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.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Steve always said they liked to keep their options open. The tools have been there for at least 5 years now. They weren't "just created". The OS has existed longer on Intel than on PPC. Many people don't realize this. NeXTSTEP was ported to Intel in 1993.jhu said:
the same is true of the itanium 2, it's not x86 compatible and runs x86 in semi emulations slow, all you can do with it is use linux on it but most binaries wont be compiled for it so it'll run slow, itanium is dead it was intels attempt to gain ground on the IBM POWER, which last i saw a top end POWER4 cpu board cost $180k :0
A buddy of mine put it best....jhu said:
All those companies were dead or on the way to being dead before they
switched to Intel. The switch was usually a last survival gasp.
SGI especially. They just weren't able t survive without making a
$40,000 profit per machine. They had a wasteful culture, a crappy OS
and a niche product.
On the other side: Apple is at its healthiest in years, has a great
OS 2 years ahead of the competition, and now will be able to leverage
the common Intel CPU used in every PC. This is about getting a
reliable chip supply nothing else.
GTKpower said:
This argument is true but I don't think it represents the majority. (I don't think any single argument does regarding this) It definitely represents the majority here and people up on tech.
Mine is the, relatively, short term argument. I want to buy now what I've had for the past ten years and can't. A Mac that, when you buy it, looks like it's future is infinite. How could you possibly need something more than it. You are set for as far as you can see.
Whereas now you can clearly see it's fading date.
So many people are going to hold off purchases. Jobs needs to post some insight on Apples site.
Once were up and running on Intel Powermac's nobody is going to care what name it says on the chip. People are hardly going to remain pissed while owning one.
dicklacara said:
And I bought this stock 25 years ago. My $100 of Microsoft stock I bought in 1978 isn't doing too bad either.
and $365,000 today, damn fools are born every minute.
Look, now Apples are just going to be typical PC's with OS X on them. It's the hardware that matters. It's the hardware and the software that lets you flawlessly edit video without the hiccups that the x86 processor or even AMD inhibits. Apple has published so many tech articles on how the processor processes so much more information that an Intel and that is why it works so well. I know from experience that it is true. I'm afraid the new Macintels will suck and hiccup unless Intel is going to make cpu's with the same throughtput and memory channels that enable the Macintosh software to work so well. You are looking at is solely on sales, as Apple is too. I just feel like we are getting screwed again. Why would I buy an Apple now when I can just pirate OS X and run it on my home built pc?
skellener said:Already is my friend!
of course. but hector's point was that osx would be running on x86 emulation on an itanium. i say apple can port osx to itanium and then stuff it in an xserve. actually, it would have been nice if apple could have used power5 in their xserves, but then that would cannibalize ibm's server sales.
I see what you are saying. But I have no love for a computer chip. The chip doesn't matter to me. It's the system that you work with that matters. Apple is gonna do what it needs to do. Whatever chip they want to go with, I don't really care. They still make the best hardware and OS on the planet. Who cares about chips?jhu said:
jhu said:
yeah but it's a one at a time thing, not emacs useing x86 powermacs useing POWER powerbooks useing freescale dual core e700's, ibooks useing celerons and xserves useing itainium, it's not about weather the OS will run it's about application support and apple cant go mix and matching cpu's on a permanent masis
As long as Xcode is used they could switch CPU's as long as they want. Even add a few more. It's been on Intel all this time. Steve said all of Apple's projects (iLife, Final Cut Pro, etc) have been Xcode compliant since day one and recompile and just work on Mac OS X Intel just fine. Other developers like Maxxon and Omni already announced their apps are running on Mac OS X Intel - now. An hour of recompile and they were done. There just aren't any machines available from Apple yet (other than the developer one). They could be on as many chips as they want to with this strategy. An old strategy called Openstep.Hector said:
jZilla said:What'll be more keen to look out for... will they post the Macintel benchmarks and keep the PPC ones in when they stop selling them? ;-)
What if the G5 keeps smoking the X86!
You mean 2 G5's keep smoking 1 P4. Its a little missleading dont you think
how much longer is this silly topic-thread going to go on?
apple has chosen to use a new cpu. this is great because the last 2 cpu manufacturers could not produce the product apple or its customers demand and expect. hopefully this new supplier can satisfy apples wishes.
the os will still be the same, the computers will still be hip, well designed boxes...the software will run just as well...what is the problem here?
who cares what cpu is in the box as long as i get the same great os user experience, stylish and good engineered case/design, and can run my favorite software?
if the latest intel cpu makes my computer 3 times faster then ibm's latest offerings than great.
on most macrumor forums lately i have only read about people complaining about the ppc processor speed/outdated hardware, etc. so apple finally wants to do something about it and what happens....ya all start complaining that apple wants to do something about it. i don't get it!
i am definitely looking forward to the new boxes apple will build in the coming years and i think all you complainers will be quite impressed as well.
apple has chosen to use a new cpu. this is great because the last 2 cpu manufacturers could not produce the product apple or its customers demand and expect. hopefully this new supplier can satisfy apples wishes.
the os will still be the same, the computers will still be hip, well designed boxes...the software will run just as well...what is the problem here?
who cares what cpu is in the box as long as i get the same great os user experience, stylish and good engineered case/design, and can run my favorite software?
if the latest intel cpu makes my computer 3 times faster then ibm's latest offerings than great.
on most macrumor forums lately i have only read about people complaining about the ppc processor speed/outdated hardware, etc. so apple finally wants to do something about it and what happens....ya all start complaining that apple wants to do something about it. i don't get it!
i am definitely looking forward to the new boxes apple will build in the coming years and i think all you complainers will be quite impressed as well.
chibianh said:
The History of Apple is finished. Perhaps many of you think they made a bad decision almost 30 years ago. Now, they will be nothing but another IBM clone. Exactly what they were trying to prevent. Now, we will have crashes and hiccups in our video and audio editing just like every other x86 piece of ****.
You have no idea about the history of this OS. OS X has been on Intel longer than PPC. You have no idea what you are talking about. The OS will still be as robust as ever. I suggest you read up on NeXTSTEP and Openstep. All of that stuff you are worrying about comes from Windows and sh*tty manufacturers. The new Mac with Intel chips are gonna be as great as always. You probably wish then stayed on 68k don't 'ya?fordlemon said:
Agree, Somewhat
I do think Apple had more control over the SW / HW intergration (sp?) w/ PPC and I also think that unless they gain a sizable increase in the market share Intel will lose interest in this development collaboration w/ Apple.
Despite all the plus and minus of the move, Apple does suffer some crediblity issues by some of their previous hardware claims. In that respect I feel betrayed.
Also they'll need a Rosetta (sp?) to port Win software to gain switchers.
GOt to go though.
fordlemon said:
I do think Apple had more control over the SW / HW intergration (sp?) w/ PPC and I also think that unless they gain a sizable increase in the market share Intel will lose interest in this development collaboration w/ Apple.
Despite all the plus and minus of the move, Apple does suffer some crediblity issues by some of their previous hardware claims. In that respect I feel betrayed.
Also they'll need a Rosetta (sp?) to port Win software to gain switchers.
GOt to go though.
- Status