Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright, people . . . . until the summer of 2006 rolls around, we have no idea WHAT the Apple-Intel alliance will end up producing. All we have now are predictions, hype, wish-lists, promises. We DO know that some form of OS X will run on an Intel chip. The exact design of that cpu is unknown as yet, other than the fact that right now, we're being told "x86."

There is no definitive answer as to how well OS X on Intel will fare against the competition in terms of performance. This particular cpu isn't sitting inside a box on our desks just yet.

Alot can happen from now until the summer of '06. The deal might also be renegotiated and end up looking quite different from what it is now. Other factors will have an impact, such as Apple's revenues from now until then, for instance.

All I know for certain is that if Apple doesn't reduce the price of their current G5s to SELL, all they'll do is collect dust on the display counters. That's not going to make Apple money in the meantime.
 
OSX on Cell not dead yet...

Found this interview on another site. Ken Kurtargai from Sony was saying the PS3 will have an optional 80 GB hard drive. It will also be able to run Linux and... OSX. Could this be what Steve was talking about when he spoke of upcoming partnerships with Sony? Curiouser and curiouser.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html

IPCW: So Linux can be run on the Cell?

KK: Linux is legacy, but it will be a start. In the case of the Cell, operation systems are applications. The kernel will be running on the Cell, and multiple OSes will be running on top of that as applications. Of course, the PS3 can run Linux. If Linux can run, so can Lindows. Other PC Operating Systems can run too, such as Windows and Tiger (Max OS X 10.4), if the publishers want [them] to do so. Maybe a new OS might come out.
 
I admit I've been rather slow of thought this week (knew about this PC nearly 2 weeks ago), but those becoming bored with the whole Intel Mac argument might like to wander over to the AOpen site and acquaint themselves with the new 'Intel Mac-Mini'. Apparently pre-orders alone already outnumber entire MacMini sales.

Given that OSX for Intel is already available on warez sites and discussions in the hacker community suggest getting it to install on compatible generic Intel hardware will be less that a few hours work, do all you Mac fanatics really believe there will be anyone left still willing to but Apple's Intel hardware when they finally get around to releasing it.

All those (both in this forum and otherwise) suggesting OSX on generic Intel PC's will never become a reality, really have no understanding of those who frequent the hacker community. Because it can be done, it will be done. And as one who was once part of that community, I can assure you that cracking generic Intel firmware to accept OSX will be no great challenge. I would suggest an hour at the most. It only took 54 minutes to crack Microsoft's product activation.

A FOOTNOTE... It's stimulating to talk about how fantastic 'cell' technology might be, but just remember it's still in it's infancy. This processor is still pre-production. If IBM is still unable to yield a 3ghz G5 2 years after it's announcement, there are no guarantees Sony will have PS3 processors mid 2006. While Mac users have concentrated solely on IBM's G5's, the truth is IBM has been able to deliver upon very few of it's promises across it's entire semiconductor range. This time next year we won't be talking about Intel inside Mac, but we might be talking about the demise of the PlayStation and saying how farsighted Apple was in dumping IBM.
 
Given that OSX for Intel is already available on warez sites and discussions in the hacker community suggest getting it to install on compatible generic Intel hardware will be less that a few hours work, do all you Mac fanatics really believe there will be anyone left still willing to but Apple's Intel hardware when they finally get around to releasing it

Of course. Who outside the hacker community will want to deal with trying to find/create new hardware drivers every time they update their machine? How many people will want an unstable unsupported operating system? Yes, OS X will be cracked, but it will not be used by a commercially significant number of users. Consequently the same people (like me) who just want a no-hassle operating system on their (beautiful and well designed) computer, will be lining up to get their Mactels in two years

I'd ask you, in all seriousness, whether you have any desire to use OS X beyond the accomplishment of hacking it? I'm guessing, but you don't sound like someone who particlularly cares about having a no hassle operating system. So what would be your motivation to actually use a cracked OS X?
 
vatel said:
So what would be your motivation to actually use a cracked OS X?

Being able to run it on my AMD rig, which by the way, runs Linux (ubuntu) and WinXP quite nicely.

I'm quite sure a cracked version will in time be able to run relatively stable, and be made to *somehow* accept software updates as easily as the "official" Intel version.

This way, in due time I'll be able to enjoy all the benefits of the nifty OS X environment without having to spring for the hardware.

For me, it's all about the OS - it's all about the kind of environment in which I can get my work done.

I believe that this time around, OS X will be less tied to the hardware (in terms of its stability and reliability) than people would like to think.
 
Implications for imminent PowerMac purchase?

I have been using a Powerbook (1.25ghz) very happily, but have slowly moved into amateur use of a number of more demanding applications (Final Cut in particular) that have me poised to upgrade to a PowerMac (looking at the dual 2.3ghz).

Needless to say... this is a big investment for me. Should I be nervous, hesitant, cautious.... regarding this purchase, in light of the announced Motorola/Intel transition? I would hope to be content with this new PowerMac for at least 3 years before feeling the need to upgrade.... and I am not a sophisticated enough user to be able to appreciate whether a 2006 implementation of Intel processors would have any negative implications for owners of what would then presumably instantly become "old" technology.

Could a more sophisticated user offer me some clarification/reassurance?

Thanks
Tim
 
vatel said:
Consequently the same people (like me) who just want a no-hassle operating system on their (beautiful and well designed) computer, will be lining up to get their Mactels in two years
Yep!
 
GTKpower said:
This way, in due time I'll be able to enjoy all the benefits of the nifty OS X environment without having to spring for the hardware.
For me, it's all about the OS - it's all about the kind of environment in which I can get my work done.
Guess you won't be springing for the OS software either if it's cracked.:( Not the best way to support the company if you like their products.
 
skellener said:
Guess you won't be springing for the OS software either if it's cracked.:( Not the best way to support the company if you like their products.


Let me put it to you this way:

I would be overjoyed, yes, overjoyed to pay for a fully licensed/legal copy of OS X if I could get it to run on generic x86 hardware.

No offense intended about Apple's hardware. I just never really cared for it. Even when I had my Mac for 8 years (!) I cared far more about the OS (System 7, 7.5, OS 8.0)

Even if OS X would run a little unstably on non-proprietary hardware, I'd still open my wallet.
 
Get A Life!

Macmadant said:
Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: i wish i was there i would have bood

Come on guy, get a life. Do you really think Steve Jobs really cares what you think? Apple is a business and is going to do what ever is in their own best interest. Does any one really think they are going to make a change like this if they thought it would hurt the bottom line? Stop crying and get back to work.
 
OCOTILLO said:
Come on guy, get a life. Do you really think Steve Jobs really cares what you think? Apple is a business and is going to do what ever is in their own best interest. Does any one really think they are going to make a change like this if they thought it would hurt the bottom line? Stop crying and get back to work.

Actually, I do think Steve Jobs cares. Over the past decades I have made numerous suggestions to him and Apple about various aspects of the Mac and some of those things have been implemented. He wants to sell products. He does that by producing products that people want and need. One of the ways he knows what people need and want is by listening to what customers say, both on Apple's feedback form (http://www.apple.com/feedback/), in focus groups and by monitoring discussion lists like this one. You never know who might be lurking... :)
 
I've finally had my epiphany about this whole Intel deal: it doesn't really matter to me.

I'm a light to medium user of my mac. I might use Final Cut while Photoshop is working, but other than that, nothing too major. I don't need cutting edge technology, just something that works well, and I feel that many of the people on this forum fit into the same category. Why shouldn't you buy that new PowerMac or iBook? It'll still work just as well when the new Intel Macs are out, so you'll only NEED to update it when the new version of your favourite program works only on Intel.

A lot of people see their computers as becomig obsolete as soon as the first Intel is released, but remember that this change is gradual, and even then it is not as if all software will only be compatible with Intel overnight... Even when the Mac world has completely converted, my eMac will still be running the programs it does now, and so the Intel change won't affect me. Apart from the pro users, for whom the latest programs are a must, I can't really see why this switch should cause so many people to abandon purchases. Now is almost the perfect time to buy a Mac- by the time you come to upgrade out of necessity, the Intel line and programs for it will be well established, and a sound purchase.

I personally look forward to handing over the dollars for my 15" 1.67 G4 PowerBook in Florida in 3 weeks. It will do me well while at Uni, and hopefully through the beginnings of my career in the television industry. Too many people here seem to be concerned with having the most cutting-edge technology, when it would do them well to ask themselves how much they really need it...

*Please don't take offence at this post, it's just my two cents
 
Apple should work with Alienware on a game machine

Once we get on Intel, Apple should collaborate with Alienware to come up with a tricked-out gaming rig running OS X.

It wouldn't be a 'clone' so much as a special edition, like the U2 ipod or the 20th anniversary Mac (except, unlike that Mac, it'd be sane.) It'd be sold at the Apple Store, and be an Apple Macintosh, but it could have some Alienware logos or something, and there'd be cross-promotion.

That is, assuming Alienware has street cred with gamers. If not, then pick someone who does.
 
Needless to say... this is a big investment for me. Should I be nervous, hesitant, cautious.... regarding this purchase, in light of the announced Motorola/Intel transition? I would hope to be content with this new PowerMac for at least 3 years before feeling the need to upgrade.... and I am not a sophisticated enough user to be able to appreciate whether a 2006 implementation of Intel processors would have any negative implications for owners of what would then presumably instantly become "old" technology.

Could a more sophisticated user offer me some clarification/reassurance?

If your upgrade window on a powermac is 3 years, you have nothing to worry about. The consensus guess is that the powermac will be the last major system to be replaced, sometime in late 2007, which gives you 2.5 years before your system would even be 2nd shelf, much less obsolete. In addition, because the power mac is, performance wise, Apples strongest competitive offering, I would not expect the new power macs to 'dust' the current ones.
Software support and upgrades should be easily available for well beyond the introduction of the 'Mactels' because the vast majority of the user base will still be ppc machines.

Just my two cents. Hope that helps.
 
Skeptical about the new Intel Macs

What I find somewhat troubling about Apple's switch to Intel, is that they may be surrendering control of their production to them as well. For most of existence, Apple's always controlled the design of their motherboards and the configuration of its components. Correct me if I'm wrong, with the advent of these Intel Macs, Apple won't be designing its own systems anymore--Intel will. Apple'll be like any other clonemaker. I remember when those Apple clones came out 10 years ago---Power Computing, UMAX, etc. They acted and felt like Macs, but they certainly weren't the real McCoy. They had their problems. And now, that's what I'm conerned about Apple's drastic switch to the Intel brand--that we, the consumers, will be getting a cheap product that only half works--like a Dell or some other clone.

Here's an exerpt from an article in an online newsletter called the Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/apple_intel_analysis/


"To compete, Apple has to engineer all these features
into its own system chips, and that's expensive to do.
So far, it's had to take the cost in the chin, because
of its decision to stick with PowerPC. A shift to x86,
however, means it can buy in the parts in volume, from
any one of a variety of competing vendors - Intel,
VIA, SiS, ULi, Nvidia, ATI etc. - and save money. It
will no longer need to design its own motherboards,
either."

So, in other words, won't Apple'll be just like any other PC or clone maker--mixing and matching parts? And hence, doesn't that mean that Apple will lose out on the quality control aspect? Sure, it'll be cheaper to make the new Macs, but it seems it'll come at a price. It seems they're cuttin' too many corners. And in just about every office I've worked, these Intel machines crash every day, freeze up, whatever. And I'm concerned that this will happen if Apple switches to Intel.

Judging from the performance of Wintel PCs, I'm a bit skeptical that the Intel Macs will perform up to the standard that the G4/G5's have. Anyways, food for thought. Maybe somebody can address my concerns? Maybe you have a different take.
 
artjones said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, with the advent of these Intel Macs, Apple won't be designing its own systems anymore--Intel will.
Says who? Apple is changing to a different processor. That's it. Nothing else will change. That is speculation on the part of the Register. They will still design their own mobos, still design their own cases and still charge a little bit more for the whole package. If Apple is making it, it's a Mac. Have faith. This is NOT all that earth shattering. Mac OS X has a long future ahead of it.
 
What I find somewhat troubling about Apple's switch to Intel, is that they may be surrendering control of their production to them as well. For most of existence, Apple's always controlled the design of their motherboards and the configuration of its components. Correct me if I'm wrong, with the advent of these Intel Macs, Apple won't be designing its own systems anymore--Intel will

I'm not an expert, but Intel has a much higher reputation as a motherboard designer than Apple, so I'm not too worried on that front. I think overall machine design will still be Apple.


Judging from the performance of Wintel PCs, I'm a bit skeptical that the Intel Macs will perform up to the standard that the G4/G5's have. Anyways, food for thought. Maybe somebody can address my concerns? Maybe you have a different take.

Well for G4 performance, I'm expecting Mactel performance to blow the doors off the current offerings. Honestly if they took today's Intel offerings and put into the G4 lineup, we'd be better off.

For the G5, I'd agree that there won't be a massive upgrade in performance. Although one thing is, contrary to S Jobs' assesment, I expect the G5 offerings to stagnate over the next 2 years, so while the G5 is competitive now, I expect the offerings Apple actually sells to be an upgrade.
 
Ah, a new theme! I wait for those ;)

Remember Everex?

Anyone?

Oh, yeah, Mac folks - wouldn't know them.

Ok, Everex made modems, but also made, uh, 'clones'.

'scuse me, I'm on my 3rd Gin and Tonic now; in a bit in a mood if you follow. (Ice just hit the glass to create number 4). It's late, not so sharp as usual.....there's Rachmaninoff in the background...

Anyway, they were big in the days of the 286 Intel chip. Who cares, you ask. Precident, that's what.

They made cache enabled motherboards before most makers knew how. Performance on their machines was highest at the time - that was their moto.

Remember the early Dell, Gateway and Compaq machines. Ah, more familiar names, yes....

Ok, they sponsered the era of "throw away" PC's. Yep - build a motherboard with odd mounting, some strange case requirement and voila - you must by a new machine to upgrade.

Didn't work out for IBM and their microchannel either, did it?

My point - companies much smaller than Apple have made their own, designed their own...it's not really all that tough.... oh - and MANY were actually good. (Yeah, I know, given they were Wintel before IBM actually became irrelavent).

Apple is in a much better position than most motherboard manufacturers to put together something special.

Tyan, for example, is renowned for stable if lackluster (in performance) motherboards. I've not yet found a Tyan that didn't run, and run...

Abit and Asus were known for "overclocking"; as well as a few others.

My point, in response to "it's just another clone box, right?" -

Nope. Apple is fully capable, staffed and experienced at making what they will.

That's what makes an Apple an Apple! The guiding hands and minds of some seriously dedicated people. Not just another "suit" making a "PC box", but people from Apple. The kind that made the first Mac, the next Mac, and so on.

Of all things that FUD this thread, please don't let 'that' FUD this up!

The early "developer" box might be something of a quick toss together from stock, but I would almost by the farm that Apple will make anything but a typical offering.

Before you jump in with "well, then they're just another Asus or Abit, Tyan or MSI" - hold the phone. None of them have the history or the mindset of Apple.

There - I've said that and I'm not even an Apple owner!

Give Jobs and Co a little credit, please (and at least a few months). This ain't going to be a "Columbia" PC Clone (rememer those - the, uh, second PC?).

K?

You can now rejoin your regularly scheduled nonsense.
 
wait or buy ?

with the release of the pentium chips.. should i wait fer a powerbook then or get 1 this fall.. i only got a old blue berry now running panther , @ 350 MHZ soo yeah , almost has a stroke trying to run ilife.. soo i want somthing with portablility , soo im thinking 12" pb.. but.. should i wait or get 1 this fall ? im not sure what to do .. i dunn like the idea of the lower cost when they do come out , but that would mean that i would have to run this ting for another whole year.. i would go insane.. soo i think the pb 12" this fall would be a good choice.. agree??
 
mac-man said:
with the release of the pentium chips.. should i wait fer a powerbook then or get 1 this fall.. i only got a old blue berry now running panther , @ 350 MHZ soo yeah , almost has a stroke trying to run ilife.. soo i want somthing with portablility , soo im thinking 12" pb.. but.. should i wait or get 1 this fall ? im not sure what to do .. i dunn like the idea of the lower cost when they do come out , but that would mean that i would have to run this ting for another whole year.. i would go insane.. soo i think the pb 12" this fall would be a good choice.. agree??
Absolutely. My brother just got one last week. It's a fantastic machine!
 
Classic, OSX software, which will work on the new MacIntel machines?

(Originally Posted by pubwvj)
The biggest negative I see is that Classic applications (OS9 apps) aren't going to work with the new machines. There are many legacy applications that I have, some of which I wrote. Sure, I can keep an old machine for running them, but that is a pain in the butt. I don't want to have to have an old machine to run the old apps. I want to keep running them. If we're going to have emulation it would be really useful if it was complete and covered the legacy Classic applications too.

*****************************************

Someone posed an interesting commenting earlier. So, if this is correct, Classic 0S9 and earlier won't work on the new MacIntels, but all software written for OSX v1 and after will? And all OSx software written for PPCs will continue to run on the new MacIntel machines for at least 4-5 years? Say, Illustrator 9 for Mac won't work on the MacIntels, but the Illustrator 10 for OSX will?
 
And all OSx software written for PPCs will continue to run on the new MacIntel machines for at least 4-5 years? Say, Illustrator 9 for Mac won't work on the MacIntels, but the Illustrator 10 for OSX will?


Yep.

I also wouldn't be surprised if a shareware classic emulator came out. It woudn't have to be very efficient, in order to deliver good performance.
 
vatel said:
Yep.

I also wouldn't be surprised if a shareware classic emulator came out. It woudn't have to be very efficient, in order to deliver good performance.

already in the works. and it works quite well. except for the part about running os < 10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.