OS, relative to Windows, but I can see how LightWave may have been handicapped by its OS 9 compatibility. OS X's Accelerate framework is full of SIMD-optimized libraries that I imagine would be useful, without having to drop down to assembly.

Lightwolf
06-06-2005, 02:58 AM
based on what I've read here, that seems true of wintel, but not of Mac; some have pointed out how neither Altivec (PPC technology) nor OSX features are harnessed by LW.
Maybe because Altivec isn't of much use to a 3D renderer? LW never used SSE on the x86 side either, only SSE2 which allows it to use 64bit floating point numbers (unlike Altivec and SSE which are both stuck at 32bit). And you do need that accuracy when needing with geometry.
This reminds me a bit of NT not harnessing 64bit on the mac ... which the way it is implemented right now on OSX would be a major pain to do and probably a wasted effort in a year or so.
Cheers,
Mike

mwh710
06-06-2005, 05:51 AM
Report: Apple Switching to Intel Chips

By GREG SANDOVAL
AP Technology Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A stormy, decade-long relationship between Apple Computer Inc. and IBM is over, according to published reports. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce Monday morning at the company's software developers conference in San Francisco that Apple will discontinue using microprocessor chips made by IBM in favor of Intel chips, according to CNET Networks Inc.'s News.com and The Wall Street Journal.

Officials from Apple, Intel Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. could not be reached Sunday to confirm the report.

For years, rumors of Apple's wish to jump to Intel have been circulating. But two weeks ago, analysts were skeptical when The Wall Street Journal reported that Intel and Apple were in negotiations.

One reason for the skepticism is that the move represents a significant risk for Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple.

Advertisement


Switching to Intel's x86 chips would force Apple's programmers to rewrite its software in order to adapt to the new processor.

"I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift," Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood told News.com. "Every time they do this, they lose more customers."

News.com reported that Apple would begin the transition to Intel with its lower-end computers, such as the Mac Mini, in mid-2006 and higher-end models a year later.

Apple's break with IBM stemmed from Jobs' wish that IBM make a larger variety of the PowerPC processors used in Macintosh systems. IBM balked because of concerns over the profitability of a low-volume business, News.com reported.

By wrestling away Apple's business from IBM, Intel tightens its stranglehold on the PC processor business. The company holds more than an 80 percent share of the market.

Although IBM suffers a setback with the loss of Apple, the company could reap a financial windfall from deals with Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony Corp. to put microprocessors it is producing in next-generation video-game consoles.

A new microprocessor that IBM co-developed with Sony and Toshiba Corp, code-named Cell and planned for Sony's next PlayStation console, is being touted as capable of delivering 10 times the performance of today's PC processors.

mattclary
06-06-2005, 08:28 AM
If they make their OS run on X86 hardware, I'll buy it in a second. I doubt they will do that though, as Apple is firmly embedded in tying you to their hardware.

LSlugger
06-06-2005, 08:33 AM
Maybe because Altivec isn't of much use to a 3D renderer? LW never used SSE on the x86 side either, only SSE2 which allows it to use 64bit floating point numbers (unlike Altivec and SSE which are both stuck at 32bit). And you do need that accuracy when needing with geometry.

Not having written a renderer, let alone optimized one for AltiVec, I can't really refute your claim. However, I would point out one thing: FPrime 1.5 for Mac OS requires AltiVec.


This reminds me a bit of NT not harnessing 64bit on the mac ... which the way it is implemented right now on OSX would be a major pain to do and probably a wasted effort in a year or so.

I wonder what the market would be for a 64-bit version of LightWave for OS X, right now. An AMD64 build is kind of exciting because of the potential performance boost over IA32, but a PPC64 build would actually be slower than PPC. What percent of the market actually needs 64 bit? That's not an argument not to do it, but it factors into the priorities.

UnCommonGrafx
06-06-2005, 08:38 AM
I would be onboard, too, were this to come to fruition. Kinda like SGI coming down to earth in it's pricing structure, only this would be more about the "Do it yourselfers" out here. (Me!)

But this rumor is as old as...

NigelH
06-06-2005, 09:54 AM
It will all be moot in a few hours, but this artcle puts a lot of the speculation into perspective (and may help a few of you make it throught the next few hours):

http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends

Gui Lo
06-06-2005, 10:01 AM
I think the move to Intel will be consumer driven based off of the success of the iPod products. As well as consumers wanting a cheaper iPod computer I think they want it to be an Intel machine so that games would be easier to port and play much better.

Any migration would be better to start at the consumer machines and work up to the PowerMacs. These would help to pay for the transition quicker than asking professionals to move to Intel Lightwave, Photoshop or Final Cut overnight.

This gives Apple the choices it wants to gain market share. At the moment it is hitting a glass ceiling by sticking with PPC.

Gui Lo

Lightwolf
06-06-2005, 10:07 AM
Not having written a renderer, let alone optimized one for AltiVec, I can't really refute your claim. However, I would point out one thing: FPrime 1.5 for Mac OS requires AltiVec.
Mind you, it also requires SSE on the PC side of things as a minimum. I wouldn't be surprised if it did some colour processing using 32bit floats.
There were a couple of image filters shipped with LW that used Altivec, but again, this is colour processing only, not geometry processing.


What percent of the market actually needs 64 bit? That's not an argument not to do it, but it factors into the priorities.
I'm sure there are a couple of users that could use the extra memory boost. But it seems that the current OSX has made it too difficult to make use of that for a 3D renderer, at least with a reasonable time and money budget.

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
06-06-2005, 10:18 AM
Actually I'm inclined to think it might be a planned leak too, as Apple has not called out their lawyers. :rolleyes:

ingo
06-06-2005, 11:45 AM
Well thats it guys. Now we can also have hot, loud, slow and expensive computers, thanks to Intel Inside. Now that will be a funny future for Apple.....

mattclary
06-06-2005, 11:54 AM
slow and expensive computers...

Ummmmm.... I see that as the current problem with Apple machines. :confused:

Ge4-ce
06-06-2005, 12:05 PM
remember I said one chance in a million? Wel.. I'm gonna play the lottery today. I am going to win this for sure..

**** frose over today, and have to relax a bit to get used to the official idea that Apple will be using Intel!!!!!!!

On the other hand.. if nothing else changes, and no valueble software disappears on the Mac, I can only feel joy for faster processors!

The main problem at this point were not the G5's, but rather the G4's I guess. Powerbooks and stuff..

Oh well, we'll see what happens

ingo
06-06-2005, 12:09 PM
>>>Ummmmm.... I see that as the current problem with Apple machines


At the moment i have a friends Dell running next to my Macs (thanks to the duo-dongle), its an dual 3.4 Xeon costing 20 % more than a dual 2.5 Powermac and isn't faster. But louder. The Xeon Processors are still more expensive than similar PowerPC chips.

OK NEWTEK, its time now to create universal binaries for Lightwave.......

Darth Mole
06-06-2005, 12:47 PM
So, anyone care to explain what kind of Intel chips we'll have in our Macs by 2007? Dual core, dual processors, quad processors... how fast will they be? Any ideas?

ingo
06-06-2005, 12:52 PM
Itaniums ? :D

TheDynamo
06-06-2005, 12:54 PM
I look forward to seriously consider Apple products in the future. I like to game as much as I like to work on the PC so I never really thought of using a Mac computer. Admittedly I do have an AMD at home, not an Intel processor but the idea of being able to run OS X on my homebrew computer makes my credit card itch ;)

It's a pity though that Intel was chosen when AMD makes a much better processor in my opinion. The decision must have been based on motherboard architecture, something that AMD relies on 3rd party manufacturers primarily. Intel can offer a one stop shop more readily than AMD can.

Time will tell.

-Dyn

Ge4-ce
06-06-2005, 01:05 PM
Wow wow! hold the phone.. nobody said that OS X will run on every x86 system out there. I seriously doubt that OS X will run on any given PC at this moment. I think for the custom user, nothing will change. Same boxes, only a different processor, and a slightly different software. Main problem is: Will all current developers follow this 3rd transition and with other words, will there be apps no longer available to Mac? That's the main question. Except from that, nothing will really change..

LSlugger
06-06-2005, 01:43 PM
So, anyone care to explain what kind of Intel chips we'll have in our Macs by 2007? Dual core, dual processors, quad processors... how fast will they be? Any ideas?

The development kit ships with a 3.6GHz Pentium 4, so it's reasonable to assume an AMD64-compatible chip with HyperThreading, and possibly dual cores. I'll hazard a guess that Intel paid some money to make this happen, so don't expect Athlons or Opterons in your next Mac.

I don't know what to say. This could be great for Apple and its future customers, but I think the next few years will be painful for existing customers. Yes, LightWave 8 will continue to run on your G4 or G5, but this announcement can only have a stifling effect on the PPC platform. I have an iBook at home and an iMac at work. I had thought about buying a Power Mac or the next rev. of the Mac mini. Now, I can't say that I'm all that interested in buying a PPC Mac.

UnCommonGrafx
06-06-2005, 01:52 PM
And the "Osbourne Effect" kicks in!

I wonder how many sales they will lose, in the short term, based on this announcement.

parm
06-06-2005, 01:54 PM
If the Mac OS will now play on any machine. It seems likely that its user base will increase, possibly quite significantly.

Why would developers not consider any extra work worthwhile. In any case it seems, that this move has been in the planning for a long time, and hopefully Apple have designed the process to be as painless as possible.

OS X on a Sony Viao



:)

Darth Mole
06-06-2005, 02:30 PM
OS X will NOT run natively on any old PC box. It would be insane of Apple to do this - for starters it would at a stroke destroy their hardware business. Also, how could OS X run on the almost infinite variety of drives, boards, cards etc? Currently OS X has support for, what, about half a dozen graphics cards? There's no way you could just load it on some random POS Dell PC and have it work right away - why do you think XP is such bloatware?

Looks like I won't be upgrading my dual 2GHz PowerMac any time soon (I can't believe IBM is under any real pressure now to develop faster PPCs). And it looks like they won't be called PowerMacs any more either.

I'm sure in the long run it's good news - but I've got a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. Could be a lean couple of years for our chums in Cupertino...

jin choung
06-06-2005, 02:40 PM
as i said,

if they're running on intel chips, apple may make a stab at trying to 'customize' their pcs so that their os runs only on such systems but within moments of release, there will be a crack or a mod or whatever that will make it nothing but symbolic gesture.

again, intel is NOT going to make a customized CPU JUST FOR APPLE - and if apple is running on vanilla intel chips, vanilla pcs are gonna be able to run them.

jin

Gui Lo
06-06-2005, 02:59 PM
It will be fairly easy for Apple to restrict the MacOS to Mac hardware.

I guess that each Intel Mac will come with at least Tiger pre installed.

Apple may not allow the OS to install on an empty HD and only over another version of Mac OS. Apple could also embed a dongle onto the motherboard that links to the OS.

Darth Mole
06-06-2005, 02:59 PM
Nope, Jin, I don't believe it. What's to stop Intel creating some sort of hardware lock in every chip - or across the whole architecture - that ensures only OS X can run on it? Likewise, OS X can run checks to make sure it's only running on Intel-for-Mac CPUs. If it's anything like the DRM stuff built into Pentium-Ds, I can only assume it would be practically uncrackable.

I think it would be very bad news for Apple if OS X became 'public domain' - like I say, it nearly destroyed the company when it allowed manufacturers to make Mac clones. Think what would happen if you could run any old copy of OS X on any old beige box... Despite the success of iPod and its apps, that's a huge revenue stream to kiss goodbye to.

james767
06-06-2005, 02:59 PM
we've heard all this stuff about 64-bit processing now nobody is going to be willing to optimize their code for the PPC architecture and there be this giant shift to go to the new processor. By the time the dust settles the new operating system from Microsoft will be out.

I get this strange sinking feeling :(

Maxkraft
06-06-2005, 03:02 PM
All apply has to do is tie some it's calls the chip-set (which won't be as standard as some people think, remember dell power supplies). Also Apple will most likely still us Open-Firmware or some newer Intel version with enough changes to stifle any hacks. Could you really imagine an Imac booting into Bios.

james767
06-06-2005, 03:03 PM
it will have the same yet a different architecture it won't have the PC architecture that we all know and hate. Most of that architecture is designed to make sure things are backwards compatible with previous PCs however what ever Intel plans for their processor for future developments Apple's pretty much locked into developing within those guidelines. So apples and PCs will progress at about the same pace the only difference will be is the operating system and some of the architectural decisions. This makes things look very vanilla in my opinion



Nope, Jin, I don't believe it. What's to stop Intel creating some sort of hardware lock in every chip - or across the whole architecture - that ensures only OS X can run on it? Likewise, OS X can run checks to make sure it's only running on Intel-for-Mac CPUs. If it's anything like the DRM stuff built into Pentium-Ds, I can only assume it would be practically uncrackable.

I think it would be very bad news for Apple if OS X became 'public domain' - like I say, it nearly destroyed the company when it allowed manufacturers to make Mac clones. Think what would happen if you could run any old copy of OS X on any old beige box... Despite the success of iPod and its apps, that's a huge revenue stream to kiss goodbye to.

ricochet
06-06-2005, 03:09 PM
As far as the comments about PCs being louder than macs... my big (only!) complaint about my dual G4 1.4 MDD tower is that it is incredibly loud. I've replaced the fans, but with a speed controller (essentially a voltage controller) on the main fan, the motherboard gets up to around 60 C. At 12 volts, the fan is quite loud but keeps the temp in the 40-55 C range. The power supply has two 60mm deltas in it that whine.

So yes, your G5 box may be silent, but there is a reason. My G4 box is loud enough to hear through my closed bedroom door, around 2 corners, down the hallway, around another corner, through the kitchen and about a third of the way into the family room. That works out to about 130-150ish feet away. My pc has 5 fans in it & emits a whoosing noise at a low volume, no whine, no rattle.

As far as the Pentium being a better chip than the G5 -- not the current IV iteration. Heat issues plague the P4EE chips, just like they plague the G5. I'm pretty disgusted that Apple went with Intel versus AMD. AMD's FPU much better for overall performance & the current 90nm process handles heavy load far more efficiently. With new processors on their way, my money would be on AMD over Intel.

Tomshardware.com has an interesting article up on the new Pentum M class processor - it looks to be a definite solid performer & they theorize that it may be the new core adopted on near future Intel cpus.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

Personally, I hate to see Apple do this. Just when the stock starts gaining momentum, Apple shoots themselves in the foot by mixing Greenspan with potentially scaring investors. Arrrgh. I hope Jobs spins this well.

I really doubt that Apple will make OSX compatible with any x86 out there. Consider the past behavior of Apple toward the Mac clone industry & the fact that Apple might stand more to lose by discontinuing their hardware production and by focusing solely on software production. Then again, I really doubted that Apple would move over to Intel cpus.

Just my 2 cents :)
-James

jin choung
06-06-2005, 03:30 PM
meh,

EVERYTHING IS HACKABLE. dongle? hard drive? whatever.... once it's on an x86 chip, it's a done deal. in the real world, dongles dissuade for about 15 minutes net time.

and again, you guys think intel is going to specially modify its cpu for apple?! i gotta stress again - this ain't a trivial task!

i don't even disagree with what you guys are saying apple will do. i'm sure that they will make every effort.

what i AM saying is that result-wise, it will be completely futile.

jin

pdrake
06-06-2005, 04:12 PM
blah, blah, blah

dongle crack dongle.

the real questionis will i be able to have a dual bootable system, osX and xp? goodbye virtual pc. and would they be able to talk to each other. how cool would that be. will the new chipset enable apple to start using better graphics cards?

should i buy that new mac now or build a pc?

cresshead
06-06-2005, 05:11 PM
well here it is!

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html

:D

Johnny
06-06-2005, 06:09 PM
meh, EVERYTHING IS HACKABLE. dongle? hard drive? whatever.... once it's on an x86 chip, it's a done deal. in the real world, dongles dissuade for about 15 minutes net time.


can we infer that you're using a dongle-disabled version of Lightwave? I know you'd hate to be living in the fantasy realm, Jin!

:-P

J

jin choung
06-06-2005, 06:17 PM
haha,

no dice. check with newtek. i'm a proud, registered owner since 5.5 days.

but i'm not so blind as to ignore the fact that such things exist and are more or less readily available.

also, if you BUY osx, i see nothing wrong with running it on whatever you damwellplease. and if you need a crack in order to make that happen, i wouldn't even call that immoral. just like using cracks on a game that you bought so that you don't have to keep the dam game cd in the tray.

jin

mattclary
06-06-2005, 06:24 PM
Well, Intel, IBM, Motorola, what have you... The elitists can keep their OS if they want to lock it to their overpriced hardware. They could be smart and compete head to head with Microsoft, but then I guess they would have to put their money where their mouth was. It might be tough to claim a superior OS if both OSes run on the same hardware, exposing all the inherent weakneses.

Like I said, sell the OS without the hardware, and I'll buy it.

Johnny
06-06-2005, 06:25 PM
haha,
i'm a proud, registered owner since 5.5 days.

but i'm not so blind as to ignore the fact that such things exist and are more or less readily available.

also, if you BUY osx, i see nothing wrong with running it on whatever you damwellplease. and if you need a crack in order to make that happen, i wouldn't even call that immoral.jin

If you're a proud registered user of LW, then you must also be a respector of the license agreement, yes?

Can = Should??

Why shouldn't we all be able to run LW on whatever we **** well please? if I have half a dozen computers, heck..why shouldn't I be able to install LW on each one, and have them all running at the same time?

And if NT doesn't like this, you're saying by extension, it wouldn't be immoral to use a crack to 'make it happen.'

Right?

Maybe it comes down to intellectual property rights? Maybe the rights of the owner supercede your "right" to abrogate their rights?

J

cresshead
06-06-2005, 06:29 PM
hard to say what the customer respose will be....
will G5's still sell..seeing as the platform will die in 12 months for g5's?

not absolutley sure if apple wants intel chips for their mobile computers rather than the whole apple range inc desktops...currently according to apple G5's are faster than intel p4 chips...seems odd...but intel mobile chips are out pacing ibook et el from apple....

we could see a dual stream of intel and ibm based products from apple..though i have read that the G5 road map looks to be underperforming so intel looks a good bet to switch to..esp seeing as apple has had osx on intel for 5 yrs already..but insecret! :eek:

...in the end they are all just calulators for our software!

Fausto
06-06-2005, 06:38 PM
After years of trying to get people to switch to Macs from Intel-based computers, Apple Computer itself has switched.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html


This is priceless, I guess the so called dark side was just too tempting. Hilarious, absolutely hilarious, now who's thinking different?

ricochet
06-06-2005, 07:00 PM
snip!! --------
It might be tough to claim a superior OS if both OSes run on the same hardware, exposing all the inherent weakneses. endsnip!!


Umm... actually, apart from the motherboard & the cpu, the Apple computers on the market use the same hardware as the pc-compatibles. Apple needs better opengl drivers (which they're developing), but in most other areas OSX does run better than Windows. Comparing OSX with Windows is essentially comparing Unix to Windows. Unix is better built, better optimised, more flexible, far more secure, and very stable. Apple combines that OS with a controlled environment for hardware, so known issues & conflicts are mainly dealt with before the product goes on the shelves. That is why there are so many mac faithful - they buy a base system that is somewhat proprietary so they get consistent performance. It may not always be bleeding edge, but its reliability is very high.

jin choung
06-06-2005, 07:44 PM
If you're a proud registered user of LW, then you must also be a respector of the license agreement, yes?

Can = Should??

Why shouldn't we all be able to run LW on whatever we **** well please? if I have half a dozen computers, heck..why shouldn't I be able to install LW on each one, and have them all running at the same time?

And if NT doesn't like this, you're saying by extension, it wouldn't be immoral to use a crack to 'make it happen.'

Right?

Maybe it comes down to intellectual property rights? Maybe the rights of the owner supercede your "right" to abrogate their rights?

J

oh johnny puh-leez... johnny puh-leez....

you fishing for copyright violations? puh-leez.... who died and made you j. edgar hoover?

you don't walk around downtown snitchin' on the guys selling star wars too do ya?

but to satisfy your larceny hungry mind, the answer is yup. i do in fact respect newtek's license agreement because it is more than fair and reasonable.

to install on multiple machines would be to really gyp them out of cash they deserve. and after all, they provide infinite free render licenses.

as a matter of fact, i've seen the crack on numerous file sharing venues but never downloaded. besides, i only have one pc at home.

but i DO get cracks for games that i buy (usually a patched .exe) to play the games without having to have the CD in the tray.

in those cases, i am probably in violation of some agreement or somesuch. and ya know what? i don't lose a wink of sleep over that.

so let's see where your moral compass points: is that a cardinal sin in your opinion? and ya know how foolish you sound if you had a problem with that?

if i BUY osx and i want to run it on a single machine of MY CHOOSING, will i be violating some agreement? maybe if they come out with the modded apples. guess how bad that'll make me feel?

being pointlessly legalistic aintcha? if we all contended with letter of the law every moment of our lives, we'd all be breaking countless laws every day! and with digital rights stuff, eventually the rate of transgression will be equivalent to the rate of SINNING.

hehe... but i must admit, i have a streak of the ol' anarchy in me.

i always used to play CHAOTIC GOOD characters in my ol' d&d days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what else ya got?

jin

riki
06-06-2005, 08:00 PM
Looks like the Intel rumour was right http://wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67757,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Most probably a good move, but I doubt that it'll be a painless transition. OS9 to X was a big step, but I think the end result was worth it.

ricochet
06-06-2005, 08:04 PM
i always used to play CHAOTIC GOOD characters in my ol' d&d days.


Hey now, I'd be chaotic good, but that means I'd lose my status as a paladin. Bummer.

wacom
06-06-2005, 08:31 PM
I don't get all of the long faces. Did people think that Apple was going to go down with the ship just for hardware fetish sakes? Swallow your 80's pride and move aside- we all know that the AMIGA was the real deal...but it's dead, and we, as good NewTekians (SP?) have moved on...

The hardware division of Apple has lost money for quite a few years.

The iPod (which is platform independent in a way) and OSX have been their REAL money makers.

Who would like to see Apple succeed? OK, so 90% of us want to see that. Well it's a hard world, but if it means they run Intel/AMD chips instead of PPC why in the **** should I care?

You Apple die hards are so afraid of change yet embrace it in otherways it makes me cry. They made you ditch your old printers, ports, cards and half of your hardware and you said "PLEASE". Then they made you change your OS entirely and you said "THANK YOU".

Now they just want to change your stupid chip from evil IBM to evil Intel. Oh, and they want to give you faster RAM too! Oh and they want to bring the prices down on Macs too...

Ooooooh, these things sound so bad...YIKES!

What does this mean for the duo-dongle though?

At any rate I see this as a good move for Apple as the 86x platform isn't really owned by anyone. If AMD is make'n better chips they can use them one year, and if XYZ is using better chips the next they can switch. Could they do that with the PPC? What about RAM?

I can't wait to get my hands on a Mac Mini that has an 86 chip in it and is 2/3 the price!

I guess I don't care...I'll just keep using my G3 Pismo and my Dell...too much going on to make a move yet...

jin choung
06-06-2005, 08:34 PM
ahhhh....

nothing turns the undead like a paladin. zombies.... mmmmmmmmm. :)

jin

wacom
06-06-2005, 08:44 PM
Umm... actually, apart from the motherboard & the cpu, the Apple computers on the market use the same hardware as the pc-compatibles. Apple needs better opengl drivers (which they're developing), but in most other areas OSX does run better than Windows. Comparing OSX with Windows is essentially comparing Unix to Windows. Unix is better built, better optimised, more flexible, far more secure, and very stable. Apple combines that OS with a controlled environment for hardware, so known issues & conflicts are mainly dealt with before the product goes on the shelves. That is why there are so many mac faithful - they buy a base system that is somewhat proprietary so they get consistent performance. It may not always be bleeding edge, but its reliability is very high.

Well the far more secure thing with UNIX is a bit of a stretch, because like OSX it's more secure because fewer hackers have a reason to hack such a small part of the market. If Unix was the standard, it'd be hacked just as much as windows- ditto for OSX. What I do know is that Windows XP AND OSX could learn even more from Unix. Oh well. I can't wait to triple boot OSX, XP, and Linux! What a trip!

What you've said about a closed platform is dead on though- I wonder if Apple will put certain guidelines on the PC's that run OSX. Such as that they can only use three diffrent Graphics cards, two types of RAM, and only two or three types of motherboard etc. just to keep software delvelopment costs down and reliabiity high. MicroLimp and Linux OS makers waste a lot of time (and for good reason) supporting thousands of diffrent hardware configs. Current Apple customers don't seem to worried about legacy support (well not the last time Apple ditched old stuff for new hardware anyway).

jin choung
06-06-2005, 08:46 PM
btw,

if i understand matt's post, he's not saying necessarily that osx is the weaker os.

but apple has always posted questionable benchmarks on questionable operations and finagled it by virtue of the fact that we're comparing apples to oranges.

well now, we'll be comparing oranges to oranges and we'll REALLY BE ABLE TO SEE how everyone stands. no excuses.

that's a more than valid point i think.

and the whole elitist thing - yah... some of you job luvers may disagree but i am completely in agreement with the sentiment. the target market was always a certain variety of mocha swilling, beret and turtle neck wearing, beetle or audi driving, horn rimmed glasses wearing new age spoiled hippie beatnick.

shudder.

----------------------------------------------------------

and computer hardware has been of recent history a business of RAZOR THIN MARGINS.... if apple ditches their hardware division, all the frickin' better for them!

they've gained a lot of mindshare on osx' unix heritage as well as ipods and such.

i think it's a great (but potentially fatal move - i agree the transition might kill em) move.

-----------------------------------------------------------

the thing no one has brought up yet is that emulation layer that that apple partner has come up with.... that sounds really cool!

unlikely but it would be nice if they made that a separate product.

jin

wacom
06-06-2005, 08:56 PM
Yes, I have total faith in their ability to make great emulation software- that rosetta stone is going to be fairly slick. I was very impressed with how OSX handled OS9 the first time I tried it. I can't see how this is a fatal move for Apple. What market share are they going to lose? Apple has such a small part of the market- and they're all such die hard apple fans that they're never going to switch- so that base is secure. All they can do from here is pick up more market share and ditch trying to make any money off of their hardware biz.

And yes- most Mac people are kind of "diffrent" Jin...the people who use all platforms are even worse!

You apple people just need to uderstand that your computer, for the first time in a long while, is going to "think diffrent".

wacom
06-06-2005, 09:16 PM
hmmm...hmmm

ricochet
06-06-2005, 10:04 PM
Well the far more secure thing with UNIX is a bit of a stretch, because like OSX it's more secure because fewer hackers have a reason to hack such a small part of the market. If Unix was the standard, it'd be hacked just as much as windows- ditto for OSX.

Yeah, I'll agree to a certain point with you on that. ;)

Point being, in comparison to anything by Microsoft that I've seen or had to support (I.T. guy here) I'd support an OSX or Unix box any day over a wintel. Let me put it another way -- I spend all day fixing pcs & macs for a living, first & second tier support along with network support. People have been rumoring viruses for Mac ever since OSX.1 -- I think it's been, wow, 4 years? Haven't seen one yet. I've averaged approx 4 PCs rebuilt weekly (meaning format, reinstall OS, applied patches, reinstall apps etc) due to various virus issues on said PCs, along with a host of spyware/malware issues.

/randomsoapboxrant on
On that note, please folks, if you go to the Wintel side, please, please, please don't buy a Dell. Yes, I know the warranty is nice and they have great commercials. Ignore that - the whole purpose of having a PC is to not need a stinking warranty because it's a solid product to begin with.

Build your own pc with good quality parts. Buy tested, name brand RAM. It's not rocket science - it's easy. Please. I spend all day fixing broken Dells.

sorry - had to say it. it was a long day today. :rolleyes:
/randomsoapboxrant off

Ok, I'm done now. Must go play with LW. It's therapeutic :)

OneShot
06-06-2005, 11:54 PM
Well I just purchased a Dual liquid cooled 2.5Ghz G5, not even a year old. I'm shutting my pocket book, for 2 years. If purchase more RAM I have no guarantee that it will work in the next machine. And why invest in any software if your a hobbyist, you'll have to upgrade again in another year. I was 5 sec away from buying a 2nd Apple Display. I can just save that money for a new unit. Support for 10.3.x and 10.4 will be quickly dieing off soon!

If Apple can survive with very low desktop sells and probably near zero laptop sells, good lucky. I feel sorry for the Apple only software and hardware developer over the next 18 months.

In the long run after we Mac user get ream. :eek: Hopeful software can be more optimized to run on the OS and CPU. :rolleyes:

Darth Mole
06-07-2005, 01:57 AM
From zdnet:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

So, let's see who's the cleverer - Apple or the PC hackers...

js33
06-07-2005, 02:49 AM
First of all, Jin you crack me up man. :D

Here's what I see happening. Apple has alot of cash in the bank right now so it is a good time to make the switch. Apple is making the switch based on future processor roadmaps of Intel and IBM. They looked into the near and distant future and saw Intel has dual-core 32/64 bit hybrids right now and a dual-core laptop chip based on Pent M and IBM has maybe a 3 Ghz dual-core in the works but no clear delivery time frame and Freescale has what - marginally speedbumped old tech G4 processors forever? Steve wanted a G5 for the laptops but realized that was never going to happen. Intel is already working on a quad-core processor. IBM is working on game machine processors with Apple 4th in line. Imagine if Apple stayed with IBM/Freescale for the next few years. Intel and AMD would be spitting out quad-core and even 8-core processors and IBM finally makes it to 3Ghz dual-core and Freescale has a 2 Ghz G4. Well it won't be hard to see that Steve made the right decision.

At the Keynote Steve was showing Tiger on a Mac and about halfway through the show reveals that the Mac was running on a 3.6 Ghz P4 the entire time. He is a sly one.

Also for all programs that are Xcode it seems like all that's needed for most apps will be to check the Intel box on the compilier. Carbon and Codewarrior will take a little more work but they should be on Xcode by now anyway.

I have heard the rumor like everyone else that they secretly had OSX running on Intel but I thought it was mostly a disaster plan rather than a consistent dual platform program for the last 5 years. That was kind of shocking but cool.

Apple will use the LaGrange security features of the upcoming Intel chipsets to insure OSX runs only on their hardware. But supposedly you could install XP32/64 or Longhorn on the same machine.

Virtualization will allow you to run OSX and Windows on the same machine at the same time.

I think this will be cool to finally have an all-in-one machine. Imagine running a dual dual-core machine with 32 gigs ram, PCI Express graphics cards, all the latest chipset features with OSX and Longhorn running at the same time.

Cheers,
JS

Gui Lo
06-07-2005, 02:56 AM
So, let's see who's the cleverer - Apple or the PC hackers...

I think it is mainly the OS that gets hacked, right? Rather than the CPU.

Or is the choice of CPU that is determinate of whether the machine is hacked?

pat-lek
06-07-2005, 02:56 AM
And the CELL processors??? where are they???

And when the Mac will have Intel processors; we will be more able to compare the price with a PC, and i think that Apple may be have some difficulties to sell us a same machine for 1,5 or 2 X the price of a same PC.

Gui Lo
06-07-2005, 03:09 AM
I find that there was no Intel hardware available for launch a bit odd.

From the keynote Jobs was using an Intel machine to run OSX. Granted maybe the hardware wasn't really stable but some new hadware should have been shown and available months later.

I have an iBook and the only software I have bought for it is iWork because everything else is there already. I think plenty of consumers are the same.
I mean if they had shown an Intel based iMac Mini then it would run straight into the arms of Windows/iPod users.

Gui Lo

Ge4-ce
06-07-2005, 04:01 AM
And the CELL processors??? where are they???

And when the Mac will have Intel processors; we will be more able to compare the price with a PC, and i think that Apple may be have some difficulties to sell us a same machine for 1,5 or 2 X the price of a same PC.

You know.. I think you just crossed n° 10 000 000 person who used one of the most used nonsense arguments for the Mac.

1) a mac is never the same as a PC. Have you ever opened up a G5 machine? Seen how nice it's designed and how easy you have access to all the parts etc?

2) you allways have to compare every single bit of hardware in there. Not just the processors. I mean every I/O port on that Mac. I mean Digital audio, FW 400 and 800, ....

3) go and make a comparable machine at Boxx.com and Dell.com and see what you find out

4)"yeah but those are expensive company's, I build them myself" is not a good argument. Ferrari is an expensive car, but hey, If I order the parts for myself and put them together myself, then it will be half that expensive! But I get no warranty, and I must be computerexpert to get it all working.

5) Example:

Boxworkstation dual 3.0 intel Xeon

1GB ram
120GB harddisk Serial ATA
Firewire 400 and 800
USB 2
ATI firegl v3100 only 128 VRAM
all other standard I/O things, but NO DIGITAL AUDIO! (couldn't find that)

PRICE: 3167 $

Apple dual 2.7 G5

1GB ram bought from Apple (wich you normally don't)
250 GB Serial ATA Hardrive
All the standards FW 400 800 USB2,
DIGITAL AUDIO
Nvidia 6800 ultra 256VRAM

Price: 3549 $

So for 382 $ you get an extra 130 GB Harddrivespace, 128MB vram extra, and digital optical audio-in out ports

If you get Ram from somewhere else, you can get 50$ off that..

Now where's your big difference and 1.5 to 2x the price of a PC????? Not to mention the quality of materials used, a stable computer, but let's assume that you get that also from Boxx (they make good machines)

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 04:08 AM
1) a mac is never the same as a PC. Have you ever opened up a G5 machine? Seen how nice it's designed and how easy you have access to all the parts etc?

2) you allways have to compare every single bit of hardware in there. Not just the processors. I mean every I/O port on that Mac. I mean Digital audio, FW 400 and 800, ....
I guess 1) goes both ways... and since you only open the case to may be swap in a PCI board, harddrive or RAM this isn't really an issue for the average joe. And the not so average joe can easily assemble a PC that is just as nice on the inside.

2) PCI express? Integrated memory controllers? Pro gfx boards? SLI? ... again this goes both ways and you have pros and cons on both sides of the pond.

But it seems the move will allow Apple to use more standard components like chipsets as well, which is good.

Cheers,
Mike

Ge4-ce
06-07-2005, 04:13 AM
Well yes, I agree it goes both ways.

But there are a lot of people who use it only in one way! From PC to Mac and not the other way around..

Why else do these arguments of PC being 1.5 to 2x cheaper than a comparable Mac stay alive?? that doens't make sense.

you can't compare apples to oranges.. (I mean an eatable apple here ;) )

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 04:19 AM
Why else do these arguments of PC being 1.5 to 2x cheaper than a comparable Mac stay alive?? that doens't make sense.
Easy... because you have the option. You can shell out as much or even much more for a PC than for a Mac if you like to... or much less if you DIY.
Heck, you can go up to an 8-way system costing you 40.000€ with 64GB of Ram (running W2K3 server) ... if you want or need to.

Cheers,
Mike

Gui Lo
06-07-2005, 04:20 AM
Ge4-ce makes a good point in that Apple products are without doubt the best designed and packaged on the market.

If Windows can be installed with ease on the new Macs then surely this is a scary prospect for other Wintel PC makers.

It is not whether the Mac can be compared to PCs it is whether PCs can handle a well designed machine, with packaging that gives the consumer the feeling of opening up something really special.

You give someone the choice of running Windows on a Mac or a Dell. It is like do listen to Oasis on and iPod or a Creative Zen Micro.

I think PC makers need to look at the quality of their whole area of product packaging.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 04:32 AM
Ge4-ce makes a good point in that Apple products are without doubt the best designed and packaged on the market.
Well, it depends on what you want I guess.
I don't want to pay for packaging... What counts _for me_ in the end is to get my job done within time and budget ... and so far this has worked out quite well on PCs.
Hey, if I want to buy something nice I go out for dinner or buy some clothes, but that's me ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Gui Lo
06-07-2005, 04:56 AM
Well, it depends on what you want I guess.

Exactly!!

Maybe I wasn't so clear.
It is not a case now that if you buy a Mac you have to use the MacOS. Now you may be able to buy a Mac and run Windows.

Apple could now be considered as a Wintel PC maker!

The move to Intel gives the Mac a level playing field with other PC manufaturers. There may be a difference in price but the main difference will be seen as design and package quality. Not just the cardboard but the whole package.

Apple have been amazingly successful when this has happened with Quicktime and the iPods.

Most people will want the superior quality offered by Apple... well, maybe not you! ;)

Gui Lo

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 05:05 AM
Most people will want the superior quality offered by Apple... well, maybe not you! ;)

Nope, I would want the superior quality and performance offered by an AMD based system... but that's just me ;)

BTw, I don't think it will be long before there will be a hack to make OSX run on any intel hardware. Heck, if you can even run it on non-PowerPC based hardware now...

Cheers,
Mike

Ge4-ce
06-07-2005, 05:46 AM
BTw, I don't think it will be long before there will be a hack to make OSX run on any intel hardware. Heck, if you can even run it on non-PowerPC based hardware now...

Cheers,
Mike


I think, (but I also thought Apple would not switch to Intel) that Apple will put every effort to block this possibility.

Besides, there probably will be a hack to run it on other boxes, but if they only design drivers for these specific motherboards, chips, ... that go into their machines, all other motherboard and chip manufacturers, (not to mention PCI cards etc) have to make a driver for OS X.

Then, Apple has a regular update base. 10.4.1, 10.4.2, ... in wich Apple could potentially and legaly destroy the hack And the OS will no longer work on that Dell machine (for example) Sure, they will make a new hack. Sure, they will do this every time. But if the OS is not officially supported for other machines than Apple machiines, you will probably regret you tried it.

If you work in a professional environement, you want support. So I see no company's trying to run OS X on 3rd party machines. I see Cowboys trying to keep OS X alive on their non-apple-PC's

Gui Lo
06-07-2005, 05:48 AM
Nope, I would want the superior quality and performance offered by an AMD based system... but that's just me

Very General. The original point was about manufaturers not indevidual chips. I agree, I use AMD.




BTw, I don't think it will be long before there will be a hack to make OSX run on any intel hardware. Heck, if you can even run it on non-PowerPC based hardware now...

Maybe so, but that's no reason not to buy original and I think most will.

Gui Lo

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 05:59 AM
If you work in a professional environement, you want support. So I see no company's trying to run OS X on 3rd party machines. I see Cowboys trying to keep OS X alive on their non-apple-PC's
Oh, absolutely. Either that or you DIY.

Then again, I remember a time when I was running circles around the (back then) fastest Mac using a software emulator on the Amiga. :p Those were the times ;)

That said, I think it is a good move from Apple to switch over to a high volume manufacturer... I just think they picked the wrong one ;)

Cheers,
Mike

ingo
06-07-2005, 06:44 AM
....That said, I think it is a good move from Apple to switch over to a high volume manufacturer... I just think they picked the wrong one ;)

Cheers,
Mike

There you're right, AMD will soon be under pressure to get support for their chips from 3D vendors ;) Their FPU might be faster than the one of the P4 (thats hard not to be) but otherwise they only follow Intels moves, and they only produce processors. So if Apple had choosen AMD they will still have the same problems as before. OTOH i have no clue why Intels roadmap should be superior to IBMs .... and why hasn't Apple choosen AlphaPC chips ???

mattclary
06-07-2005, 06:48 AM
but otherwise they only follow Intels moves

OK, you just shot your credibility to **** and back.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 06:51 AM
There you're right, AMD will soon be under pressure to get support for their chips from 3D vendors ;) Their FPU might be faster than the one of the P4 (thats hard not to be) but otherwise they only follow Intels moves, and they only produce processors.
Hm, well, for the past two years they were more likely leading intels moves. There are only two issues where intel are still ahead: mobile CPUs and manufacturing technology (i.e. 90nm / 65nm process). And AMD has been catching up fast on both issues ... and when they released 90nm processors they were the best of the bunch (intel, IBM, AMD).
And what 3D support are you talking about? that has nothing to do with the processor. On the other side, the major professional gfx board manufactuere is even producing chipsets for AMDs (nForce Pro) ... so what support issue? Just about any one I know at the moment who gets a dual PC box for 3D/compositing is jumping on Opterons.

So if Apple had choosen AMD they will still have the same problems as before.OTOH i have no clue why Intels roadmap should be superior to IBMs .... and why hasn't Apple choosen AlphaPC chips ???
Because they're dead?
So, intel ain't better than IBM but AMD is worse and you want a dead processor instead, right? ;) :p

Cheers,
Mike

ingo
06-07-2005, 07:11 AM
.....

Because they're dead?
So, intel ain't better than IBM but AMD is worse and you want a dead processor instead, right? ;) :p

Cheers,
Mike

They are not dead, they are just resting ;) And no, its not dead, its just hard to upgrade the software for my Alpha PC, but Microstation still runs pretty fast on it.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 07:17 AM
They are not dead, they are just resting ;) And no, its not dead, its just hard to upgrade the software for my Alpha PC, but Microstation still runs pretty fast on it.
Lol... yeah, but there still won't be a new processor after the current generation. All involved parties did their best to do so. MIPS anyone? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

ingo
06-07-2005, 07:23 AM
MIPS sounds fine, but how about the other highvolume manufacturer, Transmeta ? ;)

Johnny
06-07-2005, 07:48 AM
Well, it depends on what you want I guess.
I don't want to pay for packaging... What counts _for me_ in the end is to get my job done within time and budget ... and so far this has worked out quite well on PCs.
Hey, if I want to buy something nice I go out for dinner or buy some clothes, but that's me ;)

Cheers,
Mike


I'm with you, there, Mike..My 2 G5s sit under the desk somewhere, and *gasp* I don't spend my working days drooling all over that aluminum case, but I want a Mac G5 for the same reason you might want a Boxx..Yes, I know, there are the DIY options for PCs; not so for Mac..that's just the way thinks have shaken out.

I don't feel that I have a pretty box full of substandard circuits... I feel that I have some good gear which also happens to have a nicely designed physical form. If the G5 weren't getting things done, I wouldn't have bought it.

Now, if a consumer decides that the Mac does the job, I see nothing wrong with their having a machine that looks good, too.

I seem to recall seeing kits where you could give a PC a transparent case complete with blinky lights, giving the effect similar to that of a pimp wagon...

why's that? guess it's down to what people want?

J

Johnny
06-07-2005, 07:58 AM
you fishing for copyright violations? puh-leez.... who died and made you j. edgar hoover?
jin

nawp..I don't much care for busting people for their copyright violations..you're a big boy..that's your responsibility.

what I'm addressing are two things: 1, your "I/we have the right to circumvent other peoples' rights if they do something I/we don't think is fair" attitude, and 2, your apparent lack of comprehension that Apple and Intel have probably thought about such yahoos and how to frustrate them. the calculus seems to be this: They anger us with what we feel are wrong policies, therefore their property becomes OUR property by virtue of the fact that we just take it, and punish them for those policies which forced our hand.

I'm sure there will be crackmeisters out there for the rest of time trying to figure out how to steal someone else's stuff, trying to right wrongs, trying to spank big evil Apple or big evil Company X for not giving them things they want at a price they demand.. rather than making things of their own.


J

Darttman
06-07-2005, 08:45 AM
AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439)

Looks interesting to see the open source for the new chips to be used on the X86 side. Now the line is drawn between Altivec and X86 interesting move.

mattclary
06-07-2005, 09:15 AM
This is the most compelling statement I've read about this whole business. Actually sounds kind of exciting.

Intel needs a partner like Apple; for the longest time Intel has been promising usage models and concept PCs that we all wanted but would never surface. PC vendors focused on producing the cheapest system possible, while dealing with backwards compatibility and standards compliance with a huge install base - effectively making change difficult. Look at how long it has taken us to transition away from the Parallel and Serial ports on PC motherboards or the move to SATA drives. With Apple, Intel finally has a partner that is willing to adapt to change at a much more rapid pace and one that can implement new technologies extremely quickly thanks to a small, agile user base.

mlinde
06-07-2005, 09:55 AM
Those of you who are down on the Apple/Intel move
- did you stop buying Macs when Apple went from 68xxx to PPC?
- did you stop buying Macs when Apple stopped using NuBus and went to PCI?
- did you stop buying Macs when Apple started using AGP for graphics?
- did you stop buying Macs when Apple started using a Unix foundation for the OS?

- did any of these changes matter to you as a user?

I bet you were pretty upset when you didn't get a 3GHz G5 within the first year though, or the second, for that matter. I bet you were also upset when you didn't get a G5 laptop. Why are you upset when Apple is looking at your (and their) future and wants something better?

With the universal binary tools (did you see the Mathematica demo?) and for a backup plan Rosetta, Apple has prepared for this transistion pretty well.

Will Jin every buy a Mac? No. He probably won't ever buy a manufactured PC either. He likes to build his PCs, and pay out of pocket to service them, and his downtime is his business. As a small or independent artist, that's his choice. I'm not about to go down this road again, because you'll never convince a stubborn man of anything.

In the real world, lots of people today are looking at the Mac, but when they see the 3+GHz Intel PC vs. the 2.7 GHz G5, they still don't see beyond those basic numbers.

As for Apple's value to Intel, get real, or go to business school. Apple is one of the top 10 PC manufacturers. Sure, that only gives them 2-3% of the total market. But that's 2-3% of a multi-billion dollar market. Do you really think Intel won't care about a client that does tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of PC sales? Maybe not more than the others, but when you compare it to IBM, who has lots of deals going into non-desktop style products, Intel at least is interested in making microprocessors for computers.

In addition, doesn't Intel get involved in other technologies related to computers? PCI-X, PCI Express, AGP, various RAM developments... could it be that Apple realizes that being on the in-side of general computer HW development can make their products even more competitive?

For my bottom line, I merely quote the Hitchhiker's Guide. "Don't Panic"

wacom
06-07-2005, 10:43 AM
The Mac hardware freaks are about to get ROCKED!

You've all been living in a hardware bubble- and it's about to burst. This crap is sooo complicated, and people partner up with so many other companies all the time- it's really hard to keep track of the changes. All I'm saying is that before you guys only had to worry about models A, B and C running at X,Y and Z. Now you've got so much more on you plate! Have fun trying to figure out which system is faster without going to some place like tomshardware.com

On a personal note: I'm constatnly amazed at how fast my Pismo is for it's age and RAM, and how slow it is compared to my PC- ditto for the G5's I work on. Companies can spit out Gigajupie numbers to you all day- but when you're using it you'll notice real quick which was the better buy for the work you're doing. That's why I do my PS work on a Mac, and my 3D on a PC...I guess soon I'll just be dual booting...

I hope you Mac people will stop putting your system specs in your signature too- it's just so yester day...who cares? Show me some renders instead!

Johnny
06-07-2005, 11:10 AM
I hope you Mac people will stop putting your system specs in your signature too- it's just so yester day...who cares? Show me some renders instead!


we mac people, eh? whatever happens in the mac world shouldn't be any skin off your glutes, so what's with the unloading?

And while you're at it, check out my specs, mon!

J

monovich
06-07-2005, 12:34 PM
AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439)

Looks interesting to see the open source for the new chips to be used on the X86 side. Now the line is drawn between Alitvec and X86 interesting move.

great article.

I'm excited about the new hardware. We've all been patient with Motorola and IBM, apple NEEDS to keep up on speed.

It'll be interesting to see how Mac apps run on the SAME hardware as PCs. Ha ha... can't lie about those numbers!

Ge4-ce
06-07-2005, 12:41 PM
I hope you Mac people will stop putting your system specs in your signature too- it's just so yester day...who cares? Show me some renders instead!


Says the guy who's nickname is named after an input device... :rolleyes:

Johnny
06-07-2005, 01:18 PM
It'll be interesting to see how Mac apps run on the SAME hardware as PCs. Ha ha... can't lie about those numbers!


yeah, with one question: will OS X on Intel mean that developers have little/no reason not to make sure that their apps run as well on Mac as they do on Wintel?

Since the big announcement, developers of one open source project I'm following say that development for OSX on Intel is easier for them..so...?

J

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 01:34 PM
yeah, with one question: will OS X on Intel mean that developers have little/no reason not to make sure that their apps run as well on Mac as they do on Wintel?
Only if they have a machine that runs both. Most performance issues that don't have to do with the quality of the compiler come from the OS and the features the OS provides.
For example, recently somebody linked to an article showing OSX to be a magnitude slower than Linux (on the same machine) on tasks required my the MySQL database (creating tons of threads). This resulted in the performance of said database to be roughly a tenth (under stress) than on the same hardware but with Yellow Dog Linux. In this case optimizing would mean re-writing code of the app (which is cross-platform to boot) to work around a peculiarity of the underlying OS.
(Sorry, I can't find the link at the moment)


Cheers,
Mike

JML
06-07-2005, 01:51 PM
I also heard that microsoft was going to do the new mac OS, to support intel hardware


;)

wacom
06-07-2005, 05:20 PM
Says the guy who's nickname is named after an input device... :rolleyes:


OK, so you got me. It's a very lame name by far, but it was what was around me at the time I made my LW profile. I did it so that I could simply remember one of the 50+ logins I have to remember. Notice that my signature has no reference to my Pismo or Dell systems or other hardware- or even the Wacom. Besides, a wacom only knows images, and doesn't care about hardware... I figured it was a Native American name, since it sounds like many from the area (try Tacoma) and I do live fairly close to where wacom is based. I'll try and change it though to make my point better... ;)

jin choung
06-07-2005, 05:45 PM
johnny johnny johnny,

first of all - you still did not answer my question to you about the ethics of cracking a game i already own so that it's not a nuisance. come on, let's see what your sensibilities are.

second,

since when does the law ever make anything RIGHT?

it certainly never made slavery right (extreme example i know but is true to the argument) or having a drink wrong.

sure, i can go on about how might makes right and whoever has the largest lobbying group or the most lawyers (i.e. whoever has the money) gets to do what they want irregardless of any consideration of ethics....

sure, i can go on and on about how the content industry is trying to eradicate the very notion of 'fair use' and how nothing hardly ever gets into the public domain anymore....

sure i can bring up how countless industries including the riaa have been convicted themselves of illegal practices like price fixing etc that directly STEAL FROM US and that seems to suggest to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that any kind of protest from their side is just so much ludicrous hypocrisy....

but i'll just say this:

right or wrong, i keep my own counsel when it comes to morality and ethics. :)

all the world is about VESTED INTERESTS. in that case, i am firmly on one side - MINE.

but maybe that's because i haven't seen enough of the public service announcement/propaganda brought to us from the good people at M$, MPAA and RIAA?

jin

Ryhnio
06-07-2005, 07:28 PM
I always love it when Woz chimes in.


-Ryhnio

JML
06-07-2005, 08:11 PM
part of an article on ign ,
http://gear.ign.com/articles/622/622724p1.html

"Apparently Apple has had OS X running on Intel processors ever since the early development of the operating system. For the past five years, every release of the OS has been compiled for both PowerPC and Intel processors as a "just in case" scenario. Kudos to Apple for being so forward-looking"

interesting

marble_sheep
06-07-2005, 09:51 PM
I figured it was a Native American name, since it sounds like many from the area (try Tacoma)

Yay for Tacoma!! Or how about Puyallup or Walla Walla? ;) If Tacoma didn't smell like wet cardboard it'd be ok.

anyway... i didn't read through all these pages... maybe if i'm rendering a print-res image of some glass bottles sailling in a sea of molten silver with captitan Monte Carlo at the helm, maybe i'll have time to read all this. so what's all this commotion? ah well.. go team go!!

js33
06-08-2005, 02:18 AM
MIPS sounds fine, but how about the other highvolume manufacturer, Transmeta ? ;)

They're dead too.

Cheers,
JS

Lynx3d
06-08-2005, 04:34 AM
Huh?
Transmeta is not dead...you can actually buy Sharp ultraportables with Transmeta Efficeon CPUs...and Mini-ITX boards for embedded use. But their niche probably is even smaller than Via's C3 niche...

js33
06-08-2005, 04:50 AM
Transmeta sells processor division

Transmeta (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000673045786/) — which once seemed poised to take on Intel with its low-power Crusoe processor — is selling its processor business to China’s Culturecom Technology.

Same day Apple announced move to Intel.

Cheers,
JS

Captain Obvious
06-08-2005, 08:35 AM
Considering a G4 gives more performance per watt than a Crusoe or C3, I don't see why Apple would go with either.

wacom
06-08-2005, 02:17 PM
Yay for Tacoma!! Or how about Puyallup or Walla Walla? ;) If Tacoma didn't smell like wet cardboard it'd be ok.

anyway... i didn't read through all these pages... maybe if i'm rendering a print-res image of some glass bottles sailling in a sea of molten silver with captitan Monte Carlo at the helm, maybe i'll have time to read all this. so what's all this commotion? ah well.. go team go!!

We're getting way OT with this, but yeah I was born in Tacoma (only born) but I have faimly there...we called it "Tacoma Aroma"...man that place stinks!

The commotion is that many of us see this move as a good thing, and we're just trying to sell the old-school Apple kids on it. They think the sky is falling...along with mac quaility and superior blood lines etc.

There goes the Mac neighborhood!

The real question, which many have raised, is why are they sticking so close to Intel? What about AMD etc. Is this Intel backlash towards MicroLimp for them getting charmed by the early AMD 64bit CPUs.

Ge4-ce
06-08-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm a born Mac fanatic, but I immediatly thought this was a good move.

I admit, I didn't first thought they would do such a move. I thought IBM's roadmap was good enough, (G6, the Power5 downscale,...) but apparently, this was miscalculation.

I love OS X. I would buy an Intel dualcore whoknowswhattheywillcallthem Apple system right away if my favorite apps can run natively on that machine.

I had no good experience with emulators like Classic, and VPC. Rossetta seems to slow things down also (wich is normal) but I don't buy a 3500$ machine to get slower Apps. Before my first intel based Mac will be bought, All my apps must be native for Intel: (LW (offcourse)+ Worley plugins) Shake, Apple Pro apps, Complete Adobe line, flash, combustion, Office, all smaller Apple Apps, and X-plane! ) Those are the most important to me

Captain Obvious
06-08-2005, 05:54 PM
I would just like to point out that Classic isn't an emulator, it's just OS 9 running in OS X. ;)

jin choung
06-09-2005, 02:55 AM
relatively speaking-

isn't porting apps to osx intel pretty easy - basically a recompile?

if linux and unix are any indication, if the OS is the same but you're just on different silicon, it's pretty much a recompile ain't it?

usually, porting pc stuff for mac was a big deal because it's a different os on different silicon but if it's the same os on different silicon, shouldn't it be pretty smooth?

i'm sure that you have to optimize certain things like altivec to sse2 etc. but am i wrong? shouldn't it be cake?

jin

Lightwolf
06-09-2005, 03:20 AM
relatively speaking-

isn't porting apps to osx intel pretty easy - basically a recompile?
..._if_ the original app was coded using XCode, yes.
This however seems to exclude a lot of apps, like LW, C4D or Photoshop.
And the switch to XCode doesn't just mean using a different compiler, but a different OSX API too... Apple just couldn't make up their minds in the beginning of OSX I guess, and early developers jumped on the wrong wagon... ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-09-2005, 03:35 AM
And the switch to XCode doesn't just mean using a different compiler, but a different OSX API too... Apple just couldn't make up their minds in the beginning of OSX I guess, and early developers jumped on the wrong wagon...
Well, a lot of those applications have been on the CodeWarrior bandwagon since back when CodeWarrior was actually the thing you should*use. ;) It's not like NewTek ported Lightwave from something else to CW in order to get it running on OS X, right?




isn't porting apps to osx intel pretty easy - basically a recompile?
Cocoa apps is basically a recompile, maybe a little tweaking, depending on their complexity, I suppose.

It took one developer two hours to port the millions-of-lines-of-code beast Mathematica to OS X Intel. That's pretty ****ed impressive.


But like Lightwolf says, if it's not using Xcode, porting it will be somewhat harder. But there is still another year before x86 Macs start coming out into the wild. I'm sure NewTek will have time to release an Xcode-written Lightwave by then. Especially since they've been working on an Xcode version for a while now regardless. ;)

Ge4-ce
06-09-2005, 03:38 AM
I would just like to point out that Classic isn't an emulator, it's just OS 9 running in OS X. ;)

Ok, that's correct, but it does slow down an app. To be honest. I got rid of Classic day 1 I used it. It never worked for me. I hated it. ;) no really. I remember buying a state of the art new single G4 450 Mhz. High end model. That one was "the" computer at that moment. It ran OS 9 as fast as the last chicken in Afrika. I think that my current dual G5 runs classic only a tiny bit faster than that computer.

Captain Obvious
06-09-2005, 04:11 AM
I've never had any real problems with Classic. Then again, I've only ever used it for StarCraft (before the patch was released) and the Chooser (the network connector in OS 9, the one built into OS 10.0 was buggy as ****).