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...

Meanwhile over at ARStechnica....

This guy (spankalee) hits the nail right on the head:

I'm not trying to say that Apple is going to switch and engage Microsoft in an epic head-to-head battle, but...

If there ever was a company that could, it's Apple, and if there ever was a time, it's now.

Pointing to past failures like OS/2 and BeOS only draw out the extreme differences between now and then.

BeOS, OS/2 and NeXTStep (and Solaris x86 for that matter) were technically superior with Windows, but they didn't have the applications, users, mind-share or media attention.

Apple has millions of OS X users, thousands of OS X apps including massively important apps like Office and Adobe's stuff. Apple also now has a management team that keeps their plans close to the vest and seems to be capable of some creative thinking.

After seeing how the iPod has played out I think that Apple maybe had the whole iTunes/iPod/iTMS on Mac and Windows plan from the beginning. Why give iTunes away for free unless they had the iPod planned? Who knew mp3s were going to be so important. Why put so much into a portable music player without cashing in on content. But they didn't release it all at once - that wouldn't have worked. They knew each baby step they had to take for their plan to work. The same could be true with OS X now.

Here's how I could see this playing out:

1) Apple announces that they will use Intel processors. They even have hardware shipping real soon.

2) Jobs assures everyone that this is not a switch from PPC and that the current hardware is not a dead end, they just like choices. Talks about a good PPC roadmap including 970MP. OS X becomes processor agnostic and all developers are encouraged to compile and ship fat binaries.

3) x86 Macs are still enough different than PCs (Open Firmware, anything else?) that OS X only runs on Macs.

4) Apple comes off as being desperate and slightly confused because they're not completely switching and seem to be hedging too much. This is part of the plan, and Microsoft - sensing Apple's weakness - says "no problem, we'll recompile Office for OS X-86" because if they don't they have some PR headaches. Jobs makes all executives read The Art of War 5 times. They keep their enemies very close.

5) The transition begins and it's success is very questionable. Reviews of Mac x86 hardware are mixed, mainly because it's still more expensive than generic PC hardware. However, the software side comes along pretty well with jerky but quick progress a-la OS X's early days.

6) Apple secretly works behind the scenes with HP and Sony on certified OS X compatible hardware. In reality it's easy since new PC hardware is pretty well supported by Darwin.

7) At next year's WWDC Apple announces the "X Ready" branding. HP, IBM (Levano and IBMs server group) and Sony begin shipping machines with OS X pre-installed. They completely steal the thunder from Longhorn's release and we see many side-by-side comparisons of Lion vs Longhorn on the same hardware. Reviews are good and even some Windows die-hards are giving OS X a thumbs up because it's no longer tied to Apple hardware.

8) Apple's hardware numbers take a hit, but not by nearly as much as the number of OS X PCs flying off the shelves of CompUSA, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, Radio Shack, Fry's, and dell.com. Soon Apple's hardware sales actually go up because a rising Mac tide raises all boats and people recognize Apple hardware for what it is: very good, stylish, premium PCs.

9) Apple releases Cocoa for Windows and many developers switch to take advantage of the superior development environment and unparalleled cross-platform compatibility. They see no need to develop Windows software when they can write for OS X and still run on Windows.

10) OS X market-share grows incredibly, and so does the number of Cocoa applications. Extrapolating we can actually see a time when OS X will overtake Windows. The momentum is unstoppable and even Microsoft can't stop it by pulling Office for OS X since it would invite the ire of the Feds and kill one of their most profitable products. Apple begins to put the screws to Microsoft by messing with Cocoa, iTunes, and QuickTime for Windows so that Windows appears to be an inferior platform. "Cocoa for Windows isn't done 'til Adobe won't run" is a phrase uttered around Cupertino.

11) Slashdot erupts in flamewars over the evilness of Apple every other day. Microsoft makes a wild move to base the next Windows off of Linux with a proprietary Avalon front-end. They hire Linus and Wired looks more prescient than they have since predicting an endless, worldwide economic boom.

How's that?

Ok, I'll stop smoking this stuff now :D
Click to expand...
 
gkhaldi said:
I spoke this morning with an extremely reliable osurce within IBM that confirms that the current Power5 will be upgraded to Power6 and will exceed 6 Ghz. These processors are already running at Poughkeepsie and will be build at the Fishkill plant.

I see absolutely no reason why Apple would switch to Intel. The PPC range has still a lot to give.

And besides, how many of the Apple users are really complaining about a lack of performance ? Maybe .01 % ?
Click to expand...


More broken promises from IBM? No thanks. Need I remind you we are still not at 3 GHz. It seems Apple got the shaft from IBM which I think we all suspected given that IBM is supplying 3+ GHz processors for game consoles but apparently not to Apple. There's something there.

The TWiT Podcast was very interesting. I suggest you all give it a listen. You'll need BitTorrent to get it. Something to tide you over until the keynote coverage anyway.

TWiT Podcast #8
 
just a note

If this doesn't happen I will laugh my as off at the MSM
If it does I'm not sure what I'll do.
I plan to buy my second Mac in October
 
isaacc7 said:
How many posts on this Mac-central board have been about how slow the PPC chips are over the years? How many posts have been about the lumbering pace of updates of PPC? How many people on this Mac fan site bitched when the mini came out with it's "old" PPC based CPU? Apple can't win, stick with PPC and get hammered by their own cutomers, or do something about it and get yelled at for doing it. If mac users and Steve himself are tired of the rate of progress of PPC, who is really left to support PPC chips?

Isaac
Click to expand...
Listen, the (Mac) computer experience are not just about speed. It is also about stability, virii free environement. Just because some very loud, MHz confused fan boys keeps ranting about slow processors, it doesn't mean that all Mac users percieve the processors as so slow that a transition to x86 is absolutely necessary.
Please stop using this as an argument
 
crap freakboy said:
Yeah but the Beeb rarely backs bad news...hhmmmm 'rarely' being the key word. Should know today I suppose.
Click to expand...
However, they clearly haven't heard of Transitive: they're still banging on about recompiling all the software.
 
agreenster said:
Has anyone mentioned that the intel-mac could be debuted as a tablet? Seems possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all it is...I hope. Something with the allure of an iPod but with different features. Something that's fashion-statement cool and can work across platforms, but gives people a simple taste of OS X.

Squire
 
Abercrombieboy said:
Look I just changed my avatar so I will be 'in style" now. You don't see the impact that this has on the education and commercial markets. You wonder why Apple has lost HUGE amounts on marketshare in their non-consumer markets, this is one of the reasons. Last I checked CD's and boom boxes were a little cheaper then outfitting a whole school or business with computers.
Click to expand...

You'll be hearing from my legal department as I hold the right to the Intel Inside logo and its derivitives.
 
skunk said:
However, they clearly haven't heard of Transitive: they're still banging on about recompiling all the software.
Click to expand...

id like to hear from someone with indepth knowledge of this kind of thing, but how likely is it that transitive is as good as they claim (ie no real performance losses). It just seems odd that Virtual PC etc havent been able to come up with something that comes anywhere close to what this promises.
 
Thes Quid said:
This guy (spankalee) hits the nail right on the head:
Click to expand...

Very interesting. But, Cocoa isn't a great development environment. It's innovative and very object orientated, but it's not up to scratch when it comes to .NET and C# in terms of speed. However it's a good point - both Cocoa and .NET on Windows wouldn't be that far apart from each other - the vast majority of Windows apps are still Win32 and don't use .NET.

Another thing that's overlooked completely is Web Applications where most of the money is going to be in 5-10 years time with rapidly maturing technologies like XUL and XAML.

The trouble is that this is too much of a gamble. It could pay off massively, but I think it's more likely Apple will shrivel and die compared to Microsoft. Microsoft didn't get where it was from writing checks (as the Simpsons episode goes) and they can play just as dirty, especially when you consider the DoJ is off their back and with increased Apple marketshare they can't be pointed to as such a monopolistic beast.

I am really looking forward to the keynote. I know no-one will be saying 'well, that was pretty forgetable' this time!
 
rashdown_online said:
At Least It Wont be BinDoze :cool:

There's something interesting on "The Register":

"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/apple_intel_migration/".
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like it's almost talk of a split production line...

And is there any guarantee that the Mac will stay "malware-lite" if this is to happen? I think that's one of my major concerns. My work consists of removing viruses and malware from people's computers on a regular basis...I'd hate to go home and have to do that for my own computer!

"For some of the more tribal Apple loyalists" That phrase in the article was great...something about describing the loyalists as tribal makes me laugh.
 
fitinferno said:
Sounds to me like it's almost talk of a split production line...

And is there any guarantee that the Mac will stay "malware-lite" if this is to happen? I think that's one of my major concerns. My work consists of removing viruses and malware from people's computers on a regular basis...I'd hate to go home and have to do that for my own computer!
Click to expand...
It's not Intel that's the malware target, it's Windoze.
 
LaMerVipere said:
A version of Windows?

User-friendly?

Fast?

Stable?

rofl.gif


Oh lordy, I love these boards at times like this, everyone truly goes nutty. As if getting a different (and likely, faster) processor is going to be the end of Apple.

Whatev'

rofl.gif
Click to expand...
By stable he mean you can still an old DOS program made for a Wintel machine from early 90-ies... Old Mac programs won't run. That is a
huge problem if you work in science where your data set is Big and sometimes spans over decades. In the science community there is a relucatance to change programs since the existing programs are tweaked to fit their needs.
 
fitinferno said:
And is there any guarantee that the Mac will stay "malware-lite" if this is to happen? I think that's one of my major concerns. My work consists of removing viruses and malware from people's computers on a regular basis...I'd hate to go home and have to do that for my own computer!
Click to expand...
The malware relates to the OS and not the hardware it is running on...

groovebuster
 
groovebuster said:
The malware relates to the OS and not the hardware it is running on...

groovebuster
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that, in general. It's just the thought that if Mac is switched to Intel to be something more people start using, eventually the Mac OS is going to be targeted by malware writers.
 
fitinferno said:
Yeah, I know that, in general. It's just the thought that if Mac is switched to Intel to be something more people start using, eventually the Mac OS is going to be targeted by malware writers.
Click to expand...

People will still have to buy a Mac to use Mac OS X for many years to come. As a result a bigger market share of the Mac platform therefore will not be related to the CPU used for the Macs and that is why this problem will still not have anything to do with the CPU type used in the future Macs.

:)

groovebuster
 
nagromme said:
A fat binary is still two separate apps, they're just combined for the USER'S convenience. Both in one place and the OS runs the correct one, so the user doesn't have to think about it.

But the developer still has to make both versions, whether combined as fat or not. And making the new x86 version won't be simple in every case.
Click to expand...
There is also the option to have a high percentage (90%? 95%?) of shared code, and 5% customised. This makes supporting 2 versions far simpler.

In the last transition (680x0 -> PPC) that meant the PPC might run a program which was 95% 680x0 code and 5% native (while a 68040 ran 100% 680x0 code). I'm not sure if it's feasible to have a 'common' code - almost like Java 95% with optimised sections for specific architectures.
 
groovebuster said:
We are talking about Workstations here and not Servers:

The flaw is in the Pentium Extreme Edition, P4, and Mobile P4, too. It's not limited to Xeon's. I take your point about it being primarily servers, but XP will allow multiple users to be logged on.

J
Click to expand...
 
Forget Dual Processors, Think Dual OS

I feel like although PPC is better, Apple plans to offer an x86 Mac. Imagine a computer which gives you the option to run OS X or Windows. Which would you choose and why? I know a lot of Mac people who envy Windows gamers. Likewise no respectable designer would use anything else. Shades of grey exist too of course.

Mac Mini type of model I can believe. Cheap and very functional, certainly more than a Windows-only PC. If a user wants to buy a real Mac system, the current PPC lines could cater to their needs.

Apple needs Intel for this because they design motherboards. Recently Intel included FireWire on a motherboard to little press interest. I think Intel did this as a good-will gesture for Apple. Their motivation? If Microsoft does not need x86 for its consoles then Intel does not need Microsoft for its PCs.

HP would be jumping up and down if they could do with the x86 Mac what they did with the iPod. SONY would want a bit of that pie too. Even Dell. I mean Longhorn may be on the right track with its focus on security but it seems like everyone needs a secure computer now, not tomorrow.
 
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