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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
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?
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.
Could be, Apple in general, and Jobs in particular, have ego issues. However, Jobs has made the jump to x86 before.
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.
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.
Re: Whatever.
I have heard this story many times before, but don't know if it is true. Does anyone have some good references?
I have heard this story many times before, but don't know if it is true. Does anyone have some good references?
Nope!
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.
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.
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.
-or-
Running bizarre tests showing how much more powerful a 1.4 G4 is, than a fill in the blank.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
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.
If the Itanium would be the one Apple would use, then it's not x86! The x86 and the Itanium are almost completely different.
related thoughts
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.
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.
No x86, just better "models" needed
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
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
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.
Like it's easy to get a P4 into a laptop. Nope. No matter which way you look at it, this rumor is *beep*.
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?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
True, but that doesn't make it likely. They don't even have a PPC emulator for P4s!
Re: related thoughts
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:
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.
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:
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
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.
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.
Re: Re: related thoughts
Good question, then again how profitable is AMD's effort? So much for a x86-64 version of OS X.
Actually with 4.5 billion in cash they probably could afford a few more times 😀
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.
Good question, then again how profitable is AMD's effort? So much for a x86-64 version of OS X.
Actually with 4.5 billion in cash they probably could afford a few more times 😀
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
macrumors 603
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.