Dr.Gargoyle said:
But I don't see how that's different than today. It will still be a different design, and a totally different OS, i.e. the experience is something different altogether. If Apple can do it today then they can with MacIntel as well.
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
But I don't see how that's different than today. It will still be a different design, and a totally different OS, i.e. the experience is something different altogether. If Apple can do it today then they can with MacIntel as well.
Yonah/Jonah
http://endian.net/details.asp?tag=Yonah
IF Apple ends up supporting 64-bit x86's Q1-'06, this chip will be amazing. I forgot to say that it will finally have HyperThreading too. Kick @$$! -JB
http://endian.net/details.asp?tag=Yonah
IF Apple ends up supporting 64-bit x86's Q1-'06, this chip will be amazing. I forgot to say that it will finally have HyperThreading too. Kick @$$! -JB
Maybe the disappointment needs to be in IBM for not keeping their promises to Apple in the first place. I personally bet that Steve would have rather not made this announcement today, but realized that IBM had made Apple an afterthought, so Steve made decisions for his company accordingly. Let's hold off on the criticism until we see what comes of the decision. There were those who criticized jobs for dumpinf Moto years back in favor of IBM, but that proved a benefit for a while. IBM is focused on others now. Apple needs someone to get the focus back on them.gorkonapple said:
I will wait... that is for certain. 3k is a bit hefty (I pay 3k due to our insane taxes) for a system that has reached EOL.leekohler said:
Jesus said:xboxes and ps2s were/are sold at a loss, FYI
Of course, it was charity work on Sony and MS's part, yes?
I won't speak for MS (cause they're dumb), but Sony makes a killing licencing software. My point was they aren't toys - the industry is huge. And until the price drop to $99 Nintendo was making money on every GC and even now the loss is in single digit dollars (not to mention how much they make in software as both a developer and publisher).
1. You joined this forum today and have posted 2 times TOTAL so far... so don't be surprised if people think you're spamming or anti-Mac.LatestMacFan said:
2. This is going to happen a lot in the coming days and months... Apple's sales are certainly going to suffer through the transition. And yes, the stock price will reflect this.
WS hates uncertainty, so you might be right. I have no idea what this will lead to either so I can understand them. I will have to let this sink in... Intel and Mac.... who could have guessed that 6 months ago..Mr Maui said:
What about Altivec?
My first reaction to this is "THIS SUCKS!". But I think if this is done correctly, it might turn out to be OK.
The biggest concern I have is for the support of Altivec. In the sciences, vector processing is utilized heavily. And just from the benchmarks I've seen, algorithms that leverage Altivec are much, much faster than the equivalent on the Xeon or Operton.
My second biggest concern is with the compilers. It looks like they are going to be using the Intel compilers over GCC. Will these compilers:
1.) be free?
2.) be as ANSI compliant as GCC?
My preference would've been to move to Intel (well, I'd rather it was AMD) in the consumer lines (iBook, Mac Mini, eMac, iMac) and keep the G5 in the Power line and perhaps upgrade the Powerbook to G5 or Freescale G4. However, if they are moving everything to Intel, I hope they at least add the Altivec engine to the Pro-line of machines. This would at least give power users a real reason to stick with Apple, while people intersted in consumer-line products would continue to be interested in Apple because of style and form factor.
My first reaction to this is "THIS SUCKS!". But I think if this is done correctly, it might turn out to be OK.
The biggest concern I have is for the support of Altivec. In the sciences, vector processing is utilized heavily. And just from the benchmarks I've seen, algorithms that leverage Altivec are much, much faster than the equivalent on the Xeon or Operton.
My second biggest concern is with the compilers. It looks like they are going to be using the Intel compilers over GCC. Will these compilers:
1.) be free?
2.) be as ANSI compliant as GCC?
My preference would've been to move to Intel (well, I'd rather it was AMD) in the consumer lines (iBook, Mac Mini, eMac, iMac) and keep the G5 in the Power line and perhaps upgrade the Powerbook to G5 or Freescale G4. However, if they are moving everything to Intel, I hope they at least add the Altivec engine to the Pro-line of machines. This would at least give power users a real reason to stick with Apple, while people intersted in consumer-line products would continue to be interested in Apple because of style and form factor.
Prices will likely adjust downward to become more comepetiive when the new systems start shipping. Apple wanted to become more competitive in their hardware pricing and IBM refused to budge on their pricing to Apple (considering them a measley portion of IBMs business). I believe this financial aspect also fed into Apple's decision to change. Intel will likely offer Apple cost incentives for the switch. If there were no serious benefit to Apple, Steve Jobs would never have even considered the switch.Dr.Gargoyle said:
So with the Transitive Technology will Intel based PC's run OS X - I'm thinking not as there are still hardware specific issues. I can't believe Steve was running everything off of a P4 - its funny G4 to P4; G5 to P5
ccool2ax said:Apple has betrayed all of it's fans ever. My PPC out-benchmarks most P4s. I would rather have a 150 degree PBG5 then switch to Intel.
Yes, but with 1 or 2 processors?
Who has confirmed that apple is going to use the P4 in the high end Powermac? What if they go Dual Xenon? It is possible, but I doubt apple will drop 64bit for the Powermac line.
You can't have a laptop that runs that hot... not only will it break down sooner, but it'll damage other components and even HURT you (if you keep it on your lap).ccool2ax said:Apple has betrayed all of it's fans ever. My PPC out-benchmarks most P4s. I would rather have a 150 degree PBG5 then switch to Intel.
And Apple can't afford the investment necessary to build its own CPUs... you're talking about a multibillion dollar expenditure every few years on fabs, not to mention the expense of R&D to even design the things. This is one reason why Microsoft never got into the hardware business (every piece of hardware with a Microsoft logo on it is built by someone else)... you can lose your butt making hardware (especially if you're actually the one MAKING it, not just assembling parts, like Dell).
change my perspective.
It's been said that the main reason OSX is virus-free is because of it's niche of a marketshare and therefore malicious codewriters have been completely disinterested.
In my book it's pretty simple- As the marketshare of OSX86 rises ^ so does the interest of malicious code writers.
A year after Leopord is released it will be just as bloated as Winbloze.
Well persuade me that my perception below is wrong then:bosrs1 said:
It's been said that the main reason OSX is virus-free is because of it's niche of a marketshare and therefore malicious codewriters have been completely disinterested.
In my book it's pretty simple- As the marketshare of OSX86 rises ^ so does the interest of malicious code writers.
A year after Leopord is released it will be just as bloated as Winbloze.
more moaning
Just one more thing...
Those apps compiled using UB, will run both on PPC and Intel, and for years, fine.
However, since Apple is dropping Altivec with the PPC, probably the apps running on both chips will no longer include code optimized for altivec, wich will basically make future apps run slower than they could have been.
right or wrong?
Just one more thing...
Those apps compiled using UB, will run both on PPC and Intel, and for years, fine.
However, since Apple is dropping Altivec with the PPC, probably the apps running on both chips will no longer include code optimized for altivec, wich will basically make future apps run slower than they could have been.
right or wrong?
brent1a said:
Well, yes, but at least Apple has provided easy-to-use tools for virus makers to deliver content in hybrid Intel/PPC binaries!
I wouldn't want to think my PPC iBook was not compatible with all of this new "software!"
brent1a said:
As marketshare goes up, so does the number of developers making quality software quickly for the mac. This means less waiting around for stuff like games to be ported. It's been written that OS X is inherently harder to write malware for as well. It's a ridiculous/stupid argument to say that Apple shouldn't try to grow their user base, because there might be an increase in malware. If that was true, why not shut out Microsoft from making Office for Mac? Or maybe tell Adobe not to make Photoshop? Then no one will use Macs, and there will be no chance of malware.
MP
yeah... I just hope Apple survives this transition. Two years is a long time in computer business. Given that 47% of their profit come/came from hardware sales, I am a bit worried.clayj said:
OK. My enthusiasm has somewhat deflated. Rosetta isn't nearly as robust a solution as I was thinking.
clayj said:
But really clayj, wasting $2500 for a computer (yes a fancy one, and yes am a big fan of Apple) that we all know will not be worth it once they start pumping the new line in the market, was swinging wintels vs. Apple PBs for my new laptop and thanks Apple you solved it!
Little Endian said:
Maybe this is Apple's exit strategy form the PC market. The investor idiots all see how much profit Apple makes on iPods and how popular they are (as opposed to Macintoshes). They've been asking for Apple to spin off the iPod/iTunes business for years (precisely so they could dump their Apple stock and buy stock of the other compay instead.
So Apple moves their computers to a hardware platform that is essentially the same as their competitor, then when someone hacks the miniscule hardware protection and suddenly every Dell, HP, and Sony can run OSX. Apple throws up it's hands in (mock) surpise. Says "Oh, no! We've been hacked." Our hardware business is doomed! and closes up shop. Then, citing the inability to turn a profit without hardware sales, closes the entire Mac side of things. They change the company name to simply "Apple" and go along their merry way making their iPods, and maybe still Airport base stations.
- Status