Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 23, 2003, 11:55 PM   #1
MacBytes
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Intel CEO Craig Barrett on MacOSX on Intel, amongst other th...


Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Intel CEO Craig Barrett on MacOSX on Intel, amongst other things.

Posted on MacBytes.com

Approved by Mudbug
MacBytes is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 01:01 AM   #2
mac15
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney
Good article, it seems he'd like to work with Apple but Steve don't want none of it
mac15 is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 01:17 AM   #3
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
He talks trash, but on the inside, he's shaking out of fear of IBM!
Phil Of Mac is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 03:03 AM   #4
Bakey
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: O Donny Boy
I still find it highly ironic that IBM has become the new "saviour" of Apple.

Forget the AIM appliance - I'm talking about "right here, right now"!

Ironic that it was IBM's blue prints that devised the old PC XT and then the AT, which in turn brought to light huge amounts of success for both Intel and Microsoft through the use and uptake of both processors and operating systems [obviously!].

And right here in 2003 some twenty+ years later we see IBM devising the next generation of processors that has raised the bar once again but this time for Apple... completely t'other side o'fence!! [Hey, it's not a bad thing of course!!]

If only I'd taken that "second look" at Apple when I was going to college, I could now be a veteran Mac user spanning 14 years... oh well, live and learn!!

As I sit here typing this on my P4 2.4Gig HT Win-XP Pro based Shuttle... it's nice but it's no Mac I can tell thee...

Anyway, back to my predicament... do I go for a 14" iBook G4 or a 15" Powerbook 1.25gig?????

Bakey is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 03:10 AM   #5
Phil Of Mac
Banned
 
Phil Of Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington State University
Send a message via AIM to Phil Of Mac
Quote:
Originally posted by Bakey
Anyway, back to my predicament... do I go for a 14" iBook G4 or a 15" Powerbook 1.25gig?????
If you're considering the PowerBook, then go ahead and go for it. You deserve it!

And I remember when Apple was declaring war on IBM.
Phil Of Mac is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 07:27 AM   #6
Blaaze
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
I read something in New Scientist about Intel having plans to to create a chip that would be able to support Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. Don't know why they would need one for Linux though, because it runs virtually on anything. I think what you have to look at here, is Intel trying to put their fingers in all the pies, including Apple pie.

They way they planned to do it, is with virtual something or other, or something with emulation. I'm sorry I don't remember the details.

I don't necessarily think this would be a good thing for Apple computers. If Intel were to make PPC chips for them, I think it would be grand, but having them run on the chips that everything else runs on doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I think as of now, they have a pretty good future with IBM.
Blaaze is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 08:50 AM   #7
bwintx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And I remember when Apple was declaring war on IBM.
Was that before or after the Apple newspaper ad headlined:

"Welcome, IBM. Seriously."

...when IBM intro'd its original PeeCee?
bwintx is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 08:52 AM   #8
psurrena
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
chrp

Remember CHRP? Sounds great but a little thing called an ego prevents such progress.
psurrena is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 08:58 AM   #9
kristianm
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norway
All other arguments aside, choice is always a good thing. IBM will probably fail sometime in the future. The AMD/Intel competition should ensure that one of them crash and burns or some fast CPUs.
kristianm is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 09:08 AM   #10
crenz
macrumors 6502a
 
crenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Shanghai, China
Frankly speaking, I doubt whether this will be really relevant for end-users. It would be nice to do a "fast-os-switching", but I doubt many people need it. In fact, I wouldn't want it myself, although I use multiple OSes all the time.

And if a market really develops for these things, competition will spring up, too. AFAIK, IBM's AS/400 has been able to run multiple virtual computers at the same time for a few years now.* There are people out there who run a dozen linux "servers" on one IBM box. Combine this with the upcoming multi-core processors at IBM, and they should have something really nice to offer -- if it is really needed.

*So it is actually typically Intel to sell it as something new ;-)
crenz is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 09:41 AM   #11
lolajl
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Well, when users are faced with having to use a vital software that is only available on a certain OS (I'm sure you can figure out which OS I'm talking about), this technology will be fantastic for them.
lolajl is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 09:49 AM   #12
AmigoMac
macrumors 68020
 
AmigoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: l'Allemagne
That's not good for Apple

It could be the end...

... of the ONE-BUTTON Mouse...
__________________
No Mac no fun...
AmigoMac is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 09:53 AM   #13
cubist
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Muncie, Indiana
Send a message via AIM to cubist
Vanderpool is FUD, you know. He's only shooting the breeze.
cubist is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 10:20 AM   #14
xtekdiver
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
It's only a matter of time

Consider this: Longhorn is about two years away. A lot can happen in two years. I predict that the iTunes Store will be a huge success and drive more interest in Apple's other apps. One of my contentions has been that Apple could make a lot of money selling their iApps to the Wintel world -- iTunes is my case in point. Apple has been forced to port iTunes in order to not become a marginal player in this new business model. For a while I thought Apple would be forced to go x86, but IBM seems to have a very competitive chip that will carry Apple far into the future, but I have been thinking this will eventually become a mute point. There is no reason that future chip designs could support multiple instruction sets at the same time! And this interview with Intel proves it:

"It will certainly give users a lot of flexibility to have different profiles on the same machine. If people use it for multiple OSes, running in sync on the same processor, it opens up a lot of different use models, and perhaps competitive models in the marketplace. If you are able to say, have two OSes running simultaneously, you won't have to rely on a single OS for everything. So you could have Mac OS and Longhorn on the same system, using Longhorn for business stuff and Mac OS for personal stuff. But first you'd need to convince Steve Jobs that it's a great idea. Even more important will be Vanderpool for fault-tolerance. Lots of aspects of that. "

So, once Intel does this (and they will do it) IBM will be forced to do it. IBM supports Windows and Linux, and I am sure they would love to sell their G5 (G6 G7?) chip to Windows users too.

The future is about choice and integration. Technology is about to make the Apple on Intel debate a mute point.

Edit: He obviously doesn't understand that Apple is not just a "home user" OS anymore. Quite the contrary, OS X will be a major IT contender in the server space, and this new kind of chip design will open the possibility of putting it in the client space in your office.

Last edited by xtekdiver; Oct 24, 2003 at 10:26 AM.
xtekdiver is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 10:30 AM   #15
manu chao
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Linux on PPC

I have a question: there are versions of Linux running on PPC (YellowDog?). Do most Linux applications run on these versions of Linux? I don't mean command line tools, but 'big' applications like e.g. Mozilla.
manu chao is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 10:47 AM   #16
jcshas
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Will Intel ever be able to crack Apple?

"We keep trying, but frankly it gets less and less interesting each year..."

-Fellings are mutual Mr. Barrett!
jcshas is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 10:58 AM   #17
DeusOmnis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
I hope apple stays away from that.
__________________
Dual 1 GHz MDD G4 ][ 1.5 GB DDR RAM ][ 80 GB HD ][ Sony 19" Trinitron G410R ][ GeForce 4 Ti 4600 ][ M-Audio Revolution 7.1 Sound Card ][ Klipsch 5.1 Ultra
DeusOmnis is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 11:11 AM   #18
Si
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Wouldn't this actually be a GOOD thing?
Apple would be able to sell more copies of OS X.
People would see the benefits of OS X
We would all be able to use those software packages that we have to use on Windows on the one machine without the need for virtual PC, and also run PC games.
Think about it, work in OS X and then play in Windows.
Get the best of both worlds!
Si is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 11:22 AM   #19
kristianm
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norway
Re: Linux on PPC

Quote:
Originally posted by manu chao
I have a question: there are versions of Linux running on PPC (YellowDog?). Do most Linux applications run on these versions of Linux? I don't mean command line tools, but 'big' applications like e.g. Mozilla.
Yes.
kristianm is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 11:29 AM   #20
killmoms
macrumors 68040
 
killmoms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Send a message via AIM to killmoms Send a message via Yahoo to killmoms
I'll be surprised if a virtual-machine oriented chip is ever able to run G4/G5 Altivec optimized code at full speed. Especially if it's from Intel. I was hoping the G5 would put an end to the monthly (sometimes weekly) MacOS X on Intel rumors. Guess that hope was unfounded.

--Cless
__________________
thrillmoms.com - You know it.
Welcome to the family…
Mugi: Mid-2012 15" Retina MBP, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD
Azusa: 64GB iPhone 5, Nagato: 16GB WiFi Retina iPad Mini
killmoms is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 11:30 AM   #21
Docrjm
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Si
Wouldn't this actually be a GOOD thing?
Apple would be able to sell more copies of OS X.
People would see the benefits of OS X
We would all be able to use those software packages that we have to use on Windows on the one machine without the need for virtual PC, and also run PC games.
Think about it, work in OS X and then play in Windows.
Get the best of both worlds!
Unfortunately it would be a bad thing. Apple is aHardware vendor. If multiple os on intel was a reality, most people blinde by the stupidity of PC world best buy and futureshop will only purchase pc, they will never have the benefits of Apple explained to them. Apple will therefore slowly lose marketshare to the point of non viability. At that point the duopoly will revert to normal practice. One os on one chip.

Looking at the Mossberg article recently: and to paraphrase.

An Apple a day keeps the viruses away.
Docrjm is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 11:44 AM   #22
jouster
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Connecticut
Quote:
Originally posted by bwintx
Was that before or after the Apple newspaper ad headlined:

"Welcome, IBM. Seriously."

...when IBM intro'd its original PeeCee?
Well, there was a certain amount of ironic humor in that headline that kinda backfired on Apple. I don't think Apple ever imagined that IBM/MS/Intel would grab so much of the market. Otherwise, why would you welcome the opportunity to lose sales?

I think that when they wrote that, if you'd told Jobs that 20 years later his company would have 3% market share he'd have laughed in your face.

Apple, after all, has never lacked self confidence.....

Quote:
I'll be surprised if a virtual-machine oriented chip is ever able to run G4/G5 Altivec optimized code at full speed. Especially if it's from Intel. I was hoping the G5 would put an end to the monthly (sometimes weekly) MacOS X on Intel rumors. Guess that hope was unfounded.
No, of course it couldn't run at full native speed - nothing that involves an emulation layer ever could. But that isn't so important: what is is whether it could run such code quickly enough to be usable.

Last edited by jouster; Oct 24, 2003 at 11:49 AM.
jouster is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 11:45 AM   #23
BOOMBA
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
TWO blue screens of death?

So, does this mean you could crash Wndows XP while also crashing Windows 2000, all at the same time and on the same chip?

WOW!
__________________
"If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?"
---George Carlin
BOOMBA is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 12:04 PM   #24
omnivector
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Send a message via ICQ to omnivector Send a message via AIM to omnivector Send a message via MSN to omnivector Send a message via Yahoo to omnivector Send a message via Skype™ to omnivector
Quote:
Originally posted by Si
Wouldn't this actually be a GOOD thing?
Apple would be able to sell more copies of OS X.
People would see the benefits of OS X
We would all be able to use those software packages that we have to use on Windows on the one machine without the need for virtual PC, and also run PC games.
Think about it, work in OS X and then play in Windows.
Get the best of both worlds!
for some people this has to be explained until the cows come home. apple is a hardware company. not a software company. os x, and all the software they write, serves as gravy profit. the majority of their income comes from hardware sales. you won't see os x run on anything that apple doesn't directly produce for a long time (perhaps when steve dies).
omnivector is offline   0
Old Oct 24, 2003, 12:07 PM   #25
themacolyte
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Backwards step

This seems to be a step back, the wrong path to take and typical Intel. Complicate everything by allowing the use of multiple systems on one system easily.

Imagine that this were available today... Now you've got Windows on your machine to play games, Mac OS to run creative apps or use iLife, Linux to learn how computers really work. You bought a larger hard drive to hold everything, an extra GB of RAM to allow it all to run at one time. You have an intimate knowledge of how to use things on each system, each one being different. That would be wonderful.

No.

More money on the hardware to do it, more money on the software (going to keep all those OSes up to date?), more wasted time learning multiple ways to get around and get things done, more confusion for tech support:

Tech Person: "Are you using OS X or Windows or Mandrake or Suse right now?"

Customer: "Well, I'm not sure. I installed it in Windows, but I think I'm in Suse right now... It's hard to tell because I have an OS X theme on everything."


This is a good technology for some server situations but it is definitely not intelligent from a general engineering standpoint.

Here's an amazing idea that MS and Intel are having trouble with... Standardization. If standards are used, it doesn't matter what operating system you're using. You wouldn't need to run multiple systems. It's easier for developers to create applications so that all systems have them if standards are used.

Instead, MS uses the closed Direct X and all ported Mac games seem slow because they had to be ported from Direct X to the OPEN OpenGL. Just one example.
themacolyte is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel CEO 'Guarantees' Broadwell Chips by This Holiday Season MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 163 Jun 16, 2014 10:33 AM
2011 Mac mini i5 with Intel 3000 vs. 2013 MBA with Intel HD 5000 Ice Dragon Mac mini 2 Jun 13, 2013 07:44 AM
Former Anobit CEO Discusses Acquisition by Apple, Contrasts Cultures of Apple and Intel MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 90 Jan 10, 2013 09:26 PM
Intel CEO to retire skaertus Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Nov 19, 2012 01:25 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC