Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

Superhob said:
Question: Why wouldn't Apple want other companies to be able to use OSX?

It seems to me that if they want to go after Microsoft's customers, Apple should allow other PC makers such as Dell and HP to offer operating systems choices to their customers. It can be a build-to-order option between OSX and XP. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

Because as much as much revenue as ipod's bring in, apple hardware is still Apple's cash cow. That's why excellent software, such as iLife and iWork are so cheap, they're made to compliment the hardware. If Apple let OSX run on any old hardware, then it will be effectively signing it's own death warrant.

Also, alot of the Mac experience is the hardware. By having control of the hardware as well as software, OSX feels much more integrated. If OSX could run on any old box, Apple would have to make sure every possible part combination would work with OSX. It'd get as bad as windows (well maybe not THAT bad).
 
Superhob said:
Very true! Thinksecret has been conspicuous by their absence. Either they know nothing or the fear of god has been put into them by the legal powers at Apple.
Click to expand...


ThinkSecret has a mole or is close to the Apple campus and hears everything. They know believe me. They just are'nt saying anything.
 
MacTruck said:
Yes but now we will have the intel script kiddies on our side. I bet a fix for this is written the first week these systems come out.
Click to expand...

Mmm...you might be right. I don't completely understand how much of a role the firmware plays post-boot, but it's only a meg or two of code, and yeah, there are probably ways around it.
 
mkrishnan said:
I think that the limited hardware on the platform is no small part of the Mac experience....
Click to expand...


Oh absolutely. People have many problems with windows not because of the software (in part) but because of the vast array of hardware choices out there. For example I have an IBM thinkpad that has never had any crashes or problems, but I built a system myself and it always had IRQ conflicts etc. This is where most of the bitching about intel comes from. Macs have been created with components by the maker of the software so conflicts and problems are non existent unless they are broken. If Apple licensces the OS to all Wintel boxes then the same thing will happen.
 
Only two real possibilities

There are only two real possibilities is the new of Apple-Intel cooperation are true. Barring any new technology developed between them that these news sources are unaware of and assuming this really does mean a Mac with a processor made by Intel, then we have two significant possibilities. I think keeping these two things in mind will help figure it out.

1. It really is a Mac running on something other than a G4/G5. Fine, but for that to be true, there needs to be some amazingly good emulation for the current OS X applications to live in as I don't think Apple can demand another expensive and laborious porting effort of their developers (and no, they're not all using XCode so it's not just a matter of checking the x86 box in the target list.) Are there any known indications that Apple has worked on such emulation or has hints of such a thing hidden away in Tiger? I have heard of nothing.

2. Intel will be taking over the development and production of PowerPC chips. The problem here is that the PPC isn't solely Apple's product, being a product of the AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) alliance. Apple will have had to convinced Motorola and IBM to go along with this as they have some control over the technology. Also, what would motivate Intel to take such a risk when it will gain them relatively small numbers in terms of market share? It doesn't make sense.

Those are the only two scenarios that make sense to me and as you can see, they both have problems. Anyone who understands either of these issues in more depth want to shed some light on either scenario?
 
I can't wait to see what Steve has up his sleeves. Maybe this is just great marketing, or maybe Intel/AMD Apple have been working behind the scenes for quite some time now.

I wonder what Apples stock price has done recently?


Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
 
MacTruck said:
They know believe me. They just are'nt saying anything.
Click to expand...

Hmm mabey they are just secretly. On there front page it has stuff on IBM's future prosesser mabey they are trying to say that they won't move. It's late at night and im really tired so that probobly doesn't make anysence to anyone. :eek:
 
arn said:
Historically, Apple makes most of its money on hardware.

That being said there's no reason that Apple couldn't decide to try to beat Windows or even coexist with Windows on the PC platform... but so far, no one has been able to (OS/2, NextSTEP, BeOS).

there's linux, but it's not a commercial product.

arn
Click to expand...

So I'm just dreaming the ~$200m/yr of revenue RedHat makes out of Linux?
 
Here is a fact: Any software can run on any cpu if tweaked to do so. I don't think it will be that big a deal but I could be wrong. I just don't like having to buy all new apps. I never used OS9 inside of OSX but I have used Virtual PC and that sucks too. Emulation though is not always slow. Look at when PC processors went to 32bit. Windows emulated 16bit operation with "WOW" window on windows and that proved faster than running 32bit apps. It could work nicely. I think even OSX still emulates stuff. Anyone here know for sure? Isn't carbon emulation?
 
Hi
Two things...
1) This "decision" would put the final nail in the coffin for Apple. It would be a disaster to say the least.

2) If it were to happen, my last Apple computer (Mac) would be the last / best PowerPC based system <Period>
 
inkswamp said:
2. Intel will be taking over the development and production of PowerPC chips. The problem here is that the PPC isn't solely Apple's product, being a product of the AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) alliance. Apple will have had to convinced Motorola and IBM to go along with this as they have some control over the technology. Also, what would motivate Intel to take such a risk when it will gain them relatively small numbers in terms of market share? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

The only obvious carrot for Intel that I can see (cachet and the couple of million processors a year Apple buys notwithstanding) is that this could be huge in the long term in getting them back into the console market, since they've been shouldered out by PPC-based chips in the near term.

Too be honest, I don't see what advantage this has to Freescale or IBM. Even if they are willing to give up the computer PPC market for the console market, letting Intel into the architecture would be hugely risky....
 
My feelings on this are more ambivalent than they used to be. I still like the PPC architecture, and I still think it's more secure than x86 but with the 970 performance stuck now for almost a year and absolutely nothing new out of Mot (dual core when?) Apple is running out of options...

If they do make the switch, this is going to be the most painful experience Apple has gone through-- and us with them...
 
MacTruck said:
Yes but now we will have the intel script kiddies on our side. I bet a fix for this is written the first week these systems come out.
Click to expand...
We have the Mac script kiddies on our side for this one! It would be a natural job for the existing Mac-on-Linux work.
 
MacCheetah3 said:
Hi
Two things...
1) This "decision" would put the final nail in the coffin for Apple. It would be a disaster to say the least.

2) If it were to happen, my last Apple computer (Mac) would be the last / best PowerPC based system <Period>
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with your assessment. First, you are assuming that the coffin has been almost completely shut but THERE is NO coffin.

Apple is and has been doing better then ever. They are selling more of everything they make. I think that this would be a great move for Apple because it would open the door to customers who would have never considered Apple before. So what if it upset a few mac loyalists and developers. The truth is a transition to Intel chips can only be good for Apple.
 
mkrishnan said:
The only obvious carrot for Intel that I can see (cachet and the couple of million processors a year Apple buys notwithstanding) is that this could be huge in the long term in getting them back into the console market, since they've been shouldered out by PPC-based chips in the near term.

Too be honest, I don't see what advantage this has to Freescale or IBM. Even if they are willing to give up the computer PPC market for the console market, letting Intel into the architecture would be hugely risky....
Click to expand...
Particularly risky for Freescale. IBM may have decided that single sourcing their server chips to themselves isn't the best way to go-- I'm sure they make more from the box than the chip. This would also give PPC more respect as a standard architecture. Freescale would be taking on a huge competitor though if they did this, and Freescale doesn't make boxes-- this would really jeopardize their lock on the embedded market...
 
Have IBM done that badly?

Ok, we haven't hit 3ghz or dual core. But we do have dual 2.7ghz. What do you think we would be on now if we were still with Motorola (or Freescale?) for our PowerMacs?

We've been with IBM for what 2 years, and already we've pretty much doubled the speed we had with Motorola, and if we show a little patience, I think we'll find the best is yet to come.
 
aldo said:
So I'm just dreaming the ~$200m/yr of revenue RedHat makes out of Linux?
Click to expand...

Redhat provides services more than the OS. It's certainly not comparable to independently developing and marketing an OS. What's Redhat's R&D budget?

arn
 
Thanks for the summation of the history of the Apple - Intel thing. It's interesting all of the mixed views that have come from the latest one, but as a loyal Mac user, I just want my OSX-running computer to keep running. who makes the hardware inside is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. As long as Apple continues to design the parts "working flawlessly together", then my computer will continue to be Apple to me.
 
Got you

MacTruck said:
Here is proof that its true, Think Secret still has not reported it. They are scared to death to report yet another release since they are still being sued for the last one.
Click to expand...

Think Secret claims their sources have not provided them with any information. Perhaps Apple has singled out the source an intentially kept them in the dark. Oh, they are so busted!! :eek:
 
Analog Kid said:
My feelings on this are more ambivalent than they used to be. I still like the PPC architecture, and I still think it's more secure than x86 but with the 970 performance stuck now for almost a year and absolutely nothing new out of Mot (dual core when?) Apple is running out of options...

If they do make the switch, this is going to be the most painful experience Apple has gone through-- and us with them...
Click to expand...


Yes, but keep this in mind. Once the switch is finished it will NEVER happen again. Once apple is on intel it will have the fastest processors that Windows has so there now is just going to be a comparison of Operating systems and not architecture. You see apple has to move to intel because Intel owns PCIe and that is the future of graphics. I am personally glad. Now I won't have to worry about the hardware differences. I can buy one computer and put either OS on there. Right now I juggle 2 laptops and IBM thinkpad and a Powerbook. Can I get down to one please? That would be cool. Besides a dual core pentium M is the best chip ever. I love my 2ghz Dothan Pentium M to death. If I could run os x on that baby it would be the best of both worlds.

Don't worry folks, your new intel mac will be faster, cheaper, cooler and you will probably be able to not only dual boot but run both oses at the same time. You see intel has been able to do this now with their dual core. I forget where I read it but they can run 2 versions of windows simultaneously. What if you could run windows and OS X then click a button and switch between the two? I tell you that would make alot of people use OS X for all graphics and Windows for Office stuff. Adobe would be truly all mac once again. Exciting this is.
 
arn said:
ZDnet's articles are based on CNet's articles... so it is still "just CNET" (and WSJ)

arn
Click to expand...
Wasn't the WSJ article based on the CNet story too? If so, if CNet is wrong, this whole thing is down the tubes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back