Intel CEO Craig Barrett on MacOSX on Intel, amongst other th...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 23, 2003.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #2
    Good article, it seems he'd like to work with Apple but Steve don't want none of it
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Phil Of Mac

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Location:
    Washington State University
    #3
    He talks trash, but on the inside, he's shaking out of fear of IBM!
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Location:
    O Donny Boy
    #4
    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?????

    :D
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    Phil Of Mac

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Location:
    Washington State University
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #7
    Was that before or after the Apple newspaper ad headlined:

    "Welcome, IBM. Seriously."

    ...when IBM intro'd its original PeeCee? :confused:
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    psurrena

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #8
    chrp

    Remember CHRP? Sounds great but a little thing called an ego prevents such progress.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Norway
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    crenz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Location:
    Shanghai, China
    #10
    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 ;-)
     
  11. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    AmigoMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    l'Allemagne
    #12
    That's not good for Apple

    It could be the end...

    ... of the ONE-BUTTON Mouse... :D
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #13
    Vanderpool is FUD, you know. He's only shooting the breeze.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors regular

    jcshas

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    #16
    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!
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
  18. Si
    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    #18
    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!
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Norway
    #19
    Re: Linux on PPC

    Yes.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    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
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    #21
    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.

    :D An Apple a day keeps the viruses away. :D
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #22
    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.....

    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.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    BOOMBA

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    #23
    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!
     
  24. macrumors member

    omnivector

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #24
    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).
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page