Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple set to go Intel? (Again)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
Emulate
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.
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.
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."
"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."
mattmack
macrumors 6502a
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
macrumors 65816
Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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
macrumors 65816
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
macrumors member
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
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
1st post so no flaming please 😀
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
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
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
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
Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
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 bull**** 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.
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 bull**** 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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
NavyIntel007
macrumors 65816
Re: Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
pyrotoaster
macrumors 65816
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?
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?
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?
Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
I think the work you are looking for is nichè not nitch...
I think the work you are looking for is nichè not nitch...