PDA

View Full Version : Did Apple Court Other PPC Vendors Before Intel Switch?


MacRumors
May 22, 2006, 08:53 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Register (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/19/pasemi_apple/) is reporting that Apple actively courted at least one Power-based vendor before deciding to switch to Intel last year.

PA Semi - a maker of low-power Power processors - formed a tight relationship with Apple - one meant to result in it delivering chips for Apple's notebook line and possibly desktops. The two companies shared software engineering work, trying to see how Apple's applications could be ported onto PA Semi's silicon. When word leaked out that Apple had signed on with Intel, it shocked the PA Semi staff, according to multiple sources.

PA Semi (http://www.pasemi.com/index.html) is a silicon-valley startup that boasts having lead designers of the DEC Alpha and StrongARM chips, as well as designers from the Opteron, Itanium, and UltraSparc. It currently plans on quad-core versions of its chips to ship by late 2007, and an eight-core version in 2008.

PA Semi's first chip is a dual-core Altivec-compatible chip with 2 MB of L2 cache, support for DDR2 and PCI-Express. In addition, when running at 2 Ghz, the chip consumes only 7 watts of power according to PA Semi. Comparatively, Intel's Core Duo consumes between 21 and 25 watts.

Despite the startup's impressive portfolio, with the chip sampling in 2006 and shipping in volume by 2007, it may have arrived too late for Apple to consider further. Also, with Intel's Kentfield quad-core chip rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060327125521.shtml) to arrive by Q1 2007, it appears as though PA Semi is about 9 months behind Intel.

Quartz Extreme
May 22, 2006, 08:56 AM
Interesting. Possibly Sonnet and others will make upgrades utilizing these chips.

longofest
May 22, 2006, 08:56 AM
At least we can say that Apple looked at their options pretty thoroughly, and didn't just rush into anything.

JDOG_
May 22, 2006, 08:56 AM
watts watts watts...

It's obviously more about the architecture of these core chips that would just blow those PPC chips away anyways. Too bad for them, but it's just better tech.

Belly-laughs
May 22, 2006, 08:58 AM
Yes! Eight core Cube upgrades! :eek:

peharri
May 22, 2006, 09:03 AM
This isn't completely new news, Ars has more information (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060520-6877.html) (read the linked-to article too, from 2005)

It's sad Apple went the Intel route. It ceased producing interesting hardware on the computer side (it's nice looking, but everyone who's anyone sells the same stuff, albiet sans webcam or remote), which even when it wasn't desirable was part way responsible for creating innovation in the computer space. And the arguments that Intel somehow was "price-per-watt" efficient never made much sense either. The nadir was the announcement of the Intel iMac, with attempts to suggest it was "twice as fast" as its predecessor. Why? Because the iMac G5 never got the dual core G5 that was put in the PowerMacs. They were comparing latest Intel vs year old G5s. Nice. Isn't marketing great? Cripple your last generation of machines so the replacement technology looks like some great advance.

The last year or so has been one big "Apple: we're just as bad as Dell" fiasco, at least when it comes to computers. Only Mac OS X and Job's RDF are still holding the fort.

And I agree with Hannibal. Apple are doing this because they're seeing their eventual focus being their music/multimedia business. The Mac seems to be a platform for saying to the rest of the industry "This is how we want our widgets to work, you better make your PCs interoperate with our hardware just as well or our computers will compete with yours.", and that's assuming the end game doesn't involve them selling the Mac side of the business to a PC manufacturer anyway.

spetznatz
May 22, 2006, 09:05 AM
Very Interesting...so, G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday, then? :D

Still, the question this begs is: was the non-appearance of a comparable-spec chip from IBM due to technical incompetence or bloody-minded unwillingness?

w_parietti22
May 22, 2006, 09:06 AM
Very Interesting...so, G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday, then? :D

Still, the question this begs is: was the non-appearance of a comparable-spec chip from IBM due to technical incompetence or bloody-minded unwillingness?

Wouldn't it be G6? ;)

hob
May 22, 2006, 09:06 AM
And I agree with Hannibal. Apple are doing this because they're seeing their eventual focus being their music/multimedia business. The Mac seems to be a platform for saying to the rest of the industry "This is how we want our widgets to work, you better make your PCs interoperate with our hardware just as well or our computers will compete with yours.", and that's assuming the end game doesn't involve them selling the Mac side of the business to a PC manufacturer anyway.
What do you mean by "Widgets"? Surely not dashboard :confused:

Submitted this to Macbytes a few hours back, can i get some credit pleeeeeeeaaaasssse? :p

Chundles
May 22, 2006, 09:07 AM
7 watts? Get stuffed!

UberMac
May 22, 2006, 09:12 AM
7 watts?! 7 WATTS?! :eek: That's rather impressive. Ah well we went Intel. We should be happy. I am happy.

*druel* Macbook ... although a Macbook with 3x longer battery...mmmm 18 hour battery life...mmm

Uber

Chundles
May 22, 2006, 09:13 AM
Very Interesting...so, G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday, then? :D

Still, the question this begs is: was the non-appearance of a comparable-spec chip from IBM due to technical incompetence or bloody-minded unwillingness?

Unwillingness. Apple as a customer was small change. Microsoft and Sony will sell many more PPC processors in their gaming consoles than Apple could even hope to sell.

IBM simply made a business decision to slow down development of the PPC chip Apple were using to save money for R&D into the one MS and Sony want.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 09:14 AM
Very Interesting...so, G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday, then? :D

Still, the question this begs is: was the non-appearance of a comparable-spec chip from IBM due to technical incompetence or bloody-minded unwillingness?

Do we actually know anything about what IBM's 2007 plans were? According to Ars, IBM was pushing Cell and Broadway as Desktop and Laptop CPUs respectively before the Intel announcement, covering the period until 2007. (Broadway is the forthcoming Wii's CPU, presumably Apple would have clocked it at a better rate, and/or IBM would have come up with versions that were multicore, as if used in exactly the same way as the Wii does it wouldn't have been a good G4 replacement) What IBM had planned for the longer term though is open to question.

I honestly find it impossible, knowing all the innovation IBM has been doing with the PowerPC in the last three years, to believe Apple's decision to switch to Intel had anything to do with "power-per-watt" or any other aspect of the PowerPC roadmap. I think this had 100% to do with ix86 compatibility.

blouis79
May 22, 2006, 09:14 AM
Maybe there's still hope for a fast low-power Power chip for a MacPad tablet???

Adobe users will still be demading PowerPC machines for at least a year until universal binaries are available, since Intel Macs with Rosetta seriously underperform G4 macs on published benchmarks. So what G5 upgrades will we see over that period???

Or was the switch to Intel just Steve having a go at Bill for buying Connectix (virtual PC)???

EricNau
May 22, 2006, 09:15 AM
Apple made the right choice.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 09:16 AM
What do you mean by "Widgets"? Surely not dashboard :confused:


No, not Dashboard. I'm confused as to why you're confused, widgets is a very common term, it wasn't invented by Apple to describe desk accessories.

intrepkid21
May 22, 2006, 09:17 AM
Also important to note that would it really be feasible for these startup companies to maintain a steady supply of chips for Apple? And also, I heard Merom is supposed to use less power than Yonah. What kind of power does it draw in comparison to the current core duo?

LEgregius
May 22, 2006, 09:17 AM
I knew that the PA-Semi people weren't going to get there fast enough when we first heard about them. 2007? Come on. It' sad because I was actually hoping that most of the computing world could some day dump x86 and go with an architechture that's a bit more reasonable to program and use. Consider how well IBM and previously Motorola did with a minute fraction of the money Intel has thrown at x86. And the vector units and floating point on the x86's are still inferior.

With Apple going x86, that doesn't seem as likely that x86 could go away any time soon. At least the consoles are going PPC, but I seriously doubt apple switch back to PPC. The best I could hope is that would consider doing both. I know they got some business from people who bought the machines BECAUSE they were PPC.

Anyway, that's a bunch of ramblings. For the record, I do agree that Apple made the right decision to go with Intel. I'm just sad it had to be that way.

rockthecasbah
May 22, 2006, 09:18 AM
I'm sure that Apple had tried to look at other options other than just switching platform altogether. But at the end of the day, Intel suited Apple's needs moreso than other PPC vendors or AMD.

I'm happy with the switch, It was a better long term decision for Apple.

hob
May 22, 2006, 09:19 AM
No, not Dashboard. I'm confused as to why you're confused, widgets is a very common term, it wasn't invented by Apple to describe desk accessories.
Maybe it's a language barrier, I don't hear widgets used very often in day to day conversation - would you say "widgets" is interchangable with "stuff"?

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 09:22 AM
The big problem with holding out for PA-Semi's currently vaporware chips, is that can you imagine still having G4 Powerbooks into mid 2007? Apple needed to get up to speed fast, and with a volume manufacturer. Small Silicon Valley start-ups would not be good enough to meet demand.

However, if Apple keeps pushing the idea of "Universal Binaries" (i.e. PPC and Intel code, not just Intel), then perhaps Apple could produce a low power laptop based on one of PA-Semi's chips in the future. I doubt it, but its possible.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 09:23 AM
Maybe it's a language barrier, I don't hear widgets used very often in day to day conversation - could you just restate your sentence?

It's not a language barrier, we're both British. If you're serious, and not trolling, look up the word "widgets" in a dictionary, look at the context in which I used the word (specifically referring to widgets as hardware, and related to multimedia), and work out what I would be referring to that Apple sells that constitutes hardware, is something to do with multimedia, and conforms to the definition "widgets".

galstaph
May 22, 2006, 09:28 AM
interesting developments that company had.. too bad they could'nt get to development/production quick enough to beat out intel.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 09:30 AM
The big problem with holding out for PA-Semi's currently vaporware chips, is that can you imagine still having G4 Powerbooks into mid 2007? Apple needed to get up to speed fast, and with a volume manufacturer. Small Silicon Valley start-ups would not be good enough to meet demand.

However, if Apple keeps pushing the idea of "Universal Binaries" (i.e. PPC and Intel code, not just Intel), then perhaps Apple could produce a low power laptop based on one of PA-Semi's chips in the future. I doubt it, but its possible.

G4 Powerbooks through the rest of 2006 would have essentially been "9 more months of Powerbooks". And you're also assuming nothing new IBM was producing could have gone into a Powerbook in 2005. I think the notion that IBM was withholding low power high performance PowerPC designs from Apple is absurd on the face of it, even if Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo were competing for attention.

The example I keep going back to is the iMac G5. Apple could have put the dual core version of the G5 in the iMac G5 six months before Apple released the Intel iMac. They didn't, because it would have made the Intel iMac a poor replacement model, one that ran the majority of programs already on sale slower than its predecessor, and one that would have run UBs no faster. In other words, after the Intel switch, Apple deliberately eschewed the upgraded CPUs IBM and Motorola were offering, except where absolutely necessary (such as in the PowerMac, where Intel is still months away from releasing a replacement.) The only evidence we have that IBM didn't have the chip Apple needed is that they didn't use it. But we can see they'll refuse to use a chip for political reasons, so that's not evidence. The PowerPC option is deliberately being made to look bad.

KEL9000
May 22, 2006, 09:30 AM
Maybe it's a language barrier, I don't hear widgets used very often in day to day conversation - would you say "widgets" is interchangable with "stuff"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget

You should rent "Back to school" with Rodney Dangerfield, there is a good part about "widgets".

cheers mate.

sinisterdesign
May 22, 2006, 09:39 AM
...
It's sad Apple went the Intel route. It ceased producing interesting hardware on the computer side (it's nice looking, but everyone who's anyone sells the same stuff, albiet sans webcam or remote)...
The last year or so has been one big "Apple: we're just as bad as Dell" fiasco, at least when it comes to computers. Only Mac OS X and Job's RDF are still holding the fort.

"Only Mac OSX" ??!? oh, so it's only the operating system, user interface, industrial design, ease of use, etc. that are seperating us from Dell? :confused: i don't know about you, but i don't really deal w/ my chip on a day-to-day basis. sure, i was shocked when Jobs announced the switch, but once i got over my "PPC good, Intel baaaaad" bias, i'm stoked w/ the transition if it means my OS will get things done more quickly.

i don't care that Dell, HP, Sony or Bob's Budget PC's has access to the same Intel chips, i'll still use a Mac b/c of the OS.

anastasis
May 22, 2006, 09:39 AM
I am for one am very happy that we went the Intel route. Now we have a chip manufacturer who updates their lines regularly. Besides, I use Apple for their quality hardware and OS.

thejadedmonkey
May 22, 2006, 09:44 AM
I heard about this then, and hearing about it now, it still makes the move to intel seem stupid. I can see it at the time, but I'd still love to see Apple start putting PPC back into their computers one day. I don't care what anyone says, a PPC chip is just as capable as an intel chip any day of the week.

Now, what we need is for the macbooks to have Leapord with it's dual-core goodness on them, and use this start-up's PPC chips for an experience that's 3x faster (or 3x longer).

andiwm2003
May 22, 2006, 09:45 AM
come on Daystar Technology! offer me a PowerBook upgrade to dual core PPC 2GHz and a 7200RPM for $700!

That would be great and keep my PB usable for the next 3 years.

is there any chance this is going to happen? after all a 2.0GHz G4 upgrade is only $399.

thejadedmonkey
May 22, 2006, 09:46 AM
I am for one am very happy that we went the Intel route. Now we have a chip manufacturer who updates their lines regularly. Besides, I use Apple for their quality hardware and OS.
Yes, but now we get these little speed bumbs that come without any fanfare. :(
PPC was and still is the way to go, if only because saying INTEL just feels cheep.

emotion
May 22, 2006, 09:49 AM
Those chips sound nice in practice (7W eh?) but saying they have a design for and actualy delivering a product to match of sufficient yield for Apple are two different things.

I agree it's a shame that Apple had to go the route of using generic intel pc architecture as I quite liked the fact they were different to PCs but I'm much preferring the pace at which Apple is moving these days (aside from a few qc issues).

lonepilgrim
May 22, 2006, 09:49 AM
It's not a language barrier, we're both British. If you're serious, and not trolling, look up the word "widgets" in a dictionary, look at the context in which I used the word (specifically referring to widgets as hardware, and related to multimedia), and work out what I would be referring to that Apple sells that constitutes hardware, is something to do with multimedia, and conforms to the definition "widgets".
Hey, 'British' isn't a language. In any case, 'Gadget' is a far more common term than 'widget' - like the poster of the original question, it's the first time I'd seen 'widget' used in this context. When they introduced the 'widget' into cans of draught beer, it was popularly considered almost a neologism.

emotion
May 22, 2006, 09:51 AM
Hey, 'British' isn't a language. In any case, 'Gadget' is a far more common term than 'widget' - like the poster of the original question, it's the first time I'd seen 'widget' used in this context. When they introduced the 'widget' into cans of draught beer, it was popularly considered almost a neologism.


The word widget has been in use for many years. Like 'thingy'.

Eidorian
May 22, 2006, 09:52 AM
Wow, I really hope they offer a dual core G5 motherboard replacement for the Rev. A/B iMac G5. I'd so buy one.

tkidBOSTON
May 22, 2006, 09:54 AM
The Register (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/19/pasemi_apple/) is reporting that Apple actively courted at least one Power-based vendor before deciding to switch to Intel last year.



Wait wait wait...
Apple didnt just close their eyes and choose a chip maker blindly?!?!? :rolleyes:

shamino
May 22, 2006, 09:57 AM
This doesn't surprise me too much. Any company like Apple would have to keep its options open. Until you announce a decision to the world, you explore alternatives, just in case the one you're thinking of doesn't turn out like you planned. So I'm not surprised that Apple was seen "courting" alternative PPC manufacturers.

But, based on the description of PA Semi's products, they only sell G4-class chips. I didn't see any mention of 64-bit capability, which would mean the PowerMac line remains stagnant (or ends up needing ever-larger power supplies to drive the newest IBM offerings.) A quad G5 today uses a 1KW power supply! This is insane, and everybody knows it.

As for IBM, they gave Apple the finger several years ago. They want Apple to directly fund their own R&D efforts, or there won't be any new G5-class chips. Call me crazy, but if I'm going to fund someone else's R&D, I'd better become an owner of that tech, not just a customer. Somehow, I don't think IBM would be willing to start giving Apple royalties for PPC chips manufactured.

As for the newer gaming chips that IBM's working on (like Cell and others), read the specs. They're not powerful enough for general purpose computing. They are relatively low-powered CPUs, with large numbers of independent vector processing units. This may be fine for games or rendering pipelines, or even GPUs, but it is terrible for other kinds of applications. How many Macs would you be able to sell if productivity apps (word processors, spreadsheets, databases, web browsers, mail clients, etc.) run at half speed? Telling them "but Motion is 5 times faster" isn't going to help.

If PA Semi had a tighter roadmap (get the newest chips out sooner), and a 64-bit products ready to go, things might've been different. But that didn't happen.

ncook06
May 22, 2006, 09:57 AM
So would this have meant continuing on PPC architecture instead of x86?

bokdol
May 22, 2006, 09:58 AM
does anyone remember freescale?

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE

hasn't freescale had better chips for a while. i remember reading this way back before the intel transition.

i know these are only g4's but they were dual core and had fast bus speeds. hell the single core was pin compatible with the g4 now.. if i am correct. i cant remember.

they may have been courting other g4 chip makers but clearly they wanted to leave moto/freescale behind. but for me i am happy with apple which ever way they go now. if they went back to ppc i would be happy. if they stay with intel i will be happy. but intergrated graphics just suck no matter what.

ImAlwaysRight
May 22, 2006, 10:01 AM
Did Apple Court Other PPC Vendors Before Intel Switch?

Well, I sure hope Apple didn't just look at one option and not the others.

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 10:05 AM
they may have been courting other g4 chip makers but clearly they wanted to leave moto/freescale behind. but for me i am happy with apple which ever way they go now. if they went back to ppc i would be happy. if they stay with intel i will be happy. but intergrated graphics just suck no matter what.

I thought whatever's Intel sucks no matter what.... :mad:

Just look at those Intel Macs.... Intel chip here, Intel mainboard there, and Intel integrated graphics onto whatever s***hole there is....

Bottom line is, these stuff made Macs look a lot cheaper and "cheaper" and it doesn't justify well with Apple increasing prices on its hardwares.....

Platform
May 22, 2006, 10:10 AM
Wow, I really hope they offer a dual core G5 motherboard replacement for the Rev. A/B iMac G5. I'd so buy one.

Rev C..too...yes I know it would make more work, but sill. With 7 watts they could give me a quad iMac....do it :cool:

timbo13
May 22, 2006, 10:13 AM
does anyone remember freescale?

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE

hasn't freescale had better chips for a while. i remember reading this way back before the intel transition.

As bokdol already pointed out, there could easily have been a G5 powerbook/ibook.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121754,00.asp
The new low-power PowerPC 970FX chip will consume 13 watts of power when running at 1.4 GHz and 16 watts when running at 1.6 GHz under typical operating conditions, IBM said in a press release.

That's better power consumption than the current core duo's and it was about halfway through last year... Other links:

http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/07/2043214
http://www.power.org/news/pr/view?item_key=fcd9c09211203606ccd22996702dd8426a826712

The G5 Powerbook rumors kind of made some sense with those facts around. I'm surprised others haven't remembered these points?

Eidorian
May 22, 2006, 10:16 AM
Rev C..too...yes I know it would make more work, but sill. With 7 watts they could give me a quad iMac....do it :cool:It'll be a nightmare to open that machine. Still the have iMac G4 and PowerBook upgrades. The Rev. A/B are just wonders to work with inside.

Platform
May 22, 2006, 10:19 AM
It'll be a nightmare to open that machine. Still the have iMac G4 and PowerBook upgrades. The Rev. A/B are just wonders to work with inside.

I know....but I would like a quad PPC iMac too :o :cool:

milo
May 22, 2006, 10:20 AM
It's sad Apple went the Intel route. It ceased producing interesting hardware on the computer side (it's nice looking, but everyone who's anyone sells the same stuff, albiet sans webcam or remote), which even when it wasn't desirable was part way responsible for creating innovation in the computer space. And the arguments that Intel somehow was "price-per-watt" efficient never made much sense either. The nadir was the announcement of the Intel iMac, with attempts to suggest it was "twice as fast" as its predecessor. Why? Because the iMac G5 never got the dual core G5 that was put in the PowerMacs. They were comparing latest Intel vs year old G5s. Nice. Isn't marketing great? Cripple your last generation of machines so the replacement technology looks like some great advance.

What makes you think they could put a dual G5 into an imac. Have you SEEN the heatsinks required in the G5 towers? There's no way they could cram that into an imac, it would have to be way bigger to be able to cool a dual G5.

Year old G5's were the only thing cool enough to run in an iMac, they weren't crippling them.

And you completely overlook the laptop situation. G5's were fine in desktop machines (although it required more cores to be competitive), but PPC had nothing competitive for laptops. (so did IBM ever release that mobile G5 chip? Someone linked to the *announcment* of the chip, but nothing about it actually shipping...and that was an announcement of dual 1.4 and 1.6...yawn) When you compare the core duos to the fastest mobile PPC chips, it's no contest. With intel, we're seeing laptops that beat the dual G5 towers on some apps!

This other PPC company is just vaporware, they haven't shipped anything yet, and by the time they do, intel will have the next gen out.

Apple made the right choice.

SC68Cal
May 22, 2006, 10:27 AM
From what I've read, from the one post about IBM wanting Apple to research the R&D without recieving royalties, and the dominance of IBM in the gaming console arena, I think IBM just tossed Apple to the sidelines in favor of more profitable (translation: quantity) gaming console market, rather than serving a computer company that has a very low market share.

You can't blame them, IBM is a busniess, not a charity. Intel profits becasuse they take the busniess away from AMD, and continue their march towards total market domination. It made sense to Intel to do his, and Apple was in a tough position with IBM focusing their business on other markets. If I'm not mistaken, Apple was the first to deliver computers with the Core Duo in them, so it made sense for Apple to go from a supplier with low interest, to a chip supplier that was giving exclusive incentives (first computer maker to use the new chips)

LastLine
May 22, 2006, 10:32 AM
Wouldn't it be G6? ;)
I figure with 8 cores it may be G8 or 9 ;)
Apple made the right choice.
Can't agree more, although there are teething problems with the machines, and the lack of UB's the Intel chips are making the Mac's I sell at work so much more appealing to people, they know the Intel name, they know it can run Windoze if they don't for whatever reason take to OS X. I now sell more Apple's than Windows PC's. Weird huh?

Leondunkleyc
May 22, 2006, 10:38 AM
.

Little Endian
May 22, 2006, 10:46 AM
Going to intel unfortunately means that Apple will have less excuses for slow performance. Sure it will now be easier to Compare the actual OS without hardware differences but this could be a bad thing to some extent. OSX will have to be as fast as Windows when running same or similar applications or those Windows fan boys will go preaching that OSX is a crappy OS. The pressure for both Apple and third parties will be greater now to build software that runs as fast or faster on OSX than on Windows.

Running on Intel also will give Apple no more hardware performance advantages as we had with PowerPC. Sure Apple used alot of twist and marketing to show how PowerPC was faster than X86 but the truth is that PowerPC at times could handle certain functions much faster than X86 contemporaries. Apple can't flaunt that kind of advantages anymore when the hardware is the same. Yes we actually did have bragging rights with PowerPC from time to time, though perhaps not as great as Apple would have us believe.

Apple will also have to be more competitive with updates to it's product line and pricing now that we have switched to intel. With PowerPC Apple could drag it's feet with updates and Charge pretty much whatever they wanted. People used to accept that because we could always blame Motorola or IBM for not producing the goods and the high price was because of the more specialized hardware and development costs for such a small market. With the switch to intel it will be harder to justify the Apple premium since the hardware is pretty much the same. Sure the premium for the OSX and Apple's Hardware design is justified but that amount will have to shrink when actual hardware differences are non-existent.

Lastly with Apple in bed with Intel alone we will at certain times still have the slower performing platform. Every now and then AMD will make an advance over intel that will make Apples performance look bad. So are we better off with intel? On price maybe but now Apple's offerings are no different from any other PC manufacturer.

BenRoethig
May 22, 2006, 10:47 AM
If we would have waited for these chips, Apple as we know it probably wouldn't be around.

Hattig
May 22, 2006, 10:50 AM
come on Daystar Technology! offer me a PowerBook upgrade to dual core PPC 2GHz and a 7200RPM for $700!

That would be great and keep my PB usable for the next 3 years.

is there any chance this is going to happen? after all a 2.0GHz G4 upgrade is only $399.

No chance, the processors will have a completely different bus interface.

thejadedmonkey
May 22, 2006, 10:56 AM
<snip>But, based on the description of PA Semi's products, they only sell G4-class chips. I didn't see any mention of 64-bit capability, which would mean the PowerMac line remains stagnant.
My Pentium mobile, along with the core duo and C2D are built off of Pentium 3 tech, so there's no reason why PA Semi couldn't build off of G4 tech.

sushi
May 22, 2006, 10:57 AM
Apple made the right choice.
I would agree. To big advantages:

- Intel updates their chips faster than IBM.

- Macs can now dual boot into WindowsXP which is great for switchers.

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 11:05 AM
I would agree. To big advantages:

- Intel updates their chips faster than IBM.

- Macs can now dual boot into WindowsXP which is great for switchers.

and invite more security concerns.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Detlev_73
May 22, 2006, 11:06 AM
This is somewhat difficult to swallow in light that Jobs announced that Apple engineers had been working for a while (I think he said years or what amounted to years) on a version of Mac OS running on Intel. If that's the case, why would have they tried to court other Power suppliers if Apple was going with Intel anyway? Kooky story. :rolleyes:

Play Ultimate
May 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
Some of the comments re:Apple's switch to Intel surprise me in that they believe Apple just woke-up one morning and decided on the transition, like we wake up and decide what to have for breakfast.

Why should this announcement that Apple was looking at other options surpise anyone?? :confused: Apple is a multi-billion dollar business. Nothing is done instantaneously or without tons of investigation. The surprising thing is that we did not hear about all of the companies that Apple was considering prior to the announcement to use Intel.

The switch issue goes directly back to laptops. The problem was Apple's hands were tied. The G5 chip was too hot and there was nothing else to put into them. The G4s were old and slow. So what do you do? There were no other PPC chips options available at the time. And when over 50% of your computer business is in laptops something has to be done to prevent massive defection.

Am I happy that Apple's use Intel chips? Not sure yet. Do I understand why they did it? You bet.

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
This is somewhat difficult to swallow in light that Jobs announced that Apple engineers had been working for a while (I think he said years or what amounted to years) on a version of Mac OS running on Intel. If that's the case, why would have they tried to court other Power suppliers if Apple was going with Intel anyway? Kooky story. :rolleyes:

Remember what Steve Jobs mentioned on stage (or was it Paul Otellini) in one of his keynotes...., that they were having "intimate relationship" outside....? That's where and why OSX lived a double life.... There was an article written about Paul persuading Steve to have Apple switched to Intel 5 years ago even before the G5 came up....

As for the rest of the "treachery", I'll leave it for you guys to speculate.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

crees!
May 22, 2006, 11:16 AM
It's not a language barrier, we're both British.
That sounds like a language barrier to me :D

rishi
May 22, 2006, 11:17 AM
I am a recent switcher so I can't comment much but how different would be the situation if Apple had chosen AMD instead of Intel ?

If you look at these recent issues with intel macs, would it be different with AMD ?

SC68Cal
May 22, 2006, 11:19 AM
With AMD you would see and immediate introduction of 64bit processors to all Macs that had previously been 32bit, such as the laptops and the Mac Mini, that's the first thing I can think of off the top of my head

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 11:20 AM
With AMD you would see 64bit processors, that's the first thing I can think of off the top of my head

but it's still on an el-crappo x86 architecture.... :rolleyes:

emotion
May 22, 2006, 11:21 AM
With AMD you would see 64bit processors, that's the first thing I can think of off the top of my head

Not that I beleive 64 bit to be that much of an advantage (apart from marketing) the Core2 chips will be along and shipping in 3 or 4 months.

emotion
May 22, 2006, 11:22 AM
but it's still on an el-crappo x86 architecture.... :rolleyes:

You really need to do some reading.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars

Read that and tell me what's el crappo about it.

(edit: typo)

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 11:25 AM
You really need to do some reading.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars

Read that and tell me wheat's el crappo about it.

So what if they "breast-feed" you with that kinda stuff...? You actually believed in that crap....? It's a PC world by the way, of course they'll write something better to satisfy the majority.... :rolleyes:

Montserrat
May 22, 2006, 11:26 AM
This is somewhat difficult to swallow in light that Jobs announced that Apple engineers had been working for a while (I think he said years or what amounted to years) on a version of Mac OS running on Intel. If that's the case, why would have they tried to court other Power suppliers if Apple was going with Intel anyway? Kooky story. :rolleyes:

OK - the way I understood it was that OS X had been effectively 'Universal' since day one, being the offspring of the NeXt system (which ran on x86), if so it would make perfect sense to check out suppliers of both varients of chips while knowing that you had a version of the OS that could run on either waiting in the wings. Sensible market strategy, which - if early Intel Mac sales reports are to be believed - seems to be paying off.

As for the question of removing an x86 processor and popping a PowerPC one in its sockets - I understand that the sockets used for each are different therefore not swappable as well as probable component differences beyond my comprehension.

Still undecided about the x86 move - like others have said, the stagnation of the PowerPC lines was becoming an increasing problem for Apple (esp in their portables) and the Intel Macs I've tried in the Apple Store all soundly trounce my Rev A 12" Powerbook, but still a bit irresolute - mostly due to a lack of UBs of some of my software, partly due to a desire to see what the produce with the Merom (Core2Duo) processor and only slightly due to the scattered reports of ealry hardware bugs. I'm expecting to switch (part II) early 2007 - anticipating Merom, BluRay, Leopard and iLife 07

Morgan
May 22, 2006, 11:27 AM
but it's still on an el-crappo x86 architecture.... :rolleyes:

You are an idiot if you actually believe this.
I suggest you read up on AMD64, open your eyes,
and flush your G5's down the toilet, because they are
simply irrelevant.

emotion
May 22, 2006, 11:28 AM
So what if they "breast-feed" you with that kinda stuff...? You actually believed in that crap....? It's a PC world by the way, of course they'll write something better to satisfy the majority.... :rolleyes:


There's nothing to "believe" here is pure hard facts from an impartial site.

If you can't handle the depth of the explanations just say.

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 11:29 AM
You are an idiot if you actually believe this.
I suggest you read up on AMD64, open your eyes,
and flush your G5's down the toilet, because they are
simply irrelevant.

Did I ever say the G5s were superior....? :rolleyes:

I was merely saying Apple moved to an inferior architecture when they could have done better....

sinisterdesign
May 22, 2006, 11:31 AM
(also, have you heard the noise the xbox 360s make?)

oh, good lord, yes. i have to turn my receiver up to compensate for the noise of the small aircraft engine that is my 360. :eek:

oddly enough, my G5 is almost whisper quiet. of course the case is like 6 times as large, so you can cram a few more fans & a heatsink the size of a 360 controller in there.

thogs_cave
May 22, 2006, 11:31 AM
but it's still on an el-crappo x86 architecture.... :rolleyes:

Actually, AMD has some good stuff. I'm not an x86 fan by any means, but I'm quite happy with recent Opteron boxes running Solaris or Gnu/Linux. They are amazingly quick and smack the poo-poo out of the Intel boxes on FP.

However, I can understand why Apple (having chosen x86) went with Intel. Intel is more focused in the arena Apple likes: portables and consumer desktops. I'm more of a server sort (The E5000 mentioned below in in my house, so I don't really care as much about the desktop arena.

Now, an Xserve with dual-core Opterons would make me tingle all over. But I don't see it happening, as too many companies have similar systems out already, and it would be much tougher for Apple to play in that field.

emotion
May 22, 2006, 11:32 AM
I was merely saying Apple moved to an inferior architecture when they could have done better....

We know what you are saying. Doesn't stop it from being wrong. They moved to a _different_ architecture that was more energy efficient and was available in quanitities that could fulfill demand.

Simple.

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 11:34 AM
Actually, AMD has some good stuff. I'm not an x86 fan by any means, but I'm quite happy with recent Opteron boxes running Solaris or Gnu/Linux. They are amazingly quick and smack the poo-poo out of the Intel boxes on FP.

However, I can understand why Apple (having chosen x86) went with Intel. Intel is more focused in the arena Apple likes: portables and consumer desktops. I'm more of a server sort (The E5000 mentioned below in in my house, so I don't really care as much about the desktop arena.

Now, an Xserve with dual-core Opterons would make me tingle all over. But I don't see it happening, as too many companies have similar systems out already, and it would be much tougher for Apple to play in that field.


Maybe I should rephrase that as "an el-crappo Intel x86 architecture".... cause there seems to be more Intel-lified people here than I thought I'd wished to bombard with....

Morgan
May 22, 2006, 11:35 AM
Did I ever say the G5s were superior....? :rolleyes:

I was merely saying Apple moved to an inferior architecture when they could have done better....

Inferior architecture ? If you are talking about the current crop of
CORE processors, maybe, in theory.

In practice, (read: performance) i believe they proved that they are anything
*but* inferior.

thogs_cave
May 22, 2006, 11:44 AM
Maybe I should rephrase that as "an el-crappo Intel x86 architecture".... cause there's seems to be more Intel-lified people here than I thought I'd wished to bombard with....

Hey, take that back! I still worship at the altars of AXP and SPARC! :D

Seriously, I don't believe there is a "superior" architecture out there. I mean that in the sense that the biggest distinction is still CISC .vs. RISC, and there ain't much there to distinguish any more. "This chip has a shorter pipeline!" "That chip has better branch-prediction!" And so on. It's all different shades of gray.

What I'd like to see is something truly revolutionary. Beyond even stuff like Sun's 8-core, 32-thread Niagara or the concept of async clocking, etc. Of course, I have no idea what that would be, or I'd be very rich. :(

tonyl
May 22, 2006, 11:52 AM
7w at 2GHz? Wow, that's really amazing if it is true!

whatever
May 22, 2006, 12:31 PM
7 watts?! 7 WATTS?! :eek: That's rather impressive. Ah well we went Intel. We should be happy. I am happy.

*druel* Macbook ... although a Macbook with 3x longer battery...mmmm 18 hour battery life...mmm

Uber

Hey they could have announced they were making 2 watts chips and it wouldn't have mattered. Apple needs Intel's production/factories. Intel can announce a new chip and they will be available in mass quantities . But to go with a start up, that means Apple would be waiting forever for the chips. I know people are going to say that Apple is only 4 or 5% of the market, but their 4 or 5% of the market cannot be supported by a startup chip manufacture. If that was the case then Apple would have just bought them outright, but even they couldn't pull that off (building a factories to create the chips) in a timely manner.

Intel was the only answer, I don't believe that AMD can support the volume of chips that Apple needs!

Whatever

zac4mac
May 22, 2006, 12:50 PM
Ethanius - I'm no Intel-apologist, but I got a 2GHz MBP when they came out. I have a few issues with it, but as a radical change-RevA product I'm very pleased. Everything running native I throw at it, it bests my G5DP2.0 desktop, that as a system cost over 2X what I paid for the portable.

I'm thinking Apple could have done a LOT worse than going Intel - like stay with a dead dog called PPC. PPC/Moto/IBM/Freescale is history now for Macs and I'm really having a hard time missing them.

I'll keep my G5 for a long time yet(Not 'cause it's so powerful, I just hate to throw stuff out), but then, I still have a MacPortable, an Outbound Kangaroo(Mac clone portable) and a bunch of "antique" computer junk..

Z

retroz311
May 22, 2006, 01:16 PM
Ethanius - I'm no Intel-apologist, but I got a 2GHz MBP when they came out. I have a few issues with it, but as a radical change-RevA product I'm very pleased. Everything running native I throw at it, it bests my G5DP2.0 desktop, that as a system cost over 2X what I paid for the portable.

I'm thinking Apple could have done a LOT worse than going Intel - like stay with a dead dog called PPC. PPC/Moto/IBM/Freescale is history now for Macs and I'm really having a hard time missing them.

I'll keep my G5 for a long time yet(Not 'cause it's so powerful, I just hate to throw stuff out), but then, I still have a MacPortable, an Outbound Kangaroo(Mac clone portable) and a bunch of "antique" computer junk..

Z


You have to remember a few things...

First AMD and APPLE are part of the hypertranport consortium.
Second, AMD's new chip doesn't look to offer much, however, their quad core does.
Third, Intel has more $$$ for research and development, so, if you where Apple, why not let Intel do all the x86 R&D, then if and when the time is write, they can always pull the trigger and go with AMD as well.

Remember, AMD is mostly the reason, at least on the audio/video end, that MAC users went PC, not Intel and their overheating PIII and underperforming first generation P4 with too many long pipelines and rambus.

nsjoker
May 22, 2006, 01:25 PM
apple made the right choice. with that said, the core duo's still run rather hot and are causing some macbooks to overheat :/

will merom be more efficient??

Core Trio
May 22, 2006, 01:29 PM
With Apple's revenues increasing quarter over quarter. Someone obviously must be happy with the intel chips, any nay-sayers are probably just bitter...

tortoise
May 22, 2006, 01:30 PM
And the vector units and floating point on the x86's are still inferior.

That assertion needs to be qualified. For *some* floating point purposes Altivec/PPC is obviously better (e.g. anything that exploits the FMA instructions), for other purposes the x86 vector implementation (SSE2) is superior. It really depends on what you are going to do with it, and neither one dedicated the silicon required to make a really proper SIMD implementation. For general purpose floating point, one could argue that current x86 implementations are superior to current PPC implementations, both in terms of the basic specs (x86 has higher precision floating point -- 80-bit -- which gives noticeably better results for some types of scientific and engineering work) and in terms of raw performance (Opteron codes generated with the Pathscale compilers produce rather stunning floating point performance numbers on a broad range of code). PPC is a floating point monster on paper, but on real codes with real implementations it has pretty much lost its edge for any code that does not use the aforementioned FMA instructions.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 01:36 PM
What makes you think they could put a dual G5 into an imac. Have you SEEN the heatsinks required in the G5 towers? There's no way they could cram that into an imac, it would have to be way bigger to be able to cool a dual G5.

Those heatsinks were in PowerMac G5s from the beginning. If what you're saying makes any sense at all, then the iMac G5 is a ridiculous liberal myth. It never existed. It couldn't have done, because it didn't have the giant heatsinks of the PowerMac G5.

Year old G5's were the only thing cool enough to run in an iMac, they weren't crippling them.

Year old G5s were hotter than what came subsequently, such as the 970FX. G5s cooled down, they didn't get hotter.

And you completely overlook the laptop situation.

...no, I don't. You're just quoting the comments covering the fact that in at least one example, we know Apple deliberately withheld more powerful G5s from one model of the Macintosh line to ensure the Intel-based replacement would look more powerful. The laptop situation is both changing the subject and ignoring the point. We can pretty much deduce from what Apple did to the iMac G5 that if any PowerPC chips were suited for use in Powerbooks, Apple wouldn't have used them.

This forum thread is about a chip set that Apple would have found perfect for use in laptops. Even if they hadn't, there's simply no way they didn't know at the time of the Intel announcement that things like the 17W 970FX were not around the corner (they were announced a few days after Apple's announcement. What do you think IBM did, kept their existance a secret from Apple? Apple knew these were coming)


Apple made the right choice.

For whom? I guess I should be glad, once Leopard starts selling, someone will come up with an installer that allows it to run on beige boxes, so we can finally have a legal way of running Mac OS X on Thinkpads.

For Apple users, not to mention those computer users interested in competition and the future of computing, the switch doesn't appear to be a good one. Only if you deliberately ignore the fact that Apple has withheld PowerPC advances while it performs the switch over can you deduce that somehow this has resulted in better Macs. It hasn't. What it's lead to is years of pain as we switch from one architecture to another, and a stifling of innovation.

Eidorian
May 22, 2006, 01:45 PM
What makes you think they could put a dual G5 into an imac. Have you SEEN the heatsinks required in the G5 towers? There's no way they could cram that into an imac, it would have to be way bigger to be able to cool a dual G5.
Those heatsinks were in PowerMac G5s from the beginning. If what you're saying makes any sense at all, then the iMac G5 is a ridiculous liberal myth. It never existed. It couldn't have done, because it didn't have the giant heatsinks of the PowerMac G5.

Year old G5s were hotter than what came subsequently, such as the 970FX. G5s cooled down, they didn't get hotter.

The 970FX chips were a big improvement over the original 970. Still, have you ever looked inside at the iMac G5's heatsink? It's just a miniaturized of the same heat sink in the PowerMac G5 fins and all.

If some third pary comes along with a Dual 970MP Upgrade at 1.4/1.8 GHz for the iMac G5, I'd jump on it just to have a cool custom machine with more power.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 01:47 PM
For whom? I guess I should be glad, once Leopard starts selling, someone will come up with an installer that allows it to run on beige boxes, so we can finally have a legal way of running Mac OS X on Thinkpads.
You realise this will never be legal? Apple don't sell full-retail versions of OS X, they sell upgrades. Don't believe me? Tell me the last time anyone has bought an Mac OS boxed version who didn't already own a license to a previous version of OS X. I imagine with Leopard boxes, Apple will more clearly mark these as upgrades and fully specify in the EULA that they are not to be installed on anything other than an Apple box.

I'm sure you'll still persuade yourself you're in the right pirating the OS though, and with the above comment you've just invalidated everything else you've said in this thread.

tortoise
May 22, 2006, 01:48 PM
but it's still on an el-crappo x86 architecture....


Actually, the AMD64 ISA is a pretty decent architecture, retaining most of the advantages of the old x86 architecture (and x86 does have some nice performance enhancing advantages), while fixing most of the ugly bits. x86 may be a bit ugly, but native AMD64 is not so bad. I would rather have AMD64 than either x86 or PPC, particularly since the AMD64 implementations are so nicely done.

Hunabku
May 22, 2006, 01:50 PM
I predict that several months from now, any decision to have gone a route other than intel and x86 will be considered absolutely stupid. Why? if apple continues to build on the, technology, momentum and attention it is garnering around supporting windows - it will see a dramatic shift in its market share - period. And that is afterall its main objective is it not?

The dialougue we should be concerned with is how Apple will leverage the fact that they ARE using intel chips - this is what is attracting so many new users. DON'T BLOW IT APPLE - no more lost opportunities critical to your really making it. Your so close!

As Apples marketshare increases, they of course will be in a better position to keep/add developers so that argument doesn't hold as much water - especially if the OSXeprience continues to be so much better than windoz.

sam10685
May 22, 2006, 01:51 PM
Very Interesting...so, G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday, then? :D

Still, the question this begs is: was the non-appearance of a comparable-spec chip from IBM due to technical incompetence or bloody-minded unwillingness?

WHY do people still think there will be a G5 powerbook??? APPLE ENDED THE G5 CHIP REIGN LAST YEAR BY SWITCHING TO INTEL!!! PLEASE GET THAT INTO YOUR HEADS... plus, i would think the release of the Macbook with an INTEL chip would pretty much seal the deal.

Eithanius
May 22, 2006, 02:01 PM
Actually, the AMD64 ISA is a pretty decent architecture, retaining most of the advantages of the old x86 architecture (and x86 does have some nice performance enhancing advantages), while fixing most of the ugly bits. x86 may be a bit ugly, but native AMD64 is not so bad. I would rather have AMD64 than either x86 or PPC, particularly since the AMD64 implementations are so nicely done.

If Apple had gone to that direction instead, I would have dumped my G5 in favour of AMD64 since some geniuses had taken the opportunity to optimise it on one of the DC projects.... :D

xStep
May 22, 2006, 02:02 PM
I know people are going to say that Apple is only 4 or 5% of the market, but their 4 or 5% of the market cannot be supported by a startup chip manufacture. If that was the case then Apple would have just bought them outright, but even they couldn't pull that off (building a factories to create the chips) in a timely manner.
Their is no need to build factories. ALL of that work can be subcontracted out. The company designing & selling the chips is referred to as being a fabless semiconductor company. I work at such a company.

Subiklim
May 22, 2006, 02:03 PM
[QUOTE=peharri]
This forum thread is about a chip set that Apple would have found perfect for use in laptops. Even if they hadn't, there's simply no way they didn't know at the time of the Intel announcement that things like the 17W 970FX were not around the corner (they were announced a few days after Apple's announcement. What do you think IBM did, kept their existance a secret from Apple? Apple knew these were coming)
QUOTE]

Someone has a case of the mondays....

The problem here is that the chip has NOT yet been produced. Theoretically it could be a perfect chip, but it's not being produced.

I loved my PPC systems when I had them, it's time to move on. The new Intels are VERY fast, and other than a few obscure tests, the best the PPC systems in every way imaginable. You may still be bitter that Apple chose intel, because it's not as cool and different than what your nemisises the PC users use, but it's the better choice. It's time to accept that and move on.

Also, you do not know for a fact that Apple witheld procesors from the iMac. That's based on assumption.

BenRoethig
May 22, 2006, 02:04 PM
I would agree. To big advantages:

- Intel updates their chips faster than IBM.

- Macs can now dual boot into WindowsXP which is great for switchers.

-Due to the large user base, there is financial incentive to develop these chips. That's why PPC chips would never reach their full potential.

Core Trio
May 22, 2006, 02:11 PM
WHY do people still think there will be a G5 powerbook??? APPLE ENDED THE G5 CHIP REIGN LAST YEAR BY SWITCHING TO INTEL!!! PLEASE GET THAT INTO YOUR HEADS... plus, i would think the release of the Macbook with an INTEL chip would pretty much seal the deal.


you realize that no one REALLY thinks there is going to be a G5 powerbook and that "G5 powerbooks next tuesday" has been a running joke for quite some time...right?

octoberdeath
May 22, 2006, 02:14 PM
well Intel has is a reputable company that will surely be around for a while. they are the safer route to travel down. plus Intel must have some great things coming because Apple switched not just for whats coming out now, but for whats coming in the future.

bretm
May 22, 2006, 02:23 PM
You realise this will never be legal? Apple don't sell full-retail versions of OS X, they sell upgrades. Don't believe me? Tell me the last time anyone has bought an Mac OS boxed version who didn't already own a license to a previous version of OS X. I imagine with Leopard boxes, Apple will more clearly mark these as upgrades and fully specify in the EULA that they are not to be installed on anything other than an Apple box.

I'm sure you'll still persuade yourself you're in the right pirating the OS though, and with the above comment you've just invalidated everything else you've said in this thread.

I've never purchased an OSX upgrade. They don't sell OSX upgrades. There is no such thing as an OSX upgrade. So exactly where are you coming from? In fact, OSX does not use a license. There is no license. There is no serial number. There is no requirement for a previous version to be on your computer. There is no discount if you own a previous version.

Now I haven't checked, but they may call it an upgrade, but I'm pretty sure they don't. And the EULA may say it can only be installed on a Mac approved machine, etc. I don't know. But Apple does not sell OSX upgrades. They sell operating system versions that have requirements and limitations based on hardware. Not based on a previous version of OSX. They don't sell upgrades. No discounts, no previous version required. End of story.

manu chao
May 22, 2006, 02:24 PM
7 watts?! 7 WATTS?! :eek: That's rather impressive.
*druel* Macbook ... although a Macbook with 3x longer battery...mmmm 18 hour battery life...mmm
Uber
Yeah, if somebody managed to reduce the screen power, the graphics chip and harddrive consumption to a third as well, then we might see an 18 hour battery life.

redkev
May 22, 2006, 02:25 PM
would have been loudly complaining because the G5 PowerBook was not going to ship until 2007? I was never too excited about the shift to Intel, but Apple's execution has been excellent. I recently bought a Mini Core Duo to test the Intel waters until the replacement for the G5 tower ships (and Photoshop goes Intel). The Mac Mini Core Duo is a great machine, and it runs circles around my single processor G5 Tower with native applications. Apple made the right decision and I expect that things will only get better. A MacBook is my next purchase, a drastically needed replacement for my early 12" PowerBook.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 02:30 PM
I've never purchased an OSX upgrade. They don't sell OSX upgrades. There is no such thing as an OSX upgrade. So exactly where are you coming from? In fact, OSX does not use a license. There is no license. There is no serial number. There is no requirement for a previous version to be on your computer. There is no discount if you own a previous version.

Now I haven't checked, but they may call it an upgrade, but I'm pretty sure they don't. And the EULA may say it can only be installed on a Mac approved machine, etc. I don't know. But Apple does not sell OSX upgrades. They sell operating system versions that have requirements and limitations based on hardware. Not based on a previous version of OSX. They don't sell upgrades. No discounts, no previous version required. End of story.
Regardless of this argument (which I don't agree with, the reason there is no discount is because there is only one version, an upgrade) the EULA to OS X states that you can only install it on an Apple-labelled computer. Apple didn't need to call it an upgrade in the past because you didn't have a choice, you were always purchasing the OS to upgrade an older version.

If you don't think boxed OS X is not an upgrade, then tell me, can you buy Tiger now and install it on a machine that didn't have a previously licensed copy of Mac OS on it? Nope.

I expect Apple to firm up their legal wording when x86 boxed versions of OS X become available to close this supposed "loop-hole" anyway.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 02:30 PM
I thought whatever's Intel sucks no matter what.... :mad:

Just look at those Intel Macs.... Intel chip here, Intel mainboard there, and Intel integrated graphics onto whatever s***hole there is....

Bottom line is, these stuff made Macs look a lot cheaper and "cheaper" and it doesn't justify well with Apple increasing prices on its hardwares.....
The prices increased on the low end G4-based products only. All in all, the value of their hardware has improved following the switch (the MBP and iMac are much cheaper than their PPC versions). How an Intel mainboard and Intel graphics (versus a Go5200 or a Radeon 9200) make the computers "cheaper" is beyond me.

The Core Duo is way more expensive than the G4, and yet they've managed to keep prices under control. Sounds like success to me.

mjstew33
May 22, 2006, 02:35 PM
Well, I would expect this. I would think Apple would look at all PPC options before just making all developers redo all the code.

Pancake
May 22, 2006, 02:38 PM
While I know that a fast intel MacBook right now is better than a theorectical PPC Macbook, I can still dream about how much cooler it might run. I swear you can god eggs between your MacBook Pro and your desk, not that I'd try that.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 02:40 PM
I've never purchased an OSX upgrade. They don't sell OSX upgrades. There is no such thing as an OSX upgrade.
Uh, yeah, you did. They don't need to offer a full version, because if you own a Mac that has the necessary specs for the new version, you already have a prior license. You think OS X is almost $200 cheaper than Windows just for the hell of it?

In fact, OSX does not use a license. There is no license. There is no serial number. There is no requirement for a previous version to be on your computer. There is no discount if you own a previous version.
Sorry, but it does have a license. In fact, you admit that it does..."the EULA may say it can only be installed on a Mac approved machine." (End User License Agreement.) With any upgrade, there's no requirement that a previous version be installed on your computer; you must only own a previous license. As for the discount, $129 is the discounted price. They have no need to offer a full version, so you don't have a ~$300 version to buy because no one would ever need to buy it.

As you say, end of story.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 02:43 PM
[QUOTE=peharri]
This forum thread is about a chip set that Apple would have found perfect for use in laptops. Even if they hadn't, there's simply no way they didn't know at the time of the Intel announcement that things like the 17W 970FX were not around the corner (they were announced a few days after Apple's announcement. What do you think IBM did, kept their existance a secret from Apple? Apple knew these were coming)
QUOTE]

Someone has a case of the mondays....

The problem here is that the chip has NOT yet been produced. Theoretically it could be a perfect chip, but it's not being produced.


I'm 99% sure the 970FX is in production. The chip that's the source of this article isn't, but it doesn't really matter, as there are CPUs, such as the 970FX that could have been used in the interim. Apple certainly didn't have to decide last year to switch to Intel, if the PASemi's PowerPC had turned out to be vapourware, which would be obvious by now, they could make the decision today. In the mean time, they have an excellent range of PowerPCs to use. Ars's Hannibal says it best:


I've been flamed furiously for my blasphemy, but whether my flamers will acknowledge it or not I'm now having the last laugh. P.A. Semi., IBM's 970FX/MP, POWER5, and the next-generation of game console chips all show that the book is by no means closed on PowerPC. In fact, we're in the opening moments of a full-blown PowerPC Renaissance. Who knows how long the PPC revival will last, but Apple would've been hard pressed to pick a worse time to jump ship for performance or performance/watt reasons.

But they didn't jump ship for performance or performance/watt reasons. They jumped ship because they no longer care about making leading-edge computer hardware. They also don't care about PC market share, or any of that other G3-era Mac Faithful malarkey. From now on, merely "good enough" is good enough for the Mac line, and the real innovation will come in the form of post-PC gadgets and entertainment-oriented, techno-cool doohickeys. But I repeat myself...


Damn straight.


Also, you do not know for a fact that Apple witheld procesors from the iMac. That's based on assumption.

It's based on fact. Or are you saying an iMac G5 with the same dual-core G5 that appears in current PowerMacs was actually released?

milatchi
May 22, 2006, 02:44 PM
The truth about Apple going to intel is about volume and cost. With the PPC chip IBM and Freescale had Apple by the balls. I would wager that no other chip (CPU) manufacturer in the world can produce quotas as high as intel. And we all know the basic rule of economics: the more of something that is produced the cheaper the price will become over time. And intel has been producing x86es since the early 80's.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 02:49 PM
You realise this will never be legal? Apple don't sell full-retail versions of OS X, they sell upgrades. Don't believe me? Tell me the last time anyone has bought an Mac OS boxed version who didn't already own a license to a previous version of OS X. I imagine with Leopard boxes, Apple will more clearly mark these as upgrades and fully specify in the EULA that they are not to be installed on anything other than an Apple box.

EULAs are only valid if you agree to them. One thing's for sure: if a third party installer is written, they're not going to write it such that you have to agree to Apple's EULA to install the operating system. At that point, the legality becomes a matter of the doctrine of first sale.

I'm sure you'll still persuade yourself you're in the right pirating the OS though, and with the above comment you've just invalidated everything else you've said in this thread.

The word pirating refers to copyright infringement. A violation of an EULA is a contract violation, not an act of copyright infringment. Additionally, as I just said, if Apple doesn't make an installer that works for third party machines, you'll be using a third party installer, and that installer is highly unlikely to require the user agree to an EULA.

The second part of your sentence is ridiculous. It's delightful that we might be able to buy a legitimate copy of Leopard and stick it on a PC, but it doesn't mean Apple's decision to switch to Intel chips has resulted in more powerful Macs. Though, if you want, we can prove the principle. I'll "justify" (bogusly) downloading an ISO of Tiger (because we actually do want some piracy to occur), and you can benchmark a Mac mini before and after I've installed it and see if it runs faster.

daneoni
May 22, 2006, 02:53 PM
It all comes donw to market share. Sure there are competitive chips out there but they cant dual boot windows and hence wont attract new adopters. Apple wants to increase its market share in the long run and the only way to do that is by allowing people use windows along side OSX, either that or license OSX itself.

I'm sure steve didn't want that so by elimination he went with intel chips. I knew this was the case and the performance per watt crap whilst true was just a cover story.

Does the intel switch make me cringe?...yes
Would i prefer it if we stayed with anything other than intel even choosing AMD?....yes

Is it the end of the world by switching to intel?...no. Its still a good business decision and overall a likable one. Intel has a good future ahead of it.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 02:54 PM
EULAs are only valid if you agree to them.
Which you must to to install the software.

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 02:54 PM
You realise this will never be legal? Apple don't sell full-retail versions of OS X, they sell upgrades. Don't believe me? Tell me the last time anyone has bought an Mac OS boxed version who didn't already own a license to a previous version of OS X. I imagine with Leopard boxes, Apple will more clearly mark these as upgrades and fully specify in the EULA that they are not to be installed on anything other than an Apple box.

You know, B&W G3's, slot-loading iMacs, and early G4 systems that didn't ship with OS X are just the machines you say don't exist. If they've been running OS 9 (or 8.6 in the case of the B&W's and some iMacs) up until the release of Tiger, then bought a Tiger box, they get Tiger and ti's not an upgrade; it's a full install. The license is to the full install.

And in the case of the machines you ARE talkign about, yoru old OS X license for 10.3 or 10.2 or whatever can be transferred to another machine since you've freed up that license by putting 10.4 on the machine you're upgrading.

Makosuke
May 22, 2006, 02:54 PM
Y'know, it would have been awesome had Apple gone with this company and they had 7W dualcore 2GHz chips in laptops at the begining of 2006, or something totally revolutionary in early 2007. There was something to be said about the feeling, from a totally non-logical standpoint, of running something different, with the potential to leapfrog everybody else stuck on x86.

But face it, I'm typing this on a 2.16GHz dualcore chip in a laptop RIGHT NOW, and it cost slightly less than a comperably equipped machine from Dell (and I can now confidently say "comperably equipped", because it uses roughly the same components).

Furthermore, Intel is a massive company, with a massive userbase, and in case nobody has noticed, THERE AREN'T ANY CHIP SHORTAGES. I ordered a popular, top of the line Mac a week after announcement, and it shipped right on schedule 5 days later, within a day of the machines that were ordered the second they were announced, EXACTLY WHEN APPLE SAID THEY WOULD START SHIPPING.

I stil remember waiting over a month for my first-gen G5. I also remember IBM saying that they'd have 3GHz in a year, which they STILL didn't 2 years on.

Now, it's not that Intel didn't have problems with their marketing-driven, MHz-over-performance-and-everything-else P4 monstrosity, but then if that were to happen again we would be stuck in exactly the same position as every other PC manufacturer, and so instead of looking stupid, Apple just looks like everybody else.

PLUS, thanks to AMD, Apple also has the option of bailing on Intel and going with another supplier if that becomes necessary--there is, admittedly, Freescale, IBM, and this new startup in the PPC arena, but none of those companies are focused on the desktop/portable chip market with their architecutres, unlike both AMD and Intel, and none of them would sell even a fraction of the chips to Apple that AMD and Intel already sell to other manufacturers, guaranteeing future development.

Now for a quick reality check about Intel's Core architecture:

I spent some time looking through a PC benchmark site's chip roundup. The 2.16GHz Core Duo--which is available in quantity right now--generally performs somewhat better than a top-of-the-line 3.75GHz P4 Extreme Edition or whatever they're called. It also performs almost as well as, if not better than, every laptop chip on the market, and is only a little behind AMD's high-end stuff. It's not 64 bit, of course, but it even performs (on desktop-oriented stuff, admittedly) roughly in line with an equivalently clocked Opteron.

Fundamentally, the Core architecture looks VERY promising, and we haven't even gotten to the high-end desktop/server versions of it yet. Which is why Apple hasn't replaced the G5 in the towers--non-universal pro app issues aside, the G5 is still competitive so far.

It's funny, because if you look at the P4-line of x86, it is a craptacular architecture, and PPC, even in it's current state, is more promising. But there's more to Intel's x86 than the P4, and Core has demonstrated that. Basically, Apple switched just at the right time, when things stopped stagnating.

What that means is that my laptop is now roughly comperable in raw performance with anything available that runs Windows. Futhermore, it is roughly equivalent in most areas to an equally-clocked dualcore G5 (borne out by both benchmarks and my own comparision with my G5 tower).

The G5 was a competitive architecture even as stuck as it was--most of the benchmarks I've seen show it as roughly clock-for-clock equivalent with an Opteron)--except mobile wasn't happening, regardless of what IBM said was possible. We now have a new architecture with a lot of promise to play with, some REAL speed in a portable, and the option to jump to AMD if in need.

It'd have been awesome to go with a startup that hit paydirt with their design, but frankly it was a riskier move for Apple than going x86. It wasn't the "cool" decision to make, but so far it seems to have been the right one.

One more thing: From a totally sales standpoint, aside from being able to run a full-speed virtualized Windows install now, it's nice to be able to say to my boss (and others who ask for advice) "Just buy Apple everything. In the event we need to run Windows instead of the MacOS, we'll just install it and dual-boot." That would have meant at least 3 more sales for Apple instead of IBM/Lenovo in the past year and a half.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 02:57 PM
You know, B&W G3's, slot-loading iMacs, and early G4 systems that didn't ship with OS X are just the machines you say don't exist.
I meant boxes OS X are upgrades to Mac OS, I didn't mean "just OS X", see my later post. Those B+W G3's had a version of Mac OS on them didn't they? Hence the boxed Tiger is an upgrade to that.

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 02:58 PM
I meant boxes OS X are upgrades to Mac OS, I didn't mean "just OS X", see my later post. Those B+W G3's had a version of Mac OS on them didn't they? Hence the boxed Tiger is an upgrade to that.
Actually, you DID say that. Here's the quote again

Tell me the last time anyone has bought an Mac OS boxed version who didn't already own a license to a previous version of OS X.
You're talking about upgrading OS X to a later OS X and that it's the only way upgrades are done.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 03:01 PM
Actually, you DID say that. Here's the quote again


You're talking about upgrading OS X to a later OS X and that it's the only way upgrades are done.
Yes, I made an error, I meant "Mac OS" not "Mac OS X", and you're being pedantic. I edited my post above that you just quoted to correct it. I'm not really sure what your argument with me is here, but here's mine:

You cannot buy and legally install Mac OS X without owning a license to a previous Mac OS.

Pretty simple. Now tell me why I'm wrong.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 03:01 PM
EULAs are only valid if you agree to them. One thing's for sure: if a third party installer is written, they're not going to write it such that you have to agree to Apple's EULA to install the operating system. At that point, the legality becomes a matter of the doctrine of first sale.
No, that's not true. One, you must agree to the Apple EULA to install the OS, and if you don't agree, you have no legal right to use the software. Two, if a third-party installer removes the Apple EULA, that does not waive its protection and is, in fact, a felony. Under no circumstances is a third-party installer legal, and thanks to the DMCA and the (somewhat milder) EU counterpart legislation, installing and using such a cracked copy is a crime--not a civil matter, a crime.


The word pirating refers to copyright infringement. A violation of an EULA is a contract violation, not an act of copyright infringment.
Bypassing any hardware or software security systems on a piece of software is a far greater concern than this quibble. Further, violation of the EULA is indeed a contract violation as you say, but use of OS X on unauthorized devices is copyright infringement.

Additionally, as I just said, if Apple doesn't make an installer that works for third party machines, you'll be using a third party installer, and that installer is highly unlikely to require the user agree to an EULA.
That doesn't mean the EULA isn't in force.

Subiklim
May 22, 2006, 03:02 PM
I've been flamed furiously for my blasphemy, but whether my flamers will acknowledge it or not I'm now having the last laugh. P.A. Semi., IBM's 970FX/MP, POWER5, and the next-generation of game console chips all show that the book is by no means closed on PowerPC. In fact, we're in the opening moments of a full-blown PowerPC Renaissance. Who knows how long the PPC revival will last, but Apple would've been hard pressed to pick a worse time to jump ship for performance or performance/watt reasons.

But they didn't jump ship for performance or performance/watt reasons. They jumped ship because they no longer care about making leading-edge computer hardware. They also don't care about PC market share, or any of that other G3-era Mac Faithful malarkey. From now on, merely "good enough" is good enough for the Mac line, and the real innovation will come in the form of post-PC gadgets and entertainment-oriented, techno-cool doohickeys. But I repeat myself...


Damn straight.





It's been mentioned in this thread before, but I'm sure you're aware of the processor related problems the Xboxes are having. I'm also sure you're aware of the catostrophic delay, and inventory shortages that the xbox exprienced (err, is experiencing) due to the processor.

And I am ALSO sure you are aware of the performace comparisons between the 'prosumer' Powermac g5s and the 'consumer' intel iMacs.

edit: typo

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 03:04 PM
Yes, I made an error, I meant "Mac OS" not "Mac OS X", and you're being pedantic. I edited my post above that you just quoted to correct it.
Much better. :D

Now we agree that yes, it's an upgrade in practice, but you can still pass on that older license to another machine because you put the new OS on the computer getting the upgrade. That makes it a full license. Upgrading to a new OS with an upgrade requires expendign that license on the upgraded computer in the "upgrade" sense of the word...for documentation on taht fact, check out Microsoft's upgrades. Your Win98 license is spent if you only buy the "upgarde" version of XP

However, that's *not* true of the OS that the comptuer originally shipped with. That license is non-transferrable.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 03:08 PM
Now we agree that yes, it's an upgrade in practice, but you can still pass on that older license to another machine because you put the new OS on the computer getting the upgrade. That makes it a full license. Upgrading to a new OS with an upgrade requires expendign that license on the upgraded computer in the "upgrade" sense of the word...for documentation on taht fact, check out Microsoft's upgrades. Your Win98 license is spent if you only buy the "upgarde" version of XP
Actually, that's just a transferable upgrade license. A full license entitles you to install on an unlicensed computer. Microsoft doesn't make transferable upgrade licenses, so when you upgrade from 2000 to XP, both of those licenses are locked together.

Whether it's from OS 9 to 10.1 or to 10.4, or an upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4, it's still an upgrade arrangement. You can't install a copy of OS X on a bare, unlicensed computer--because Apple has never made such a computer.

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 03:12 PM
Actually, that's just a transferable upgrade license. A full license entitles you to install on an unlicensed computer. Microsoft doesn't make transferable upgrade licenses, so when you upgrade from 2000 to XP, both of those licenses are locked together.

Whether it's from OS 9 to 10.1 or to 10.4, or an upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4, it's still an upgrade arrangement. You can't install a copy of OS X on a bare, unlicensed computer--because Apple has never made such a computer.
Not true...not even close to true. Software upgrades *always* imply that the original is required and that the original's license stay with that machine. To whit: when you got the 10.1 upgrade pack for $19.95 or whatever it was, you needed 10.0.x installed, or you needed to hack the disc *AND* your 10.0 license was spent on the machine getting the ugprade. If you paid $129 for 10.1, your 10.0 license was transferrable and 10.1 was a full install and could be installed on an empty hard drive. When you pay $129 (or whatever it is) you get a full new license and yoru old one is transferrable. Not a minute before.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 03:15 PM
Not true...not even close to true. Software upgrades *always* imply that the original is required and that the original's license stay with that machine. To whit: when you got the 10.1 upgrade pack for $19.95 or whatever it was, you needed 10.0.x installed, or you needed to hack the disc *AND* your 10.0 license was spent on the machine getting the ugprade. If you paid $129 for 10.1, your 10.0 license was transferrable and 10.1 was a full install and could be installed on an empty hard drive. When you pay $129 (or whatever it is) you get a full new license and yoru old one is transferrable. Not a minute before.
I believe you're assuming the word "upgrade" means "upgrade" in the Microsoft sense, i.e. stringent checks that you already had the previous version of the OS on the machine. I assume Apple don't feel the need to make these checks as they don't have to worry that the person who's buying Tiger at retail didn't own a previous version of OS X.

Equally I expect with the appearance of OS X Intel boxed versions, that they will probably reintroduce these checks to get around the thorny issue of people thinking that a boxed Intel version of Mac OS X gives them a license to install it on a Dell. Mind you the fact that OS X won't install on a PC at all without significant hacking, should make it clear how legal it is to do so.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 03:17 PM
Not true...not even close to true. Software upgrades *always* imply that the original is required and that the original's license stay with that machine. To whit: when you got the 10.1 upgrade pack for $19.95 or whatever it was, you needed 10.0.x installed, or you needed to hack the disc *AND* your 10.0 license was spent on the machine getting the ugprade. If you paid $129 for 10.1, your 10.0 license was transferrable and 10.1 was a full install and could be installed on an empty hard drive. When you pay $129 (or whatever it is) you get a full new license and yoru old one is transferrable. Not a minute before.
Nothing you said comes close to negating what I said. Your "always" statement only applies to Single Non-Transferable Upgrade licensing, which is the more common form. But it's not the form of Apple's OS X licensing.

A Transferable Upgrade License means that it can be moved to another computer when it is no longer in use. Because a license of Tiger can upgrade any computer, even one running OS 8.6 or 9, your existing Panther license is not needed in the chain, and you can use it on another computer once you own a Tiger license. Microsoft's licensing is not transferable, meaning that if you upgrade from 95 to 2000 to XP, all of those licenses are locked into a "stack."

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 03:18 PM
The software upgrades that Apple released labeled as upgrades (10.0->10.1 and the $19.95 version of 10.x that are available in the up-to-date program for people that bought Macs the couple weeks before a new OS was released) ALWAYS require the older version's license to stay with the upgraded Mac. Read the EULA and forget Microsoft.

A Transferable Upgrade License means that it can be moved to another computer when it is no longer in use. Because a license of Tiger can upgrade any computer, even one running OS 8.6 or 9, your existing Panther license is not needed in the chain, and you can use it on another computer once you own a Tiger license. Microsoft's licensing is not transferable, meaning that if you upgrade from 95 to 2000 to XP, all of those licenses are locked into a "stack."

Actually what you said of Microsoft isn't applicable to retail boxed versions of Windows...only OEM ones, like the non-transferrable Windows that comes on an HP or Dell, much like the non-transferrable Mac OS that comes on a new Mac.

Not all Apple licenses are transferrable. Grey-disc OEM versiosn are not transferrable and you can't transfer a license if you get a step-up upgrade via Up-to-date or that 10.1 "free" upgrade.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 03:23 PM
Well, this debate could probably go on forever, but I think we can say one thing for sure:

Its not legal to install OS X on a Dell.

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 03:24 PM
Well, this debate could probably go on forever, but I think we can say one thing for sure:

Its not legal to install OS X on a Dell.
Did someone say it was? I missed it if they did, and that much you and I can agree on, but it's because:

1.) Retail copies of OS X for x86 machines dont' exist
2.) The EULA says it goes on nothing but an Apple-branded computer

not because the OS is an "upgrade"

edit: people whining about the kernel going closed-source as a reaction to "hackers" or whining that Apple legal cracks down on people hacking OS X to install on generic hardware makes my blood boil BECAUSE they're whining about not being able to do something that's illegal. I think we can all unite in the fact that illegal is not kewl.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 03:25 PM
Actually what you said of Microsoft isn't applicable to retail boxed versions of Windows...only OEM ones, like the non-transferrable Windows that comes on an HP or Dell, much like the non-transferrable Mac OS that comes on a new Mac.

Not all Apple licenses are transferrable. Grey-disc OEM versiosn are not transferrable and you can't transfer a license if you get a step-up upgrade via Up-to-date or that 10.1 "free" upgrade.
We're talking about retail copies in this discussion, not the restore discs and not the 10.0-10.1 booster license setup.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of your comment. Microsoft upgrade licenses are non-transferable, and the only upgrade licenses Microsoft sells are retail. There are no OEM upgrade licenses.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 03:28 PM
No, that's not true. One, you must agree to the Apple EULA to install the OS, and if you don't agree, you have no legal right to use the software.


No, the doctrine of first sale means you have the right to use the software even if you don't agree to the EULA.


Two, if a third-party installer removes the Apple EULA, that does not waive its protection and is, in fact, a felony. Under no circumstances is a third-party installer legal, and thanks to the DMCA and the (somewhat milder) EU counterpart legislation, installing and using such a cracked copy is a crime--not a civil matter, a crime.


No. The DMCA only applies to copy prevention and access prevention methods. It's been shot down when the use has been to try to go beyond simple copyright protections, such as the infamous Lexmark case. Installing a legal copy of Mac OS X on a PC does not constitute copyright infringment, and the use of a control mechanism to prevent that is not covered by the DMCA.


Bypassing any hardware or software security systems on a piece of software is a far greater concern than this quibble. Further, violation of the EULA is indeed a contract violation as you say, but use of OS X on unauthorized devices is copyright infringement.


No, it isn't copyright infringment. You have the right to use the software you bought and paid for. Look up the Doctrine of First Sale. Using the software you bought and paid for in a way counter to an EULA is, if the EULA was agreed to, a breach of contract at worst.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 03:28 PM
Did someone say it was? I missed it if they did.
Yes someone did, which is what sparked off this particular argument!

It was the guy earlier in this thread who said something about "looking forward to installing OS X on a Thinkpad" or something.

here we go:

For whom? I guess I should be glad, once Leopard starts selling, someone will come up with an installer that allows it to run on beige boxes, so we can finally have a legal way of running Mac OS X on Thinkpads.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 03:36 PM
Which you must to to install the software.

No, you don't. You only need to agree to the EULA if you use an installer that requires you agree to the EULA before you install. That means Apple's. As Apple's installer doesn't work on a regular PC, you will not be using Apple's installer.

Honestly, I actually mentioned this entire process in the sentence after the one you quoted. Yet you're the one hurling insults (twice now), and you've yet to justify either insult. Can you knock it off and, at the very least, explain what you disagree with without bald-face ignoring the parts that answer your criticisms?

peharri
May 22, 2006, 03:41 PM
Yes someone did, which is what sparked off this particular argument!

No, someone didn't.

The quoted comment is not the same as claiming that it's legal to install OS X on a Dell. It may be after Leopard is released, but right now it's illegal, for the reasons DougTheImpaler mentioned (there's no retail version of Mac OS X, for example.)

You know, for someone so quick with the insults, you could at least try to understand what you're responding to before criticising it.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 03:41 PM
No, the doctrine of first sale means you have the right to use the software even if you don't agree to the EULA.
It most certainly DOES NOT. The First-Sale Doctrine does not currently apply definitively to computer software, and it doesn't give you the right to ignore a EULA, unless that EULA is illegal. It gives you the right to re-sell that license if you choose not to accept the terms.

No. The DMCA only applies to copy prevention and access prevention methods. It's been shot down when the use has been to try to go beyond simple copyright protections, such as the infamous Lexmark case. Installing a legal copy of Mac OS X on a PC does not constitute copyright infringment, and the use of a control mechanism to prevent that is not covered by the DMCA.
Yes, and cracking the software by means of a third-party installer falls directly into those criteria. There is no such thing as a "legal copy of OS X" that can be installed on a PC.

No, it isn't copyright infringment. You have the right to use the software you bought and paid for. Look up the Doctrine of First Sale. Using the software you bought and paid for in a way counter to an EULA is, if the EULA was agreed to, a breach of contract at worst.
It IS copyright infringement. Use of OS X on a non-Apple machine extends beyond the rights conferred to you by Apple, and not only because of the EULA. Apple does not make or authorize the use of OS X on non-Apple hardware under any circumstance. Installation on a Dell is the installation on an unauthorized medium, which is an act of copyright infringement.

You should take a closer look at the FSD yourself. By your argument, you can use an upgrade version of Windows as a full version, which you can't and no court would say that you could. You don't get to ignore the EULA. That's not what the Doctrine says.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 03:52 PM
The quoted comment is not the same as claiming that it's legal to install OS X on a Dell. It may be after Leopard is released.
Thats the point though, it *won't* be legal after Leopard is released, which is what you alluded to. Unless you know something we don't and Apple are going to release Leopard to run on generic machines, then you won't be able to legally install Leopard on a Dell or a Thinkpad, your quasi-legal bullcrap arguments aside.

Marble
May 22, 2006, 03:54 PM
Maybe Apple actually is in the sweet spot with their pushing of Universal Binaries. Is it possible that if XCode is good enough at producing fast binaries for both PPC and Intel that there will be no reason for developers not to use it and that Apple can have its pick of PPC and Intel whenever it wants? Maybe UB isn't just a transition strategy.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 03:56 PM
No, you don't. You only need to agree to the EULA if you use an installer that requires you agree to the EULA before you install. That means Apple's. As Apple's installer doesn't work on a regular PC, you will not be using Apple's installer.

Honestly, I actually mentioned this entire process in the sentence after the one you quoted. Yet you're the one hurling insults (twice now), and you've yet to justify either insult. Can you knock it off and, at the very least, explain what you disagree with without bald-face ignoring the parts that answer your criticisms?
Read matticus' retort. You can't just bypass the EULA by ignoring it or hacking it out of the installer, thats one of the reasons they give you a printed copy of the EULA when you purchase Mac OS X, it lays out the legal framework within which you can run Mac OS X.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 03:58 PM
It most certainly DOES NOT. The First-Sale Doctrine does not currently apply definitively to computer software, and it doesn't give you the right to ignore a EULA, unless that EULA is illegal. It gives you the right to re-sell that license if you choose not to accept the terms.

I respectfully disagree that anything above that's true is relevent as far as this sub-discussion goes. The situation we're talking about is your ability to use the content you've bought. EULAs so far are a gray area, but nobody, so far, has ever suggested, outside of paranoid computer circles, that you're bound by EULAs you disagree with, or that if you're able to install software without agreeing to an EULA that would otherwise be required, that you're bound by it.

Apple retains certain rights as a copyright holder. Similarly, as someone with a legal copy of Mac OS X, while Apple is not obliged to make it easy for you to do it, there are certain things you can legally do, which includes technologically moving copies around and actually running the software. There is nothing in copyright law that allows a copyright holder to force someone to obey the provisions of a contract in order to access content they've already bought.

The only theoretical restriction I can think of that Apple could use would be to require users agree to the EULA before they buy the software. That's going to be very difficult to enforce, in practice it means the end of buying Mac OS X through retail outlets.

As far as the rest of your comment goes, you appear to be responding as if I'm saying it's already legal. Of course it isn't, which is why I was refering to the possibility of it being legal, via these means, after Leopard is released (which will be the first Intel OS X available in boxed-retail form.) Also your comment about Windows upgrades, while interesting, doesn't actually contradict anything. Windows is also shipped in a form that means users agree to an EULA when they run the default installer.

peharri
May 22, 2006, 04:00 PM
Thats the point though, it *won't* be legal after Leopard is released, which is what you alluded to. Unless you know something we don't and Apple are going to release Leopard to run on generic machines, then you won't be able to legally install Leopard on a Dell or a Thinkpad, your quasi-legal bullcrap arguments aside.

You're changing the subject (and wrong.)

boncellis
May 22, 2006, 04:00 PM
However, if Apple keeps pushing the idea of "Universal Binaries" (i.e. PPC and Intel code, not just Intel), then perhaps Apple could produce a low power laptop based on one of PA-Semi's chips in the future. I doubt it, but its possible.

Peharri makes some valid points (I was surprised to see my 1.67 PB so high on some of the benchmarks against the MacBook 2.0 the other day) about the PPC architecture, but I think your point about UB applications is something we have to keep in mind. This startup (PA Semi) is not the powerhouse that Intel is, obviously, and stability in making new chips available had to be a substantial part of the decision Apple made the switch.

The time could come that not too many people even know what's in their Apple machines. Is it Intel or PPC...who cares--it runs the same programs and OS X (and its successor, hopefully) is still there to talk me down off the ledge after sitting in a cubicle with XP all day.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 04:04 PM
You're changing the subject (and wrong.)
I'm not and I'm not.

dr_lha
May 22, 2006, 04:09 PM
BTW - its entirely possible that one way that Apple will get around this issue of Leopard being installed on generic machines is the following:

Intel Macs have built in hardware encryption (referred to as TPM I believe). Apple encrypt the files on the Leopard DVD so that they can only be decoded by an Intel Mac, and not on a generic machine.

Then the only means of installing Leopard on a generic machine is by:

a) Copying the files off an Mac with Leopard installed. This is copyright infringement.

b) Breaking the encryption on the files to decode the files. This is a infringement of the DMCA.

As both are illegal, this would effectively close any loophole that might exist to allow people to installed bought copies of Leopard on their generic machines.

Personally I think the legal framework is already there not to allow this, but by doing the above Apple would not only make it harder to copy, but would have a bigger stick with which to hit people with in the form of the DMCA.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 04:11 PM
I respectfully disagree that anything above that's true is relevent as far as this sub-discussion goes. The situation we're talking about is your ability to use the content you've bought. EULAs so far are a gray area, but nobody, so far, has ever suggested, outside of paranoid computer circles, that you're bound by EULAs you disagree with, or that if you're able to install software without agreeing to an EULA that would otherwise be required, that you're bound by it.
The fact is that you're bound by them until a court says you aren't. Since that hasn't happened, you're legally liable for the terms they state. If you don't agree with the EULA, you can either do as they specify and not install it, or install it and hope that your cause for disagreement never causes legal trouble for you. It's like speeding. Do it, don't do it, but if you get caught, don't try to pretend you're above the law, even if it is a stupid law.

So if by "nobody..." you mean "the rule of law," then yes, I agree with you.

But it's also not accurate to say that the EULA/contract violation is the worst barrier. The DMCA, which criminalizes most of the acts involved in hacking OS X onto a PC is a serious problem, making copyright violation a far more serious game.

Apple retains certain rights as a copyright holder. Similarly, as someone with a legal copy of Mac OS X, while Apple is not obliged to make it easy for you to do it, there are certain things you can legally do, which includes technologically moving copies around and actually running the software. There is nothing in copyright law that allows a copyright holder to force someone to obey the provisions of a contract in order to access content they've already bought.
You don't get to decide that. If all you had to do to install OS X on a Dell was pop the disc in and agree to the license, then yes, it would simply be a contract violation. But because you have to break the software and modify it in blatantly illegal ways to get it to run on that Dell, that is both copyright infringement and a crime. Even if you actually paid for the OS disc.

The only theoretical restriction I can think of that Apple could use would be to require users agree to the EULA before they buy the software. That's going to be very difficult to enforce, in practice it means the end of buying Mac OS X through retail outlets.
That's not necessary in terms of the legal nature of PC installation. The box itself specifies that you can only install it on an Apple Macintosh computer, so there aren't any surprises waiting for you on the other side. If you buy the retail copy of Leopard, you're breaking the law by installing it on a PC, even under the current terms. I suspect that the license terms for Leopard will be even more strongly worded to make this abundantly clear.

As far as the rest of your comment goes, you appear to be responding as if I'm saying it's already legal. Of course it isn't, which is why I was refering to the possibility of it being legal, via these means, after Leopard is released (which will be the first Intel OS X available in boxed-retail form.) Also your comment about Windows upgrades, while interesting, doesn't actually contradict anything. Windows is also shipped in a form that means users agree to an EULA when they run the default installer.
I'm responding as if you're saying the FSD gives you any rights to running an OS X Leopard retail copy on a PC, or that the use of a non-Apple installer would make doing so legal, or that the EULA isn't binding if you pay for the disc. None of that is true.

Edit: The Windows comment was in reference to your First-Sale defense, saying that you're not bound to the terms and can use the software you paid for however you want, even if you disagree with the EULA, and it's never worse than a contract violation. If you have a contract that says "don't steal the painting" and you steal the painting, you've both violated contract AND committed a crime. It's not one or the other.

pth-webdev
May 22, 2006, 04:38 PM
Now, I enjoy discussing chip design as much as the next guy on this thread, but an important part seem to be, at least to me, that Apple isn't about components. See what changes they made in parts, suppliers and manufacturers for the iPod. Apple, to me, is about offering user experience.

The move to Intel, as much as it supprised me, seems already to be paying of. We see a lot of media coverage, more, I assume, then a move to a start-up would have created. We see new machines that get thumbs up from even non-Apple users. We see Boot-Camp, if only as a security blanket for some but a huge argument for buying Apple for others (and complete irrelevant for most, I assume). We know there is Parallels, upcoming VMWare or Darwine and other alternatives while Apple seems to have an Ace up it's sleeve for Leopard when it comes to counter the argument of Windows-only software.

So Adobe is doing their homework they should have been doing somewhere in the past five years. How much is this point worth compared to waiting for a new supplier for another 12 months (or more)? Or the current supplier that makes promisses, but doesn't deliver? Steve Jobs made a promiss about 3GHz CPU's from IBM and all we got was babystep increases in clockspeed.

Apart from gaming, which I don't do, any speed-challenged Mac still makes working with it easier then a PC running Windows, where I constantly have to do many more clicking to get a particular tasks done. I mean, processordesign and clockspeed only accounts for so much in the entire user experience. (Often the amount of RAM has a bigger impact the a speedbump, anyway)

I don't get a lot of you posters. Apple isn't a mix 'n match supplier. You get a model and some bto options. KISS and that is what most customers (including technically inclineded folks like me, complete with degree in computer electronics and all) like. Personally, I never cared much about what processor is inside. Sure, the clockspeed of a 603e wasn't comparable to the non-e version, so it is important to understand that difference. And G4 made a huge difference compared to a similarely clocked G3 when the app could take advantage of Altivec. Nowadays, some of the processing apps do is delegated to the GPU, which makes comparing MB and MBP difficult. Throwing, as an example, AMD in the mix is only complicating things unneccesarely for most Macintosh users.

Any discussion about processors is moot. With the current build does Apple have many more options that PPC or x86, but what's the point? Apple designs the box we are running the OS on. But still, I enjoy reading about all your "what ifs" that seem to be offered.

Morpheus_
May 22, 2006, 05:15 PM
So what? That's business, particularly when you're a startup competing with huge companies.

lord patton
May 22, 2006, 05:25 PM
Read matticus' retort. You can't just bypass the EULA by ignoring it or hacking it out of the installer, thats one of the reasons they give you a printed copy of the EULA when you purchase Mac OS X, it lays out the legal framework within which you can run Mac OS X.

Amen.

This argument reminds me of when, back in the 80s, a friend had two VCRs and made copies of rented movies. He said it wasn't illegal as long as you didn't copy the FBI warning:rolleyes:

wilmor42
May 22, 2006, 05:31 PM
erm i could swear i clicked on the "Did Apple Court Other PPC Vendors Before Intel Switch?" thread...

handbags ladies...

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 05:32 PM
BTW - its entirely possible that one way that Apple will get around this issue of Leopard being installed on generic machines is the following:

Intel Macs have built in hardware encryption (referred to as TPM I believe). Apple encrypt the files on the Leopard DVD so that they can only be decoded by an Intel Mac, and not on a generic machine.

Then the only means of installing Leopard on a generic machine is by:

a) Copying the files off an Mac with Leopard installed. This is copyright infringement.

b) Breaking the encryption on the files to decode the files. This is a infringement of the DMCA.

As both are illegal, this would effectively close any loophole that might exist to allow people to installed bought copies of Leopard on their generic machines.

Personally I think the legal framework is already there not to allow this, but by doing the above Apple would not only make it harder to copy, but would have a bigger stick with which to hit people with in the form of the DMCA.

So far, that's exactly what they've done with Tiger. There are a couple of files that run themselves by the TPM and running OS X on generic x86 hardware is only possible by defeating these files

DougTheImpaler
May 22, 2006, 05:33 PM
He said it wasn't illegal as long as you didn't copy the FBI warning:rolleyes:



:D :D :D :D :D :D that made my day

rjgjonker
May 22, 2006, 06:20 PM
Well, this debate could probably go on forever, but I think we can say one thing for sure:

Its not legal to install OS X on a Dell.

Get over it. EULA's are not legally binding* if they try to waive legal consumer rights. Forbidding to install the software on some kinds or brands of computers is most definitely a violation of consumer rights.

Apple's EULA won't stand a chance in court. They will probably get in trouble with the European Commission sooner or later.

*unless you live in a country with DMCA or equivalent absurd laws.

shamino
May 22, 2006, 06:29 PM
You realise this will never be legal? Apple don't sell full-retail versions of OS X, they sell upgrades. Don't believe me? Tell me the last time anyone has bought an Mac OS boxed version who didn't already own a license to a previous version of OS X. I imagine with Leopard boxes, Apple will more clearly mark these as upgrades and fully specify in the EULA that they are not to be installed on anything other than an Apple box.
Depending on what state you live in, that EULA may be a meaningless statement.

Morally, ethically, and in most places, legally, there is nothing wrong with installing a bought and paid-for copy of any software product on an unsupported hardware platform. If you buy a DVD of Mac OS X/86 (when they finally ship - probably version 10.5) and install it on non-Apple equipment, it really doesn't matter. Apple is getting their money, and they won't provide any support.

If you consider that piracy, well, you've got a very strange definition of the word. To most of us, piracy is when you are using more copies than you paid for, or if you are distributing copies without permission.

By your definition, it should also be piracy to run Windows software through VPC, because those programs all say on the box that they require Intel/AMD hardware. Good luck finding anybody to support you in your crusade.

ingenious
May 22, 2006, 06:36 PM
This is somewhat difficult to swallow in light that Jobs announced that Apple engineers had been working for a while (I think he said years or what amounted to years) on a version of Mac OS running on Intel. If that's the case, why would have they tried to court other Power suppliers if Apple was going with Intel anyway? Kooky story. :rolleyes:


He said they had an x86 version compiled of every release, "just in case."


Also, I really do like the Intel switch. As a personal preference, I've always thought that Intel chips "seemed" faster.

shamino
May 22, 2006, 06:39 PM
Get over it. EULA's are not legally binding* if they try to waive legal consumer rights. Forbidding to install the software on some kinds or brands of computers is most definitely a violation of consumer rights.

Apple's EULA won't stand a chance in court. They will probably get in trouble with the European Commission sooner or later.

*unless you live in a country with DMCA or equivalent absurd laws.
The DMCA says absolutely nothing about EULAs.

There is a piece of legislation, called the UCITA, that software vendors would like to see become law. This would make shrink-wrap/click-through licenses legally binding. To date, only two states were actually dumb enough to sign this into law (MD and VA). And as far as I know, only one other state's court (MO) has declared them binding without UCITA.

Anywhere else, contracts are only binding if you actually sign them. So license agreements won't be binding unless you actually sign and return the contract. Not simply by opening the box or clicking "I agree" on the installer. Which means your rights are defined by copyright law, not by the wording of a EULA.

And copyright law only cares about whether you make/distribute copies. It couldn't care less about what you do with a legally-purchased product.

AltiVec guru
May 22, 2006, 06:42 PM
you realize that no one REALLY thinks there is going to be a G5 powerbook and that "G5 powerbooks next tuesday" has been a running joke for quite some time...right?

Actually when I was at Apple in Cupertino last fall, I was told that some of the early prototype PowerBook G5's actually caught fire and literally burst into flames when under sustained heavy load. Of course, this had happened well before the 17w chips' availability, but served to nix the idea of 970 feasibility in portables at that time. So be it. 64-bit computing is not a significant advantage in a laptop, which requires an efficient multi-core G4-like chip such as from PA Semi. I sincerely hope that the future will bring PowerPC back into new Apple models. I need a multi-CELL tower Mac.

AltiVec guru
May 22, 2006, 06:54 PM
And copyright law only cares about whether you make/distribute copies. It couldn't care less about what you do with a legally-purchased product.

The above statement is a prime example of a popular misconception. Most (if not all) of the commercial software you "purchase" is not sold to you, but licensed to you for use under specific terms. You buy a license to USE the software. You don't OWN the software. When you buy computer hardware, you do own the hardware, but you do not necessarily own any/all of the software it runs.

The license is the product you are purchasing, not the software itself.

matticus008
May 22, 2006, 06:56 PM
And copyright law only cares about whether you make/distribute copies. It couldn't care less about what you do with a legally-purchased product.
With the one caveat being that software isn't currently defined as a purchased product, and that there are indeed limitations on use of some products.

Also, it has never been in question that Apple has a legal right to restrict its software to its own products, so copyright law absolutely allows restriction to the Macintosh hardware platform.


it should also be piracy to run Windows software through VPC, because those programs all say on the box that they require Intel/AMD hardware. Good luck finding anybody to support you in your crusade.
No. It says Intel or compatible. It doesn't stipulate any conditions on doing so or the nature of that compatibility, and considering that Microsoft makes VPC as well, that's not really the same thing.

Makosuke
May 22, 2006, 07:00 PM
Maybe Apple actually is in the sweet spot with their pushing of Universal Binaries. Is it possible that if XCode is good enough at producing fast binaries for both PPC and Intel that there will be no reason for developers not to use it and that Apple can have its pick of PPC and Intel whenever it wants? Maybe UB isn't just a transition strategy.
Now THIS is what I'm really hoping for. If Apple pushes UB hard enough, and keeps things simple enough to go cross-architecture, they could literally switch back and forth between lines or at will, depending on what's available.

For example, if this startup ships some absolutely monster laptop chip in 2008, and neither Intel nor AMD have anything even close, Apple would have the option of just sticking one in a portable and calling it "wicked fast". If IBM's Power6 turns out to be a total beast that the Opteron successor can't hope to compete with, yet is cool enough and cheap enough to put in a tower, they could market a PPC workstation for those extra-demanding tasks.

Now I don't think it's likely they're going to do this, and it may may or may not even be as easy as it sounds--I seem to remember discussion of it being much easier to write drivers for x86-based graphics cards, for example, and games might also require less work since they probably use custom assembler code or something.

But for a lot of apps, wouldn't it be awesome for Apple to just ship whatever works best in a system? For code that makes very good use of the Altivec units, I know the XServe G5s are great for clustering, so perhaps that's something they'll keep making so they can sell a few hundred at a pop to universitites here and there.

thunng8
May 22, 2006, 09:34 PM
It's been mentioned in this thread before, but I'm sure you're aware of the processor related problems the Xboxes are having. I'm also sure you're aware of the catostrophic delay, and inventory shortages that the xbox exprienced (err, is experiencing) due to the processor.

And I am ALSO sure you are aware of the performace comparisons between the 'prosumer' Powermac g5s and the 'consumer' intel iMacs.

edit: typo

That is a myth about xbox360 CPU shortages. It was a myth sprouted by someone who thought that was the reason and the news spread.

All the shortages were due to Infineon not supplying enough memory chips at the correct spec.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/13864415.htm

sjl
May 22, 2006, 09:56 PM
Not that I beleive 64 bit to be that much of an advantage (apart from marketing) the Core2 chips will be along and shipping in 3 or 4 months.
Speaking generally, no, 64 bit isn't an advantage, unless you need the extra memory space that you can access that way.

In the context of x86, though, it is a definite advantage: standard 16 bit x86, all the way through to 32 bit x86, have fourteen registers: AX, BX, CX, DX, CS, DS, SS, ES, DI, SI, SP, BP, IP, and FLAGS.

FLAGS is just a set of flags, set after various operations (such as compares), so isn't a general purpose register. IP is the instruction pointer, and again, isn't general purpose. CS, DS, SS, and ES are all segment registers, so can't be used for general purposes. So you're left with eight registers that can, possibly, be used in a general manner, although you can usually count on two of them (at least, possibly four) being used in other ways.

In comparison, PowerPC has 32 general purpose registers. Registers are the fastest form of memory you can access. You do the maths.

AMD, when they designed the 64 bit extensions to x86, introduced new registers as well, bringing the available registers to 16. These are only available to 64 bit code. More registers -- especially on a register-starved architecture like x86 -- mean that the code doesn't have to access main memory quite so much, so it will run that much faster.

That's why 64 bittedness (is that even a word? :D) is a win on x86. Not because it's a bigger number, but because of architectural improvements under the hood. Put those extra registers into the 32 bit x86 CPUs, and 64 bittedness becomes a loss (relatively speaking), except when it's specifically needed for the extra RAM. You'd still need to recompile the code to use those extra registers, though, and such code would not run on the older CPUs.

macosxboy
May 23, 2006, 12:45 AM
32 bit x86 uses extended registers eax ebx ecx etc and the cpu breaks up the x86 instructions into risc like instructions to try and get around the limited number of registers problem.

Intel just suck in my opinion.

Most of my programming has been for x86 chips and dealing with their limitations in C and x86 assembly languages so I'm on a first name basis with the x86 registers.

Without AMD and PPC competition the Intel chips we would have now would be slow badly designed hunks of garbage.

PPC is the cleanest design by far and Apple could have stayed with it instead they have become a PC clone manufacturer with an alternative OS (osx) as an option.

dontmatter
May 23, 2006, 12:52 AM
Sad, I wish we could have it both ways. 7 watts would be incredible, as would some possible IBM PPC chips, though I can't say the intel road map is too shabby, I'm not going to complain.

Personally, I'm sure almost all the reasons cited here for one architecture over another were part of apple's decision. They were thurough, no doubt, and surely not "viruous" enough to look only at what makes the best technology, but also at what will make money, even including scenarios like selling off the hardware manufacture or becoming an OS manufacturer someday (which x86 would benefit).

But whatever of the hundreds of advantages and disadvantages that went into the choice (some of which I'm sure were wrongly judged, too), I think apple went with intel for one primary reason: survival. With other companies, particularly PPC, Apple was stuck with whatever chips at whatever volumes the companies could make, and it's up to apple to market it as better than a Dell. But with intel, Apple gets the same chips everybody else gets, with the same supply constraints if there are any. This means stability and predictability for apple, and more, just being in the same boat, so they can't be left behind. Chips become a non-issue. Rather than having to market chips as superior to what's in a Dell, which might be patently false, they have to market that their computer is different from a Dell. They seem to be quite good at it.

I wish they had managed to make universal binaries so seamless that they could make computers with any chip on the market and you'd never need to know what was in it, but ultimately, for the sake of simplicity, software devolepment, marketing, and buying relationships, this would be impossible to maintain. We all know our PPC macs will someday not have software written for them.

sjl
May 23, 2006, 12:53 AM
32 bit x86 uses extended registers eax ebx ecx etc and the cpu breaks up the x86 instructions into risc like instructions to try and get around the limited number of registers problem.
They'd be insane to do it any other way. But it still doesn't alter the fact that there is a paucity of general purpose registers in x86-32 from the compiler's point of view, meaning that the compiler is obliged to do a heap of store-load cycles to maintain its working state. The CPU can only go so far in figuring out how to turn those patterns into extra registers; the compiler can do a much better job, which is why AMD's 64 bit extensions produce a noticeable speedup after recompilation.

From a purely technical point of view, yes, I agree, PPC is a saner design. But the volume of x86 means that AMD and Intel can drag it by brute force to levels of performance to rival RISC systems; if the RISC manufacturers could match the R&D that goes into x86 (hah! dream on!), you'd see RISC massively outperform x86, because of the lack of legacy cruft. (Ok, maybe I exaggerate a little, but not by much ...)

dontmatter
May 23, 2006, 01:08 AM
Now, I enjoy discussing chip design as much as the next guy on this thread, but an important part seem to be, at least to me, that Apple isn't about components. See what changes they made in parts, suppliers and manufacturers for the iPod. Apple, to me, is about offering user experience.

The move to Intel, as much as it supprised me, seems already to be paying of. We see a lot of media coverage, more, I assume, then a move to a start-up would have created. We see new machines that get thumbs up from even non-Apple users. We see Boot-Camp, if only as a security blanket for some but a huge argument for buying Apple for others (and complete irrelevant for most, I assume). We know there is Parallels, upcoming VMWare or Darwine and other alternatives while Apple seems to have an Ace up it's sleeve for Leopard when it comes to counter the argument of Windows-only software.

So Adobe is doing their homework they should have been doing somewhere in the past five years. How much is this point worth compared to waiting for a new supplier for another 12 months (or more)? Or the current supplier that makes promisses, but doesn't deliver? Steve Jobs made a promiss about 3GHz CPU's from IBM and all we got was babystep increases in clockspeed.

Apart from gaming, which I don't do, any speed-challenged Mac still makes working with it easier then a PC running Windows, where I constantly have to do many more clicking to get a particular tasks done. I mean, processordesign and clockspeed only accounts for so much in the entire user experience. (Often the amount of RAM has a bigger impact the a speedbump, anyway)

I don't get a lot of you posters. Apple isn't a mix 'n match supplier. You get a model and some bto options. KISS and that is what most customers (including technically inclineded folks like me, complete with degree in computer electronics and all) like. Personally, I never cared much about what processor is inside. Sure, the clockspeed of a 603e wasn't comparable to the non-e version, so it is important to understand that difference. And G4 made a huge difference compared to a similarely clocked G3 when the app could take advantage of Altivec. Nowadays, some of the processing apps do is delegated to the GPU, which makes comparing MB and MBP difficult. Throwing, as an example, AMD in the mix is only complicating things unneccesarely for most Macintosh users.

Any discussion about processors is moot. With the current build does Apple have many more options that PPC or x86, but what's the point? Apple designs the box we are running the OS on. But still, I enjoy reading about all your "what ifs" that seem to be offered.

Nicely said. Apple views the chip as a tool to get something else done -- an unsurpassed experience of interacting with your computer. If it allows them to make the computer they would like, the rest doesn't matter too much.

Though I imagine you meant Apple when you said Adobe?

Lollypop
May 23, 2006, 01:12 AM
from what i read most people seem to think the transition has been good, personally I havnt had a chance to really work with a intel based mac so I cant judge, but apple had a nice safe zone with the PPC, now that they use so much standard components Apple will need to inovate more, ye the mini is nice, but soon the design will be copied, and the isight is cool, but so what, we have a dozen acers in the office that already has a integrated webcam. Apple will need to push new and cool features more and more into their hardware if they want to maintain the cool factor they have.

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 02:11 AM
7 watts?! 7 WATTS?! :eek: That's rather impressive. Ah well we went Intel. We should be happy. I am happy.

*druel* Macbook ... although a Macbook with 3x longer battery...mmmm 18 hour battery life...mmm

What makes you think that laptops with P.A. Semi CPU's would have triple the battery-life? There are other components using power you know. The screen and the HD are propably the biggest consumers of power. And when the optical-drive is in use, it too consumes loads of power. And then there's WLAN....

I'm hoping that SOMEONE would use P.A. Semi CPU's in computers. Genesi would be my choice as a possible candidate.

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 02:16 AM
but it's still on an el-crappo x86 architecture.... :rolleyes:

PPC (and MIPS for that matter) might be "cleaner" architectures. But do you EVER see any of that "cleanliness" as an user? No you do not.

When Apple moved from that "clean" PPC in to "el-crappo" x86, their performance shot through the roof. And you are complaining?

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 03:03 AM
So what if they "breast-feed" you with that kinda stuff...? You actually believed in that crap....? It's a PC world by the way, of course they'll write something better to satisfy the majority.... :rolleyes:

Dude, Ars Technica is propably THE best technology-oriented site on the net, period. And FYI: they have TONS of Mac-related reviews/articles as well. Quite a few of the people behind Ars Technica are Mac-users.

pth-webdev
May 23, 2006, 06:29 AM
Though I imagine you meant Apple when you said Adobe?

No, no, I meant Adobe. Part of the discussion I read in this thread was that the transition to the CPU manufacturer from the article would be preferable over Intel because the Universal Binary problems and, to me, that means a reference to Adobe delaying UB to CS3. It affects a lot of pro-users and might impact sales. The reference was implied here, but I assumed it would be clear since it was mentioned more explicitely before.

Apple had MacOSX running as UB since the very first version and, as I read somewhere, Apple would have made the transition to x86 sooner if some IBM-er would not have persueded Apple to go for G5. So Apple was doing their homework.

pth-webdev
May 23, 2006, 07:12 AM
Apple will need to push new and cool features more and more into their hardware if they want to maintain the cool factor they have.

I disagree. To a point: yes hardware will get home-users excited (while busineses want to take away any hardware that will distract employees from doing their work), but it should have an immediate function. Many laptops come with integrated SD-card readers, modems and other extras. Apple chooses to leave those options as add-ons. (E.g. why integrate only SD-card when a simple USB device offers the possibility to read cards of more sizes). Remember when Apple cut floppydrives from laptops? Even options to connect to video is only offered through a generic connector and optional cables.

But the Macintosh is about actual use, not potential benefits. Strategie seems: if immediate use affects less then a certain percentage of buyers, make it an option, otherwise add it (e.g. the remote). Simplify! USB, FireWire, built-in ethernet, those allows users to expand capabilities and way beyond what any PC manufacturer thinks would be cool to add. And Apple has always been innovative when it came to expansion: adb, AppleTalk, nuBus, scsi, usb, firewire. Even the option to boot from an external disk or boot a desktop from the disk inside a laptop, these are not just cool, these are *really* cool. For me, no integrated cam in whatever crummy pc or the ability to play a cd/dvd without booting the silly laptop compare to these features.

As a software developer, I often sit down with a customer to discuss the state of what I am building. I use my Mac and most can see through the differences enough, although at some point I need to show the product running on a PC.
On these occasions, when I know the person sitting next to me is more then an average computer user, I ask: how would you perform this task on Windows? The idea is: I am convinced the Mac is easier and I know certain tasks are cumbersome on Windows, but I want to hear if it is my lack of knowlegde or if I am seeing things right.
I have yet to hear a better answer then: "Windows is the way I am used to for doing things". They see how simple things are for me, although they seem to feel that that has more to do with my job and knowlegde of computers than the difference between the OSses.

So I disagree with hardware being what distingueshes Apple hardware from generic PC's, even when built with comparable components, so I absolutely disagree that adding more "cool" hardware is nessecay. It is the Macintosh experience. Granted: a lot of that is because there are brilliant third party developers, but it is the foundation that Apple offers.

I just think that even among Macintosh users it is underestimated how cool the Mac actually is.

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 08:40 AM
(E.g. why integrate only SD-card when a simple USB device offers the possibility to read cards of more sizes).

Because having add-on devices is a pain in the ass? And most card-readers today are 7-1 readers. Apple is pushing the Mac as a "digital hub" that (among other things) manages your digital photos. Yet they leave out a feature that would allow the user to move those photos to the machine easily. Instead they have to use add-ons or connect the camera directly to the computer. Are there any drawbacks of having a card-reader in a computer? No? Then how can you say that NOT having a card-reader is a good thing?

Why does Apple integrate a webcam, and not leave that as an add-on? Why is webcam so different that it should be integrated, whereas cardreader should not?

Remember when Apple cut floppydrives from laptops?

Floppies were on their way out when that happened. memorycards are getting more and more popular.

BenRoethig
May 23, 2006, 09:28 AM
Because having add-on devices is a pain in the ass? And most card-readers today are 7-1 readers. Apple is pushing the Mac as a "digital hub" that (among other things) manages your digital photos. Yet they leave out a feature that would allow the user to move those photos to the machine easily. Instead they have to use add-ons or connect the camera directly to the computer. Are there any drawbacks of having a card-reader in a computer? No? Then how can you say that NOT having a card-reader is a good thing?


Apple sells as much (and if not more so) a work of art that sets on your desktop than a functional computer. Certain sacrifices must be made.

ingenious
May 23, 2006, 09:30 AM
Very Interesting...so, G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday, then?

Still, the question this begs is: was the non-appearance of a comparable-spec chip from IBM due to technical incompetence or bloody-minded unwillingness?

WHY do people still think there will be a G5 powerbook??? APPLE ENDED THE G5 CHIP REIGN LAST YEAR BY SWITCHING TO INTEL!!! PLEASE GET THAT INTO YOUR HEADS... plus, i would think the release of the Macbook with an INTEL chip would pretty much seal the deal.

Um, I think he was joking.... :D

edit: added first quote for clarity.

emotion
May 23, 2006, 09:33 AM
Because having add-on devices is a pain in the ass? And most card-readers today are 7-1 readers. Apple is pushing the Mac as a "digital hub" that (among other things) manages your digital photos. Yet they leave out a feature that would allow the user to move those photos to the machine easily. Instead they have to use add-ons or connect the camera directly to the computer. Are there any drawbacks of having a card-reader in a computer? No? Then how can you say that NOT having a card-reader is a good thing?

Why does Apple integrate a webcam, and not leave that as an add-on? Why is webcam so different that it should be integrated, whereas cardreader should not?



Floppies were on their way out when that happened. memorycards are getting more and more popular.

I think the long and short of it is: a card reader can just be plugged into any USB port. And most people don't require a card reader.

I guess it's the same reason apple don't have a MIDI port on the machine, for example.

pth-webdev
May 23, 2006, 09:42 AM
Then how can you say that NOT having a card-reader is a good thing?
How about, because many camera's have different card-sizes then SD-card? I mean, what good does it do you when you have a different kind of card then what your integrated reader accepts? An external device is more flexible and you most likely need one anyway.
A good camera connects directly to your computer anyway, unless you have one of those cheap no-brand models who's manufacterer are unable to add true plug&play. If they can't add that, why trust that camera at all?

You can use the same external device for several computers.

Why does Apple integrate a webcam, and not leave that as an add-on? Why is webcam so different that it should be integrated, whereas cardreader should not?
How about, because there is a direct function (iChat)? Granted, I have to make a guess here as I don't know the actual reason, but it follows the reasoning I was trying to explain. Perhaps Apple overestimates iChat, but that is another discussion (in two years you might not have asked this question). Same would go for audio out and audio in, both have been options with some Macintoshes. Also, Apple was one of the first to recognize the rise of adsl and the need for builtin ethernet for consumer-level Macs; direct function. I think that is why Apple made this decission.

Floppies were on their way out when that happened. memorycards are getting more and more popular.

True, but not entirely (while many PC users would have disagreed at the time). There is a shift in the kind of memorycard that is becoming popular. Even for SD-cards, the kind that seems to have the most support in the form of integrated readers, there seems to be smaller replacements on the rise. And even those formfactors aren't carved in stone. External devices are a safer bet then add-ons.

Not to make a plug or anything, but I use a Vosonic X-Drive II. Basically this is a device build around a harddrive and has it's own rechargeble battery and offers several options for different cards. It connects to the Mac through USB plug&play. On the road I copy memorycards by inserting them and a single push on the copy button. I can go several days, as long as I can recharge my camera. Back at home the device works as an external USB drive, but cards inserted in the slots while connected show up on the desktop as removable volumes.
This kind of connectivity only requires USB and the drivers that MacOSX already has (it works with WinXP also). No integration of any kind can come close to what this device offers me. However, this is my personal situation.

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 09:52 AM
I think the long and short of it is: a card reader can just be plugged into any USB port.

External device? So much for "elegance"

And most people don't require a card reader.

Most people don't need FireWire or webcam either.

ingenious
May 23, 2006, 09:54 AM
EULAs are only valid if you agree to them. One thing's for sure: if a third party installer is written, they're not going to write it such that you have to agree to Apple's EULA to install the operating system. At that point, the legality becomes a matter of the doctrine of first sale.



Actually, most manufacturers put that sticker on the plastic wrap that says something like, "By installing this software [or sometimes, opening the plastic wrap, I think] you agree to its terms and conditions."

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 09:58 AM
How about, because many camera's have different card-sizes then SD-card?

*sigh*.... Like I said: Card-readers today are 5-in-1 on 7-in-1 readers. That is: They can read more than one format!

An external device is more flexible and you most likely need one anyway.

So why have a trackpad? Webcam? External devices would be a lot more "flexible" than integrated devices.

A good camera connects directly to your computer anyway, unless you have one of those cheap no-brand models who's manufacterer are unable to add true plug&play. If they can't add that, why trust that camera at
all?

And if you have several memorycards, then you need to put them in to the camera and read them through the camera. Can you say "annoying"? Why yes, you can.

How about, because there is a direct function (iChat)

And there is a direct function for the memorycards as well: iPhoto. Hell, since you can save just about ANY data on those cards, they are more or less universally usable in just about everywhere!


True, but not entirely (while many PC users would have disagreed at the time). There is a shift in the kind of memorycard that is becoming popular. Even for SD-cards, the kind that seems to have the most support in the form of integrated readers, there seems to be smaller replacements on the rise. And even those formfactors aren't carved in stone. External devices are a safer bet then add-ons.

By that logic: Apple should then add ANYTHING on their computers. Those PCCARD-slots in PowerBooks? Useless, since industry is moving to ExpressCard. DVI-ports? New technologies are coming up to replace it. WIFI? New technologies are coming that are vastly superior.

Not to make a plug or anything, but I use a Vosonic X-Drive II.

And I thought that Apple is about "elegance"? And now we are required to carry around external devices to work around shortcoming in the hardware?

munkees
May 23, 2006, 10:28 AM
After reading 80 post I most comment.

Here we go

Apples Choice of intel? Go back 2 years and then look at PowerPC and X86, you can see apple is lacking in the laptop, and it happens there is no other choice, even AMD at this time in this market is not great.

Why not AMD, they rock,

True, AMD is great, but intel next 2 rev of chip after the 1st rev of 64bit meron, woodcrest etc etc, will be much further ahead in performance, also performance per watt, bus design and number of cores than AMD, will have. AMD is struggling with 4 cores, and its looking like a 3 or six core to and intels 4 and 8 core. AMD has pushed back it deployment of 3 / 4 cores.

You have to understand AMD and intel leap frog each other, one minute intel, next amd. so it really no to much choice. The best chip was the PowerPC, but it was not developed enough for apple, (thanks to IBM). and the PA Semi, does not have production, so that means third party chip fabs, different qualities and a high price. Intel is a safer bet.

Intel make a great partner, and they court partners with insentives and deals that no other Chip vendor do (example other types of chips, help with marketing etc).

As for apple have the same chips as PC is great, keeps things moving along, and yes it MacOS X is why I purchase my macs, it is so much better than any linux, and more apps than another unix.

there 32bit / 64 bit

does not make to much of a difference at the moment, and apple will move away from 32bit with in one year (my guess), first they need to get back in to the market and intel did not have 64bit ready, so first systems will be 32bit.

as for the guy with the E5000 sun, sweet system, hope you did not pay a high price for that, wow that is one very very exspensive computer. It such cheaper to purchase a cluster of Xserves. There is only one reason why i would chooce a 14 processor sun over 7 xserves and that is to have 14 core on one program (solaris has some wow features for loads, databases rock on this platform). but the money it cost for a 14 processor sun I can purchase (my guess new, is somewhere around $130,000 to $500,000), see how many xserve is about 16 xserves(minimum for $130,000 do the maths yourself for $500,000) each dual processor, with 4 gb ram each and 1.5 tb of HD each, now add xsan, i now have a very hot system, use 2+ as controllers I can have a more powerful server solution than the sun.

emotion
May 23, 2006, 10:33 AM
External device? So much for "elegance"



Most people don't need FireWire or webcam either.

But a million things can be done with firewire.

And what is more elegant than having a port that can hand;le a million uses compared with a card reader that can read, erm, just memory cards (and which ones would you support?)

ingenious
May 23, 2006, 10:41 AM
Yes, I made an error, I meant "Mac OS" not "Mac OS X", and you're being pedantic. I edited my post above that you just quoted to correct it. I'm not really sure what your argument with me is here, but here's mine:

You cannot buy and legally install Mac OS X without owning a license to a previous Mac OS.

Pretty simple. Now tell me why I'm wrong.

But even though you must own previous software/hardware, the boxed version is a full version. It doesn't upgrade software, because you can wipe the HD and install a fresh install. Apple has shipped upgrade versions with products that got caught by a new OS X version announcement. You had to have a previous version of OS X to install.

thogs_cave
May 23, 2006, 11:30 AM
I'm hoping that SOMEONE would use P.A. Semi CPU's in computers. Genesi would be my choice as a possible candidate.

I'd love to see one of those CPUs in something like a Soekris board:

http://www.soekris.com

I kinda get dreamy-eyed thinking of one of those procs on a board that small and running *BSD.

Yes, I digress. But, it's fun to sometimes. :-)

shamino
May 23, 2006, 11:35 AM
The above statement is a prime example of a popular misconception. Most (if not all) of the commercial software you "purchase" is not sold to you, but licensed to you for use under specific terms. You buy a license to USE the software. You don't OWN the software. When you buy computer hardware, you do own the hardware, but you do not necessarily own any/all of the software it runs.

The license is the product you are purchasing, not the software itself.
This is a flat out lie that the software industry keeps on repeating in the hope that suckers like you will believe it.

Unless you live in a place where EULAS are actually enforceable, your software purchase is just that - a purchase. You own your one copy, and you can do whatever you want it it (other than make copies for distribution.)

I can take a Mac OS DVD and glue it to the wall as a decoration, and Apple can't stop me from doing that either.

Licenses are governed by contract law, not copyright law. And unless UCITA is the law in your state, contracts have to be signed in order to be valid. Did you sign any license agreement when you bought your copy of Mac OS?

thogs_cave
May 23, 2006, 11:47 AM
as for the guy with the E5000 sun, sweet system, hope you did not pay a high price for that, wow that is one very very exspensive computer. It such cheaper to purchase a cluster of Xserves. There is only one reason why i would chooce a 14 processor sun over 7 xserves and that is to have 14 core on one program (solaris has some wow features for loads, databases rock on this platform). but the money it cost for a 14 processor sun I can purchase (my guess new, is somewhere around $130,000 to $500,000), see how many xserve is about 16 xserves(minimum for $130,000 do the maths yourself for $500,000) each dual processor, with 4 gb ram each and 1.5 tb of HD each, now add xsan, i now have a very hot system, use 2+ as controllers I can have a more powerful server solution than the sun.

Actually, I "bought" it twice. Back in late '97 I bought it for the company I was IT manager of at the time. It was configured with 10 CPUs and 4G of RAM at the time. The list was close to $500K. When I heard they were decomissioning it last year, I "bought" it again for about $250, this time with my money. Since then I've added RAM and CPUs as they are cheap on eBay.

All you'd need to thump it today would probably be one Xserve. (I've got one at work, so I could benchmark it if needs be.) But, big SMP systems do really rock for things like databases. That's why companies like Sun and IBM still sell some huge SMP boxes. It's kinda fun to load up a box with a few hundred gigs o' RAM and 72 dual-core CPUs and watch it smack data around. :-)

To sorta return to my original point: You need to use what works for you. At this point, I can't dun Apple (too much) for switching to Intel, as they are right in the markets Apple wants to be in. I'm sure that's also the space that most of the people on this list are in. I just happen to spend a large percentage of my time working over a serial or ssh connection and have some different goals. Not that I don't want a fast system on my desk for browsing and such, but I find that most anything will get me through the day.

munkees
May 23, 2006, 12:54 PM
Actually, I "bought" it twice. Back in late '97 I bought it for the company I was IT manager of at the time. It was configured with 10 CPUs and 4G of RAM at the time. The list was close to $500K. When I heard they were decomissioning it last year, I "bought" it again for about $250, this time with my money. Since then I've added RAM and CPUs as they are cheap on eBay.

All you'd need to thump it today would probably be one Xserve. (I've got one at work, so I could benchmark it if needs be.) But, big SMP systems do really rock for things like databases. That's why companies like Sun and IBM still sell some huge SMP boxes. It's kinda fun to load up a box with a few hundred gigs o' RAM and 72 dual-core CPUs and watch it smack data around. :-)

To sorta return to my original point: You need to use what works for you. At this point, I can't dun Apple (too much) for switching to Intel, as they are right in the markets Apple wants to be in. I'm sure that's also the space that most of the people on this list are in. I just happen to spend a large percentage of my time working over a serial or ssh connection and have some different goals. Not that I don't want a fast system on my desk for browsing and such, but I find that most anything will get me through the day.

I must say I am green with envy, I used to 25 suns, it was a cool setup, I had one utlra sparc 5 2.7 Mhz for development, 2 ultra sparc 2 with dual 167Mghz processors ( all this had 21 inch sun CRT), then I had 2 sun sparc 10, with dual 80 Mhz processor (upgrade from the 40Mhz) with dual 10 base T, and 20 Sun LX. I used the 2 sparc 10s as access to 2 cluster of 10 sparc lx, it was my mini supercoputer cluster i used for nureal network image recognition. the 2 ultra 2 was used for image processing before the information was passed into the network.

It was a cool network, made my office very hot in summer.

Well I sold it all when I purchased my first Mac OS X computer, so I could purchase more macs, I never could look back, and I still have to make my system again on macs.

Today I have 2 iMacs G3, one is used for image capture (scan, and fax), the other is a front end to my microsope. I have an iBook G3 300 which is used to do some research on, some of the programs used are Mac OS 9.
I have an iBook 700 which is used as a remote communitication terminal for family to contact us from the UK. I have a powerbook G4 1.5 Ghz laptop for mobile computing and playing Americas Army. I just purchased a 400 Mhz G4 Sawtooth tower, which I put 3 120 GB drive in, plus external 200 and using it as a server, running it with Mac OS X 10.4 server (go that for $100 ebay for unlimited version). I have an iMac CD 2.0 which I do all development on.

I will be purchasing 2 more macs this year, a MacBook for my wife, and latter on I want an 64bit Mac for my second desktop computer, Don't really want a PowerMac, waiting for maybe a 64Bit iMac CD.

I used to have a iBook 500, G4 Cube 450, and G4 733 Sawtooth, there are what replaced my sun, but had to sell my new lab, when the dot com crash happened and I ended up joining the Army because my software job outlook sucked.

Evangelion
May 23, 2006, 01:05 PM
But a million things can be done with firewire.

And most people don't need it. And pray tell: what "million uses" can you think for the webcam? Well, you can use it to take low-resolution pictures and.... that's just about it.

And what is more elegant than having a port that can hand;le a million uses compared with a card reader that can read, erm, just memory cards (and which ones would you support?)

for the third time: card-readers these days support MULTIPLE FORMATS by default! And are you REALLY saying that having a built-in card-reader would be "un-elegant", whereas having external card-reader is more elegant, and it's therefore OK to not have built-in card-reader? Is that the core of your argument? That a slot for memory-card would look ugly, whereas external card-reader is the epitome of elegance?

zac4mac
May 23, 2006, 01:49 PM
It seems obvious at this point that there are as many people who do want some of these features as there are that don't. I'm in the latter group, I prefer my portables to be as clean as possible, ergo I am not miffed at no FW800 or more ports than I got. God forbid putting a kludge of a card reader on my Mac - every PC portable I've seen looks like total ***** with all the ports, switches and indicator LEDs - and stickers; not my MBP.

Again, I'm pleased with this MBP and I'm surprised at how fast this "craptastic" Intel processor is...

Z

milo
May 23, 2006, 03:12 PM
External device? So much for "elegance"

Are there laptops that have card readers built in with every available card format?

Are there PC slot card readers that can fit every available memory format?

I don't see why a USB unit is such a big deal. After all, you already have a camera and a card so any shot at "elegance" is already gone.

for the third time: card-readers these days support MULTIPLE FORMATS by default! And are you REALLY saying that having a built-in card-reader would be "un-elegant", whereas having external card-reader is more elegant, and it's therefore OK to not have built-in card-reader? Is that the core of your argument? That a slot for memory-card would look ugly, whereas external card-reader is the epitome of elegance?

Slots for a bunch of different memory cards are only appealing if you have the need to use them. USB is much more multipurpose.

For me, it's much easier to just hook up the camera, too much trouble to be yanking the card out.

matticus008
May 23, 2006, 03:13 PM
But even though you must own previous software/hardware, the boxed version is a full version. It doesn't upgrade software, because you can wipe the HD and install a fresh install.
No, it's not a full version. You can wipe the hard drive and do a fresh install with an upgrade as well. The only reason that OS X doesn't check for a previous install is that they already know that you own an eligible copy of Mac OS. It's impossible not to, so they've streamlined the install process.


Unless you live in a place where EULAS are actually enforceable, your software purchase is just that - a purchase. You own your one copy, and you can do whatever you want it it (other than make copies for distribution.)

I can take a Mac OS DVD and glue it to the wall as a decoration, and Apple can't stop me from doing that either.
No, it's not a purchase. It has never been defined in case law as a purchase, and EULAs have never been ruled to be unenforceable as a blanket provision. There are certain EULA terms which have been ruled to be inappropriate, but UCITA is not necessary for a EULA to be legally sound.

Even outside the EULA issue, buying a copy of OS X is not a full right to do as you please. You can glue the DVD to the wall, you can back up the DVD, you can sell it, you can break it, you can copy it to a hard drive. You CANNOT modify the contents to defeat built-in copyright and access prevention mechanisms, and you CANNOT legally install it on any other hardware platform. Copyright law does not give you full reign over the intellectual property contained on that disc. It gives you a right to use that in a way which is consistent with Apple's terms. Nowhere under copyright law do you have the right to use a product beyond its copyright, and with the DMCA in force, you don't have the right to modify the security mechanisms on the disc or participate in the distribution of software tools to do so. Both of those are wholly and definitively illegal.

For example, you can't buy an upgrade copy of an application and then use it as a full version, simply because it contains the full version on the disc and you paid for the disc. You can't buy the Windows version of Dreamweaver and then install it on a Mac. You can buy a rabbit, but you can't beat it to death.

joecool85
May 23, 2006, 03:19 PM
Wouldn't it be strange if apple switch back to PPC?? I mean, its not going to happen, not after making all these companies make universal binaries and all that, along with a lot of other reasons, but its still fun to think about. And like others have talked about, this could mean some pretty cool upgrades for some of the PPC hardware that is already out. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Dual 2ghz G5 PM to a dual 3ghz quad core :cool:

pth-webdev
May 23, 2006, 03:56 PM
And I thought that Apple is about "elegance"?

No! Apple is about user experience. Now, elegance is part of that, but no more then that: a part of the total user experience.

And now we are required to carry around external devices to work around shortcoming in the hardware?

Basically, your camera is an external device, too. So is an iPod. Or a cell phone (bit of a point of view, I know). Devices that can be used stand-alone or in combination with other hardware, so best they are not integrated. My Vosonic X-Drive II is the same. When I have a three week vacation or just a weekend away, I don't want to take a laptop with me. This portable device is enough (it is about the size of a compact camera)

It is not working around shortcomings in the hardware but about extending the user experience. At least, it is about extending *my* user experience.

However, it somehow feels like you want to be argumentative. The point was: why does Apple include one thing and not the other. The reason I came up with was that some hardware fullfill an immediate need while other hardware is something that each user has to choose for himself or that perhaps is in a state of flux. It is a balance and Apple needs to find a sweetspot. Perhaps they are missing that, but I feel I generally understand why they make a certain decision.

matticus008
May 23, 2006, 04:47 PM
The point was: why does Apple include one thing and not the other. The reason I came up with was that some hardware fullfill an immediate need while other hardware is something that each user has to choose for himself or that perhaps is in a state of flux.
Absolutely. I've gone through three different memory card types for my digital cameras, and trying to buy a computer with the necessary slot is a ridiculous game. CF Type I/II, SD, mini SD, micro SD, xD, MMC, Memory Sticks, SmartMedia, MMC Plus, TransFlash...it's a mess. It makes sense for Sony, because they make the Memory Sticks, but for everyone else, it's a waste of time to include a non-upgradeable, dust-collecting slot in the computer that most people will never touch.

If memory cards were as standardized as optical discs, then it would make sense to include an internal reader. But they're not, and who knows what formats cameras will be using in two years? They all use USB, and that's the only hope for universal compatibility.

AidenShaw
May 23, 2006, 11:50 PM
Also, Apple was one of the first to recognize ... the need for builtin ethernet for consumer-level Macs; direct function.

So true, none of the other companies making Macs put Ethernet into the systems nearly as soon as Apple did. You had to buy an Apple Mac to get it builtin.

:D

Carson
May 24, 2006, 12:23 AM
I'm still wondering why apple went with the least energy effecent chips (intel) it seems like AMD, motorola and others all seem to have better options right now. if they went with some one else it seems like the heat problems in the macbooks would be dramaticly less.

Morgan
May 24, 2006, 06:03 AM
No, it's not a full version. You can wipe the hard drive and do a fresh install with an upgrade as well. The only reason that OS X doesn't check for a previous install is that they already know that you own an eligible copy of Mac OS. It's impossible not to, so they've streamlined the install process.


No, it's not a purchase. It has never been defined in case law as a purchase, and EULAs have never been ruled to be unenforceable as a blanket provision. There are certain EULA terms which have been ruled to be inappropriate, but UCITA is not necessary for a EULA to be legally sound.

Even outside the EULA issue, buying a copy of OS X is not a full right to do as you please. You can glue the DVD to the wall, you can back up the DVD, you can sell it, you can break it, you can copy it to a hard drive. You CANNOT modify the contents to defeat built-in copyright and access prevention mechanisms, and you CANNOT legally install it on any other hardware platform. Copyright law does not give you full reign over the intellectual property contained on that disc. It gives you a right to use that in a way which is consistent with Apple's terms. Nowhere under copyright law do you have the right to use a product beyond its copyright, and with the DMCA in force, you don't have the right to modify the security mechanisms on the disc or participate in the distribution of software tools to do so. Both of those are wholly and definitively illegal.

For example, you can't buy an upgrade copy of an application and then use it as a full version, simply because it contains the full version on the disc and you paid for the disc. You can't buy the Windows version of Dreamweaver and then install it on a Mac. You can buy a rabbit, but you can't beat it to death.

Give it a rest will you.
What you say has been shot down time and time again.
Unless you live in DMCA-land, EULAS are simply unenforcable.
In Europe, there is no way in hell that someone has legal stand based
on an EULA. It might not please Apple, but i can buy a copy of MacOSX
and use it as i please since i paid for it.

matticus008
May 24, 2006, 06:07 AM
Give it a rest will you.
What you say has been shot down time and time again.
Unless you live in DMCA-land, EULAS are simply unenforcable.
In Europe, there is no way in hell that someone has legal stand based
on an EULA. It might not please Apple, but i can buy a copy of MacOSX
and use it as i please since i paid for it.
1. No, it hasn't been shot down.

2. If you'd read it, you'd see that I'm not talking about only the EULA. I'm talking about copyright law and the DMCA along with intellectual property law. The EULA is the least of your worries. The posts clearly state that the EULA is far from the only issue, and even if there were no EULA, it would STILL be illegal to install OS X on a PC.

If you disagree, tell me what gives you the right to use OS X how you please. In particular, I'd like an example from case law that identifies purchase of a software disc as a transfer of ownership rights over anything other than the physical disc and packaging. I'd also like your legal perspective on hacking OS X and where it becomes permissable to defeat copy and access prevention.

pth-webdev
May 26, 2006, 06:41 AM
So true, none of the other companies making Macs put Ethernet into the systems nearly as soon as Apple did. You had to buy an Apple Mac to get it builtin.

:D

I had to smile about this one. I reread my posting, but missed this implication. I had a lengthier text about ethernet, but removed it as it was too much beside the point.

My response, however, is simple: try to explain in my language (dutch) what I said wrong in this langues (english) and I can see if you can take being made fun off as well as I can.

Evangelion
May 30, 2006, 09:38 AM
Are there laptops that have card readers built in with every available card format?

No, should there be? Are you saying that if they can't include every single reader in there, they shouldn't include any? Macs are missing tons of connectivity-ports, why should they then have ANY ports? Isn't that same logic? And like I have (repeatedly) said: modern card-readers can read several different formats. And they WILL read just about every type of card used by camera-manufacturers.

Are there PC slot card readers that can fit every available memory format?

Propably not. So? Or is this the "This reader can't read these uber-cards that have 0.005% market-share. Therefore Macs shouldn't have ANY card-readers!". The readers can read commonly used cards just fine, I fail to see why you get your panties in a bunch over the fact that they can't read every single card out there.

Hey, the MBP has a Expresscard-slot. But it doesn't have PCMCIA-slot. Therefore, they should eliminate the Expresscard-slot as well, since it doesn't accept every single expansion-card out there.

I don't see why a USB unit is such a big deal. After all, you already have a camera and a card so any shot at "elegance" is already gone.

You could have several cards, and you need pics from one card. Currently you need to put the card in the camera (hope that the camera has a charged battery!), and plug the camera in the computer. Why not simply plug the card in to the computer? "Because the card-reader might not be compatible with the card!". Bullcrap! The reader IS compatible! The cameras use fairly standard types of cards, and the card-readers DO read them just fine!

Slots for a bunch of different memory cards are only appealing if you have the need to use them. USB is much more multipurpose.

So, Apple should drop the webcam and Expresscard as well? Expresscard doesn't have much use currently, and webcam is singlepurpose device.

For me, it's much easier to just hook up the camera, too much trouble to be yanking the card out.

*sigh*.... If you had a card-reader, you could still plug the camera in to the computer if you wanted to! Just because the computer has a card-reader does NOT mean that you are somehow prevented from plugging the camera in to the computer if you want to.

And what if you have a memory-card but no camera? Many cell-phones and PDA's ship with memory-cards.

Evangelion
May 30, 2006, 09:42 AM
However, it somehow feels like you want to be argumentative. The point was: why does Apple include one thing and not the other. The reason I came up with was that some hardware fullfill an immediate need while other hardware is something that each user has to choose for himself or that perhaps is in a state of flux. It is a balance and Apple needs to find a sweetspot. Perhaps they are missing that, but I feel I generally understand why they make a certain decision.

Maybe I was just a bit dumbfounded when people were actually defending shortcomings in Apple-hardware by basically saying "this lack of functionality is not a flaw, it's a feature!". Um, no. to me, that is "lack of functionality", period. I know you guys have Apple-goggles on, but come on!

Having a card-reader in the computer does NOT make the computer worse in other areas. I might understand your current feelings on this issue, if having a card-reader means that the system would have to be made worse in some other areas. But since that is NOT the case, I fail to see the reasoning here. Is it basically "Apple decided not to do it, therefore it's OK"?