Look on the bright side.

folks,

random thoughts
a] why not amd 64-bit which already works?
b] sure altivec is cool, but isn't most load already handled by graphics processors away from the main anyway?
c] os-x on white-box pc. i'm having a hard time hating the idea.
d] dual boot native win-xp/os-x solves a lot of problems for me
e] experimenting with the cheap end makes all the sense in the world. intc does not have a 64-bit solution that works, hence why sun et al are going opteron.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Putting it together. Well, you will see that the G5 will be the processor of the future for the X-Box 360 and other gaming machines. And, the X-Box has been hacked before to able to run linux, or other x86 applications on them. If one were to hack (and probably will) the new X-box 360 and run the Mac OSX operating system on it
(emulating it should not be a problem on it's native architecture), worldwide, the Mac Experience will be had at a fraction of the cost. The original X-box was "subsidized" Microsoft who profits from game sales. This would be devastating to Apple because it relies on hardware sales for profit, but in the consumers eye will be regarded as high priced hardware sellers.

So the move that Apple is doing is a logical one to maintain it's sales on hardware and lock-in it's proprietary use
r experience.

Um... moving to x86 to avoid people hacking xbox 360 to run PowerPC Mac OS X doesn't make sense...

There are many times more x86 machines already out there than there will be xboxes. Much more chance of it being hacked to run on non-Apple x86 machines than on Xbox 360.

If aapl lets users go to other hardware other than their own then yes, bargain.

The bad news would be if aapl has intc dsign some variant of their processor that has some sort of identifier for aapl vs. other hardware preventing install on anything other than appl flavored machines. Likely what will happen, but hope not.

Other thoughts in no particular order.

The move is necessary for aapl especially at the notebook end where the current lack [and apparent disinterest/problems in producing] of a g-5 notebook chip is seriously hampering interest. The g-4 based notebooks are just too slow. INTC, but really more AMD [which inquirer.net claims is in the running] could solve that problem post haste. Hello Apple, AMD is already shipping chipsets for 64-bit notebooks.

As for the difficulty in porting apps, in theory [where no one can hear you scream] any adaptations would really need to be made at the OS level so the burden would be on Apple to make life easy for developers.

If we are hearing a move could be made to get machines shipping by mid 2006, this would not appear to be a problem as far as Apple is concerned. They'd already have to be deep in on the porting by now to make this real.

As for the rest of the hardware outside of what is pretty much already a 'pc' box, the nightmare issue [drivers] should also get trapped at the OS level.

Dunno, not my game but any developer doing things the right way I would think is not going to have serious problems. And out of the box the low end macs have become very apple software dependent have they not? So maybe not a big deal if other vendors are not there yet.

Delaying the high-end to 2007 would make sense if the high end tool vendors need more transition time.

I'm finding nothing not to like unless the hardware is simply locked up and we can't install on what we choose.

Intel makes processors with very good cores but Apple would have to be insane to accept the excess baggage of the x86 instruction set. If Steve Jobs wanted a hardware exit strategy then the sale of Apple would make more sense than this insanity.

All these prognostications of doom are presuming that Apple will never grow beyond its current user base. Wouldn't the point of going x86 be to sell to the other 98% of the market?

Incidentally, the Mac's market share for Adobe, Macromedia etc is much higher than its overall market share.

If the Mac mini is the first in line for an Intel chip then it appears that we are not looking at a killer chip for starters. A straight X86? Doubt it.

When you consider the fact that Apple is part of AIM and will have some rights to the PPC then IK cans ee them working with Intel with a base chip to start. Since it will be 2007 before the top of the line moves over (both desktops and notebooks?) then it appears that there will be alot of design work to be done on a new chip.

You can't tell if it is good or bad news until we get the word from Steve J, but I doubt if OS X will be changed much as there is too much invested in both the OS and the total sum of software written for it.

The good news for Apple is that their AIM membership will probably mean that they get royalties on all the game chips that MS and Sony purchase. That should impress old Billy G

"Wouldn't the point of going x86 be to sell to the other 98% of the market?"

The point of switching to x86 would be suicide, because if that happened, then suddenly 98% of the market would have no reason to buy an Apple computer.

Apple can't survive on selling iPods and OS X alone.

I'm a little alarmed by this major microprocessor change should it become true.... I just hope that whatever Intel chip future Macs be based on, that they are all free of the bugs that plague Intel PCs running Windoze. I am hoping the Mac OS will be as stable as it is now and hopefully remain compatible to the point of at least allowing us to open all of our old and current Mac OS files.... and run the same programs in their recompiled state. Still this news leaves me a little uneasy.

I give up!!! Next time I upgrade, Im going with ALIENWARE! I'ts really just a really cool box with shitty componebts. Isn't that what Macs will soon be? So why should I pay a premium for the same thing now!!!!!Everyone, follow me to the next computer giant...ALIENWARE!!!!!!

I have now invested a considerable amount of time and money on my system. By the time 2006 rolls around, I think I will be ready to upgrade...so what do I do? Will i have to buy all new software and hardware? What about all the hours learning and tweaking OS X to suit my style? So do I stop doing all this and wait for the new chips to start all over again? What a bunch of jjdsksjd!!! You know what i mean!!! right now I feel like that guy from that old video "let the bodies hit the floor" Remember how pissed off he looked?

"I have now invested a considerable amount of time and money on my system. By the time 2006 rolls around, I think I will be ready to upgrade...so what do I do? Will i have to buy all new software and hardware?"

Welcome to my frustration of 6 years ago, when I found out that my powermac 9600 that cost $4500 would be unupgradable to the new os x. That is the reason I was converted to windows. I also realize that you need to buy a new machine every 2-3 years anyway, but its the software that costs the real money.

I hope that this is true and that I can run dual boot mac os x and windows xp on some of my machines. Or even make one of my machines mac os x without having to buy apple hardware. Or build my own. Its about time apple.

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

the last paragraph, about emulation seems most plausable


Personally, I think if there is any truth to the rumors, it's that Intel will be making special chips for the rumored tablet. they may be x86 or just a PPC style chip for low power consumption, much like the Centrino chip

Is the Mac the CPU? Or is a Mac the operating system, the "it just works" performance, and the unmatched user experience? How many of you, as you sit there at your Mac, can really and truly say that you just LOVE the way those electrons zip through your IBM/Freestyle CPU? How many are rapturous over the facile ways the instruction set handles your requests?

Get a grip, folks. The CPU is the least part of your Mac experience. If Apple does switch to Intel chips -- I know, pigs will fly -- who really gives a rip? Later, folks, I got real things to worry about.

P.S. This comment was written via OS X and Safari. Any processor could have handled the rest!

I had the exact same thought. It makes some sense, but then again, it shouldn't be too difficult for Apple to foil the plans through a hardware check or proprietary chip needed to run OS X. And I don't see great multitudes of Mac users or even xBox users doing this type of mod. It's pretty extreme geek stuff... even on the current Xbox, only hardcore geeks with lots of time need apply, not the typical professional Mac users.

I think it's more about the new movie service Apple will unveil. They want to (or have to in order to appease Hollywood) use a chip with DRM embedded. One of Intel's chips has just that feature. They want to act now, so they're going with something that's fully developed and working.

This is why it will start on the mini. If the chip provided the monstrous power some are talking about, it would start on the desktop. If it somehow got around OS X's poor server performance, it would start in the xServes. The fact that they're starting with the mini says to me that it's about DRM and the new movie service.

All pure speculation, of course.

If true even us Apple Employees are in the dark....

It isn't what you think....nuff said.

I'm waiting for the new iBook. Good timing with the GA school deal and thousands of new iBooks going out. Anyway, that's my take - stick 'em in the low end consumer portable, make all the kids work out the kinks from that end, where it doesn't affect "real" productivity.

With Apple so far ahead of M$ in terms of operating systems now is the PERFECT time. Once the port is completed there can be a Mac on every Intel box. One small purchase and all the spyware/malware MS crapulence goes away. Besides I dont care what chip is under it all, so long as its fast. World Domination awaits, get your cutlas and grappling hooks

Quote

Bosco wrote:
Sigh. This is a real bummer. You guys would not believe the performance a decent programmer can squeeze out of AltiVec on G4 and G5 chips for graphics processing compared to the lowest common denominator vector solutions on x86. This is going to be one area where we take a gigantic step backwards. Cooling is another issue. I can't imagine how they'll deliver an Intel or AMD based 17" PowerBook that doesn't burn your crotch. Anyway, call me skeptical.

Well, my 17" PowerBook burns my crotch anyway =)

Some thoughs:

If the competition boils down only to the OS market then Apple would kill MS single-handed, am I right?

How many people would dump Windows right now if you could, hypothetically speaking, buy a copy of Tiger and install it on your PC rather than wait until 2007 for the Longhorn ?! Some people are even going for alternatives like Linux which is still far away from something that my grandma could use as a desktop system!

I've used Linux and Windows for a long time until I decided to switch to Mac OS which offered me the best of both worlds, the problem is, it took some time until I could afford a Mac (17" PB). This is also valid for big IT departments, an accountancy firm with 200 stations won't spend extra on Mac hardware but I'm sure they would spend money installing Mac OS on all 200 PCs and be virus and hassle free.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
"Sorry iLemmings, you may need some medication or counseling, but it's finally happened, you're joining the rest of the PC world. Please try to stay calm and realize that everything will be OK."

Sorry, Reality Check, but switching to Intel will mean that suddenly Apple's computers can be built! They'd still be running OS X. I'm a loser.

There's also the fact that the "rest of the PC world" hates Apple.

Which brings up the other fact that if Apple will be using x86, not Motorola's outmodded technology.

You know, it is funny that you should ask the question on future updates of OS X and its hardware. Honestly, I do not think Apple is switching to x86-based processors. Call it a hunch. But if they did, does anyone else find it interesting that Apple announced that there would be no more quick-turn-arounds on OS updates? This might mean that they are planning on making sure everything works properly for a new processor technology when the next update is actually finally released. That, and they could say that legacy hardware (PPC-based) was not powerful enough to run thr update (can anyone remember when they did that with older PowerPC Macs for OS X?).

I could be wrong. There is a lot of conjecture there. But, the same can be said about every entry pn this page, as well as every article circulating the web and news media.

I am just waiting with baited breath to hear what Steve has to say tomorrow. More than likely, it will be (as usual) a decent balanced of everything being said out there, but will make a lot more sense and have more flair and panache than anything anyone else in the world could have come up with.

Good night. Sweet dreams. And hug a Mac!

Sorry - forgot to sign in before. This is just a repeat.

You know, it is funny that you should ask the question on future updates of OS X and its hardware. Honestly, I do not think Apple is switching to x86-based processors. Call it a hunch. But if they did, does anyone else find it interesting that Apple announced that there would be no more quick-turn-arounds on OS updates? This might mean that they are planning on making sure everything works properly for a new processor technology when the next update is actually finally released. That, and they could say that legacy hardware (PPC-based) was not powerful enough to run thr update (can anyone remember when they did that with older PowerPC Macs for OS X?).

I could be wrong. There is a lot of conjecture there. But, the same can be said about every entry pn this page, as well as every article circulating the web and news media.

I am just waiting with baited breath to hear what Steve has to say tomorrow. More than likely, it will be (as usual) a decent balanced of everything being said out there, but will make a lot more sense and have more flair and panache than anything anyone else in the world could have come up with.

Good night. Sweet dreams. And hug a Mac!

Apple isn't smart enough to do that. They will want you to only be able to run a mac on their hardware instead of building your own. If they are smart enough, then I will be one of the first to build my own mac. How cool would that be?

Apple gets the PPC chips at a much lower cost then the Intel chips would be, so economically it doesn't make much sense. So its not like A) A Mac would suddenly become cheaper because of this potential switch or Windows or B) any X86 driven OS would suddenly run on a Mac based architecture anytime soon. Apple could easily add a ROM lock to prevent this.

Most likely there will be some sort of announcement on a joint device akin to the iPod for viewing movies etc... Remember Apple did patten some ideas for a tablet device a while back. Add to this that Nokia just came out with their own device:

http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,1522,,00.html?orig=/770

My hunch is that. Anything else woudl be such a huge shift in terms of economics. I could even imagine a Intel based line for the iMac and G5's but I'd be more than a little surprised if the whole enchilada.

Moving to an Intel Chip is much more of a coup for Intel then it is for Apple... I'd be really surprised if Apple switched as you might see sales tank in all desktop lines for the next 12-24 months while production ramps up. Plus this would decimate cash flow in the short term. Who is going to by new hardware when what is out there now is obsolete?

Also, could Apple be fishing to see where a leak might spring up like January when the entire Macworld keynote was pre-released?

Lastly who wants to bet on how much that idiot Rob Enderle is frothing at the mouth that he might actually be right for once in his life regarding teh Mac and Apple.

I'd just like to point out this is the stupidest troll post in history. Don't you see RC - it's not us getting PCs, it's your worst nightmare...Apple are shifting into high gear and coming after the PC market. Microsoft have never been wobblier - now we'll be able to show them up on the same architecture with a superior OS, superior security and superior design. Macs will become faster, more plentiful and cheaper. They'll be EVERYWHERE, just like iPods. Think of it RC - a Mac-powered world. I bet you can't wait!

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Sorry iLemmings, you may need some medication or counseling, but it's finally happened, you're joining the rest of the PC world. Please try to stay calm and realize that everything will be OK.

Somehow I know I'll have to buy all new software again!

Apple's decision makes me think
IBM must be in some sort of serious trouble.
First they sell their hard disk division to Hitachi
Next they announce a move away from their personal computer business.
Finally they lose Apple to Intel.
They have been unable to produce G5 chips for Apple laptops.
They're unable to meet G5 speed goals!
They're not pushing Power 5 or Power 6 too well as a Unix server/workstation
processor.

I believe Risc is superior to Cisc but who is making them reliably?
Why couldn't Motorolla deliver the speeds Apple needed?
Why did Dec Alpha get bought out and die?
What about Mips?

I think that Intel, as much as I hate them, is better at fighting the Microprocessor
wars than the competition.
AMD may make a better x86 chip for less, but ultimately
Intel is better at selling there product even if it's a worse product.
People trust it somehow.