Apple went Plug and Play back in 1984. It took Wintel 11 years to catch up. Apple had long file names nearly 15 years before 'Doze users had it. But no, "Doze users sit with their hands under their arses, saying "Just wait 10 years or so. When Billy "invents" what you've been using for the last decade, it's going to kick your backside!". <I bet you're sitting your hands right now, watching MooHorn being stripped of most every feature that Billy promised that it would have in it, yet still hitting the streets years after it was promised. You'll be the 1st in line, FanBoy, to shell out your cash for XP Service pack 3, and I'll have been enjoying myself for nearly 6 years with OS X by the time Moohorn is released>. Moo. Your herd is calling you. You mustn't think for yourself now, so go fall in line with the rest of the sheep.
"Apple went Plug and Play back in 1984. It took Wintel 11 years to catch up. Apple had long file names nearly 15 years before 'Doze users had it. But no, "Doze users sit with their hands under their arses, saying "Just wait 10 years or so. When Billy "invents" what you've been using for the last decade, it's going to kick your backside!". <I bet you're sitting your hands right now, watching MooHorn being stripped of most every feature that Billy promised that it would have in it, yet still hitting the streets years after it was promised. You'll be the 1st in line, FanBoy, to shell out your cash for XP Service pack 3, and I'll have been enjoying myself for nearly 6 years with OS X by the time Moohorn is released>. Moo. Your herd is calling you. You mustn't think for yourself now, so go fall in line with the rest of the sheep."
Like it or not Apple and windows both have their merits and downfall. Though I'm partial to linux myself.
let me tell you a little story about mac upgrades. I friend of mind had an imac which crashed every time aim was opened. And it was out of date, so we ran out and paid the $130 for OSX. But when I went thru the install it need a higher version of classical OS to be installed, and offered a coupon and form to send in for the intermediate so I could update. But wait, the coupon in a brand new OS X box from compusa, expired!
Not that I like the insane viruses or spy/adware of windows either. Rather I kicked it off completely and opt for linux. I prefer free over $150 windows xp or $130 mac upgrades... Not that any OS is perfect... software should be cheap or free, and Windows nor Mac OSX provides it readily.
With the adoption of PPC variants coming to consoles, it would be a mistake for Apple to abandon PPC now with all the recent advancements in the Power architecture and variants of, like Cell and Xenon. Not a good move at this time.
If this story is true, does this mean that (perhaps with a little third-party programming), all those millions of PCs running on WinXP out there will be able to install (grey market copies of) OS X?
The PowerPC is a RISC (Reduced instruction Set Computing) Chip.
The Intel Chips like those in Typical PC's are strictly CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computin) Chips. That means much of the code is burned into the chip and can not be altered. This is equivelent to going back to OS9.
This is just speculation in my part, but please bear with me.
This move from Apple correlates DIRECTLY with the recent announcements from Microsoft and Sony regarding their next- gen consoles. Dont you think its strange??
From my point (and everyone elses) the relation between Apple and IBM has been MORE than rocky... If Jobs hates one thing more than any other is making a fool of himself in front of an audience. That is PRECISELY what happened when IBM didnt deliver the 3.0 GHZ processors they promised. Apparently, they offered Steve such a good excuse that he went public saying that problems with the manufacturing (or something... I cant remember exactly) did not permit this.
But the announcements in E3 I think were EXACTLY what pissed Steve off to high heaven, just think about it (and before you go into it, I KNOW custom-made PowerPC chips are NOT the same chips developed for computers, I know computer processors are MUCH more complex, but still please bear with me). Im SURE Steve was PISSED as HELL for this!! Just look: Here he is making excuses for low performance computer chips while AT THE SAME TIME and behind his back (and no doubt also using NDA Agreements and the aforementioned fact that custom- made chips are different to computer processors as a pitiful excuse) 3.2 GHZ chips were being developed FROM THE GROUND UP not for one, not for two, but for THREE graphic ultra intensive next generation CONSOLES!!!!! (3 because, as I recall, Nintendos Revolution will also include PowerPC they already do with the GameCube by the way -, though I admit Im not 100% sure where I read this).
This is an OUTRAGE!!!!!!! IBM first fails to comply with processors speeds THEY promised to deliver. But to add insult to injury, AT THE SAME time they make ultrapowerful chips for OTHER companies using the SAME TECHNOLOGY??? MAAAAAN, as a Mac user (since 1986! I started with a Mac Plus of my own) Im already SOOOOOOO pissed off I REALLY do hope Steve Jobs ditches IBM completely and FOREVER!!!!! Big Blue Brother INDEED!! That 1984 commercial still has present undertones... Damn prophetic!!! You CANT count on IBM for ANYTHING!!! This is a complete and utter lack of ethics (be it business, moral, or whatever) in part of IBM and I really do hope that that corrupted company disappears gets replaced by something better; or maybe, just maybe, if someone manages to destroy it and rebuild it.... Well maybe just then.... But this is NOT Apples problem. And we as Mac users have had ENOUGH!!!
Software needs to be recompiled??? SO BE IT! Weve through worse stuff. If this is what it takes to finally have ULTRAFAST computers with the BEST operating system in the World?? AMEN TO THAT!
IBM: I would use the worst and lowest dirty words for what you did. But there is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that will bring me enought satisfaction. So, thanks FOR NOTHING and SO LONG!
Yours truly,
Jorge Humberto Padilla Leal. San Pedro Garza Garcia, NL. MEXICO
Apple may be pissed off about IBM/Nintendo/MS but if you look past that, isn't it just another reason to stick with PowerPC? The fact that two (actually 3 if you count the PowerPC frontend of the PS3's processor) of the nextgen consoles are going PowerPC means that the architecture is going places. Going to x86 would be a drag for programmers, would not (in my opinion) bring faster chips in the long term, and would cause Apple to lose (at least a big chunk of) it's hardware business.
Then again, I trust Apple to do the right thing... We'll see Monday.
While I respect IBM as a company because of their contribution to the tech world, but I agree with you that they are not serious on Mac CPU development. Not only they failed to deliver the 3GHz G5, but also they couldn't come out a low power version for Powerbook, which I think hurts Apple seriously. In the meantime, those 3 CPU variants for game consoles don't seem to consume a lot power. This means IBM are simply not serious to Apple. Of course, Apple have every right to ditch IBM.
Switching to Intel doesn't gurantee Apple to have more powerful machine in future than if they stick with IBM. But the move will give Apple a levelled playground with all other PC makers. Whether Intel chips are fast or slow, Apple will have same as others. And with OS X's advance over Windows, Mac may really show performance advantage over other PCs.
Of course, software will be an issue. But I think it's a short term problem and I believe Apple can overcome it. As a Mac user (also a PC user) I'll support this change.
If Apple really make the switch, I predict the first Mac using Intel chip will be Powerbook on next year's Macworld.
Imagine a PC machine you truly own. See under the hood.
Not by a hacker, spyware and virus companies. You can "su", do "top" , ps ax and "kill" unwanted processes in an instant. Recovering your precious data will be a breeze since xBSD understands NTFS.
Unix has a very good file system not to mention fast. XP is catching up.
SJ vision is to compete with everybody. An STB in our living room and bedroom. A truly multimedia system for "Thinkerer" and Grandma.
Apple's problem: IBM protecting its server divisions
If we see an announcement on Monday, I believe the root of the problem that Apple has is that IBM is trying to protect its pSeries and iSeries server business from being undercut by a much lower pricepoint on Apple servers and to a lesser extent workstations.
Therefore it is likely that IBM is trying to put restrictions on: a) what processors Apple can get and; b) what machines Apple can build with those processors and which markets they can target;
More on this in my blog-entry of May 23 (please excuse the first foreign language paragraph.) <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.andwest.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.andwest.com/</a> blojsom/blog/tatle/2005/05/23/Apple_og_Intel_Chips.html
Finally...dual booting OS X and XP without emulators
Haven't read all the posts yet, but has everyone MISSED the real opportunity here? The Mac Mini was an affordable alternative for people who need to run both platforms. But it still involved using a KVM and two separate computers to do it. Now you can do what PC/Linux users have already been doing for years.
I'm more interested in how this move will skyrocket Intel into the stratosphere. I would imagine that their will be some initial concern over the process of developing chips and the difficulties in manufacturing and design that pose Intel.
Huh? Mac users have been able to dual boot to Linux for years as well. And what makes you think that Windows will boot on a Mac-Intel box (or that Mac OSX-Intel will boot on a non-Apple Intel box)?
Has anyone NOT noticed that recently, Windows has moved toward design and interface enhancement while already having market share; and Mac has moved toward gaining market share while already having design and interface lead.
Sun has already moved to Solaris on Intel. When, and if, Mac does this, I believe we'll see lower costing Intel chips and increased competition in chips manufactured under this architecture.
Maybe I can finally get a reliable and user friendly OS to run on my already powerful and upgradeable hardware! The story definitely said processors and x86. I hope so because if that's the case Apple would be foolish not to license their OS for hardware other than their own. I do not buy for a moment the argument that Windows is unstable because it hase to run on varying hardware platforms. That's a crock and a lame excuse for shoddy programming practices. Program integrity (remember the one way in, one way out requirements for your programming assignments in school, that's how you handle security issues; no one comes in the side door if there isn't one)is the key and it's the one thing that Apple always had. PowerPC faster than x86? Bull, optimal code running on it occasionallly makes it seem that way. It's time Apple wised up and became a software company instead of buying other vendor's junk and building over priced systems. When they can compete in a cost effective manner Apple will walk on M$ in the OS world.
While I have no idea how valid this round of Apple/Intel rumors are, I'm surprised to see so many technology journalists express concern about the viability of an Intel build of MacOS X. Does anyone remember NEXTSTEP? When NeXT dropped hardware and became a software company, they released NEXTSTEP for Motorola (NeXT hardware), Intel, SPARC, and PA-RISC architectures.
I ran NEXTSTEP on an Intel box and it was completely indistinguishable from my old NeXT box. Compiling an application that ran on all four architectures, called a Fat-Binary, was as simple as clicking a checkbox in Project Builder. The end user didn't need to select the application appropriate for his/her architecture; the Fat-Binary contained all of them.
I'm not suggesting that there won't be issues with an Apple transition to Intel, but the suggestion that developers will need to rewrite their applications dead wrong. My guess is, just as NEXTSTEP apps re-compiled with the click of a mouse, all Cocoa apps will do the same. After all, Cocoa is simply the evolution of NEXTSTEP's APIs. I don't know if it will be quite so easy for Carbon apps, but my understanding is, Apple rid itself of all hardware-dependent APIs when it defined Carbon, thus ensuring an easier transition between architectures.
If these rumors prove true, I think the transition from PowerPC to Intel will be relatively seamless and should provide Apple with access to a much broader market while lowering costs and improving performance. Sounds pretty much win-win to me!
You may be correct that recompiling for x86 with Cocoa is simple, but are missing a couple important things in the development world.
1. Many applications are written using Carbon APIs, not Cocoa. Mac OS X applications have been able to assume big-endian order when reading/writing files. This isn't wouldn't be the case anymore. True, apps like Word/Photoshop already do this, but not everyone does.
2. Developers have to TEST on each of the platforms. It's not good business to just flip a switch, compile for a NEW PLATFORM and then ship it.
I haven't heard any explanation given as to:
- Benefits to the user
- Benefits to the developer (for putting up with another transition)
- Benefit to Apple (how are they planning to make money?)
Yes, NEXTSTEP ran on Intel before, but recall that Apple bought the entire company, NeXTStep, for $400 million. That's about 10% of what Apple brings in on sales of Macs in a single year.
Notice how C|Net said " CNET News.com has learned." From whom? The paucity of sources is telling. Failure to include sources if Intro to Journalism stuff, folks. Even if it turn out to be true, the story is poorly done. As it is, the likelihood of its veracity is deeply in doubt.
Interesting also how articles like this bring out all the misinformed people on both sides of the Mac/Wintel divide. People who claim that Wintel boxes outperform Macs. What a joke. On almost every real world test, comparable mac hardware outperforms the other side. Equally stupid is the blatantly semantic argument over the definition of PC. While it WAS indeed short hand for "personal computer" it has long been used in common parlance, ever since IBM snookered the term in its first PC in 1982, to mean DOS compatible hardware and its descendants. Learn a little history before you waste time making arguments, that, even if they were cogent, which they are not, are semantic in nature only. (Which means, who cares what PC means?)
The problem is that the authors and contributors to this article will not be called to task when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate. While it is not true that it would be a gargantuan task to port OSX to intel (since, as is common knowledge, much of the work had already been done in Cupertino ages ago) PPC chips outperform the pentium class chips by a large margin, the itanium class chips by a large degree, and Apple has clearly stated they will not do so, for obvious business reasons. Much more likely, as already pointed out, is that Apple has another product in mind, perhaps a revamped low-end XServe, that will employ intel hardware. Anyone wanna bet?
"Notice how C|Net said " CNET News.com has learned." From whom? The paucity of sources is telling. Failure to include sources if Intro to Journalism stuff, folks. Even if it turn out to be true, the story is poorly done."
And what would you expect the reporter to do? Say, yes, I heard it from this guy. Apple's facist anti -American legal department would goose-step right over and snuff the out with 10 trillion miles of red tape.
Yes unnamed sources is a dangerous game for the media. I see nothing wrong here with what CNET has done. It just better freaking be right. I suspect it is because you don't write something this big without making damned sure you have it cold. If they don't, somebody has to be fired but I suspect they have it but I don't want to believe it.
"Interesting also how articles like this bring out all the misinformed people on both sides of the Mac/Wintel divide. People who claim that Wintel boxes outperform Macs. What a joke. On almost every real world test, comparable mac hardware outperforms the other side."
Who is misinformed: just off the top my head here's an example of the g5 (which is a much better Mac than ever before) being slower than a WinAMD/WinTEL
These are both REAL tests and the Mac gets its doors blown off. Why don't you post some numbers from a reputable source (NOT APPLE) that shows the Mac is faster in gaming or as a server.
"Equally stupid is the blatantly semantic argument over the definition of PC. While it WAS indeed short hand for "personal computer" it has long been used in common parlance, ever since IBM snookered the term in its first PC in 1982, to mean DOS compatible hardware and its descendants. Learn a little history before you waste time making arguments, that, even if they were cogent, which they are not, are semantic in nature only. (Which means, who cares what PC means?)"
So you're saying that people who complain about the PC and then say "Well the Mac is a PC so you can't complain about PC" are stupid. Yes I agree. People who say this are very stupid indeed.
"The problem is that the authors and contributors to this article will not be called to task when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate."
Hmm, I see. So you already know the story is wrong? Don't get me wrong, if this story is wrong, somebody better get their butt handed to them in a box but how can "when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate" unless you have some inside knowledge. If CNET is right, are you going to come back, get on your knees and admit YOU were wrong?
"While it is not true that it would be a gargantuan task to port OSX to intel (since, as is common knowledge, much of the work had already been done in Cupertino ages ago) PPC chips outperform the pentium class chips by a large margin, the itanium class chips by a large degree, and Apple has clearly stated they will not do so, for obvious business reasons."
Again, what do you base this on? Apple's biased benchmarks? Jeez.
"Much more likely, as already pointed out, is that Apple has another product in mind, perhaps a revamped low-end XServe, that will employ intel hardware. Anyone wanna bet?"
Who knows. Personally I suspect a custom Pentium M for Apple's laptops which are still running SLOW ass G4 processors but I have no idea what's going on and I suspect that neither do you.
"Apple is a music distributor with an interest in DRM (Digital Rights Management) hardwired ont the intel Pentium. Apple need not tie the OS to flash ROM code as done on PowerPC boxes. Apple can tie the software to DRM access keys hardwired into every intel Pentium. Apple can sell the OS without fear of theft, and Apple can sell music the same way. Using Intel Pentiums with DRM appears to be a business opportunity that does not detract from the existing Power PC business.
Apple help desk could remotely tune or fix software issues, and remotely diagnose hardware issues. The remote feature of DRM is what Dell refers to as white glove service. DRM allows remote snooping your computer while it is off to find bootleg software and music/videos. Department of Home Security loves this. Microsoft likes it too.
The down side of DRM is all for the owner of the new Apple computers. Back door hacking while your computer is off. No copying of DVD's. Now music exchange with your friends. No backup copies. No upgrade to with non DRM hard drives, and accessories. Your computer are belong to us guys in Cuppertino/Redomond/SatanClara/WashingtonDC. "
If Intel now has 82% of the PC market, and now you toss in Apple on top of it, then what's left? Wouldn't that mean that only x86 was the choice in the market for PC's?
This seems like very, very ominous news if true, and very, very much like another Anti-Trust scenario.
In this day and age where the American Empire is being build as we speak, I don't think the political will exist to enforce this. Besides, Apple maybe riding in two camps. Microsoft, Mozilla etc can release product in multi-platform camps, why not Apple.
Would argue that Intel DOES not have a monopoly. AMD has done very well as have VIA making CPUs. You can build a PC using non-Intel parts and for the part, a very large number of people have these. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a monopoly on desktops. Once you add Apple's 2.95487 percent, Yeah, Intel could bump up to 85 percent.
Personally, being a long time Apple / Mac fan, I have no issue with Apple going with Intel so long as Apple's systems get faster (and hopefully less expensive). If Intel chips can outpace IBM's offerings, then why not? I use the Mac for the OS, not the chip that is inside the computer. If an Intel-based Mac helps me get my work done faster, then I am all for it.
I don't see how switching to a chip supplier that supplies 90% of the desktop / laptop microprocessors in the world could possibly be a bad thing...
"...I prefer free over $150 windows xp or $130 mac upgrades... Not that any OS is perfect... software should be cheap or free, and Windows nor Mac OSX provides it readily."
Let me get straight the price issue. 130$ for Tiger and 300$ for full XP Professional. Or 200$ for XP Professional if you had spent some money for previous Windows before. Not that Apple is cheap but MS is much more expensive than most people think.
Remember that, as part of the original PowerPC partnership, Apple has the right to make (or have made) its own PowerPC chips. They did a whole chunk of the design work in modifying the Power architecture to work as a standalone microprocessor, rather than as a chip with a whole army of support processors (the innards of the IBM AS/400 and IBM RS/6000) Apple originally had Motorola making chips for them. Then, when Moto stopped being agressive about line widths and clock speeds, Apple turned to IBM for fab support.
If they are turning to Intel, my suspicion is that it's a custom fab agreement, where Intel will make 2-5MM chips/year using state-of-the art line widths and clock speeds. The PowerPC is an "easy" chip to improve (low gate count, highly regular architecture) when compared to the complexity of the x86. IBM wants out of the faster clock/finer line width deathmarch they signed on to with Apple: IBM's PowerPC products don't need the every-nine-months-like-clockwork speedbump that Apple demands.
Intel gains a volume fab win where they can try out new fab techniques (200,000 - 400,000 parts per month, where two or three month slippages are not the end of the world) without impacting the deathmarch with AMD.
Sounds to me like the most rational explanation and the most likely scenario. That's why people are ignoring this thread. Nothing to rant about when it's just a fab change.
We live in a time of all or nothing. I predict Apple is not dumping IBM but adding Intel. That's a move that makes sense. There is no reason why they can not exist on 2 platforms. That's would be an innovation. My 2 cents.
In the book 1984, the government re-educates enemys of the state to show them why the state was right, and then kills them. Microsoft could have absolutely crushed Apple in the mid 90's, but instead invested in them with $150 bought stock. Now, apple is slowly changing, USB ports on their comps, Ipod/Itunes for windows, Mac Mini for mass market. Now switching to the same CPU maker that windows exclusively runs on.
Only question now is, after this transition, how long will it take for apple to be killed off?
I don't care what processor is in the box as long as I get the Mac experience on the screen. It is not Intel I dislike, it's Windows.
All the Mac haters out there posting gloating comments don't seem to get it. Sure, I like Apple hardware now, and I bet I will still like it if Apple really does switch to Intel-made processors. Just because Apple is rumored to join the "mainstream," however, does not mean Macs will lose their distinctiveness. It's the OS, stupid.
Manage updates with the Download App
to catch up. Apple had long file names nearly 15 years before
'Doze users had it. But no, "Doze users sit with their hands
under their arses, saying "Just wait 10 years or so. When Billy
"invents" what you've been using for the last decade, it's going
to kick your backside!".
<I bet you're sitting your hands right now, watching MooHorn being stripped of most every feature that Billy promised that it would have in it, yet still hitting the streets years after it was promised. You'll be the 1st in line, FanBoy, to shell out your cash for XP Service pack 3, and I'll have been enjoying myself for nearly 6 years with OS X by the time Moohorn is released>.
Moo. Your herd is calling you. You mustn't think for yourself
now, so go fall in line with the rest of the sheep.
to catch up. Apple had long file names nearly 15 years before
'Doze users had it. But no, "Doze users sit with their hands
under their arses, saying "Just wait 10 years or so. When Billy
"invents" what you've been using for the last decade, it's going
to kick your backside!".
<I bet you're sitting your hands right now, watching MooHorn being stripped of most every feature that Billy promised that it would have in it, yet still hitting the streets years after it was promised. You'll be the 1st in line, FanBoy, to shell out your cash for XP Service pack 3, and I'll have been enjoying myself for nearly 6 years with OS X by the time Moohorn is released>.
Moo. Your herd is calling you. You mustn't think for yourself
now, so go fall in line with the rest of the sheep."
Like it or not Apple and windows both have their merits and downfall. Though I'm partial to linux myself.
let me tell you a little story about mac upgrades. I friend of mind had an imac which crashed every time aim was opened. And it was out of date, so we ran out and paid the $130 for OSX. But when I went thru the install it need a higher version of classical OS to be installed, and offered a coupon and form to send in for the intermediate so I could update. But wait, the coupon in a brand new OS X box from compusa, expired!
Not that I like the insane viruses or spy/adware of windows either. Rather I kicked it off completely and opt for linux. I prefer free over $150 windows xp or $130 mac upgrades... Not that any OS is perfect... software should be cheap or free, and Windows nor Mac OSX provides it readily.
third-party programming), all those millions of PCs running on
WinXP out there will be able to install (grey market copies of) OS
X?
The Intel Chips like those in Typical PC's are strictly CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computin) Chips. That means much of the code is burned into the chip and can not be altered. This is equivelent to going back to OS9.
Why do they want to do something Stupid like That
Now we can really invest in exotic PC parts. (i.e Cooling system, PS, Video Cards, memory etc etc.)
This move from Apple correlates DIRECTLY with the recent
announcements from Microsoft and Sony regarding their next-
gen consoles. Dont you think its strange??
From my point (and everyone elses) the relation between Apple
and IBM has been MORE than rocky... If Jobs hates one thing
more than any other is making a fool of himself in front of an
audience. That is PRECISELY what happened when IBM didnt
deliver the 3.0 GHZ processors they promised. Apparently, they
offered Steve such a good excuse that he went public saying that
problems with the manufacturing (or something... I cant
remember exactly) did not permit this.
But the announcements in E3 I think were EXACTLY what pissed
Steve off to high heaven, just think about it (and before you go
into it, I KNOW custom-made PowerPC chips are NOT the same
chips developed for computers, I know computer processors are
MUCH more complex, but still please bear with me).
Im SURE Steve was PISSED as HELL for this!! Just look: Here he is
making excuses for low performance computer chips while AT
THE SAME TIME and behind his back (and no doubt also using
NDA Agreements and the aforementioned fact that custom-
made chips are different to computer processors as a pitiful
excuse) 3.2 GHZ chips were being developed FROM THE
GROUND UP not for one, not for two, but for THREE graphic
ultra intensive next generation CONSOLES!!!!! (3 because, as I
recall, Nintendos Revolution will also include PowerPC they
already do with the GameCube by the way -, though I admit Im
not 100% sure where I read this).
This is an OUTRAGE!!!!!!! IBM first fails to comply with processors
speeds THEY promised to deliver. But to add insult to injury, AT
THE SAME time they make ultrapowerful chips for OTHER
companies using the SAME TECHNOLOGY??? MAAAAAN, as a Mac
user (since 1986! I started with a Mac Plus of my own) Im
already SOOOOOOO pissed off I REALLY do hope Steve Jobs
ditches IBM completely and FOREVER!!!!! Big Blue Brother
INDEED!! That 1984 commercial still has present undertones...
Damn prophetic!!! You CANT count on IBM for ANYTHING!!! This
is a complete and utter lack of ethics (be it business, moral, or
whatever) in part of IBM and I really do hope that that corrupted
company disappears gets replaced by something better; or
maybe, just maybe, if someone manages to destroy it and
rebuild it.... Well maybe just then.... But this is NOT Apples
problem. And we as Mac users have had ENOUGH!!!
Software needs to be recompiled??? SO BE IT! Weve through
worse stuff.
If this is what it takes to finally have ULTRAFAST computers with
the BEST operating system in the World?? AMEN TO THAT!
IBM: I would use the worst and lowest dirty words for what you
did. But there is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that will bring me
enought satisfaction.
So, thanks FOR NOTHING and SO LONG!
Yours truly,
Jorge Humberto Padilla Leal.
San Pedro Garza Garcia, NL. MEXICO
Mac user since 1986.
past that, isn't it just another reason to stick with PowerPC? The
fact that two (actually 3 if you count the PowerPC frontend of the
PS3's processor) of the nextgen consoles are going PowerPC
means that the architecture is going places. Going to x86 would
be a drag for programmers, would not (in my opinion) bring
faster chips in the long term, and would cause Apple to lose (at
least a big chunk of) it's hardware business.
Then again, I trust Apple to do the right thing... We'll see
Monday.
to the tech world, but I agree with you that they are not serious
on Mac CPU development. Not only they failed to deliver the
3GHz G5, but also they couldn't come out a low power version
for Powerbook, which I think hurts Apple seriously. In the
meantime, those 3 CPU variants for game consoles don't seem
to consume a lot power. This means IBM are simply not serious
to Apple. Of course, Apple have every right to ditch IBM.
Switching to Intel doesn't gurantee Apple to have more powerful
machine in future than if they stick with IBM. But the move will
give Apple a levelled playground with all other PC makers.
Whether Intel chips are fast or slow, Apple will have same as
others. And with OS X's advance over Windows, Mac may really
show performance advantage over other PCs.
Of course, software will be an issue. But I think it's a short term
problem and I believe Apple can overcome it. As a Mac user (also
a PC user) I'll support this change.
If Apple really make the switch, I predict the first Mac using Intel
chip will be Powerbook on next year's Macworld.
Bob
It's that simple.
Unix has a very good file system not to mention fast. XP is catching up.
SJ vision is to compete with everybody. An STB in our living room and bedroom. A truly multimedia system for "Thinkerer" and Grandma.
If you are living in a tiny house you wouldn't want two powermacs unless you want to put your bed on top of it.
problem that Apple has is that IBM is trying to protect its pSeries
and iSeries server business from being undercut by a much
lower pricepoint on Apple servers and to a lesser extent
workstations.
Therefore it is likely that IBM is trying to put restrictions on:
a) what processors Apple can get and;
b) what machines Apple can build with those processors and
which markets they can target;
More on this in my blog-entry of May 23 (please excuse the first
foreign language paragraph.) <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.andwest.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.andwest.com/</a>
blojsom/blog/tatle/2005/05/23/Apple_og_Intel_Chips.html
2. MS, Apple and Sun trying to take the Big Blue down?
3. Is MS has still money with Apple?
IBM Chips entry.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.andwest.com/blojsom" target="_newWindow">http://www.andwest.com/blojsom</a>(blog/tatle/
IBM Chips entry.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.andwest.com/blojsom/blog/tatle/" target="_newWindow">http://www.andwest.com/blojsom/blog/tatle/</a>
I'm more interested in how this move will skyrocket Intel into the stratosphere. I would imagine that their will be some initial concern over the process of developing chips and the difficulties in manufacturing and design that pose Intel.
as well. And what makes you think that Windows will boot on a
Mac-Intel box (or that Mac OSX-Intel will boot on a non-Apple
Intel box)?
Sun has already moved to Solaris on Intel. When, and if, Mac does this, I believe we'll see lower costing Intel chips and increased competition in chips manufactured under this architecture.
I ran NEXTSTEP on an Intel box and it was completely indistinguishable from my old NeXT box. Compiling an application that ran on all four architectures, called a Fat-Binary, was as simple as clicking a checkbox in Project Builder. The end user didn't need to select the application appropriate for his/her architecture; the Fat-Binary contained all of them.
I'm not suggesting that there won't be issues with an Apple transition to Intel, but the suggestion that developers will need to rewrite their applications dead wrong. My guess is, just as NEXTSTEP apps re-compiled with the click of a mouse, all Cocoa apps will do the same. After all, Cocoa is simply the evolution of NEXTSTEP's APIs. I don't know if it will be quite so easy for Carbon apps, but my understanding is, Apple rid itself of all hardware-dependent APIs when it defined Carbon, thus ensuring an easier transition between architectures.
If these rumors prove true, I think the transition from PowerPC to Intel will be relatively seamless and should provide Apple with access to a much broader market while lowering costs and improving performance. Sounds pretty much win-win to me!
-Rob
simple, but are missing a couple important things in the
development world.
1. Many applications are written using Carbon APIs, not Cocoa.
Mac OS X applications have been able to assume big-endian
order when reading/writing files. This isn't wouldn't be the case
anymore. True, apps like Word/Photoshop already do this, but
not everyone does.
2. Developers have to TEST on each of the platforms. It's not
good business to just flip a switch, compile for a NEW PLATFORM
and then ship it.
I haven't heard any explanation given as to:
- Benefits to the user
- Benefits to the developer (for putting up with another
transition)
- Benefit to Apple (how are they planning to make money?)
Yes, NEXTSTEP ran on Intel before, but recall that Apple bought
the entire company, NeXTStep, for $400 million. That's about
10% of what Apple brings in on sales of Macs in a single year.
I never liked loossing sleep maintaining an expensive OS. It is becoming a nightmare.
From whom? The paucity of sources is telling. Failure to include
sources if Intro to Journalism stuff, folks. Even if it turn out to be
true, the story is poorly done. As it is, the likelihood of its
veracity is deeply in doubt.
Interesting also how articles like this bring out all the
misinformed people on both sides of the Mac/Wintel divide.
People who claim that Wintel boxes outperform Macs. What a
joke. On almost every real world test, comparable mac hardware
outperforms the other side.
Equally stupid is the blatantly semantic argument over the
definition of PC. While it WAS indeed short hand for "personal
computer" it has long been used in common parlance, ever since
IBM snookered the term in its first PC in 1982, to mean DOS
compatible hardware and its descendants. Learn a little history
before you waste time making arguments, that, even if they were
cogent, which they are not, are semantic in nature only. (Which
means, who cares what PC means?)
The problem is that the authors and contributors to this article
will not be called to task when it turn out to be false, or at least
a grossly inaccurate. While it is not true that it would be a
gargantuan task to port OSX to intel (since, as is common
knowledge, much of the work had already been done in
Cupertino ages ago) PPC chips outperform the pentium class
chips by a large margin, the itanium class chips by a large
degree, and Apple has clearly stated they will not do so, for
obvious business reasons.
Much more likely, as already pointed out, is that Apple has
another product in mind, perhaps a revamped low-end XServe,
that will employ intel hardware.
Anyone wanna bet?
true, the story is poorly done."
And what would you expect the reporter to do? Say, yes, I heard it from this guy. Apple's facist anti -American legal department would goose-step right over and snuff the out with 10 trillion miles of red tape.
Yes unnamed sources is a dangerous game for the media. I see nothing wrong here with what CNET has done. It just better freaking be right. I suspect it is because you don't write something this big without making damned sure you have it cold. If they don't, somebody has to be fired but I suspect they have it but I don't want to believe it.
"Interesting also how articles like this bring out all the misinformed people on both sides of the Mac/Wintel divide. People who claim that Wintel boxes outperform Macs. What a joke. On almost every real world test, comparable mac hardware
outperforms the other side."
Who is misinformed: just off the top my head here's an example of the g5 (which is a much better Mac than ever before) being slower than a WinAMD/WinTEL
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/02/doom3/index.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/02/doom3/index.php</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=6" target="_newWindow">http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=6</a>
These are both REAL tests and the Mac gets its doors blown off. Why don't you post some numbers from a reputable source (NOT APPLE) that shows the Mac is faster in gaming or as a server.
"Equally stupid is the blatantly semantic argument over the definition of PC. While it WAS indeed short hand for "personal computer" it has long been used in common parlance, ever since IBM snookered the term in its first PC in 1982, to mean DOS compatible hardware and its descendants. Learn a little history before you waste time making arguments, that, even if they were
cogent, which they are not, are semantic in nature only. (Which means, who cares what PC means?)"
So you're saying that people who complain about the PC and then say "Well the Mac is a PC so you can't complain about PC" are stupid. Yes I agree. People who say this are very stupid indeed.
"The problem is that the authors and contributors to this article will not be called to task when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate."
Hmm, I see. So you already know the story is wrong? Don't get me wrong, if this story is wrong, somebody better get their butt handed to them in a box but how can "when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate" unless you have some inside knowledge. If CNET is right, are you going to come back, get on your knees and admit YOU were wrong?
"While it is not true that it would be a gargantuan task to port OSX to intel (since, as is common knowledge, much of the work had already been done in Cupertino ages ago) PPC chips outperform the pentium class chips by a large margin, the itanium class chips by a large
degree, and Apple has clearly stated they will not do so, for obvious business reasons."
Again, what do you base this on? Apple's biased benchmarks? Jeez.
"Much more likely, as already pointed out, is that Apple has another product in mind, perhaps a revamped low-end XServe, that will employ intel hardware. Anyone wanna bet?"
Who knows. Personally I suspect a custom Pentium M for Apple's laptops which are still running SLOW ass G4 processors but I have no idea what's going on and I suspect that neither do you.
Rights Management) hardwired ont the intel Pentium. Apple
need not tie the OS to flash ROM code as done on PowerPC
boxes. Apple can tie the software to DRM access keys hardwired
into every intel Pentium. Apple can sell the OS without fear of
theft, and Apple can sell music the same way. Using Intel
Pentiums with DRM appears to be a business opportunity that
does not detract from the existing Power PC business.
Apple help desk could remotely tune or fix software issues, and
remotely diagnose hardware issues. The remote feature of DRM
is what Dell refers to as white glove service. DRM allows remote
snooping your computer while it is off to find bootleg software
and music/videos. Department of Home Security loves this.
Microsoft likes it too.
The down side of DRM is all for the owner of the new Apple
computers. Back door hacking while your computer is off. No
copying of DVD's. Now music exchange with your friends. No
backup copies. No upgrade to with non DRM hard drives, and
accessories. Your computer are belong to us guys in
Cuppertino/Redomond/SatanClara/WashingtonDC. "
This seems like very, very ominous news if true, and very, very much like another Anti-Trust scenario.
Now we can only hope that Dell breaks away form teh evil empire and starts using AMD chips.
with Apple going with Intel so long as Apple's systems get faster
(and hopefully less expensive). If Intel chips can outpace IBM's
offerings, then why not? I use the Mac for the OS, not the chip
that is inside the computer. If an Intel-based Mac helps me get
my work done faster, then I am all for it.
I don't see how switching to a chip supplier that supplies 90% of
the desktop / laptop microprocessors in the world could
possibly be a bad thing...
bc
Not that any OS is perfect... software should be cheap or free,
and Windows nor Mac OSX provides it readily."
Let me get straight the price issue. 130$ for Tiger and 300$ for
full XP Professional. Or 200$ for XP Professional if you had spent
some money for previous Windows before. Not that Apple is
cheap but MS is much more expensive than most people think.
Apple has the right to make (or have made) its own PowerPC
chips. They did a whole chunk of the design work in modifying
the Power architecture to work as a standalone microprocessor,
rather than as a chip with a whole army of support processors
(the innards of the IBM AS/400 and IBM RS/6000) Apple
originally had Motorola making chips for them. Then, when Moto
stopped being agressive about line widths and clock speeds,
Apple turned to IBM for fab support.
If they are turning to Intel, my suspicion is that it's a custom fab
agreement, where Intel will make 2-5MM chips/year using
state-of-the art line widths and clock speeds. The PowerPC is an
"easy" chip to improve (low gate count, highly regular
architecture) when compared to the complexity of the x86. IBM
wants out of the faster clock/finer line width deathmarch they
signed on to with Apple: IBM's PowerPC products don't need the
every-nine-months-like-clockwork speedbump that Apple
demands.
Intel gains a volume fab win where they can try out new fab
techniques (200,000 - 400,000 parts per month, where two or
three month slippages are not the end of the world) without
impacting the deathmarch with AMD.
Only question now is, after this transition, how long will it take for apple to be killed off?
Let us edit our comments, c|net!
experience on the screen. It is not Intel I dislike, it's Windows.
All the Mac haters out there posting gloating comments don't seem
to get it. Sure, I like Apple hardware now, and I bet I will still like it
if Apple really does switch to Intel-made processors. Just because
Apple is rumored to join the "mainstream," however, does not
mean Macs will lose their distinctiveness. It's the OS, stupid.