Apple set to go Intel? (Again)

[MacRumors]

SmartHouse.com.au revives (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/smartstuff/computing/1341) one of the oldest Apple rumors by claiming that "Apple is set to announce an Intel based PC that will run on an Apple operating system."

The first system is expected to be shown at MacWorld San Francisco 2004, with major developers, such as Adobe, already aware of the plan.

The article touches on the issue that all software needs to recompiled, but expects a gradual adoption over time, with an eventuality that "all Macs would be Intel."

Rumors of Apple adopting the Intel/x86 platform have been ongoing for years, and has had some historical basis in reality. In the early 90's a secret project at Apple known as Star Trek (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020511134130.shtml) ported Mac OS to Intel-based hardware. While an intial technical success, the project was scrapped after running into political problems.

More recently, there have been rumors of an x86 based (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020830181129.shtml) version of Mac OS X, codenamed Marklar. This version of Mac OS X is said to provide a fall-back plan for Apple. These rumors, however, preceded the introduction of the PowerPC 970 (G5) PowerMacs. A successful adoption of the 970 PowerPC would presumably influence any plans for an x86-based Macintosh.

[arn]

Yes... old news...

New source though. But of unknown reliability.

arn

[SoonToGetAMac]

I don't think its too likely...

[zach]

I don't think this will ever happen. For one, Apple has too much pride to switch to Intel and x86. Two, they just invested a huge amount of money (i think) in the G5, which is already quite popular.

This would be a complete turnaround in Apple's strategy, and I don't believe it will ever happen.

[windwaves]

Very plausible that something like this would be in the works. Apple must have learned from experience and the experience with MOT must have taught our dear company that it is way too risky to rely on a single supplier/technology for such a fundamental component of its products. This makes me want to go back to the arguments made on whether the G4 debacle was Apple's fault or MOT's. It is only Apple's, exclusively Apple's. It is Apple products we are talking about here !

So, lets hope indeed that Apple is working on alternatives. It is prudent management.

[jxyama]

yikes... i hope not.

as many will point out, apple is a hardware compoany... OS and software are there to sell the hardware. why would they give up one of the highest hardware margins in the industry, esp. now that g5 is here..? why would anyone buy hardware from apple if OS X would run on a gateway?

(yes, design... but for most people, design alone will not justify spending extra hundreds of dollars, no matter how good the design is.)

[Postal]

The rumour itself sounds pretty ludicrous. Why would you go to great lengths to co-develop a brand-new PowerPC chip, tout the system it's in as the fastest personal computer, and then promptly switch architecture again? The rumour doesn't jibe at all with what Apple is actually doing. I'm not sure why it's even on Page 1 of the site.

[trilogic]

can I say ************?

I can't ?

okay

then I don't say ************. :rolleyes:

[NavyIntel007]

I'd probably do the same thing if I was starting up a rumor site. Bring up "New dual G5 powerbooks tomorrow" or "Apple is going x86" and in a week everyone knows your site.

Honestly, IBM has one long roadmap. And everyone knows Intel is running out of steam.

[xpormac]

Hopefully this will happen one day. Maybe apples will be priced at what they should be if they go to x86.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
And everyone knows Intel is running out of steam.


eh? no lol

[tduality]

Originally posted by trilogic
can I say ************?

I can't ?

okay

then I don't say ************. :rolleyes:

Da**ed, you were faster!

With all the smart guys in these forums, sites, journals, it had to be 'Smarthouse' to bring the news.
:rolleyes:

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
And everyone knows Intel is running out of steam.
hahaha, what did you have for breakfast?

[caek]

Surely this kind of story is what Page 2 is for. The hallowed turf of the Main Page should be reserved for more credible stories.

[Doraemon]

Ridiculous.

[Sun Baked]

Yes it would be "smart" for a company to spend all that money on developing a computer and it's chipset, then ditch it within 6-months for the CPUs competition.

Somehow the future looks bright for a portable PPC970 in the near future, and future development of the processor.

Heck the interest from the anti-MS/Intel crowd looks HUGE.

The momentum of a viable PPC platform looks as strong now as during the Windows PPC/Apple clone era. Right before MS killed Windows PPC and Apple follow shortly after.

---

The portable Itanium would probably require you to drag several car batteries with you to power the thing. 100+W :eek:

Of course Intel is probably buying Apple in and will announce it at MW SF 2004...

This would be the only way to build momentum for the Itanium and kill the PPC970 Linux whitebox market.

Equivalent to the stake MS drove into the PPC platforms heart by killing Windows PPC.

[modyouup]

Ummmm are they talking about Apple making a computer with INTEL IN IT?! Cause that's ************ their favorite thing to do is show how feeble and stupid intel chips are.

Orr are they talking about just the ability to have Mac OS X on a PC? Cuz I guess that would be okay. :confused:

[ibjoshua]

Due to the frequent recurrance of this rumor as well as being from a rumor source of unknown reliability, it is felt to be unlikely.

hmmm...
gotta agree with some of the other posters. Arn usually puts this stuff on page 2.

i_b_joshua

[xpormac]

Originally posted by modyouup
Ummmm are they talking about Apple making a computer with INTEL IN IT?! Cause that's ************ their favorite thing to do is show how feeble and stupid intel chips are.

Orr are they talking about just the ability to have Mac OS X on a PC? Cuz I guess that would be okay. :confused:


making the mac os usable on x86 platform. Not limited to intels.

[pyrotoaster]

Hoo wee!

I guess this means that Apple will switch to Intel, get bought by Disney, and start making Donald Duck iPhones. :p

Steve Jobs would never ever risk his company with a stunt as foolish as an Intel switch.

In fact, Apple's moving into a really good position against Intel right now. The P4's clock speeds are reaching their max, but the G5 is just getting warmed up.

[Freg3000]

This just is not going to happen. No matter how many stories are written about it, will not come to fruition.

Do you really think that Apple would force all software developers to recode ALL of their software to run on x86? Didn't they just do that with OS X three years ago? It would be suicide.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
In fact, Apple's moving into a really good position against Intel right now. The P4's clock speeds are reaching their max, but the G5 is just getting warmed up.

Then they go to P5 .....no biggy.

[acj]

Nothing's impossible. I'm sure Apple will choose the best hardware for them at any given time. If intel produces a $99 PPC CPU with Altevec II, full SSE I/II/III and X86 compatibility, that is 64 bit, has a 4 stage pipeline, runs at 4 GHz with dual cores and dissipates 19 watts, then Apple would be stupid not to use it.

Obviously this is not expected to happen, but anything it possible. Brand loyalty is dangerous.

[AngryAngel]

The most unlikely aspect of the story is that the Intel chip Apple has supposedly choosen is the Itanium. I thought that the Itamium was very expensive, and not that great performance.

I think if Apple has any x86 plans, then they are with AMD. Notice how AMD chips have never been used in any shoot-off benchmarks. Apple has always targetted themselves at Intel (possibly as the market leader), but they do seem to be leaving open the option AMD as a back-up. I think Steve Jobs has said having choices is good.

This story is nonsense- Itanium isn't a choice, it's a joke (for Apple's target customers). AMD could offer Apple an economic low-end chip underneath the G5 models. However, the disruption of having PowerPC and x86 code required for the different models would be a serious drawback to this idea, so I have been talking rubbish!

Apple will stay with the PowerPC for a while at least (now that the G5 has materialised).

[qazwsxedc30]

why isn't this on page two?

[Felix_the_Mac]

We wait all day for rumours and they give us this!!!???*&*

If thats the best they can do I am going to take my pathetic craving for unreliable gossip elsewhere.

[dongmin]

ok so the rumor is complete BS, some new site trying to make a name for itself.

But why not a backup plan? Seeing as how Apple was royally screwed by putting all its eggs in one basket (i.e. Moto), I'm not opposed to Apple having a solid plan B. Yes IBM is no Moto. But who knows what the computing landscape will look like 7-10 years from now.

Now for some bit of crazy speculating: what if Apple develops a dual processor strategy, where they reserve PPCs for high-end workstations and Intel chips for low-end systems? I think in a year or so the 970/980 will surpass Pentiums/Xeons in performance. But Intel's offerings will always be cheaper. So cheaper chips for cheaper systems. And at the same time, give Apple more of a mass-market appeal and persuade the corporate world that Apple is worth a long-term investment.

For all those who rant about Apple 'being a hardware company first', adopting Intel does not mean Apple will abandon hardware. Rather, Apple will continue to make their own proprietary hardware, making sure the OS only runs on their hardware. The only thing different will be the main processor.

[SoonToGetAMac]

Another thought...why exactly would they have released the G5 if they are moving to Intel? All the R&D and sales for an entirely new chip and developer, and for it not to get past Rev. B? Also, at WWDC didn't JObs say Apple would be committed to IBM for a long time.

[matthew24]

Apple and Intel, that is something like Belly and the Beast.:(

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by xpormac
Then they go to P5 .....no biggy.
Yes, Intel will eventually make a Pentium 5, but they don't have one now and I'd bet they won't have one in the next year, either.

Intel's clock-speed-over-real-performance policy has screwed them over. They can't put together a fast enough 64-bit consumer processor yet.

Apple's got a good head start over Intel.

[arn]

Originally posted by dongmin
ok so the rumor is complete BS, some new site trying to make a name for itself.


It's not a new site.

It's a magazine

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/

arn

[Kermit]

Originally posted by caek
Surely this kind of story is what Page 2 is for. The hallowed turf of the Main Page should be reserved for more credible stories.
This is Page 2 material at BEST... :mad: Arn what do you have to say in your defence? :D

[AngryAngel]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Do you really think that Apple would force all software developers to recode ALL of their software to run on x86? Didn't they just do that with OS X three years ago?

No, Apple didn't make their developers recode for OS X, because carbonising an application is not the same as recoding for a different hardware platform. Indeed, most well-written Carbon apps run on OS 9 too (the notable exception is Office X). Apple designed Carbon to get all the advantages of OS X without asking developers to have to drastically recode their applications. None of the really big name applications from OS 9 have been re-coded into Cocoa, as far as I know.

The fictional change to x86 is more similar to the 680x0 to PowerPC change in 1994, but even then the PowerPC could emulate a 68020 and run the old code (though not as fast as native code), which the Itamium certainly couldn't do, because it can't even run emulation of 32-bit x86 code at a sensible speed.

[Kermit]

This rumors credability doesn't exactly rise when you read the opening paragraph:

"An original idea to release a duel platform MAC has been scrapped according to Apple insiders in San Francisco."

Could someone please explain to me what a "duel" platform "MAC" is? I thought it was "dual" platform "Mac" but of course I could be wrong, tomorrow maybe pigs can fly and come january certainly MAC(?) OS X will run exclusively on Intel-hardware. RIGHT!!

[agreenster]

IBM G5 or x86 Intel, I care not. Just as long as its an Apple Box with OSX and runs speed rings around everything else, then Im happy.

Maybe the Intels will be in portables?? Ive heard its next to impossible to get a G5 into a Powerbook...

Next Powerbook will be a 3.0gHz Intel-driven, fuelcell-powered, 8x DVD burnin', Magnesium-alloy, Panther Super-laptop? Maybe. :confused:

[MacRETARD]

The amd opteron has already sold more chips than the "itanic". The G5 may even have more presales.

If sales dont pick up then this may be a dead chip in a few years.

[bretm]

The fact that they misspelled "dual" in the first paragraph makes me wonder about their credibility.

[whooleytoo]

Well, Apple releasing OSX for Intel now would likely be very foolish, seeing how successful IBM, NeXT and Be were at competing with Microsoft on x86 (with OS/2, OpenStep and BeOS respectively). However, that might change if (as some speculate) there is a backlash against Microsoft when Palladium DRM is introduced.

I think it's likely Apple is prepared for this, even if it is a 'last resort' option. Rhapsody for Intel was a reality, and we all know what MacOSX was built on. I'd be astonished if they weren't keeping an x86 version of OSX up to date.

I wouldn't think the process of porting apps would be too painful for Cocoa developers, a recompile might even do it since Cocoa abstracts app code to a fair degree from the hardware. I'm not sure about Carbon, but it's possible; I do a lot of cross-platform work with QuickTime code, and quite a lot of the Mac APIs are available. Much of the source just needs a recompile.

Of course, it's still a pain for developers, but at least in this case there is the incentive for developers of a (potentially) much larger user base - as opposed to the move from OS9 to X when they were moving initially to a smaller userbase!

[tpjunkie]

To quote the great Wayne

"Shyeah, right, and later on, monkeys will fly out my butt"

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by agreenster
IBM G5 or x86 Intel, I care not. Just as long as its an Apple Box with OSX and runs speed rings around everything else, then Im happy.

Maybe the Intels will be in portables?? Ive heard its next to impossible to get a G5 into a Powerbook...

Next Powerbook will be a 3.0gHz Intel-driven, fuelcell-powered, 8x DVD burnin', Magnesium-alloy, Panther Super-laptop? Maybe. :confused:

I think you have touched on a very real possibility. Why havn't we seen PB updates? Perhaps Moto is really having problems. Perhaps a small speed bump might suffice at the moment, but by next year if there isn't a replacement for the G4 in the PB line Apple may be forced to go Intel. They can't afford to loose PB sales. And I really don't see any reason they can't use both G5 and Intel. Power users will go for the fastest chip. Who cares what's inside, it's the OS that counts. Apple's industrial design will insure they are competitive with other PC makers, and this strategy would cause the IT world to take notice. If I could put OS X on my existing servers it would be happening immediately.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
The P4's clock speeds are reaching their max, but the G5 is just getting warmed up.

Hence the statement, "Intel is running out of steam." :rolleyes:

Do some research on MHz/Wattage leakage due to heat on the P4. Or how the brand new processors practically NEED heat pipes or watercooling. Then again, you can also take a look at the ever growing longer-for more megahertz pipeline that has to be flushed ever so often.

This all coming from the company who won't spend a dime of research on industrial diamond semiconducters because it's just not needed yet. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :cool:

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Kermit
Could someone please explain to me what a "duel" platform "MAC" is? I thought it was "dual" platform "Mac" but of course I could be wrong, tomorrow maybe pigs can fly and come january certainly MAC(?) OS X will run exclusively on Intel-hardware. RIGHT!! Here ya go... ;) Originally posted by qwerpafw on Ars:

I can see the billings now, "Apple insiders fight to the death with duel platform MACs!--see the 10/100 gang take on a fully duplexed gigabit!"

:D yeah, no credibility whatsoever.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Kermit
"An original idea to release a duel platform MAC has been scrapped according to Apple insiders in San Francisco."

Could someone please explain to me what a "duel" platform "MAC" is?

I think he means a Mac that will run both OSX and Windows.

Ummmm......I think.:confused:

[3-22]

Apple won't even switch to a two button mouse w/ scroll wheel think they will go to Intel! No way...

[sonyrules]

Why would apple go X86 when a 1.6 970 is somewhat comparable to a 3 pent 4. And there saying 3 ghz in less than a year? no way, Apple has the edge on power. They would be crazy not to stay with the 970

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by agreenster
IBM G5 or x86 Intel, I care not. Just as long as its an Apple Box with OSX and runs speed rings around everything else, then Im happy.

Maybe the Intels will be in portables?? Ive heard its next to impossible to get a G5 into a Powerbook...

Next Powerbook will be a 3.0gHz Intel-driven, fuelcell-powered, 8x DVD burnin', Magnesium-alloy, Panther Super-laptop? Maybe. :confused:

With a 20 minute battery life... :rolleyes:

[agreenster]

Originally posted by sonyrules
Why would apple go X86 when a 1.6 970 is somewhat comparable to a 3 pent 4. And there saying 3 ghz in less than a year? no way, Apple has the edge on power. They would be crazy not to stay with the 970

Probably because they cant get a G5 in a Powerbook. We all know the G5 can be faster (though it may not be just yet) than any Intel, but maybe its a form factor thing. We all know how freakin hot the G5 is, and how how the Powerbook can get. Now combine the two.

ouch

[esheep2001]

arn, did this one slip through the page 2 detector? ;-)

I have but one thing to say...

...and all the software that depends on altivec is going to be....?

e.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
With a 20 minute battery life... :rolleyes:

Thats why I said fuel-cell, not battery.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by agreenster
Thats why I said fuel-cell, not battery.

Ok so a $50,000 laptop that needs new fuel-cells every two weeks at $100 a refill.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
With a 20 minute battery life... :rolleyes:


uh no, my friends alienware goes 2 1/2 hours :rolleyes:

[xtekdiver]

One more thing: Linux doesn't seem to have troubles getting around and it supports a wide range of processors. Linux' problem in the home market is that it still lacks user friendliness. Even Sun supports multiple platforms. Why not Apple? There is really no reason not to now. I could see it a year or two ago; OS X was not really ready, but it is now. I think Apple could compete with MS; there is so much ill will out there regarding MS, that if there were really another choice it would collapse MS house of cards. Linux is getting very close to being competitive in the home market and it already is in the server market. If Apple seriously want's to put OS X in the IT space then Intel is it; and they have to be thinking about Linux.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by dongmin
ok so the rumor is complete BS, some new site trying to make a name for itself.

But why not a backup plan? Seeing as how Apple was royally screwed by putting all its eggs in one basket (i.e. Moto), I'm not opposed to Apple having a solid plan B. Yes IBM is no Moto. But who knows what the computing landscape will look like 7-10 years from now.

Now for some bit of crazy speculating: what if Apple develops a dual processor strategy, where they reserve PPCs for high-end workstations and Intel chips for low-end systems? I think in a year or so the 970/980 will surpass Pentiums/Xeons in performance. But Intel's offerings will always be cheaper. So cheaper chips for cheaper systems. And at the same time, give Apple more of a mass-market appeal and persuade the corporate world that Apple is worth a long-term investment.

For all those who rant about Apple 'being a hardware company first', adopting Intel does not mean Apple will abandon hardware. Rather, Apple will continue to make their own proprietary hardware, making sure the OS only runs on their hardware. The only thing different will be the main processor.

Imagine for a moment that an Intel based Mac is produced. How are you going to run your software on it? Virtual PC? Unless Apple has one wizbang way of running PPC code on Intel I say this is about as likely as Microsoft announcing a version of Windows XP for Macs.

[yoshi1013]

I think it'd be more likely to hear Jonathan Ives saying:

"The new Power Mac G7 is incredibly fast, so fast it requires an incredible amount of cooling. In order to avoid this heat we've designed the G7 to not use Intel Pentium chips."

[pgwalsh]

I think it's great.... Would love to see it. All I care about is the OS.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by xpormac
making the mac os usable on x86 platform. Not limited to intels.
I think that would be a bad move for apple. There main selling point is having a seamless integration between hardware and software and they can do this by controlling both aspects of this. If you let go of the hardware you become microsoft trying to be everything to everyone and doomed for failure. Also you let go of you main source of income. Most of Apple's profits are generated from Hardware and if you don't have to buy new hardware to switch why should you

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
One more thing: Linux doesn't seem to have troubles getting around and it supports a wide range of processors. Linux' problem in the home market is that it still lacks user friendliness. Even Sun supports multiple platforms. Why not Apple? There is really no reason not to now. I could see it a year or two ago; OS X was not really ready, but it is now. I think Apple could compete with MS; there is so much ill will out there regarding MS, that if there were really another choice it would collapse MS house of cards. Linux is getting very close to being competitive in the home market and it already is in the server market. If Apple seriously want's to put OS X in the IT space then Intel is it; and they have to be thinking about Linux.

Linux and Solaris are really nitch operation systems. The nitch meaning it's either hackers/coders/geeks/IT etc. The success of Linux is that it's opensource, which means the companieS that sell linux don't have much overheard as far as hiring programmers. If OS X was opensourced... you'd have many companies selling their own versions of it. The plus side of that is that you'd have lots of free development.

I see more advantage to Apple opensourcing all of OS X than releasing a port to x86.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
One more thing: Linux doesn't seem to have troubles getting around and it supports a wide range of processors. Linux' problem in the home market is that it still lacks user friendliness. Even Sun supports multiple platforms. Why not Apple? There is really no reason not to now. I could see it a year or two ago; OS X was not really ready, but it is now. I think Apple could compete with MS; there is so much ill will out there regarding MS, that if there were really another choice it would collapse MS house of cards. Linux is getting very close to being competitive in the home market and it already is in the server market. If Apple seriously want's to put OS X in the IT space then Intel is it; and they have to be thinking about Linux.
Linux?!

Linux is Open Source! If Apple adopted Linux's strategies, the company would be broke in a year.

I respect Linux because it's open source. That makes it unique. But that doesn't make it a sound business plan.

[theFly]

When the first PowerPC systems came out, didn't Apple produce a card for the systems that was basically a Wintel on a Card?

Why couldn't they be doing something like that again? But this time, instead of having to switch screens to work in Windows, Steve Jobs adds his touch and the Windows applications work within Mac OS X?

Personally, I'd rather see Mac OS X released for Intel processors much like NeXT did with OpenStep. You'd think with the FreeBSD backend, support for devices on the PC side would be a lot easier now then it would have been with Mac OS 9.

theFly
www.flyonthemac.com
Rumors You Can Bet On

[dr weebl]

1st post so no flaming please :D

dunno if any of you lot have seen this but take a look at http://www.opendarwin.org/

specifically take a look at the downloads page and the release notes

Hello,


I'm pleased to announce OpenDarwin 6.6.2, available immediately for both ppc and x86 architectures. OpenDarwin 6.6.2 is based on the Darwin 6.6 (which corresponds to Mac OS X 10.2.6) source release and licensed under the APSL (http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/6.6.1/APSL.txt) . It includes additions and modifications from the OpenDarwin CVS Repository.


don't get me wrong i doubt anything like this is going to happen anytime soon but it makes sense for apple to have the option to switch if they needed

oh and don't forget M$ learnt everything they know from IBM

[sedarby]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Linux and Solaris are really nitch operation systems. The nitch meaning it's either hackers/coders/geeks/IT etc. The success of Linux is that it's opensource, which means the companieS that sell linux don't have much overheard as far as hiring programmers. If OS X was opensourced... you'd have many companies selling their own versions of it. The plus side of that is that you'd have lots of free development.

I see more advantage to Apple opensourcing all of OS X than releasing a port to x86.

The same could be said for OS X as being a niche market. Let's look at history for a moment. NeXT, Inc. started on proprietary hardware then ported to x86, no longer produced although provided the foundation for OS X. Be, Inc. started on proprietary hardware later ported to x86 now out of business.

Is this really the path Apple wants to go down?

Interesting note, both NeXT, Inc. and Be, Inc. were both started by ex-Apple executives.

It's time to give this rumor a rest.

[tgrundke]

Once again the Apple goes Intel rumor thread begins! And once more, the Doubting Thomases start up with all of the *wrong* reasons why Apple cannot go Intel.

I, for one, as well as many other Mac users, could *care less* which processor Apple has under the hood. What matters is the overall performance of the beast. So knock off this "Apple has too much pride to go Intel" crap. It just doesn't matter.

As far as the technical reasons are concerned: I've read some good, logical, technical reasons why it cannot be done. The more I read these arguments it reads like this: "It can be done, but it will be difficult to bring developers along." Possible.

Let's also assume that increasingly, developers are only interested in developing for the Intel chipset and don't want to deal anything else. Understandable. Let's also assume that Apple may have found out a way to efficiently 'translate' Intel code to run on Macintoshes. Sounds faciful? Yes. Possible? Why not?

If Apple has indeed found a way, deep in the recesses of Cupertino, to translate Intel code to run under OS X - imagine the boon to us users! Forget all of the party-line ************ about doing it - I'm all for it! Imagine if there was a way to relatively easily re-compile an application to run under OS X. Wouldn't you be happy? Again - it sounds implausible, but not entirely impossible.

For all those who say: "Apple can't do it because of all the clones that will result!" Prove it. What is to keep Apple from maintaining its proprietary ROMs and chipset that would prevent clones? Again, all we're doing is swapping out the processor for another one. I don't see fear that by moving to the Power4 architecture that we'll see a slew of Macintosh clones 'diluting' the Macintosh DNA. Rubbish.

I should think that the entire Macintosh community would be tickled pink (no pun intended...for those who remember the good ole days of "Pink") at the potential a move to Intel could be. Imagine all of the potential applications that we could be introduced to. The games! The wider acceptance!

While we do have the Power4 now and the upcoming Power5 to look forward to, there is always the potential that these chips won't be come down in price fast enough to facilitate their use in 'consumer' level machines (a term that I think is increasingly being eroded as computer performance becomes commoditized). I say: The more options, the better. Stop pooh-poohing the idea just because you think it will destroy the 'purity' of Apple and the Macintosh.

[qjkaseib]

It must be pretty hard to come by decent news and rumors these days. Intel chips in Apple computers? I doubt that for a couple of reasons.

First an Apple with an Intel chip would make it look just like all the other boxes out there. This would be a marketing nightmare. Apples are for a niche market and placing an Intel chip inside would kill that niche market.

Second: Intel has been chasing after Steve Jobs for years trying to convice him to use one of their chips, but as I mentioned above Steve Job knows if he adopts an Intel chip he would loose his advantage. Enough!

So when are we going to see these Powerbook updates. Tomorrow? In a couple of weeks? At the end of September? Or in October? My bet is on October, but I would love to be wrong.

[ibjoshua]

ok. now I know why Arn put his on Page 1.

Feeding frenzy.

lol

i_b_joshua

[tgrundke]

Sedarby:

It sounds as if you are trying to equate the move to Intel as the root cause for the failure of these companies. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected in advance.

However, if my assumption is correct, I think you should re-evaluate your position. NeXT failed for a multitude of reasons and that business' story is fascinating in itself. The move to Intel was the *least* of their problems, in fact, when the migrated to Intel, NeXTStep began to gain acceptance (but not fast enough).

As for Be, inc. - well, you only need to know a little about Jean Louis Gassee to understand why that company went under. He was a mini-Steve Jobs in training who was just as difficult to deal with. Remember, this is the man who was so proud of the Macintosh IIci's easy to assemble/disassemble case that he (in)famously stated, "Yes, this computer is expensive ($5,000+), but you have to pay good money for good sex sometimes."

Enough said.

Recall that Apple has successfully migrated from the 680x0 series to PowerPC, from OS9 to OS X and developed a compatible chip based on the Power4 (with IBM, of course). Apple has the apparent technical ability and expertise. As the old phrase goes, "rumors of my untimely demise have been greatly exaggerated."

*Anything* could happen.

Originally posted by sedarby
The same could be said for OS X as being a niche market. Let's look at history for a moment. NeXT, Inc. started on proprietary hardware then ported to x86, no longer produced although provided the foundation for OS X. Be, Inc. started on proprietary hardware later ported to x86 now out of business.

Is this really the path Apple wants to go down?

Interesting note, both NeXT, Inc. and Be, Inc. were both started by ex-Apple executives.

It's time to give this rumor a rest.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by sedarby
The same could be said for OS X as being a niche market. Let's look at history for a moment. NeXT, Inc. started on proprietary hardware then ported to x86, no longer produced although provided the foundation for OS X. Be, Inc. started on proprietary hardware later ported to x86 now out of business.

Is this really the path Apple wants to go down?

Interesting note, both NeXT, Inc. and Be, Inc. were both started by ex-Apple executives.

It's time to give this rumor a rest.

You know, I brought this up in a community discussion the other day and was called a Bigot and a Troll. Funny how that is. I will add two to your list though.

Solaris is going nowhere on x86.

OS/2 is dead.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by tgrundke
Once again the Apple goes Intel rumor thread begins! And once more, the Doubting Thomases start up with all of the *wrong* reasons why Apple cannot go Intel.

I, for one, as well as many other Mac users, could *care less* which processor Apple has under the hood. What matters is the overall performance of the beast. So knock off this "Apple has too much pride to go Intel" crap. It just doesn't matter.

As far as the technical reasons are concerned: I've read some good, logical, technical reasons why it cannot be done. The more I read these arguments it reads like this: "It can be done, but it will be difficult to bring developers along." Possible.

Let's also assume that increasingly, developers are only interested in developing for the Intel chipset and don't want to deal anything else. Understandable. Let's also assume that Apple may have found out a way to efficiently 'translate' Intel code to run on Macintoshes. Sounds faciful? Yes. Possible? Why not?

If Apple has indeed found a way, deep in the recesses of Cupertino, to translate Intel code to run under OS X - imagine the boon to us users! Forget all of the party-line ************ about doing it - I'm all for it! Imagine if there was a way to relatively easily re-compile an application to run under OS X. Wouldn't you be happy? Again - it sounds implausible, but not entirely impossible.

For all those who say: "Apple can't do it because of all the clones that will result!" Prove it. What is to keep Apple from maintaining its proprietary ROMs and chipset that would prevent clones? Again, all we're doing is swapping out the processor for another one. I don't see fear that by moving to the Power4 architecture that we'll see a slew of Macintosh clones 'diluting' the Macintosh DNA. Rubbish.

I should think that the entire Macintosh community would be tickled pink (no pun intended...for those who remember the good ole days of "Pink") at the potential a move to Intel could be. Imagine all of the potential applications that we could be introduced to. The games! The wider acceptance!

While we do have the Power4 now and the upcoming Power5 to look forward to, there is always the potential that these chips won't be come down in price fast enough to facilitate their use in 'consumer' level machines (a term that I think is increasingly being eroded as computer performance becomes commoditized). I say: The more options, the better. Stop pooh-poohing the idea just because you think it will destroy the 'purity' of Apple and the Macintosh.

The real question to ask is what would it buy Apple to move to Intel. It would be a major undertaking and would open a few doors I'm sure Apple would rather remain shut. For one, if they produced a computer based on an Intel processor then everyone is going to want to use their hardware from their PCs on it which means Apple now has to write device drivers for everything. I don't understand what the benefit for Apple would be. Some would say they could produce a cheaper computer to compete with MS based machines. Apple is and most likely will always be positioned as a true alternative to PCs. They don't and have never catered to the gaming/build your own crowd. Besides, if they ever did produce such a computer it would not go for $899. They would have to differentiate it from the rest of the PC's available which would require a much higher price tag so you have the same situation as now just with different hardware. Were is the benefit?

[tgrundke]

qjksaeib:

Once again, I ask: WHY would putting an Intel processor into a Macintosh make it a marketing nightmare? Does a Motorola chip make a Macintosh a Macintosh? Does an IBM Power4 make a Macintosh a Macintosh? No! Does having a limited number of applications make a Macintosh a Macintosh? No! What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is the user interaction/operating system. What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is Apple's integration of hardware and software. THAT is what a Macintosh is. REGARDLESS the processor that fuels it.

The assumptions made here baffle me! What makes you believe that Apple woul be producing a Wintel clone? What makes you believe that Macs would then run Windows? (Because you are assuming that the move to Intel means Macs will become 'like everything else')

What makes it a marketing nightmare? Actually, it would be the greatest boon for Apple to advertise: "NOW WITH INTEL!" Imagine that!

This does not automatically mean that Macs will be Windows compatible. This does not mean we'll see Macintosh clones. This doesn't even necessarily mean that we'll see more software! BUT, it will grab a lot of peoples' attentions and make them think that they can just pick up any software title in the store and run it on their Mac (probably not, however). It would improve the Macintosh 'mindshare' significantly and reduce the image that "Macs are outsiders, incompatible with the Wintel world."

Please explain the exact "advantage" that we Macintosh users have with hardware that is more expensive, of relatively lower performance, and with fewer software titles? Is *that* the Macintosh advantage? Hardly.

Our advantage is the seemless integration of software and hardware. It is OS X. It has NOTHING to do with the processor.

This is like saying that your car is what it is because you use premium versus regular fuel. Bologna.

Originally posted by qjkaseib
It must be pretty hard to come by decent news and rumors these days. Intel chips in Apple computers? I doubt that for a couple of reasons.

First an Apple with an Intel chip would make it look just like all the other boxes out there. This would be a marketing nightmare. Apples are for a niche market and placing an Intel chip inside would kill that niche market.

Second: Intel has been chasing after Steve Jobs for years trying to convice him to use one of their chips, but as I mentioned above Steve Job knows if he adopts an Intel chip he would loose his advantage. Enough!

So when are we going to see these Powerbook updates. Tomorrow? In a couple of weeks? At the end of September? Or in October? My bet is on October, but I would love to be wrong.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
One more thing: Linux doesn't seem to have troubles getting around and it supports a wide range of processors. Linux' problem in the home market is that it still lacks user friendliness. If Apple seriously want's to put OS X in the IT space then Intel is it; and they have to be thinking about Linux.

You make a good point. While the article MUST be discounted, perhaps, if there is any truth behind it, it might be that Apple has been putting out feelers regarding running OS X on Intel, such as the itanium... then the dingbats back in OZ got the message scrambled. M/while, back to your point... it has been argued that OS X on Intel spells the end of Apple as no one would bother making OS X apps anymore- only Windows. That may no longer hold water because the whole world now knows that Windows is unfixable and dangerous for companies and countries to continue using. A worldwide switch to OS X on Intel potentially makes Apple as big as MS! They become a software producer as well as continuing to make hardware-- ??? as different divisions. Contrary to the arguments put forward that NO ONE would develop for this platform, is the point that the world is now looking for alternatives to MS (which was not true before) and IT would not have to throw out exisiting hardware immediately , BUT and this is an important BUT... exisiting hardware could be replaced with Apple's PPCs-- different hardware but same OS. This type of switch would be less painful than an overnight one as it would be gradual.
So, I no longer see this scenario as the death of Apple but a huge opportunity to grow... based on the current hostility to MS. As you said, if Linux can do it, so can Apple.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by sedarby
... Apple is and most likely will always be positioned as a true alternative to PCs. They don't and have never catered to the gaming/build your own crowd. Besides, if they ever did produce such a computer it would not go for $899.... Lest we forget that Apple has gone down the gaming road before (the Pippin), and it died an ugly death.

Build you own is a bit different story, but they did try clones.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by tgrundke
Once again the Apple goes Intel rumor thread begins! And once more, the Doubting Thomases start up with all of the *wrong* reasons why Apple cannot go Intel.
You want a good reason Apple won't go to Intel? Here's one:

Apple would go out of business!

Doesn't anyone know what fiasco it was when Apple let companies like Power Computing use the Mac OS? It nearly killed Apple!

Most of Apple's profits are from hardware sales, not software or operating systems. If OS X could simply be put on an Intel processor, Apple's hardware sales would crash and burn. And so would Apple itself.

Is that a good enough reason for you?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by agreenster
I think he means a Mac that will run both OSX and Windows.

Ummmm......I think.:confused:

That was as they say, a rhetorical question. One not in need of answering. :rolleyes:

[tgrundke]

Pryotoaster:

Your fear is understandable, but the reasoning behind it is flawed. Just because Apple might go down the Intel route does not necessarily imply that there will be Macintosh clones. It does not mean that Macs will be running Windows, it does not mean that Apple will lose its advantage.

For clones to exist, they would have to use Apple's chipset. Remember the clones? One way Apple was able to kill them off was by making OS 9 (at the time) run only on computers that used Apple's specified chipset. What makes you think Apple wouldn't do the same thing this time around?

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
You want a good reason Apple won't go to Intel? Here's one:

Apple would go out of business!

Doesn't anyone know what fiasco it was when Apple let companies like Power Computing use the Mac OS? It nearly killed Apple!

Most of Apple's profits are from hardware sales, not software or operating systems. If OS X could simply be put on an Intel processor, Apple's hardware sales would crash and burn. And so would Apple itself.

Is that a good enough reason for you?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Linux and Solaris are really nitch operation systems. The nitch meaning it's either hackers/coders/geeks/IT etc.

I think the work you are looking for is nichè not nitch...

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Kermit
I think the work you are looking for is nichè not nitch...


word

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by tgrundke
Your fear is understandable, but the reasoning behind it is flawed. Just because Apple might go down the Intel route does not necessarily imply that there will be Macintosh clones. It does not mean that Macs will be running Windows, it does not mean that Apple will lose its advantage.

For clones to exist, they would have to use Apple's chipset. Remember the clones? One way Apple was able to kill them off was by making OS 9 (at the time) run only on computers that used Apple's specified chipset. What makes you think Apple wouldn't do the same thing this time around?
Yes, but those were PowerPC processors. Apple has more control over those than they would over Intel processors (you know, because Intel makes them for Microsoft). It wouldn't be long before people figured out how to install OS X on a Windows system. Apple can't prevent that.

Then again, there is one chipset that Apple could keep safe from clones and Intel. The PowerPC chipset. ;)

[tgrundke]

protoaster:

I think you're discounting the difficulty involved in this scenario. First of all, you wouldn't be isntalled OS X on a "Windows System", you would be installing OS X on Intel based hardware.

You're also assuming that OS X would boot on a non-Apple motherboard/chipset. If you're thinking of the old MS-DOS fiasco that lost IBM control over the personal computer market - I don't envisage that scenario repeating itself. Sure, Darwin might work on 80x86 hardware - but Darwin ain't OS X. It's a component. All that has to be done is to set OS X up so that it won't install on anything other than Apple branded hardware.

It's like when you buy a Dell - the Windows re-install disks that come with it will not work on non-Dell hardware, as set by the BIOS. This way you can't swipe your buddy's Dell CDs and try to install Windows XP on your home-built box.
Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Yes, but those were PowerPC processors. Apple has more control over those than they would over Intel processors (you know, because Intel makes them for Microsoft). It wouldn't be long before people figured out how to install OS X on a Windows system. Apple can't prevent that.

Then again, there is one chipset that Apple could keep safe from clones and Intel. The PowerPC chipset. ;)

[Kermit]

Originally posted by rjwill246
That may no longer hold water because the whole world now knows that Windows is unfixable and dangerous for companies and countries to continue using.

Maybe your world differs from mine but let me tell you something mate: on Earth, the planet I am from, the majority has NOT realised that Windows is dangerous and, as you say, "unfixable". Most governments, companies and individuals choose to use Microsoft's products and services; not because they like taking risks; but because they are ignorant of the dangers and of the alternatives. On planet Mars where you apparently are from, maybe the situation is quite the opposite. Maybe.

[SiliconAddict]

Survival, market share increase, and $$$$$ have a tendency to override pride.

I would say bring it on but if Apple did do this they need to be really careful around the Redmond giant. Honestly. If I didn’t have a VPC option I wouldn’t even consider a Mac. I have too much software invested on the Windows platform. (And don’t tell me to get a blasted desktop. I have 2. I don’t feel like carrying around 1 PowerBook and one PC laptop to allow me to use all my software.) I and MANY others need it. More so for the business environment. Then you have MS Office. No business will take Apple seriously without Office. Open Office be danged. Tell me would you risk a hundred thousand dollar business agreement on a piece of software that MAY open up your document correctly? IS\IT shops don’t have the time or the patients to dick around with a user calling up saying this document isn’t formatted correctly. I know I don’t. Like it or not it’s the defacto standard for office suites and if Apple lost that say goodbye to any attempts to penetrate the business market.
Both of these products are big deals for switchers. If Apple decided to go to war against Microsoft these are very legitimist tools for them to use to attack Apple with. And forget about the argument that MS makes money on Apple with these products. If there is even the slightest chance of anything affecting Microsoft’s 2 cash cows – Windows and Office they will level a claymore at the head of the company threatening it. Microsoft IS the most paranoid company on this planet. If they got even the slightest whiff of a project like this coming to fruition you can bet cash Billy Boy would be on the phone to Jobs in 30 seconds. The same could probably be said if Bill discontinued Office on Macs. Jobs could release OSX i386. Sort of a mutual determinant.
If…stressing if…. They did something like this they would have to be extraordinarily careful. It’s a massive chess game. If they don’t play it right they stand to lose everything. If done right they stand to reap the benefits of a larger market share and more software being ported over to OSX. The last one is important though. As has been stated over and over and over and over and….to the point of really being annoying Apple is a hardware company. Sure they are. That doesn’t mean they can’t turn into a software company. I’ve talked to several contacts at Dell. You guys all know how Dell is practically licking MS’s backside. But there are plenty of pissed off people at Dell. I don’t know how far up the food chain it goes but its pretty high. Think of the possibilities of loading OS X on as an option when configuring a Dell. There are plenty of options for Apple. Such as telling Dell they could only use OS X in low end systems. $500 to $1000 systems maybe? This leaves Apple's pro system untouched. There are options. Just saying that Apple will never consider it is foolish. Any good business considers all their options. Both popular and no so popular ones.
Personally I don’t see Apple doing such a drastic thing just yet. As many of you guys have mentioned the G5 has given Apple some breathing room. So it could be a while before something like this happens. Maybe with the release of Longhorn? If sales of LH aren’t all they are cracked up to be and it somehow flops Apple could swoop in with OS X? *shrugs* Just a thought.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Lest we forget that Apple has gone down the gaming road before, and it died an ugly death.

Build you own is a bit different story, but they did try clones.

Yeah they have, but it failed because they failed to market it.

Again it was ahead of its time and no one saw all the things it could do.


Another Wiiddee Rumor...

We have seem this before for nothing.

I wouldn't mind a Mac Os X on x86, but I would mind if they killed off Mac Os X on Mac!

[Rocketman]

I am a strong non-believer in this rumor as a baseline rule.

However since it is polluting my mind already, let's try this.

Apple needs iTunes on Wintel to make the real money off the PC weenies. It might actually be the shortest path to bundle a Intel compatible MacOSX/iTunes/VPC/Office bundle as an "upgrade" to Windows. Sold by Microsoft, distributed by Microsoft, licensed by Microsoft.

Microsoft lives for upgrade fees and Microsoft is in a pinch with all the bugs going around rright now. Heck that way Apple could climb on a small bit of the Microsoft upgrade treadmill Wintel consumers have been accustomed to.

Hey Bill and Steve, if this is news to you I want 1%. I promise to buy rockets with it :)

Rocketman

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Kermit
Maybe your world differs from mine but let me tell you something mate: on Earth, the planet I am from, the majority has NOT realised that Windows is dangerous and, as you say, "unfixable". Most governments, companies and individuals choose to use Microsoft's products and services; not because they like taking risks; but because they are ignorant of the dangers and of the alternatives. On planet Mars where you apparently are from, maybe the situation is quite the opposite. Maybe.


Not because they are ignorant of the dangers and of the alternatives, but because of the usability, flexibility, and price. :D

[gregorypierce]

Originally posted by acj
Nothing's impossible. I'm sure Apple will choose the best hardware for them at any given time. If intel produces a $99 PPC CPU with Altevec II, full SSE I/II/III and X86 compatibility, that is 64 bit, has a 4 stage pipeline, runs at 4 GHz with dual cores and dissipates 19 watts, then Apple would be stupid not to use it.

Obviously this is not expected to happen, but anything it possible. Brand loyalty is dangerous.

Especially when you have stockholders to please.

[alandail]

OS X for x86 - there are no real technical obstacles - I'm sure Apple maintains x86 compatibility anyway just in case, but I really don't see it happening.

Had Motorola been the only supplier for Apple, it likely already would have happened, but with IBM coming through for them with the G5, I really don't see Apple releasing OS X for x86. There's really no compelling reason to do so. Instead I see them focusing on their renewed relationship with IBM to really blow people away. The just released G5 machines are just the first step. I think over the next couple of years we really start to see the realization of the promise behind the PowerPC platform.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by alandail
I think over the next couple of years we really start to see the realization of the promise behind the PowerPC platform.


heard that for a while :rolleyes:

[Vlade]

I might believe this before the G5 was announced, but not now.

[Lancetx]

Originally posted by xpormac
uh no, my friends alienware goes 2 1/2 hours :rolleyes:

It's more like 1.5 to 2 hours based on every review I've ever read if you're doing anything even somewhat taxing on the processor. Of course it takes a massive 2 pound battery just to get that much life out of it, plus the notebook runs extremely hot and is a freaking brick at 10 pounds overall. I guess they're pretty good for LAN gamer boys at parties but obviously not for getting any real work done on the road... :p

[3.1416]

Originally posted by tgrundke
Let's also assume that increasingly, developers are only interested in developing for the Intel chipset and don't want to deal anything else.

The problem isn't the processor, it's the OS. It's not that developers only want to deal with Intel, it's that they only want to develop for Windows.

Imagine if there was a way to relatively easily re-compile an application to run under OS X. Wouldn't you be happy?

See above. Translating instructions from x86 to PPC is "easy"; it's what Virtual PC does. But by itself that doesn't give you any capability to run Windows apps. And even if that were possible, it would *not* be a good thing. If Macs could run every Windows app seamlessly, what motivation would there be to write native OS X apps? (This is what happened to OS/2, which ran Windows 3.1 apps so well that publishers didn't see the need to do native versions).

What is to keep Apple from maintaining its proprietary ROMs and chipset that would prevent clones?

Thousands of hackers who would defeat any hardware checks that the OS makes.

And regardless of whether OS X on x86 is a good idea, it is simply not going to happen in the forseeable future. 12 months ago there was a possibility. But there is no way that Apple would be committing the resources that they have to the G5 if they had any intention of going to x86.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Lancetx
It's more like 1.5 to 2 hours based on every review I've ever read if you're doing anything even somewhat taxing on the processor. Of course it takes a massive 2 pound battery just to get that much life out of it, plus the notebook runs extremely hot and is a freaking brick at 10 pounds overall. I guess they're pretty good for LAN gamer boys at parties but obviously not for getting any real work done on the road... :p

He seems to have no problems with it taking it to all the houses he appraises. LAN gamer boys? never heard that before. It gets real work done and is able to do much much more. If i had the money right now, id get one. As for running hot, what laptop doesn't?

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Kermit
Maybe your world differs from mine but let me tell you something mate: on Earth, the planet I am from, the majority has NOT realised that Windows is dangerous and, as you say, "unfixable". Most governments, companies and individuals choose to use Microsoft's products and services; not because they like taking risks; but because they are ignorant of the dangers and of the alternatives. On planet Mars where you apparently are from, maybe the situation is quite the opposite. Maybe.

I'm off to Mars. Anybody wanna come along?

[Lancetx]

Originally posted by xpormac
He seems to have no problems with it taking it to all the houses he appraises. LAN gamer boys? never heard that before. It gets real work done and is able to do much much more. If i had the money right now, id get one. As for running hot, what laptop doesn't?

Hmm, must not take long to appraise a house if you only get 2 hours of battery life in between needing charges. I'm talking about when you need something for a job where you have to be out all day away from the office and a regular power source. Besides, why would anyone lug around a 10 pound beast for something like that? :confused:

They're *gaming* notebooks if you didn't know...that's where the LAN gamer reference comes from since they're very popular at LAN parties and that's how they're marketed by Alienware. I must admit though, I've never seen one used for business purposes (for the heat, battery and sheer weight reasons). As for the heat issue, it's the only notebook I've ever seen that the keyboard literally toasts your digits when you type for more than a few minutes. It guess it does double as an excellent hand warmer when it's cold though. ;)

Maybe though they'll get all of those issues resolved when the P5 or whatever comes along. No biggie right? Of course, the newest Alienware notebooks are going with Centrino technology and those do get better battery life and are lighter and thinner, but those will only max out at 1.7GHz. :eek: Hmm, and I thought the higher the clock speed was the better the performance, or at least that's what I've always heard according to all you Wintel fanboys out there, so maybe megahertz doesn't mean everything? Are you changing your story after all these years?

However, I'm quite confident you'll find some clever way to enlighten us as to how they're better than anything Apple or IBM has now or will ever have. In the meantime, enjoy spending your holiday trolling the *Mac* forums. I'm sure there is a virus or worm chat thread going on in a Wintel forum you could go comment on, but I guess that isn't as much fun as trolling here spreading FUD is it? Hmm, I guess Apple must be doing something right since they seem to keep so much of your interest here instead of on some Alienware board elsewhere... :D

[michaelperez1]

Intel is ************

By the time Apple switches to Intel or AMD its when Steve Jobs Die's.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by xpormac
He seems to have no problems with it taking it to all the houses he appraises. LAN gamer boys? never heard that before. It gets real work done and is able to do much much more. If i had the money right now, id get one. As for running hot, what laptop doesn't?

I don't think I could treat any businessman seriously if they had a Hulk Green laptop.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Lancetx
Of course, the newest Alienware notebooks are going with Centrino technology and those do get better battery life and are lighter and thinner, but those will only max out at 1.7GHz. :eek: Hmm, and I thought the higher the clock speed was the better the performance, or at least that's what I've always heard according to all you Wintel fanboys out there, so maybe megahertz doesn't mean everything? Are you changing your story after all these years?



dont just look at the ghz. Its a different type of processor. Its good that they are switching to these. Much, much more battery life.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I don't think I could treat any businessman seriously if they had a Hulk Green laptop.

or one of the older lime green mac laptops?

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by xpormac
or one of the older lime green mac laptops?

Before my time... troll.

[alandail]

Originally posted by xpormac
heard that for a while :rolleyes:

Yep - and it got screwed up for a while between Motorola's incompetence and IBM not adopting Altivec. Apparently the new PowerBooks are taking so long because Motorola is still incompetent, but IBM has adopted Altivec, so the only way the story makes sense is if IBM proves to be incompetent - which I don't see happening.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by xpormac
dont just look at the ghz. Its a different type of processor. Its good that they are switching to these. Much, much more battery life. Sounds like an old apple sales pitch

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by xpormac
or one of the older lime green mac laptops?

How about the Pink Gateway that was in legally blond 2?

[xpormac]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Before my time... troll.


ok troll. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by mattmack
Sounds like an old apple sales pitch

;)

[admford]

i've read through the last couple of pages in this thread and a good reason why Apple won't switch to Intel came up in my mind.

For the last couple of years Apple has continuosely confronted it's computers against Intel based PC's. Remember the G3 ad campaign where the "G3 burns the rest of the competition" where we saw a smoldering Intel cleanroom worker (of the dancing kind)?

Or how the G4 in the begining was a "Supercomputer" on your desk? Apple has been "bashing" Intel for years, and if it would switch hardware in PowerBooks to run on P4 mobile processors in order to keep them up to date, Apple would be throwing away the money they spent on all that advertizing.

If Apple couldn't update PowerBooks fast enough with G4's, my best guess is that they would swith to G3's with Altivec built in, and end up renaming them G4's until IBM comes up with a low power version of the PPC970 (if they do).

As for programs, companies would have to switch compilers or use special "translator" compilers that would be able to traslate PPC assembler code to x86/64 code. And think of all the companies that re-code all those games so we can play them. If Apple would leave their architecture completely, these companies would be bankrupt in a few months.

Those are my reasons why Apple switching to Intel being out of the question.

[Chealion]

I laughed when I read this rumor. There was one word that surfaced.... ************!

Apple has (if they don't I will be shocked) a working version of OS X that can run on x86 architecture. Its a backup, and also a great source to help peg down little bugs that plague other OSes that only run on one architecture (Windoze). Take a look at Linux and you see that its rather stable on all architectures because its developed for them all.

Apple letting go the recently introduced G5, and going x86 for MWSF2004, is laughable. That would be suicide. If Apple wasn't able to get a decent processor in the unlikely event both Motorola, and IBM can't come with anything or another company can't provide, Apple *may* go x86 because they are forced to. Apple like any large business has several contingency plans in case something fails. Its the only way the company would be able to survive such a change in their market space.

No OS X on x86, for at least the lifetime of the G5. That much is guaranteed.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Due to the frequent recurrance of this rumor as well as being from a rumor source of unknown reliability, it is felt to be unlikely.


Yet it appears on the front page instead of page 2...

[zapp]

Originally posted by SeaFox
Yet it appears on the front page instead of page 2...


I think arn was trying to work us all up so we would have somehting to talk about when the powerbook don't appear next week. The old bait and switch. And we almost bought it.

[Chealion]

Did anyone notice on their site they have a butchered picture of the G5? Its been squashed vertically and stretched horizontally. It makes the G5 look like a fat whore.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by Kermit
Could someone please explain to me what a "duel" platform "MAC" is? I thought it was "dual" platform "Mac" but of course I could be wrong, tomorrow maybe pigs can fly and come january certainly MAC(?) OS X will run exclusively on Intel-hardware. RIGHT!!

The "duel" platform Mac is Apple's idea of how to "foil" the competition on both ease-of-use and hardware costs."

:D

C'mon people, throw me a bone here.

[GeeYouEye]

OS X for x86 (or one of its successors) will happen when Apple stops being a hardware maker. Until then, it won't. One fact that people constantly forget is that Apple is not competing with Microsoft. If they were, the PPC and even probably the 680x0 would have been little more than historical footnotes. And Microsoft and Apple would each have about 40-45% market-share, and both OS's would likely not be as good as they are today.

But Apple doesn't compete with Microsoft, no matter how much people would like to think it does.

Apple competes with Dell. Apple competes with Gateway. Apple competes with HP. Apple competes with Sun. Apple competed most directly with NeXT and Be. Apple most directly competes with Genesi and their Pegasos computer and MorphOS (an outgrowth of Amiga OS). And you know what? In every playing field with the competitors doing the same thing (OS AND hardware), Apple has come out on top, except in the case of Sun, but their target market is very different than Apple's (though the XServe isn't doing too bad).

The problem is, of course that hardware+software vendors such as Apple obviously don't do as well as solely hardware (Dell) or solely software (Microsoft) companies. But Apple is stuck. Apple obviously can't switch solely to hardware (unless MorphOS gets way better and gains way more acceptance than it has), but has far too much invested in hardware to become a software company. Admittedly, switching to software only would be far easier than a hardware-only switch, but it's still darn difficult and I doubt Apple wants to lose its high margins. But, because it is so late in the game, Apple has a further issue to deal with: developers. While I don't doubt that many developers would be glad just to have to write x86 code, I doubt they'd be so happy as to write nearly the same code for two different OS's on the same hardware.

To say nothing of the compatibility issues Apple would have if it became software only. The integration between hardware and software is what keeps Apple going in its current form, and it's one reason a lot of people like the Mac. Why would anyone want to use an unstable, less integrated Mac OS on x86?

It's too late for Apple to become a software only company, and impossible for them to release an x86-compatible Mac OS. In short, they're stuck until the next major processor architecture breaktgrough.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by SeaFox
The "duel" platform Mac is Apple's idea of how to "foil" the competition on both ease-of-use and hardware costs."

:D

C'mon people, throw me a bone here. As a fencer that was BAD:)

[darndog]

While this seems extremely unlikely for desktop macs and laptops it would be very easy for Apple to put out x86 based servers (long overdue an update), using any old chip-set. OSX is already available for x86 (sans GUI), the services, apache etc. are ready, the market would love them and lest we forget, Apple already did this, what 8 years ago? with those enormous boxes running what was it, AIX?

On balance though, its more likely just another wannabe site going for page hits.

darndog

[tazznb]

The only plausible way I can even think of this happening is for Apple to keep a high end pro line sporting the G5, and successors processors, and to switch their consumer line to Intel.

This may help lower the priices in thier consumer lineup.

Other than that I'd say NO WAY!:mad:

[freundt]

WHY APPLE SHOULD COME OUT WITH A INTEL VERSION OF OSX.
or Why I will get flammed.
by freundt


1. 98-99% of all computer hardware sold is based on the x86 processor.

2. Every IT geek, slashdot reader, etc. wants top move to a linux/unix solution WITH a good UI. OSX is at heart, a unix OS. So is Linux. OSX is a unix solution with a pretty UI
2.5 One reason for Linux not being adopted is that all the UIs out there are not standard, nor do all the apps use the same commands, etc. OSX would not bring only it's superior UI to x86, but also, MAJOR DEVELOPERS like adobe and macromedia, et. al.

3. With all of the negative press out there, and with tech heads bashing it, Windows is looking worse and worse, leading to Point #4.

4. PEOPLE ARE looking for an alternative OS.. just look at what Lindows, Red hat, Mandrake, et. al. are trying to do. Would they be trying is there wasn;t a market? Would investors invest in them they didn't think it was a good invetment?

5. Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company.. the richest in the world. So software companies DO make money! Imagine that.

6. If OSX were to get say just 10% of Microsoft's market share on x86, that is still like 300% more marketshare than it has now.

7. Apple does not have to abandon it's PPC architecture to do this either. Anyone remember those fat binaries from the first PPC platform change? Why couldn't apple do the same thing.. One program, two platforms. Apple could release it as diffent flavors of thew same OS, much like Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional.

8. Apple is positioning itself as a "service" company as it stands.. Itunes, Ipod, Iphoto, etc... These are the main selling points of apple now, not superior hardware!

Ok.. enough of this rant.

I personally believe that for Apple to release OSX for the x86 would make them not only a viable contender in the future of the computing world, but also very rich... and we all know shareholders love the $$$$....

_f

---------------------------
OSX for intel - not only a good idea, but a GREAT one.

[Sherman]

There should be a Page 3. It would be dedicated to rumors about Mac OS X on x86 hardware and buyout's by Disney.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by freundt


I personally believe that for Apple to release OSX for the x86 would make them not only a viable contender in the future of the computing world, but also very rich... and we all know shareholders love the $$$$....

_f

---------------------------
OSX for intel - not only a good idea, but a GREAT one.
The only problem is writing the support into the os for every bit of hardware that is out for the x86 architecture. If apple tries to do this it will end up as buggy as microsoft. And if they try to only support specific hardware no one will buy it (too Complex)

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by admford
For the last couple of years Apple has continuosely confronted it's computers against Intel based PC's. Remember the G3 ad campaign where the "G3 burns the rest of the competition" where we saw a smoldering Intel cleanroom worker (of the dancing kind)? Yes that was sort of fun, along with the snail...

Any commercial for Apple switching to Intel would be ugly, what are they going to say -- they lost that horse race and ended up having to shoot the horse and the jockey to put them out of our misery.

[Frobozz]

Never gonna happen. I laugh out loud every time someone poses a theory about how Steve Jobs would rationalize going to the dark side. Some think Intel CPU's aren't going to the dark side... they are. But the most telling reasons why they would NOT go INTEL:

1) A Recompiled of every app or be forced to sluggish emulation of every EXISTING app. It's one thing to emulate a single app here or there, it's another thing to do it for all the apps.

2) It's too soon since the transition to OS X to make developers and users make another costly investment in software and hardware.

3) The G5 is faster than anything in the PC world right now, and it's speed ramp-up should be outpacing the INTEL and AMD offerings.

4) Steve Jobs would have to figure out how to say "INTEL is your friend!"

5) You can always try to punch a hole in one of my theories, but you all know it ain't gonna happen despite that. :-)

[tgrundke]

admford:

Good idea, but flawed. Recall that in the 1980s Apple pitted its computers again IBM. Remember the full page advertisement that Apple took out in the New York Times when IBM introduced the first IBM PC?

"Welcome IBM. Seriously."

Today, Apple and IBM are partners and Apple actively advertises the IBM chips in its computers.

In the 1990s Apple fought against Microsoft - actively.

Recall the famous anti-Windows 95 advertisement "Crowd Control" with the presentation gone awry? Or the large advertisement Apple took out:
"C:\ONGRATULATIONS", mocking Microsoft's attempts to make Windows more user friendly?

Now Apple advertises Microsoft products on its homepage.

Remember: Advertising and marketing is the "art of the possible" and has absolutely no basis on hard principles and even less basis on 'fact'. Was the G4 a "Supercomputer?" Hardly. Is the G5 the fastest personal computer on the market? That's debatable.

Advertising is useful for the moment and quickly forgotten in the minds of most consumers. Apple's advertising focuses today more on "branding" the company and giving it a strong identity rather than in "roasting" it's competition as they did several years back.

Originally posted by admford
i've read through the last couple of pages in this thread and a good reason why Apple won't switch to Intel came up in my mind.

For the last couple of years Apple has continuosely confronted it's computers against Intel based PC's. Remember the G3 ad campaign where the "G3 burns the rest of the competition" where we saw a smoldering Intel cleanroom worker (of the dancing kind)?

Or how the G4 in the begining was a "Supercomputer" on your desk? Apple has been "bashing" Intel for years, and if it would switch hardware in PowerBooks to run on P4 mobile processors in order to keep them up to date, Apple would be throwing away the money they spent on all that advertizing.

If Apple couldn't update PowerBooks fast enough with G4's, my best guess is that they would swith to G3's with Altivec built in, and end up renaming them G4's until IBM comes up with a low power version of the PPC970 (if they do).

As for programs, companies would have to switch compilers or use special "translator" compilers that would be able to traslate PPC assembler code to x86/64 code. And think of all the companies that re-code all those games so we can play them. If Apple would leave their architecture completely, these companies would be bankrupt in a few months.

Those are my reasons why Apple switching to Intel being out of the question.

[freundt]

Originally posted by mattmack
The only problem is writing the support into the os for every bit of hardware that is out for the x86 architecture. If apple tries to do this it will end up as buggy as microsoft. And if they try to only support specific hardware no one will buy it (too Complex)

A lot of it is already done.. look at the FREE BSD distro... And as for buggyness, that would be like saying Linux Distros, which support tons of hardware, are buggy. They aren't. They are pretty solid.

Just because you have to support multiple devices doesn't make your OS buggy. Writting bad drivers for those devices does.

_f

[mattmack]

Originally posted by xpormac
not the fastest out there ;) No but close to the fastest in its price range

[qjkaseib]

It is very intersting how assumptions were jumped to immediately. I never said Apple would make a Wintel clone or run Window, but you did exactly what the average consumer will do if this were to happen. What make a Macintosh a Macintosh is the fact that is does not look or work like a Wintel regardless of the GUI and operating system. You forget the driving force behind Apple is there are 2 kinds of computer you can buy, Apple or a PC.

Originally posted by tgrundke
qjksaeib:

Once again, I ask: WHY would putting an Intel processor into a Macintosh make it a marketing nightmare? Does a Motorola chip make a Macintosh a Macintosh? Does an IBM Power4 make a Macintosh a Macintosh? No! Does having a limited number of applications make a Macintosh a Macintosh? No! What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is the user interaction/operating system. What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is Apple's integration of hardware and software. THAT is what a Macintosh is. REGARDLESS the processor that fuels it.

The assumptions made here baffle me! What makes you believe that Apple woul be producing a Wintel clone? What makes you believe that Macs would then run Windows? (Because you are assuming that the move to Intel means Macs will become 'like everything else')

What makes it a marketing nightmare? Actually, it would be the greatest boon for Apple to advertise: "NOW WITH INTEL!" Imagine that!

This does not automatically mean that Macs will be Windows compatible. This does not mean we'll see Macintosh clones. This doesn't even necessarily mean that we'll see more software! BUT, it will grab a lot of peoples' attentions and make them think that they can just pick up any software title in the store and run it on their Mac (probably not, however). It would improve the Macintosh 'mindshare' significantly and reduce the image that "Macs are outsiders, incompatible with the Wintel world."

Please explain the exact "advantage" that we Macintosh users have with hardware that is more expensive, of relatively lower performance, and with fewer software titles? Is *that* the Macintosh advantage? Hardly.

Our advantage is the seemless integration of software and hardware. It is OS X. It has NOTHING to do with the processor.

This is like saying that your car is what it is because you use premium versus regular fuel. Bologna.

[gsdali]

This Rumour always seems to come up when Microsoft needs Spanking. The 5 year truce is over and this seems to be apple's way of saying to microsoft that they could hurt M$'s core business. It wouldn't suprise me if Apple did have something locked in a cupboard somewhere, even developed by a trusted team of oopaloompas.

The PPC platform is looking healthier than it has done in years and itanic is looking very shonky. There is actually a roadmap, thanks to the IBM Power series of processors and IBM has a vested interested in keeping this development track going.

If this rumour is anything it's to get M$ to keep office going, which mean that apple has got an office suite based on Open Office/Star Office (or heaven forbid koffice) in the pipeline, or at least not yet.

[gsdali]

Of course it could be Apples way of spanking Motorola into produce a decent portable G4.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by darndog
Apple already did this, what 8 years ago? with those enormous boxes running what was it, AIX?

Those still didn't run Intel.

Okay, why would Apple switch to Intel if the G5 is going to be much, much faster than Intel in the near future? And those of you saying that Intel will only go into laptops or into the low end--ha! Any cost/performance gain from that would be greatly outweighed by the hassle of having two mutually incompatible system architectures that you have to support. If anything, Apple will have to double the hard drive capacity of all their products just to run a fat binary of every single piece of software, including the OS! This is untenable.

And yes, the G5 will go into PowerBooks. They may even go into PowerBooks this very month. If not, it will be soon, as soon as the G5 reaches 90 nm.

There's no rationale for Apple to use Intel processors. None at all.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Okay, why would Apple switch to Intel if the G5 is going to be much, much faster than Intel in the near future?


Who says they are going to be much, much faster?

[Phil Of Mac]

By next summer we'll be at 3 GHz. If we continue at that rate, we will outpace them quite significantly.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
By next summer we'll be at 3 GHz. If we continue at that rate, we will outpace them quite significantly.

So at what speeds are intel and amd supose to be by next summer?

[Phil Of Mac]

I'm not sure, but from many accounts, I've heard that they're starting to run out of steam. Time will tell, but I'm sure that the PPC will be the better solution in the long term.

[alandail]

Originally posted by xpormac
So at what speeds are intel and amd supose to be by next summer?

They'll have to be a 4.5 GHz just to keep up.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by alandail
They'll have to be a 4.5 GHz just to keep up.

unless they change the processor up like centrino is, where it uses lower power and ghz but matches higher ghz processors.

[Code101]

I would love to see OS-X run on my 3.06 Xeon's with 1MB Cache. I run Windows Server 2003 now because it is so much more stable and faster than Windows XP. I think OS-X would rock on a X-86 Platform as well.

As far as the PPC G5 goes, I love it. It's an excellent CPU. Remember who builds them though. I keep hearing everyone say Apple makes them. Not so! IBM makes them. IBM is one of first to manufacture X-86 computers.

Get over it! Both processor types are good. OS-X on PPC or X-86 is a great thing!

[Photorun]

xporman: are you certain that the 970/980 (G5/G6) will never ever match Intel or AMD offerings hence your constant pessimistic bent or are you just a negative troll here because it's a slow forum day over on the "Why M@cz Suxz" boards?

[cubist]

According to the account in "Apple Confidential", the "Star Trek" build was demo'd in front of a bunch of Apple execs including the head of hardware engineering. That guy saw his job flashing before his eyes. He made sure that project got stuck where the sun doesn't shine.

There's as much chance of Marklar/Star Trek getting released as there is of Microsoft releasing Microsoft Office for Linux. I.E. none whatsoever.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Photorun
xporman: are you certain that the 970/980 (G5/G6) will never ever match Intel or AMD offerings hence your constant pessimistic bent or are you just a negative troll here because it's a slow forum day over on the "Why M@cz Suxz" boards?

what the hell are you talking about? never said they won't match intel or amd.


<edit: im one of those people that love this, because the companies keep going against each other and processors just get better, faster, cheeper.>

[edenwaith]

My subject pretty much sums it up. I'll believe it when I see it. While trying to port Mac OS X to an Intel structure might not be an impossible task, I certainly don't imagine Apple doing it anytime soon, especially with the G5 chip out now. It just would not seem to make sense for Apple to have spent a lot of time and energy on co-creating the G5 and then decide to go the x86 route. Maybe as Plan B, but not for now.

One of the reasons Star Trek [supposedly] did not progress further is that the PC version of Mac OS was running faster on 486 machines than on the new PowerPC chips. So why bother butchering their machine sales?

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Honestly, IBM has one long roadmap. And everyone knows Intel is running out of steam.

I heard this exact same thing when the PowerPC was first introduced.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by mattmack
The only problem is writing the support into the os for every bit of hardware that is out for the x86 architecture.

Most likely, Apple would make it so that the MacOS only runs on Apple-branded x86 boxes.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
I heard this exact same thing when the PowerPC was first introduced.

Sure, but at that time, Apple wasn't as healthy as it is now, and the G4 debacle set us back. The mere fact that hte G5 has given us a big leap back into the race all of a sudden shows that we're gaining at a pretty fast clip. Now is the time for the true potential of the PowerPC to shine through.

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Linux and Solaris are really nitch operation systems. The nitch meaning it's either hackers/coders/geeks/IT etc. The success of Linux is that it's opensource, which means the companieS that sell linux don't have much overheard as far as hiring programmers. If OS X was opensourced... you'd have many companies selling their own versions of it. The plus side of that is that you'd have lots of free development.

I see more advantage to Apple opensourcing all of OS X than releasing a port to x86.

What do you think Apple is with less than 3% market share? I would call that a nich market. Apple would go from 3% to 30% if it supported multiple platforms. We all know that OS X is superior to Windows, but it's the other 97% that don't; if they did, I believe there would be a mass exodus from MS.

Also, I don't think that Linux' success can be attributed to just being open source. Apple supports almost all open source projects. Linux still costs money, just not as much as Windows. I think in IT it is MS security track record and their outrageous CAL licensing that has moved people to Linux. OS X can compete in this space, but they also will capture a larger percentage of home users (once people understand what they are missing).

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Linux?!

Linux is Open Source! If Apple adopted Linux's strategies, the company would be broke in a year.

I respect Linux because it's open source. That makes it unique. But that doesn't make it a sound business plan.

I am not suggesting they do. Let's see, if we walk down the isle at Best Buy Linux costs about $79 for a professional distribution. I know it can be had for free, but that isn't the point. If you had your choice between a $129 Windows XP or a $129 OS X which would you choose? When IT purchases a server with Linux it is not free, but it doesn't cost as much as Windows. Apple would attract a lot of people just because they wouldn't have to purchase new hardware to use the OS. Once they use it they will come back and when its time to buy new hardware who do you think they will look at first? Apple needs mind share as much as market share.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
We all know that OS X is superior to Windows, but it's the other 97% that don't; if they did, I believe there would be a mass exodus from MS.

Thats your opinion, not everyones. :rolleyes: Even if they supported all hardware forms, there wouldn't be a mass exodus from MS.... :rolleyes:

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by rjwill246
As you said, if Linux can do it, so can Apple.

Apple can do it better. (and thanks for the compliment) What Linux has failed to accomplish Apple can. I work for a small company, but I have already been tasked by managment to look at alternatives to MS. SECURITY is the issue driving this. At the moment I have to look at Linux and Solaris; but Unix is not for the faint of heart, it takes time to learn and master. It's a big reason I purchased an OS X workstation. Apple could go a long way to making adoption of it's platform relativly painless, but still have the Unix power. If I had an OS that ran on my hardware they would go for it, but trying to pursuade them to purchase all new hardware...forget about it.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
Most likely, Apple would make it so that the MacOS only runs on Apple-branded x86 boxes.
Then people would wonder why they can't run mac OS on their exsisting machines and would end up having to buy new hardware anyway which eliminates the need to go to an x86 based processor then

[Sonofhaig]

Good God! Not this rumor again.
What a crock....... No way!

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
You want a good reason Apple won't go to Intel? Here's one:

Apple would go out of business!

Doesn't anyone know what fiasco it was when Apple let companies like Power Computing use the Mac OS? It nearly killed Apple!

Most of Apple's profits are from hardware sales, not software or operating systems. If OS X could simply be put on an Intel processor, Apple's hardware sales would crash and burn. And so would Apple itself.

Is that a good enough reason for you?

This kind of logic just doesn't make any sense to me. Quite the contrary, Apple's leading design would make them sell even more hardware. They only have 3% market share. Imagine if they had 30%. Just the sheer numbers of people using their OS would drive hardware sales. Why would people prefer a Gateway or HP to a beautiful Apple? People are affraid to switch to Apple so they settle for a peice of crap HP, Gateway, or Dell because they have too.

And why is Apple considered a "hardware" company? They make some of the most amazing and cutting edge software out there (but we are the only ones who know that!). Imagine how much money they would make if all their iApps ran on both Windows and OS X. There are literaly millions of people who would drop their hard earned cash for this software. I think Apple lovers are just affraid because it would put Apple on a head-to-head battle with MS; and everyone who has tried to beat them has lost. Apple will not loose that battle. They have superior products and we all know it, but the millions of Windows users havn't even heard about it yet. Apple on Intel will change Apple, that's for certain, but it's a change for the better.

[Analog Kid]

Personally I think this is a tired, recycled rumor, but because I'm bored I'll offer the following perspectives:

People seem focused on the "Intel is cheaper" aspect, but the article specifically calls out the Itanic as the processor to be used. Certainly not cheap, and certainly not a laptop processor! (Not sure what would worry me more, the heat of the plant or the tank of LN2).

I'm sure Apple is keeping an Intel build around. Not hard to do since NeXT ran on Intel when they bought it. Darwin for Intel is public. Whether it's a backup, or a possible dagger against MS, or both, it's a cheap development to keep in the wings.

I take it as a given that the Aussies confused statements from their sources, or that someone is intentionally spreading mis-information. With that in mind, it could be:

Intel trying to show that *someone* is accepting the Itanic. IBM hasn't, Dell ain't doing well with it, HP is panicked...

Someone trying to undercut G5 sales by implying that the platform is going away.

Apple trying to get IBM to allow them to run OS X on the Power4/5 directly as a high end enterprise system. I don't know, but I'd guess IBM is reluctant to OEM their high-end chips.


Maybe we'll see a shootout between Darwin and Linux on an Itanic at MW2004, just to show which OS has better underpinnings.

Most likely though, it's all just bunk.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
Imagine how much money they would make if all their iApps ran on both Windows and OS X. There are literaly millions of people who would drop their hard earned cash for this software.

Ha!

Even Mac users don't want to pay for iApps. And you expect Windows users to!?

Ha!

[xpormac]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
Why would people prefer a Gateway or HP to a beautiful Apple? People are affraid to switch to Apple so they settle for a peice of crap HP, Gateway, or Dell because they have too.




People could care less what their desktop looks like underneath their desk. Its not being afraid, its that they know they don't have to shell out $1,500 for a computer that they just want to surf the net and check their mail with. I'm on an hp/compaq laptop right now and i'll tell you, from their past, they certainly have changed for the better. Much better product :D So no need to call them crap ;)

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by xpormac
So at what speeds are intel and amd supose to be by next summer?

Beats me, but they have been at 3 GHz since last November. That's 10 months of no speed increases.

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by mattmack
The only problem is writing the support into the os for every bit of hardware that is out for the x86 architecture. If apple tries to do this it will end up as buggy as microsoft. And if they try to only support specific hardware no one will buy it (too Complex)

Wrong! MS has buggy code because they haven't really done a complete rewrite. All "new" versions of Windows are essentailly patched and padded versions of previous incarnations. Every time they come out with a new OS they claim it's new, but that is BS. What do you think "built on NT technology" means? And don't think Longhorn will be any better.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Beats me, but they have been at 3 GHz since last November. That's 10 months of no speed increases.


3.2 ghz actually ;) Trying to find a website that gives their plain for the next year. Not having much luck.

[Abstract]

Why isn't this a page 2 rumour? :mad:

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Beats me, but they have been at 3 GHz since last November. That's 10 months of no speed increases.

See? Switching to Intel would be like using Motorola :)

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by xpormac
Thats your opinion, not everyones. :rolleyes: Even if they supported all hardware forms, there wouldn't be a mass exodus from MS.... :rolleyes:

Well, this is a forum for expressing one's opions :) and that is mine. I know a lot of IT folks who are jones'n for OS X on Intel. They havn't the courage to switch...poor buggers :( Anyway, I think that OS X and other assorted Apple software is so superior to anything on Wintel that if people new about it and could run it on their computers MS market share would drop.

[Sun Baked]

Intel to elaborate on new multicore processor (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39116043,00.htm?rtag=zdnetukhompage)

... Intel has conquered most of the low-end server market with its Xeon processor family, which, unlike Itanium, is a variant of its Pentium line and can easily run the same software. To bring Itanium into less-expensive machines, Intel plans to release another Itanium processor, code-named Deerfield.

Deerfield is scheduled to debut on 8 September, sources close to the company said. According to Intel product plans from July, Deerfield will cost $744 (about £470), substantially below the price of Intel's other Itanium 2 chips, which range from $1,338 to $4,226. ...

...Other chips on tap

Tanglewood will be one of a number of product announcements at the three-day conference, which runs from 16 to 18 September. Intel will also provide further details of "Prescott," the next version of Pentium 4, and "Dothan," a new version of the Pentium M for notebooks.

Both chips will begin to ship this year, Gelsinger said.

"We are going to... have 03 product and revenue shipments," Gelsinger said.

Both chips will be made on the 90-nanometre manufacturing process, which means that the average feature size of the chips will measure 90 nanometres (a nanometre is a billionth of a metre). Overall, this means the chips will be smaller and, over time, less expensive to make.

Many analysts and chip executives have said the shift to the 90-nanometre process is likely to prove difficult for many companies and even prompt product delays because of the complexities involved.

"There are something like 1,600 or 1,700 process steps involved in making a 90-nanometre wafer," Gelsinger said. "It is stunning, the complexity." ...Kool...

More expensive Mac CPUs under Intel. :p

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Ha!

Even Mac users don't want to pay for iApps. And you expect Windows users to!?

Ha!

They already do in a way. There are various and sundry Windows versions of these apps, but they suck. Apple gives them away for free because they are looking for incentives for people to switch. If, say, you wanted to run them on Windows, you would pay. If Apple made you pay you would pay. I know I would. I think OS X is a really great deal when you include these apps, but if they didn't I would still pay to use them...they are that good. Of course no one wants to pay for anything, but if you have too, well, what is a geek to do?

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
This kind of logic just doesn't make any sense to me.

And why is Apple considered a "hardware" company? They make some of the most amazing and cutting edge software out there (but we are the only ones who know that!). They have superior products and we all know it, but the millions of Windows users havn't even heard about it yet. Apple on Intel will change Apple, that's for certain, but it's a change for the better.

There are 2 kinds of people: (and teardrops- sang Del) those who solve problems and those who create obstacles.
You're clearly in the former, most of the other posters seem angry or don't want Apple to grow. But I think that Apple supporters want them to do better. That means Apple has to start thinking differently, again.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Apple is rather in that mode. The cycles are almost predictable. Time for Apple to make a big change and come out charging against MS instead of pirouetting about in silk tights.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by zap23
I don't think this will ever happen. For one, Apple has too much pride to switch to Intel and x86.

Could be, Apple in general, and Jobs in particular, have ego issues. However, Jobs has made the jump to x86 before.

Two, they just invested a huge amount of money (i think) in the G5, which is already quite popular.

This is probably the most important point. Getting developers to port/optimize for the G5 and then throw another CPU switch could alienate many developers.

This would be a complete turnaround in Apple's strategy, and I don't believe it will ever happen.

Never say never. Can you imagine what we would be talking about today had Apple not announced the G5 early this summer? Lets face it, the G4 and the Motorola relationship is pretty much history. If IBM was not there to catch Apple from falling too far on the price/performance ratio, x86 would be looking pretty good right now.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by edenwaith
One of the reasons Star Trek did not progress further is that the PC version of Mac OS was running faster on 486 machines than on the new PowerPC chips.

I have heard this story many times before, but don't know if it is true. Does anyone have some good references?

[ryaxnb]

I doubt they will, and if they did, frankly I'd be disappointed.
The G4 has problems, but it's fast enough for many (and so is the G3.) For people who want power, Apple has the G5. It runs fast. The Dual model can beat the pants off a Pentium, and for consumers processor speed matters less, and Apple can soon put the G5 in them too. As for laptops, true the G5 isn't ready for lightweight yet, but neithier is the P4. The PM is, but recompiling would be a huge hassle to Apple and other companies, as other bits of software would have to be recompiled as well. And you can bet someone might come up with a way of hacking OS X so it runs on a standard PC. Note: Apple already has Darwin compiled for Pentiums. Also, I perfer AMD; I have an Athlon 1Ghz, and the only problems with it are: It runs Whinedows, and it looks really ugly.
Add-ons:
1. The G5 couldn't be killed, at least not now. It still is faster then a Pentium with properly compiled programs.
2. Everyone seems to forget the other software would have to be recompiled as well.
3. If they go Intel/AMD, they'd better wait until the Athlon 64 comes out.
4. What would they do about OS 9.2?
Note: I first posted this on AppleInsider.

[ThomasJefferson]

Yep, without IBM and the G5 availability this summer (fall now?), Steve Jobs would be heading towards Intel like a wombat with his tail on fire.
-or-
Running bizarre tests showing how much more powerful a 1.4 G4 is, than a fill in the blank.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by rjwill246
There are 2 kinds of people: (and teardrops- sang Del) those who solve problems and those who create obstacles.

Switching to Intel would be inadvisable. It doesn't solve any problems yet creates obstacles, at least in terms of switching to Apple-hardware-only with an Intel processor. Competing as an OS vendor on Intel hardware might work, but would be a loss of integration for Apple. Apple is all about integration.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by AngryAngel
The most unlikely aspect of the story is that the Intel chip Apple has supposedly choosen is the Itanium. I thought that the Itamium was very expensive, and not that great performance.

I think if Apple has any x86 plans, then they are with AMD. Notice how AMD chips have never been used in any shoot-off benchmarks. Apple has always targetted themselves at Intel (possibly as the market leader), but they do seem to be leaving open the option AMD as a back-up. I think Steve Jobs has said having choices is good.

This story is nonsense- Itanium isn't a choice, it's a joke (for Apple's target customers). AMD could offer Apple an economic low-end chip underneath the G5 models. However, the disruption of having PowerPC and x86 code required for the different models would be a serious drawback to this idea, so I have been talking rubbish!

Apple will stay with the PowerPC for a while at least (now that the G5 has materialised).
If the Itanium would be the one Apple would use, then it's not x86! The x86 and the Itanium are almost completely different.

[rundevilrun]

I think that IBM is taking aim at Intel with their 970 cpus. First of all, 64-bit cpus are inevitable. Second is Intel's current migration path for it's x86 architecture is, well I don't know what it is. The itanium is not binary compatible, unlike the G5 and AMD's 64 bit architecture. IBM is selling 970 based linux boxes and Apple's got the G5 and I wouldn't be suprised if IBM is having talks with microsoft to bring back their ppc windows (windows nt had a ppc version). With the power4 and power5 architecture available to derive desktop chips from, IBM very well could become the standard 64-bit desktop architecture.

[a1291762]

If Apple made x86 hardware, it would still be as expensive and inflexible as their current offering. The reason x86 hardware is so popular in many places is because of the flexibility. You can have a bare bones system to do something or other for very cheap. Apple doesn't sell bare bones systems, they sell feature packed systems.

The lack of flexibility is both Apple's strength and weakness. It's easy to push someone towards a more expensive system when the cheap one isn't expandable. I would purchase a g5 right now if I could get dual 1.6Ghz processors for $3,000 AUD. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't want to sell me that system. They would rather I spend $7,000 for the dual 2Ghz model. Of course, I'd like to use the two 40GB IDE disks I've got in a RAID but there's no room, let alone an interface in the G5s to do that.

If Apple at least followed the ATX specs I'd be able to put an ATA PCI card in and mount the guts of a G5 in a *real* case to mount my drives in. Again, Apple doesn't want me to do that, they want me to spend bucketloads of money on a fibre channel card and Xserve RAID, throwing out my older but still perfectly working hardware.

Sigh, I want to buy a new Mac to replace my iMac DV 400 but the G4s were underpowered and loud, while the G5s are very inflexible. I also can't quite justify the $1,500 difference in price between the 1.6Ghz model and a similarly spec'd PC.

Hopefully I can hold out until rev b. Hopefully that will make it worthwhile. Maybe IBM will release 970-based workstations that will run Linux.

Link

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by Chealion
No OS X on x86, for at least the lifetime of the G5. That much is guaranteed.

Apple needs to grow its user base. Probably over the last 4-5 years, each new hardward offering only served to encourage existing Apple users to upgrade. And this base is growing smaller through attrition.

And despite claims about the number of first timers buying iMacs or Windows users visiting Apple stores, Apple has not grown its user base. And the Switch campaign, while popular with Apple owners, has not been successful either.

If the G5 cannot pursuade users and organizations to buy Apple systems, Apple may have to consider the switch on business terms.

Apple can include some type of hardware dongle to prevent people buying a Dell and installing MacOS -- this would address the canibalization issue.

And assuming the Apple x86 product can run Windows (and Linux to a lesser degree), then Apple can make a more compelling case for Switchers.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by agreenster
IBM G5 or x86 Intel, I care not. Just as long as its an Apple Box with OSX and runs speed rings around everything else, then Im happy.

Maybe the Intels will be in portables?? Ive heard its next to impossible to get a G5 into a Powerbook...

Next Powerbook will be a 3.0gHz Intel-driven, fuelcell-powered, 8x DVD burnin', Magnesium-alloy, Panther Super-laptop? Maybe. :confused:
Like it's easy to get a P4 into a laptop. Nope. No matter which way you look at it, this rumor is *beep*.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by ryaxnb
Like it's easy to get a P4 into a laptop. Nope. No matter which way you look at it, this rumor is *beep*.


umm it is.....

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Switching to Intel would be inadvisable. Apple is all about integration.

Time to think different. Apple would be MAD to make an x86 Apple only box. That deosn't help ONE IT person get Mac OS into enterprise. Now if Apple NEVER wants to get into enterprise and they are simply f@rting about with XServe... well, it doesn't matter. Until the last few weeks, Apple has not had such an opportunity to take advantage of (if you're thinking early 80's -- don't go there!). One way is to get OS X out on Intel. Mac hardware is NOT going to do it at first... hasn't before, won't now- that's part of the "insanity" thing. Nope, not until the OS is out there will there be a mass migration to Apple. It is after all, the software that drives everything, not the machines. Apple's software is stunning. Let the world see it. Oh, and to our Swedish colleague... I forgot... I am meant to be on Mars, and I heard, from that now shorter distance, that a worm had attacked MS! and other major companies on Earth and that the US Homeland Security was advised to get off MS software... funny, but did that message not get to Sweden?

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by tgrundke
Sedarby:

It sounds as if you are trying to equate the move to Intel as the root cause for the failure of these companies. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected in advance.

However, if my assumption is correct, I think you should re-evaluate your position. NeXT failed for a multitude of reasons and that business' story is fascinating in itself. The move to Intel was the *least* of their problems, in fact, when the migrated to Intel, NeXTStep began to gain acceptance (but not fast enough).

As for Be, inc. - well, you only need to know a little about Jean Louis Gassee to understand why that company went under. He was a mini-Steve Jobs in training who was just as difficult to deal with. Remember, this is the man who was so proud of the Macintosh IIci's easy to assemble/disassemble case that he (in)famously stated, "Yes, this computer is expensive ($5,000+), but you have to pay good money for good sex sometimes."

Enough said.

Recall that Apple has successfully migrated from the 680x0 series to PowerPC, from OS9 to OS X and developed a compatible chip based on the Power4 (with IBM, of course). Apple has the apparent technical ability and expertise. As the old phrase goes, "rumors of my untimely demise have been greatly exaggerated."

*Anything* could happen.
True, but that doesn't make it likely. They don't even have a PPC emulator for P4s!

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by rundevilrun
I think that IBM is taking aim at Intel with their 970 cpus.

The question we need to ask is how profitable IBMs CPU effort is?

If the CPU business is not profitable, or another effort shows a better ROI, how long will IBM keep pumping money into the effort? Below is part of an article all Apple hardware fans should keep in mind:

Having Power and Intel systems sitting side by side can trigger internal dilemmas at the company between the Unix or pSeries team and xSeries or Intel team.

"I won't tell you that we haven't had those discussions" to drop Power and go with Itanium, said Robert Amezcua, pSeries vice president at IBM.

Source (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0204ibmplots.html)


Right now IBM seems happy with the POWER series, and Apple is getting good press for the G5. But Apple got screwed with the 680x0 line; then Apple got screwed with the G4 line. Apple cannot afford getting screwed too many more times.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by ryaxnb
They don't even have a PPC emulator for P4s!

Of course, there isn't an x86 emulator for the G5 right now either. If you still need to run a Windows application for your job or home, you cannot upgrade to a G5 at this point.

I don't think Apple will bring out an x86 line; however, if they do I suspect they will initially position it for two markets: (1) University folks and (2) Switchers.

University folks, the people prone to run things like Linux, are often willing to try new systems and are willing to accept the less-than-polished applications available in the open source community (OpenOffice, Gimp, etc.) which will be available for an x86 Mac.

Switchers can buy an x86 Mac to give this cool new Mac OS X operating system and all the iApps a try, but they will feel safe knowing that they can also install Windows and run their old applications should the MacOS relationship not work out for them.

These two markets will not immediately need a PPC emulator. Apple will continue to maintain a PowerPC line for the rest of us.

[rundevilrun]

Originally posted by JoeRadar
The question we need to ask is how profitable IBMs CPU effort is?


Good question, then again how profitable is AMD's effort? So much for a x86-64 version of OS X.


Right now IBM seems happy with the POWER series, and Apple is getting good press for the G5. But Apple got screwed with the 680x0 line; then Apple got screwed with the G4 line. Apple cannot afford getting screwed too many more times.

Actually with 4.5 billion in cash they probably could afford a few more times :D

FWIW I think x86 is a horrible cpu and if Apple did start using them I'm sure my G5 will last me a long time.

[Dont Hurt Me]

this again? i dont think so.

[Gyroscope]

Yeah its internet ok. Anyone can post all sorts of garbage.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by freundt
WHY APPLE SHOULD COME OUT WITH A INTEL VERSION OF OSX.
or Why I will get flammed.
by freundt


Most of your reasons are good reasons for switching to a Mac... but don't have anything to do with the processor. If there is no reason to switch CPU architectures, then there is no reason to put the developers and customers through another round of transition.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Beats me, but they have been at 3 GHz since last November. That's 10 months of no speed increases.
As much as I dislike Intel, they're not standstill. The 800 Mhz FSB was released by Intel recently, followed by the 3.2 Ghz P4.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by xpormac
3.2 ghz actually ;) Trying to find a website that gives their plain for the next year. Not having much luck.
Intel's roadmap (Intel>Products>Desktop Proc>Roadmap) doesn't say much, but it mentions that by early '04 they'll have at least 3.4 Ghz - And the G5 will still be similiar in performance.

[xpormac]

also found this.


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11229

2nd quarter they will be close to 4 ghz with prescott. Not too shabby hehe

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by xpormac
umm it is.....
You're right. I said it wrong. I meant P4's are heavy and battery-sucking. Aple currently has a big focus on light-weight, small, laptops with a long batt. life, so a move to P4's would seem strange. Also, the projected Itanium chip is very hard to put in a laptop (from what I've heard), especially a small one.

[macFanDave]

should be told that this plan has been trotted out time and again.

It usually rejected as utter crap, but with the current switch to the G5 (IBM 970) chip, this incarnation of the Mac-on-Intel fantasy is sheer buffoonery and/or delusional nonsense.

One clue: the early spelling of MAC in all caps. Anyone slightly knowledgable about our platform would know that such a spelling reveals ignorance of the Mac platform!

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by JoeRadar
Of course, there isn't an x86 emulator for the G5 right now either. If you still need to run a Windows application for your job or home, you cannot upgrade to a G5 at this point.

I don't think Apple will bring out an x86 line; however, if they do I suspect they will initially position it for two markets: (1) University folks and (2) Switchers.

University folks, the people prone to run things like Linux, are often willing to try new systems and are willing to accept the less-than-polished applications available in the open source community (OpenOffice, Gimp, etc.) which will be available for an x86 Mac.

Switchers can buy an x86 Mac to give this cool new Mac OS X operating system and all the iApps a try, but they will feel safe knowing that they can also install Windows and run their old applications should the MacOS relationship not work out for them.

These two markets will not immediately need a PPC emulator. Apple will continue to maintain a PowerPC line for the rest of us.
Well what you're saying make sense. For university folks, that sounds like a good idea. Of course, it is completely unrelated to the original rumor (Itaniums cost way too much), but is a good idea (and I think any x86 machine Apple made now would be completely unrelated to the original rumor). However, for switchers, what about Office, Photoshop, etc.? Developers would be reluctant to port 'em yet again, and MS probably wouldn't at all (because they want 90% of the OS market.)

[Rocketman]

Some companies are coming out with "thin client" PC's. I wonder if Apple made an Intel based super crippleware PC for about $500 or less fully loaded if that would satisfy their opinion of Intel crap.

It would have a browser, email, iTunes of course, and a host of low cost iApps that tried to suck premium revenues from the lowball buyers over time. Maybe forced them to refuse an automatic purchase of a dual G5 Powermac on each boot-up.

Rocketman

[mvc]

Originally posted by xpormac
2nd quarter they will be close to 4 ghz with prescott. Not too shabby hehe

xpormac, I see you are a macrumors regular, so clearly you are a pet troll.

Does Arn call you in on a regular basis to keep the forum threads ticking over, or is there really nothing better for you to be doing on your almighty, ultrafast xp box than endlessly defending your platform choice to the deeply unimpressed? ;)

[Rob Nance]

Originally posted by zap23
I don't think this will ever happen. For one, Apple has too much pride to switch to Intel and x86. Two, they just invested a huge amount of money (i think) in the G5, which is already quite popular.

This would be a complete turnaround in Apple's strategy, and I don't believe it will ever happen.

While I agree, I am not so quick to say never, and to disagree that some of this may be founded. Apple is smart, they know they are on thin ice. Having a plan to fall back to a strictly software based world (think Sega) is just smart planning. I would rather have Apple software and products for an X86 based architecture than no Apple at all, and I think most would agree.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by mvc
xpormac, I see you are a macrumors regular, so clearly you are a pet troll.

Does Arn call you in on a regular basis to keep the forum threads ticking over, or is there really nothing better for you to be doing on your almighty, ultrafast xp box than endlessly defending your platform choice to the deeply unimpressed? ;)


troll....wow...is that word getting old fast. Who is arn? and why can't I say something without someone like you coming around saying "troll" ? Seriously, piss off.

[hbwill]

I haven't read all of the post, but Apple making an intel machine makes no sense whatsoever. Apple making an intel imulator that allows x86 software to run on apple hardware makes sense to me. Is this possible?

[mvc]

Originally posted by xpormac
Seriously, piss off.

That's a GOOD way to get banned. Try responding intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse.

Arn is the Macrumors God, which I'm suprised you don't know as you spend a lot on time on the forums.

And a troll is someone who spends his time on any forum spreading FUD, negativity, and criticism simply for the perverse pleasure of being contrary.

Which is fine, if tedious, until it turns to abuse.

Read the rules.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by mvc
That's a GOOD way to get banned. Try responding intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse.

Arn is the Macrumors God, which I'm suprised you don't know as you spend a lot on time on the forums.

And a troll is someone who spends his time on any forum spreading FUD, negativity, and criticism simply for the perverse pleasure of being contrary.

Which is fine, if tedious, until it turns to abuse.

Read the rules.

getting band for saying piss off to someone calling me a troll? :rolleyes: I say my opinion on something. I don't do it to disagree. Why don't you try and respond intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse? Because calling me a troll is not intelligent nor witty.

[mvc]

Originally posted by xpormac
getting band for saying piss off to someone calling me a troll? :rolleyes: I say my opinion on something. I don't do it to disagree. Why don't you try and respond intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse? Because calling me a troll is not intelligent nor witty.

It didn't need to be, it was an observation, based on your input to this thread, which is essentially reactionary pc-is-better-than-mac sniping designed to engender a response.

I could have called you something else, but then I would get banned.

:rolleyes:

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Rocketman
Some companies are coming out with "thin client" PC's. I wonder if Apple made an Intel based super crippleware PC for about $500 or less fully loaded if that would satisfy their opinion of Intel crap.

It would have a browser, email, iTunes of course, and a host of low cost iApps that tried to suck premium revenues from the lowball buyers over time. Maybe forced them to refuse an automatic purchase of a dual G5 Powermac on each boot-up.

That would cost plenty, and probably not make much money. It would be inadvisable. It fails the cost/benefit analysis. And, Apple's too proud to build crap.

[Macnotxp]

Originally posted by xpormac
getting band for saying piss off to someone calling me a troll? :rolleyes: I say my opinion on something. I don't do it to disagree. Why don't you try and respond intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse? Because calling me a troll is not intelligent nor witty.

He wasn't trying to be witty I'm sure, it's just an honest assessment of your posts on this forum, which is a MAC forum in case you need reminding yet again. C'mon now, you've had a long day of trolling and spreading FUD and now you're just getting cranky, it sounds like it's past your bedtime. ;)

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Sure, but at that time, Apple wasn't as healthy as it is now, and the G4 debacle set us back.

At the time of the 68k->PowerPC switch, Apple had a much larger market share than now (slightly north of 10%) and similar profitability to now. This was around 1994 - by most indicators, Apple was healthier then than now.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by mattmack
Then people would wonder why they can't run mac OS on their exsisting machines and would end up having to buy new hardware anyway which eliminates the need to go to an x86 based processor then

This assumes that the main reason for Apple switching to x86 is so people can install it on any old Windows box. I don't think, given Apple's dependence on high profit margins on hardware, that this is a path that would make sense for Apple. Rather, it buys Apple an out in case the PPC line hits another G4-like snag.

A side effect of having a x86-based Mac is that a PC emulator would no longer have the burden of emulating the x86, so a built-in PC emulator would mean that a x86 Mac box would in all likelihood be able to run Win32 software at native speeds. That in itself would certainly add fuel to the switch campaign. Even if an x86 Mac was a "closed" box, that advantage would be more compelling to the average PC buyer than the current state of affairs.

[Rob Nance]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
At the time of the 68k->PowerPC switch, Apple had a much larger market share than now (slightly north of 10%) and similar profitability to now. This was around 1994 - by most indicators, Apple was healthier then than now.

Healthier as far as market share...no doubt, but doing all the wrong things. I am worried about Apple's ability to get that back, it's much easier to hold what you have than to get new users as we all know. To bad in hindsight we couldn't be where Apple is today with that 10% market share...things would be a lot different. Can you imagine Apple's R&D department while justifying it by producing 10x the number of units? *drools*

[JongAm]

Originally posted by jxyama
OS and software are there to sell the hardware. why would they give up one of the highest hardware margins in the industry, esp. now that g5 is here..? why would anyone buy hardware from apple if OS X would run on a gateway?

I think that that kind of logic is not rational. I'm sorry to say this.
That is said by many Macholics.
I'm also an Macholic. However, I don't agree with that kind of logic.

First, Apple should change its strategy that satisfy the change of the situation. OK. Apple is a H/W company. However, has it made the Apple successful in the market? You may say that it was successful. But Apple's problem is that it should worry about its existence always. The fact itself says that the existing strategy is not successful.

Second, Apple may be able to sell more S/W especially OS than now it does. There will be many people who want to buy Apple's own H/W, not because of its design, but because Apple's H/W will be shipped with the OS on it. It will satisfy current type of Mac users. "Ready-to-use" machine will be main reason for choosing Apple's machine.
However, for another type of users, who usually installs their own OS, S/W, etc, general PC H/W with Apple's OS will satisfy their needs. Better and more reliable OS with wide selection of H/Ws.
Moreover, you should not be confused with the fact of adapting Intel's CPU by Apple with "You can run the MacOS on general x86 machines.".
You don't know that if the H/W with Intel's CPU will have the same architecture with current Windows box. There are many possibilities. Same CPU doesn't mean that they are same machine, or compatible machines.
You may have different memory map, different BIOS, different mechanism of controlling other components.

I hope that Apple Intel machine will have same architecture with current windows box. However, Apple should worry about relationship with MS. So, probably if Apple choose Intel processor, they may develop new architecture. (Then you should buy Apple's H/W to run the MacOS X. )

If Apple use current Windows box architecture, it wil be welcomed by many new users. If it will not installed and run smoothly on current Wintel box, it will hurt the Apple's new move. Because "MacOS X can run on existing ( means inexpensive or wide selection of existing H/W ) wintel architecture." will the main reason to spur the sales of Apple's MacOS X for Intel.
Probably due to the fact, people may be able to buy Apple's H/W without worry.
You know, people kept saying that "x86 is faster than Mac machine.. " etc.
However they don't buy the fastest x86 machine in general. Why? They just feel comfortable with the fact that there are faster machine available if they want the machines, and they choose inexpensive machine. That kind of attitude will work for Apple's H/W and Apple's MacOS X for Intel strategy.
So, I don't think that you should worry about Apple's H/W sales.

If Apple can't find a way to boost its sales or market share with current H/W architecture, then MacOS X for Intel will be better option. They can increase the MacOS X sales while they maintain the current sales of their own H/W.

If Apple choose general Windows box architecture, I hope that it will have no problem with MacOS X for Intel on the machine. Because if installing and running the OS on current intel architecture, then it will hurt the fact, "Apple's OS can run on Intel machine" itself, and gives negative effect.

[elmimmo]

The main problem I see with Apple's mid-term future, is that without Motorola having a decent product line, they once again seem to be tied to one only processor manufacturer, IBM, and are thus condemned to fully depend on that other single foreign party's success or failure.

[JJTiger1]

I'm using a PC as the pedestal upon which my Mac sits.

Does that count as using Mac OS-10.2.6 on a PC that contains an Intel chip? :D
=-=
Mac OS running through an Intel processor chip?

Not bloody likely for the general public.

Would not surprise me to find Mac OS running on an Intel processor chip in a lab at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino.

You might also find Mac OS running through several other brands of processor chips at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino.

Makes good business sense to me: explore the possibilities, and feasibilities of other chip sources.

What if some terrorist drops a Boeing on the IBM factory?
=-=
JJ

[Glazura]

I’m reading,... and reading,.... again and again,.... AND I CAN'B BELEIVE HOW STUPID MAC USERS ARE, WHY, ooohhhh why…, but I’m not ashamed that I’m mac user too! So please use that little rock inside your skull when you talk about Apple’s against Intel’s.

[gopher]

I am one who rarely says never. Still here are some reasons:

1. Apple is a hardware company.
2. Developers would have to recode the software they still haven't yet finished developing for Mac OS X, for the Intel platform running Mac OS X. And in some cases, big developers like Microsoft who bought Virtual PC will have to decide whether
to code VirtualPC for the G5 (which isn't yet complete and won't be until next year), or for Mac OS X running on Intel and ignore the G5 entirely.
3. An upgrade path from G5 to Intel would have to be made.
4. The ROM would have to be rewritten on the motherboard.
5. Apple would have to do some hardware based emulation to maintain backwards compatibility to make its customers happy.
6. The lack of expansion capabilities on the Powerbook G4 12 inch, iBook, iMac, and eMac would preclude this happening.
7. It is bad enough that the software base makes many PC users fear switching now. Switching to Intel in order to keep Apple a high quality hardware company would force Apple to have to make a software that doesn't allow a true version of Windows to be installed on it, but rather an emulated version. And then waiting for developers to update their software for the new version will cause more complaints. With Apple's 6 to 11 month CPU upgrade cycle, this will never happen.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by ryaxnb
However, for switchers, what about Office, Photoshop, etc.? Developers would be reluctant to port 'em yet again,
In the near-term (6-18 months) I would imagine people using a dual-boot machine. Alternatives include VMWare-type system or Windows emulation so that everything was up simultaneously.

If Apple could double its marketshare, the developers will follow. Porting an application from Mac OS X on PowerPC to Mac OS X on x86 will probably be less painful than porting from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.

Application developers code to an API, not a CPU. As long as the API stays the same, recompiles pretty much do the trick. This is why so much Linux/x86 software is available to Mac users, and with X windows standard in Panther, I expect to see that grow.

and MS probably wouldn't at all (because they want 90% of the OS market.)
This is the biggest gotcha in the plan. Microsoft still has Apple by the balls (pardon the crudeness) with Office, and until Apple can break free of that, Microsoft can always hold Apple's growth down.

[rundevilrun]

Originally posted by JoeRadar

Application developers code to an API, not a CPU. As long as the API stays the same, recompiles pretty much do the trick. This is why so much Linux/x86 software is available to Mac users, and with X windows standard in Panther, I expect to see that grow.


How does Linux handle the endian issue?

[wondermite]

For cryin out loud--why do you keep posting lousy, known-to-be-bogus-or-at-least-highly-suspicious rumors?

Again and again and again, only slightly changing the words?

Over and over?

For months on end?

The same one, over and over?


Hmm, let me think...could it be...traffic generation?

Sad.

[lord_flash]

Originally posted by wondermite
For cryin out loud--why do you keep posting lousy, known-to-be-bogus-or-at-least-highly-suspicious rumors?


How about this? Apple are not exactly trustworthy when it comes to a lot of things. they'll do what they feel they need to to increase their profit margins.

We don't know what that is. There are two or three schools of thought (schools being the operative word here, given everyone is simply putting their fingers in their ears and repeating their view ad infinitum, just like kids).

Now I know it's not discussing a rumour, but, well, better to wait and see, I'd say.

Personally I prefered whinging about the PowerBooks...

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by rundevilrun
How does Linux handle the endian issue?
It isn't an issue for applications and most of the kernel. An integer always behaves like an integer.

The primary reason you might have a concern is when exchanging binary files between machines or trasmitting binary data over a network. Fortunately there is a long history of solutions for this (e.g., htonl(), ntohl(), XDR/RPC, IIOP/CORBA, XML/SOAP, ...).

Remember: Linux runs on multiple hardware platforms, Solaris runs on multiple hardware platforms, NeXTSTEP used to run on multiple hardware platforms, Windows NT used to run on multiple hardware platforms. Technically, this is not an issue.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by gopher
I am one who rarely says never. Still here are some reasons:

1. Apple is a hardware company.
An X86 or Itanium Mac is still a hardware product.

2. Developers would have to recode the software they still haven't yet finished developing for Mac OS X,for the Intel platform running Mac OS X.
OSX/PPC --> OSX/Intel will be much easier for most than OS9/PPC --> OSX/PPC. And if the move increases marketshare, developers will be happy.

3. An upgrade path from G5 to Intel would have to be made.
Nothing new there.

5. Apple would have to do some hardware based emulation to maintain backwards compatibility to make its customers happy.

Why? (1) Software emulation on a new high-end Intel chip would probably do at least as well as my G3 iBook. (2) Most applications would be ported in 2 years. And (3) Apple doesn't have to drop the PowerPC line immediately. Apple could phase in an Intel line: first on the Xserve, then on an education-only workstation, and then later a consumer Mac.

6. The lack of expansion capabilities on the Powerbook G4 12 inch, iBook, iMac, and eMac would preclude this happening.

I don't understand this at all. My 12" PB will continue to run its current OS and all the applications fine forever, and I don't expect Apple or application developers to abandon PPC software for years to come.

7. ... force Apple to have to make a software that doesn't allow a true version of Windows to be installed on it, but rather an emulated version.

This doesn't make any sense either. Apple could (1) sell dual-boot machines, (2) bundle VMWare with the machine and run both OSes side-by-side at the same time, (3) buy/build good Windows emulation.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
At the time of the 68k->PowerPC switch, Apple had a much larger market share than now (slightly north of 10%) and similar profitability to now. This was around 1994 - by most indicators, Apple was healthier then than now.

Yes, but they were poorly managed. And besides, the PPC did quickly outpace x86, and kept outpacing it at a higher and higher rate until the G4 debacle.

Originally posted by JongAm
First, Apple should change its strategy that satisfy the change of the situation. OK. Apple is a H/W company. However, has it made the Apple successful in the market? You may say that it was successful. But Apple's problem is that it should worry about its existence always. The fact itself says that the existing strategy is not successful.

Apple isn't worrying about its existence. The only ones worrying about Apple's existence are, as the Steve Jobs of the 80's would say, bozos who don't get it. Apple's continued existence is as safe as any other company's. I would say even Microsoft is at greater risk of dying in the near future.

Originally posted by JoeRadar
In the near-term (6-18 months) I would imagine people using a dual-boot machine.

You can't dual-boot between a PPC and n x86 processor unless you have both processor types installed. Do you have ANY idea how expensive it would be to build a computer that had two entirely different processors built in? You'd have one case with two computers built into it, unless you could build a bridge to share the architecture.

Apple has a long-term processor partnership with IBM. They are not going to stay from that.

[pgwalsh]

I really don't care who makes the processor in Apples computers as long as they work and I can be productive.

If Apple were to jump into the Intel camp they'd need to make sure all the current software they produce works as well as an Office application. IMO without MS Office you wont get consumers to buy.

So, OS X on Intel must be for developers, IT and *nix users. Over time you may see other companies recompile applications, but there would have to be a large user base of professionals.

I don't think it'll happen, but I wouldn't mind if it did. If it did, then I'd like to see the clone market open up and Apple focus on software and things like the iPod. They could still be a hardware vendor and a great alternative to MS, which I think people are really looking for.

I've said in past posts: Apple wont get too many large customers as long as they're the only vendor for hardware. As a business person, it's not wise to get stuck with a single solution. Essentially it's like a monopoly on your own platform, as far as hardware is concerned, and it's not something I'd want to get stuck in.

[freundt]

you know, maybe it is just me... But I think that the arguements:
Apple is a hardware company and Apple would die if it had it's os available on x86 are just bogus.

First off, look at the in roads linux has made.. it has more market share than apple. Is it because it is free?... partly, but I think what really drives it in the minds of buisnesses is the fact that it is stable and based on unix, Both of which OSX are.

So, if Apple were to release osx for x86, it would be built ontop of something akin to the Open Darwin project, the x86 port of the unix base below the OSX interface. this would make, OSX is the killer GUI for linux (or unix) that every damn analysis says is needed for linux (unix) adoption on the desktop.

Not to mention that apple could convine the big players to develop for it, which linux cannot seem to do.

so, apple on the dektop = the linux GUI everyone has been waiting for + the big desktop developers that most linux people wants.

So, tell me, how would that be bad?

_f

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by freundt

Not to mention that apple could convine the big players to develop for it, which linux cannot seem to do.
Could you explain this a bit farther. You see Oracle, IBM, and some other major players develop for Linux. It's the consumer software that doesn't get ported to Linux. That's one reason why linux is so popular in the business market and not so popular in the home market.

So I'm thinking your referring to major players as Adobe, Macromedia, and other non enterprise based software vendors?

[freundt]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Could you explain this a bit farther. You see Oracle, IBM, and some other major players develop for Linux. It's the consumer software that doesn't get ported to Linux. That's one reason why linux is so popular in the business market and not so popular in the home market.

So I'm thinking your referring to major players as Adobe, Macromedia, and other non enterprise based software vendors?

I meant big players in the desktop market.

[JayBee]

Jeez... nine pages.

I promised I wouldn't post, but... hell, everyone else is mouthing off, and I'm feeling left out.

Personally, I don't see this happening for a while, but not for any "loyalty" or "political" reasons.

I just don't think it would make any sense to do this in the near future.

So far the pro/con arguments seem to have centred on the following:

Apple is a hardware AND a software company. Discuss.

Okay, so the arguments here depend on the path Apple might take. I see two possibilities - that Apple gets OS X to run on existing Intel-like hardware, or that Apple incorporates an Intel-like CPU into its systems.

Both of these paths, to my mind, are a little nonsensical.

Porting OS X to run on existing hardware would be a very quick way for Apple to gain marketshare while shooting themselves in the foot. I can bolt together a PC for £300. Why would I buy Apple hardware? Boom - Apple has just lost about £900 from me (In that I would just be buying the OS from them, not a £1000 computer AND the OS). And that's assuming that they have developed some magical way for existing OS X based software to instantly run on this architecture. And yes, if I was a new switcher, Apple just "gained" £100 from me. But they'd have to gain a lot more than 9 switchers for every 1 current user just to have this stragtegy break even. 50% market share, but actually financially worse off...

And to those pointing at Linux and screaming "Lookie! Lookie!", Linux has the advantage of not having hardware sales to lose. Hell, technically it has the advantage of not having ANY sales to lose ;)

So I can't see why that would be good. Apple could get bigger penetration, but that wouldn't matter too much when MS killed Office for Mac to safeguard its marketshare...

But that's speculation. I just don't think it would make sense to take that risk, as I doubt the payoffs would benefit enough.

As I've said before, Apple is not about marketshare as the be all and end all. See the previous poster's comment about "bozos" ;)

So, the other option - Apple produces an Intel-based box. Hmm. That makes more sense to me than porting to existing hardware. It still opens the DOOR to pulling the OS across, but I don't remember Mac OS showing up on the old Ataris just cos they used the same processor ;)

However, I'd have to ask why? Rumours of Intel's impending doom may be exaggerated, but at the moment they're only AT BEST going to be able to outpace the G5 for a year. After that, all bets are off, but again, pound for pound, I don't see Apple gaining much from dropping IBM for Intel for a good while yet.

What I keep seeing, however, are people confusing these two possibilities. If Apple makes Intel-like hardware, it DOESN'T get the bonus market-penetration, or the cheap installs for IT departments on existing hardware. Producing an Intel-based box may have made sense before the shipping of the G5, but now what would be the benefit?

--

At the end of the day, why do we even care. As long as it runs OS X and doesn't kill Apple, I'll be happy.

I just think that at the moment, Apple is not about to make this kind of shift. I see no business reason to do it, and the reasons I see being bandied about here could be knocked down by a toddler (in general).

Please remember that while the G5 is news to us, Apple have been looking 5 years ahead, and to them the current state of affairs was planned many years ago. This means that, for Apple "now" is five years ahead. If they're making noises about sticking with IBM, it means that they've got a roadmap for around that length of time.

We all know that a roadmap for that length of time can be a dangerous one, and no doubt Apple are exploring the possibilities, but right now I don't see why either of the paths being espoused here as justification for this ridiculous non-rumour are at all sensible, profitable, businesslike or even sane.

Can it be done? Yes.

MS Office for Linux is physically possible, and hell it would kill off that pesky OpenOffice.

It would also cannibalise sales of Windows no end.

Right now, some of the ideas and arguments here seem about as likely.

[rundevilrun]

So..... why doesn't Intel just switch to the PPC architecture? That would give them a 64 bit desktop solution while freeing them of the x86 legacy baggage. All developer's would need to do is recompile their apps and in the meantime people can run virtual pc....

Makes about as much sense as Apple switching if you ask me.

:D

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by JayBee
Porting OS X to run on existing hardware would be a very quick way for Apple to gain marketshare while shooting themselves in the foot. I can bolt together a PC for £300. Why would I buy Apple hardware? Boom - Apple has just lost about £900 from me (In that I would just be buying the OS from them, not a £1000 computer AND the OS). And that's assuming that they have developed some magical way for existing OS X based software to instantly run on this architecture. And yes, if I was a new switcher, Apple just "gained" £100 from me. But they'd have to gain a lot more than 9 switchers for every 1 current user just to have this stragtegy break even. 50% market share, but actually financially worse off...

I seem to recall the wealthiest company in the US is mainly software only. MS? In addition people like Apples computer designs. So I still see people buying Apple hardware. A) Some people don't want to build there own. B) Not just another beige box. They wont make the same margins, but they may sell more OS units.

So I can't see why that would be good. Apple could get bigger penetration, but that wouldn't matter too much when MS killed Office for Mac to safeguard its marketshare... This is a great point!... Whatever happen to Document?

As I've said before, Apple is not about marketshare as the be all and end all.
Tell that to the stockholders. They're not going to be the end all, but they could use about 25% more market share.

So, the other option - Apple produces an Intel-based box. Hmm. That makes more sense to me than porting to existing hardware. It still opens the DOOR to pulling the OS across, but I don't remember Mac OS showing up on the old Ataris just cos they used the same processor ;) What? May you explain this?

However, I'd have to ask why? Rumours of Intel's impending doom may be exaggerated, but at the moment they're only AT BEST going to be able to outpace the G5 for a year. After that, all bets are off, but again, pound for pound, I don't see Apple gaining much from dropping IBM for Intel for a good while yet. Nothing is guranteed that IBM can and will continue to develop the G5 at any given pace. Intel is a different story because that's the core of their business.

What I keep seeing, however, are people confusing these two possibilities. If Apple makes Intel-like hardware, it DOESN'T get the bonus market-penetration, or the cheap installs for IT departments on existing hardware. How do you know this?

--

At the end of the day, why do we even care. As long as it runs OS X and doesn't kill Apple, I'll be happy. I partially agree with this. I agree that as long as we have OS X. However, I'd like the hardware to be a lot cheaper and to be able to build my own machine. Just because.

Please remember that while the G5 is news to us, Apple have been looking 5 years ahead, and to them the current state of affairs was planned many years ago. This means that, for Apple "now" is five years ahead. If they're making noises about sticking with IBM, it means that they've got a roadmap for around that length of time. They have options as I recall.

MS Office for Linux is physically possible, and hell it would kill off that pesky OpenOffice. What's wrong with OO. Why would you want to kill an office app. that conforms to industry standards and is free. It has it's quirks, but it's an alernative to MS.

It would also cannibalise sales of Windows It'll never happen. That's why we support OO.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Macrumors
SmartHouse.com.au revives (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/smartstuff/computing/1341) one of the oldest Apple rumors by claiming that "Apple is set to announce an Intel based PC that will run on an Apple operating system."


Just a few comments on the article:

1) They are about as well-informed as your average CNet tech writer: which is to say, very ill informed indeed. They believe that what is keeping, for instance, Star Office from the Mac is the processor? Gadzucks! I suppose they've never heard of Cocoa ...

2) "Best of both worlds"? What you could gain from a move to Intel is exactly this:

cheaper CPUs, multiple non-compatible suppliers. Maybe a better/faster Virtual PC implementation.

Cheaper? Of course. Well, except we're talking Itaniums here, not Pentiums. Given that the article seems to be saying this will start off in server-land and then move down to user-land, maybe Itanium will be cheaper by the time Apple wants to put it in an iMac. But then, only if it's in mainstream Wintel desktops first.

Multiple suppliers? First, not if you're going with Itanium! Single supplier, single source, single developer! Even if you were going with the Pentium line, you would be able to choose between AMD and Intel from line to line (ie, the same software would run on both, more or less), but switching back and forth would be a fairly extensive motherboard redesign.

Better VPC? Only if MS doesn't feel threatened, and in any case, if you're starting on the high end first (as you must, if going with Itanium) the VPC angle is pretty much gone: no one is going to run VPC, fast or not, on their server!

IMHO, you have the "best of both worlds" right now: multiple suppliers (assuming Moto can pick itself up or sell its Desktop PPC division to someone who might give a damn), the top supplier with a best-in-the-world development arm and budget, just as much Windows software running on the machine (ie, none), and absolute, total control over your own future. Plus, Apple hardware can actually differentiate itself from the "rest of the pack", hopefully more often for the better (G5) than for the worse (G4 six months ago).

I've wasted too many keystrokes on this rumor already ...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I seem to recall the wealthiest company in the US is mainly software only. MS? In addition people like Apples computer designs. So I still see people buying Apple hardware. A) Some people don't want to build there own. B) Not just another beige box. They wont make the same margins, but they may sell more OS units.


Software is a low-profit industry for 90% of the players out there. It is very lucrative when you have a (state-sanctioned) monopoly. It is not so lucrative when you are producing a product aiming to disrupt said state-sanctioned monopoly.

If they can squeeze $20 profit out of each copy of OS X (I suspect they might get closer to $10 profit), they will still need to sell 5 copies to replace a single unit of their consumer hardware and many more than that to replace a single unit of their professional hardware. Leaving it at 5 copies per, you're looking at about 25-30% of the market needing to adopt Apple software just to break even on the idea.

Moreover, moving to Intel will drastically increase software development costs, further diminishing that profit figure, and further inflating the market share Apple would need just to remain as profitable as it is today.

Moreover, any gains in software are intrinsically short-lived, compared to hardware gains. Again, unless you're ruling the market, you're at the mercy of that market, and that market can be extremely brutal. Ask NeXT; ask Be; ask Go; ask DrDOS; ask Borland; ask Symantec; ask Corel.

The list of software "winners" is very short. So short that, going in from scratch, it is not likely that you'll make it onto that list. Moreover, going in from scratch for Apple means giving up a thriving and very profitable hardware business; the list of "winners" in hardware is even shorter, but Apple's on it!

Apple shareholders (myself included) would love for Apple to gain 25% market share in hardware. However, if it means losing profits from the hardware division, 25% market share increase in software is just not going to help.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
A side effect of having a x86-based Mac is that a PC emulator would no longer have the burden of emulating the x86, so a built-in PC emulator would mean that a x86 Mac box would in all likelihood be able to run Win32 software at native speeds. That in itself would certainly add fuel to the switch campaign. Even if an x86 Mac was a "closed" box, that advantage would be more compelling to the average PC buyer than the current state of affairs.

Yeah! OS X could be a:

Better Windows Than Windows

Great slogan, huh? You've just gotta gain marketshare by the handfuls with an argument like that one, especially when it's just so damned true, right?

Course, it does sound a tad bit familiar ...

[3.1416]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Tell that to the stockholders. They're not going to be the end all, but they could use about 25% more market share.

I am a stockholder. I want *profit*, not necessarily market share. Apple had a higher market share many years ago; they were also losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Releasing OS X for x86 is exceptionally risky. Microsoft tolerates OS X on Mac hardware but will go all out to defend their x86 monopoly, as the former employees of Be Inc. can attest.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jettredmont
If they can squeeze $20 profit out of each copy of OS X (I suspect they might get closer to $10 profit)

Packaging and CD's probably totals $20. They're making $110 profit per unit, which seems obscene until you realize they have to balance that against a fixed cost of OS development that's in the millions.

In any case, this purported plan sounds somewhat like this to me:

1. Switch to Intel.
2. ???
3. Profit!

[VIREBEL661]

Please no... I would rather use Mac OS on an Alpha... Stick with RISC procs, Apple!

[freundt]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Moreover, any gains in software are intrinsically short-lived, compared to hardware gains. Again, unless you're ruling the market, you're at the mercy of that market, and that market can be extremely brutal. Ask NeXT; ask Be; ask Go; ask DrDOS; ask Borland; ask Symantec; ask Corel.

The list of software "winners" is very short. So short that, going in from scratch, it is not likely that you'll make it onto that list. Moreover, going in from scratch for Apple means giving up a thriving and very profitable hardware business; the list of "winners" in hardware is even shorter, but Apple's on it!

Apple shareholders (myself included) would love for Apple to gain 25% market share in hardware. However, if it means losing profits from the hardware division, 25% market share increase in software is just not going to help.

"Ask Next, ask DrDos, et. al."
Did next, DrDos or any of the others have the mindshare that apple does? Did they have support of the adobe's and macromedia's of the world. Were they producing a superior product? If you look at the reason a few of those companies failed, it was because of internal, not external issues.

Apple will not be going in from scratch. they have the ipod, the itunes, the iphoto, the i-can't-remember apps. People KNOW about apple. the reason they don;t use it? They have to shell out 3k+ to get the apple os.
If they could go out and buy the apple os, use their adodbe, use their mail programs, seamlessly use thir Ipod, etc, then they would.
If the news got out, "use OSX and don;t worry about worms, or viruses, or whatever" - people would go get it.
If new got out that you could edit videos without buying more software, would someone go buy the editing software, or would they try os X?
How about the gateways and the dells of the world buckling under the microsoft OEM licenses? Do you think they would offer OSX machines? Hell, a few of them are offering linux machines.

And what would happen to apple? Well, they would still market new g5,g6,g7,g1000's to the pro market - video editors and the like.
But they would also have more people using their apps(the iphotos and itunes), buying their perhipherals (the ipods etc..), and increase thier market share for consumer based applications. ( and subscription serves too). (also remember that the analysist are saying that apple IS CURRENTLY setting themselves up as more of a "lifestyle" company - what could be better to achive this, than to gain massive market share)

So... yeah, it'll never happen -- Apple got burned by the clones, however, if it did - it'd be the best thing to happen to computing since...well since 1984.

alas,
f

[mbpark]

Heya,

The reason this won't happen: Amiga and Emplant.

Back in the days of the Commodore Amiga, which also used 68K chips, there was a company that produced a third-party Zorro-II board for the Amiga 2000 and 3000 that took Mac roms.

This card allowed the Amiga to run Mac software at a fraction of the cost of a Color Macintosh. There were also 68060 patches, which enabled it to run MacOS 68K faster than any Mac could.

Their slogan was "This just ain't fair". This was because the Amiga with an Emplant beat up on the Color Macintoshes at a lower cost.

Thank god for Apple that Commodore self-destructed, and the Amiga community continues to do so!

Apple going X86 would indirectly cause another Emplant to happen. Sure, MacOS X MAY run on an IBM Power4 server, but you can buy a couple of G5's for what one of those CPUs costs alone.

Apple may be stuck with a slower clock speed CPU, but I believe there is no way in heck that they would ever let another company do what the Amiga and Emplant do, which was beat them at their own game.

And yes, I do own a Mac (Powerbook G4 12") and did own an Amiga (1200/030 with 22MB RAM).

[mattmack]

Originally posted by freundt

If the news got out, "use OSX and don;t worry about worms, or viruses, or whatever" - people would go get it.

Umm I belive the mac community is much more suseptible to worms and viruses because of the switch to OS X then before on Nine

[JayBee]

Aw man! Another promise broken!

I wasn't going to reply, but...

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I seem to recall the wealthiest company in the US is mainly software only. MS? In addition people like Apples computer designs. So I still see people buying Apple hardware. A) Some people don't want to build there own. B) Not just another beige box. They wont make the same margins, but they may sell more OS units.


Yup, but MS has a monopoly. Oil companies make a lot of dough, but I'm not going to abandon my day job and start digging, which is pretty much what your advice would be, judging by this statement.

As has been said, Apple would be going in from scratch, and as I pointed out, would INSTNATLY have to switch 50% of the market or more in order to see no drop in income.

Picture the scene - Apple allows OS X to run on non-Apple hardware.

All the IT departments, students and current Apple users who are cash conscious (and judging by this board, there's a lot of 'em!) but intel hardware and load it with OS X. That's a LOT of lost revenue.

Over the first month, Apple convert 10% of current windows/linux users to OS X, thereby selling 10% more OS X boxes. Software income is up 15-20%. Woot.

HOWEVER, they've lost practically all of their hardware cash cow. Say hardware income is down 70% (to be conservative).

Those numbers spell a drop in share price, which spells Apple's doom...

Argue with that, don't argue by saying "People will still buy Apple hardware" and "Apple can be the next MS".

The point is that it would take well over a year for your little fantasy to play out, and in that time Apple would have been buried by its stockholders.

So we're back to my oil analogy. If I hit oil within a month, excellent. However, chances are I'll have to wait years to hit the oil.

In the meantime, how do I feed myself?


This is a great point!... Whatever happen to Document?


This is as lost on me as my Atari reference on you ;)


Tell that to the stockholders. They're not going to be the end all, but they could use about 25% more market share.


See my point above. Market share != profits if you're only talking about marketshare for your less profitable product.


What? May you explain this?


Ataris (and Amigas) ran on 680x0 processors, and while it was possible to leverage this to run partial emulators, it didn't mean that Mac OS could easily be run on either of those machines, due to different architecture.

The same would be true, I suspect, if Apple adopted Intel-based CPUs - they wouldn't use the same architecture as existing Intel-like machines, and hence OS X would not load on them - only on Apple machines.

Processor != Architecture


Nothing is guranteed that IBM can and will continue to develop the G5 at any given pace. Intel is a different story because that's the core of their business.


I couldn't agree more, and hence my comment about keeping options open. However, Apple didn't move to Intel or AMD during the darkest days of Moto, and I don't see them doing it now. IBM is coming back in a big way chip-wise (just MHO), and I doubt Apple's agreement with IBM would even let them use Intel or any other non IBM or Moto chip unless IBM messed up BIG and breached their contract.

<edit>
Actually, I could agree more. Intel seems to have no idea where it's going in the next 2 years. It has a rough idea, but no published plans that seem to hold water for any length of time.

IBM, on the other hand, is very sure where it's going. Whether it GETS there, of course, is another question, but just because a company has a proven track record, it doesn't mean it's a given that the track record will continue.

Enron used to be a stamp of reliability ;)
</edit>


How do you know this?


I have a magical crystal ball called "reason" and when I cast my +2 Logic spell on it, I can see into the future...

I "know" this precisely because I didn't fall foul of confusing the two "paths" outlined in this thread.

If you read my post again, you'll magically know this too.

In short - Apple can either run OS X on existing hardware (increased marketshare of software, decreased profits and stock price), or it can use Intel in its Powermacs (cheaper processors, increased profits, dip in stock price as Intel is yet ANOTHER platform change). The second one WOULD NOT MEAN that OS X would run on EXISTING HARDWARE.



I partially agree with this. I agree that as long as we have OS X. However, I'd like the hardware to be a lot cheaper and to be able to build my own machine. Just because.


Yup, and that makes you a marginal target market.

Apple are closely guarding production of their hardware, while keeping their software as open as possible. This tells me that Apple values its hardware revenue much more than its software revenue.

There's that crystal ball again! :)


They have options as I recall.


We all have options. I could start throwing knives at my flatmates. That's an option.

Doesn't mean it makes any sense...


[/b] What's wrong with OO. Why would you want to kill an office app. that conforms to industry standards and is free. It has it's quirks, but it's an alernative to MS.

It'll never happen. That's why we support OO.

This is precisely my point. Jeez, you really don't get the whole "irony" thing, do you?

In fact, it's not even irony!

My point is that, as you said, options are always available. Just because something is physically possible (OS X on Intel or MS Office on Linux) and there might be benefits in it for the company concerned (OS X gains wider market share, MS kills off its competitor OO) that doesn't mean it makes sense to do it.

In closing, and to sum up (AGAIN), yes, both paths are options, yes both paths are possible.

And hopefully you can now see by my sleight-of-hand mathematics above, that Apple would have to pull a miracle out of the hat in order to remain afloat while indulging in either course of action.

Long term, yeah, it would work. But it would kill Apple in the short term.

Them's the breaks, kiddo. You can't make it through shark-infested waters by looking at the safe water you're in now, looking at the safe water on the other side of the sharks, and ignoring the sharks.

Yeah, when you get to the safe water, you'll be safe. That's long term. If you die short term, who cares about the long term payoff?

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by mattmack
Umm I belive the mac community is much more suseptible to worms and viruses because of the switch to OS X then before on Nine

The only reason OS9 was secure was it generally didn't run many many net services by default. The fact that OSX has a firewall, multiple users, requires administrator access to install software etc. means it's far more secure than an OS 9 machine running the same services.

Plus, the fact that the default mail client doesn't have a built in scripting language (that I'm aware of) that executes when mail is opened helps a lot! ;-)

[vollspacken]

for the 100th time..! this is not gonna happen...!!!

Apple has stay an integrated software/hardware producer! remember what happened to NeXT when they became a software only company? Steve is not going to make the same mistake twice.

vSpacken

[JJTiger1]

I tried out the brand spanking new Apple G5-1.8ghz single processor tower unit yesterday. It is very very quiet. I have never heard such a quiet Mac Tower. But with all of the ambient noise of a sales floor, I may have been decieved if ever the unit is on my wooden desktop.

The G5 has a metal case that has a kinda natural metal finish. A quartet of jacks on the front panel beneath the single optical drive, and that's it for the front panel. My G4 has an optical drive and an internal Zip 250 drive's slot in the front panel. The newer (last) G4 tower had two optical drives, no Zip.

What's a "floppie drive"? Apple has not included a floppie drive in a tower unit since Jan 1999.

I was not quite impressed by the unit's speed. I expected an equivalent mathematical increase in speed while comparing a 0.733 ghz machine to a 1.8 ghz macihine. That increase in speed does not exist. The G5 is faster and quicker, but not appreciably so as to cause my mouth to drool for the machine.

If I had a need to use Adobe Illustrator every day, then yes. The new G5 is very much faster, at least twice as fast, with Illustrator than my old G4. The comparison with Illustrator is equivalent to the speed increase between my 1997 model 0.25 ghz and the 2002 0.733 ghz machine. A three-fold increase in speed. ... with Illustrator.

But anything else, any other application: The G5 is not swatting flies with atomic weapons. It's a bit faster than my G4, but only just a bit. It took just as long to bootup and launch applications as any other computer. Opening filenames within a variety applications felt just like my machine, but a hint faster.

The Apple commercial showing the dude being blasted out of the house, Blown Away, by his new Mac,
... false advertising. I was not blown away.
=-=
JJ

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by freundt
"Ask Next, ask DrDos, et. al."
Did next, DrDos or any of the others have the mindshare that apple does?


In the general software arena (not specifically OS), Borland and Symantec were category-leading companies who are now a (small) fraction of their former size. Corel owned the Windows vector-graphics space just ten years ago, and they just sold out to some pint-sized venture cap firm (presumably for disassembly and parts salvage).

In the OS arena, you couldn't have asked for a better opponent to Windows than OS/2: it was a generation ahead of Windows (near-NT stability; better-than-Win95 usability); it was backed by a business-friendly and business-loved company; it ran all your Windows software seamlessly (until Win 95 came out); it was cheaper than Windows; it was a simple, drop-in installation from Windows. Yet, it failed miserably, costing IBM significantly more money than Apple has to support such an endeavor.

The software business is brutal, especially when you are going up against Microsoft in its own space. If you asked any of those companies what they should have done differently, I would bet each would say that they needed to insulate themselves more from Microsoft. Apple's hardware base is perfect insulation from MS; it is foolish to give it up.


Did they have support of the adobe's and macromedia's of the world. Were they producing a superior product?


Look at Adobe and Macromedia's current Mac offerings: does Apple have the support of the Adobes and Macromedias of the world?


If you look at the reason a few of those companies failed, it was because of internal, not external issues.


Diagnosing cause of death is tough. In the end, the cause of death in most humans is that their heart stopped beating. However, you need to look further than just the immediate moments prior to death to find the real causes.


Apple will not be going in from scratch. they have the ipod, the itunes, the iphoto, the i-can't-remember apps. People KNOW about apple. the reason they don;t use it? They have to shell out 3k+ to get the apple os.


Quicktime is free, and has been for some time: how many Windows desktops have it?

If they could go out and buy the apple os, use their adodbe, use their mail programs, seamlessly use thir Ipod, etc, then they would.


They wouldn't have Office. They wouldn't have their company home-rolled Windows apps. They wouldn't have that shareware app that they paid for in 1995 and still use every day even though there are better alternatives out there for free these days (because, dammit, they paid for it so it's gotta be better!)

So, no, the vast majority of working individuals would not go out and buy OS X any more than the vast majority of users went out and bought OS/2 when it was a generation ahead of Windows (stability and UI-wise) and had the backing of the MOST recognized name in the computer business (aside from Microsoft).


And what would happen to apple? Well, they would still market new g5,g6,g7,g1000's to the pro market - video editors and the like.


Not bloody likely. Chop off the market for processors fueled by Apple's consumer offerings, and the G5+ line becomes impractical.

Plus, we're talking about moving to Itanium here; that's going to replace the server line first, then the pro line. G5+ gets squeezed out. Apple can't introduce a new processor instruction set in its high-end lines, have its customers switch over, then say "thanks for funding our development of consumer Itaniums; now, switch back!"


But they would also have more people using their apps(the iphotos and itunes),


The iApps are not profitable. Especially not if you're going to give them away with the OS. More people using free iApps doesn't give Apple one thin dime.

buying their perhipherals (the ipods etc..),


You don't need your own Intel OS to sell peripherals. Hence the market for peripherals not produced by Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft peripherals don't do astoundingly better than other companies' peripherals in the marketplace.

Also, IIRC, the iPod is doing quite well without an Intel OSX.


and increase thier market share for consumer based applications. ( and subscription serves too).


Apple could easily open .Mac to Windows users to increase subscriptions. Again, however, the iApps aren't money-makers. Right now, they aren't really ready to be sold on the Windows side either. They would be a great value-add to the OS offering, but, like I said before, Apple has to get a HUGE share of the OS market before it can fund the iApp and OS development further.


(also remember that the analysist are saying that apple IS CURRENTLY setting themselves up as more of a "lifestyle" company - what could be better to achive this, than to gain massive market share)


You sound like a dot bomber. Single-mindedly pursuing market share has been the demise of more software companies in the past decade than probably anything else.

Apple is setting itself up as a "lifestyle" company. Apple has stated as much itself. But "lifestyle" is not what makes money. Apple is not just a brand: it is a hardware company. Look at other lifestyle companies: would they exist if they didn't also sell a real and tangible product? The "lifestyle" enhances sales. It is not a revenue generator in and of itself!

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
The only reason OS9 was secure was it generally didn't run many many net services by default. The fact that OSX has a firewall, multiple users, requires administrator access to install software etc. means it's far more secure than an OS 9 machine running the same services.

Plus, the fact that the default mail client doesn't have a built in scripting language (that I'm aware of) that executes when mail is opened helps a lot! ;-)

Mac OS X is Unix.

People know how to write viruses for Unix.

Mac OS 9 was its own thing.

No one knows how to write viruses for it.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Mac OS X is Unix.

People know how to write viruses for Unix.

Mac OS 9 was its own thing.

No one knows how to write viruses for it. Thats what I was getting at;)

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Mac OS X is Unix.

People know how to write viruses for Unix.

Mac OS 9 was its own thing.

No one knows how to write viruses for it.

Anyone capable of taking advantage of the RPC vulnerability in Windows (such as in MSBlast) is surely competent enough to read up on OS9 and pick out a few exploits - if they chose to do so.

The current school of thought in security and cryptography is that it's better to have the security widely and publicly probed to determine as quickly as possible any potential weaknesses, rather than a more secretive approach which relies on ignorance of the system, where the true vulnerability of the system is never really determined.

Plus, bear in mind the move to Unix is a two way street. Yes, more Unix hackers will now know more about the Mac's security. But also, more Unix system/network administrators know more about securing Macs!

Mike.

[Phil Of Mac]

Actually, an opposing school of thought is that of "security by obscurity". If no one ever tries to hack your system because it's so obscure, after all, who cares? This school of thought actually worked for the Mac.

[welborn]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Solaris is going nowhere on x86.

Solaris is no better than Linux on x86. Since Linux is free, there's no reason to use Solaris.

OS X has more apps available for it than either Linux or Solaris, and its ease of management as a Unix platform is unrivaled. It's a *nix worth paying for.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Actually, an opposing school of thought is that of "security by obscurity". If no one ever tries to hack your system because it's so obscure, after all, who cares? This school of thought actually worked for the Mac.

Security through obscurity is actually fine for home users, to a point (unless you bank online, or you credit card details are on your Mac etc.) But it's ruled the Mac out of large government and corporate contracts who need tried and tested security, over "no one's ever tried, so we're not sure how secure it is".

Mike.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Apple is not just a brand: it is a hardware company.

Very well thought out! I once vehemently believed that Apple should not make OS X for Wintel as it would kill their hardware sales but that doesn't have to be case, risky as it might be. I think that Apple should try to increase market share as a principle but not so aggressively as to force them into a frantic death spiral. But it cannot be argued that they are doing well in their so-called "niche" and their products are stunning, again considering that they have to be a Dell and a M$ at the same time.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by rjwill246
But it cannot be argued that they are doing well in their so-called "niche".
I don't know about that their "niche" has a very dedicated core of users.. You don't see many people switching from Apple to windows in Apples niche market.

[Sayhey]

I don't care what processor is inside as long as it is the best availible! Right now that seems to be the G5. It also looks like IBM has committed to push the envelope for the PPC line - which is very good for Apple. If Intel decides to put out a better 64bit processors then it's ok with me if Apple moves in that direction. Not that Steve has been calling to get my permission! Do I think any of this will happen? When the infernal regions experience sub-zero weather patterns.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Security through obscurity is actually fine for home users, to a point (unless you bank online, or you credit card details are on your Mac etc.) But it's ruled the Mac out of large government and corporate contracts who need tried and tested security, over "no one's ever tried, so we're not sure how secure it is".

Like Windows XP? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by rjwill246
But it cannot be argued that they are doing well in their so-called "niche" and their products are stunning, again considering that they have to be a Dell and a M$ at the same time.

Actually, Apple IS doing well in their niche. And their products ARE stunning.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Like Windows XP? :rolleyes:



LOL


I also thinkapple is doing very well in their market putting out competative products at a little higher than the average price but you get what you pay for

[MacAficionado]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Could you explain this a bit farther. You see Oracle, IBM, and some other major players develop for Linux. It's the consumer software that doesn't get ported to Linux. That's one reason why linux is so popular in the business market and not so popular in the home market.

So I'm thinking your referring to major players as Adobe, Macromedia, and other non enterprise based software vendors?


Maybe things like this will be more common in the near future! (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030905/D7TCEOSO2.html)

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Like Windows XP? :rolleyes:

Heheh. Actually, I'm surprised by the number of corporations still using NT, and will be for some time to come. 'New' and 'untested' aren't words these IT gurus like! :-)

Mike.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by whooley
Heheh. Actually, I'm surprised by the number of corporations still using NT, and will be for some time to come. 'New' and 'untested' aren't words these IT gurus like! :-)

Mike. I don't know why this is a suprise like the old saying goes if it ain't broke don't fix it

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacAficionado
Maybe things like this will be more common in the near future! (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030905/D7TCEOSO2.html) I've seen similar articles. If OS X was intel platform compatible you might find it in more of those articles.... It's that single vendor issue that companies don't want to get stuck with. They should at least bring OS X Server to the intel platform.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MacAficionado
Maybe things like this will be more common in the near future! (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030905/D7TCEOSO2.html)

Heh. I doubt that MaoOS will be any better than Windows, personally...

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Just a few comments on the article:
Itaniums here, not Pentiums. Given that the article seems to be saying this will start off in server-land and then move down to user-land, maybe Itanium will be cheaper by the time Apple wants to put it in an iMac. But then, only if it's in mainstream Wintel desktops first.


Deerfield Itanium 2 (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11428)
Deerfield Pricing (http://news.com.com/2100-1006-1024439.html)

Still more expensive than any current desktop processor and the chances of Apple switching to a unproven platform that is extremely lacking in software support are nil (especally considering their current lineup) but still, low voltage Itanium 2s are getting cheap fast.

[mcduke]

Why wait for Mac OS X on x86 if you can already have it (kinda) today:

http://mcduke.typepad.com/mymind/2004/05/the_world_turne.html

;)

[Sun Baked]

Why wait for Mac OS X on x86 if you can already have it (kinda) today:

http://mcduke.typepad.com/mymind/2004/05/the_world_turne.html

;)I though I was seeing things when an old thread got dragged up to bring traffic to your site.

Doesn't this belong in the MacScene forum?

[MCCFR]

I now remember why I avoid Australian beer, if it causes this kind of brain damage.

[mcduke]

Cows. Not koalas.

Thought somebody might be interested in this, apologies for the confusion..

[Penman]

Here's a fact that might not have been mentioned. I know developers who were say that OS X runs on Intel boxes as a matter of course in the process of porting Unix code. That means that Intel Macs are already in Apple HQ.

Bigger question. Who cares? I mean don't we want the fastest coolest computers? The Mac obsession with these details is funny to me. Didn't Mac people hate IBM for most of Apple's history? Wouldn't most people here hate SUN if the developed a consumer PC that outsold the Mac?

I hope Apple choose to use the fastest cheapest processors they can find and if that means Intel that's great.

Don't long term Mac users realize how limited their purchases are due to Apple's enforced upgrade difficulty.

I have said before - if Apple gave people an Intel and non-Intel choice, at the same price, people would buy Intel. If the price reflected Intel's relative cost the non-Intel machines would be a niche buy pretty quickly.

I'd think that an IMac (IntelMac) would be Microsoft's biggest headache.

[thatwendigo]

Here's a fact that might not have been mentioned. I know developers who were say that OS X runs on Intel boxes as a matter of course in the process of porting Unix code. That means that Intel Macs are already in Apple HQ.

You're saying this as if it's somehow new or relevant, even though it's been known that Apple has been keeping x86 operability since the days of the Rhapsody project. Apple wouldn't be dense enough not to at least test the basic OS on x86 hardware. The problem is in the fact that you'd lose quite a lot of your software when developers had to port. Again. You know, right after moving to OS X?

Bigger question. Who cares? I mean don't we want the fastest coolest computers? The Mac obsession with these details is funny to me. Didn't Mac people hate IBM for most of Apple's history? Wouldn't most people here hate SUN if the developed a consumer PC that outsold the Mac?

Yes, we do, and that's why we're on PowerPC instead of the dying x86 spec. Intel's as good as admitted that the P4 is a dead-end line of speculation at this point and that they're going to have to move to the Dothan/Jonas/Merom line of processors on the desktop. AMD has long realized that clock isn't all there is to performance and has been keeping pace with Intel while sticking under the 3.0ghz mark.

Efficiency is key.

I hope Apple choose to use the fastest cheapest processors they can find and if that means Intel that's great.

I hope Apple uses the best processors they can get, not the cheapest.

I have said before - if Apple gave people an Intel and non-Intel choice, at the same price, people would buy Intel. If the price reflected Intel's relative cost the non-Intel machines would be a niche buy pretty quickly.

If Apple sold Intel, they'd be under within two years. A huge portion of the usability of the Mac OS is that it's on a controlled platform with a limited ability for others to hack into the firmware and either alter or pirate the code. If they were to move to x86, the bootlegs would be out within a week and the hardware business would sink. Apple is not a commodity company and PC users are not in the habit of paying top dollar for design.

I'd think that an IMac (IntelMac) would be Microsoft's biggest headache.

It would be the best thing to happen to them in a long time. Apple on x86 hardware would be even easier to crush, since Microsoft wouldn't even have to develop VPC anymore. All they do is sell an application to tap the Windows APIs or ease dual-booting for those who aren't power users.

You can't out-Dell Dell, and you can't beat Microsoft in a price war when you're only the size of Apple. That's why Linux on PowerPC, with the weight of Apple, IBM, Toshiba, Sony, AMD, nVidia, Freescale, and others is going to be what it takes.

[nucFlash]

I do not foresee any plans in the near future that includes Apple selling Power Macintoshes based around an x86 processor. Simply because the PowerPC G5 chip is the fastest processor available (:)).

HOWEVER, I do foresee Apple selling computers based around X86 processors. I believe Apple could stand to break new ground if they were to ship a new, low cost Server based around an X86 processor running Mac OS X for IC (Intel Compatible).

Low cost Servers using industry standard X86 running an industry standard UNIX operating system (BSD, the core of Mac OS X) WITH one of the most well developed GUI every devised, BUT with the compatibly of an Xfree86 server are exactly where Apple should focus their efforts.

This is really the perfect place for Apple to start its move into the X86 world. First, 99% of those who purchase new Xserves do not use any software other than what comes with Mac OS X. 99% of those who purchase Xserves so not use any foreign PCI expansion card more exotic than a SCSI controller or Fiber optic channel card. Making these compatible with Mac OS X for X86 would really not require much, if any, extra work, if Apple kept the API the same.

As for software, 99% of those who purchase Xserves do not use any software not already provided by Mac OS X, all of which are open source (Apache, Samba, etc.) and could be readily ported to an X86 port of Mac OS X with no extra effort, save a recompile.

Using CommuniGate Pro as an example (because it is supported on various platforms and because it is the only major proprietary server app I can think of), most server applications are built with portability in mind. The developers of CommuniGate built it to easily move from one server operating system to another. This includes most, if not all, UNIX operating systems for both PPC and X86 platforms, and all Windows operating systems. They did this by not tying it to any platform dependent libraries. Research will show that most other, both open and close source, server applications follow the same path simply because it is easier and cheaper than building around on operating system and one chipset.

The point of my long post? A low cost Xserve (though Apple should probably create a new brand name to avoid confusion with their PPC based counterparts), (BTW, low cost spelled $500) based around a cheap X86 processor AND powered by a version of Mac OS X Server, built specifically APPLE based X86 processors (not sold separately for other X86 machines initially), which comes with all the tools and applications the current version of Mac OS X Server for PPC machines comes with (the built-in email system, DNS system, file server systems, etc.) would sell like hotcakes to small businesses (small like 1-10 employees) who do not have the need or resources for an IT department and who have cheap broadband access (our business has a DSL connection from SBC for under $40 a month, we could upgrade to a package for $60 a month that would give us more than enough bandwidth for an Email and Webserver AND still be able to download work related materials.

If Apple were to release a server with the above specs, for $500 dollars or below, that would basically allow me to setup an email and webserver in a matter of minutes, I would buy on in a second. I think you will find a lot of people like me out here.