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.
More Details on Apple's Intel Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
arn said:
I consider that a MAJOR advantage.
I know Apple said OS X won't be able to run on non-Apple hardware but there won't be anyway to stop it.
I personally can't wait to run it on an 8 way dual core Opteron Box instead.
Ummmm 16 processor cores witrh memory bandwidth galore
Mmmmmm me want one.
It certainly does, but if enough people keep saying Apple is a hardware company, maybe it will come true. How long until we go to the Apple Store and we have a choice at the checkout counter?kester said:
Clerk: OSX or Windows or both, sir?
Customer: Um... what does everyone else use?
Too many iPodders (from the halo) will make the wrong choice. I guess I'm a pessimist. And a unix zealot.
Im afraid....
Anyone remember those screen-shots of a PowerMac opened up with a P4 in there?? It was on these forums a few months back - PC's made out of Mac cases. EVRYONE hated them - thought that they were Mac rip-offs. I know these are Dev. machines - but jeeeze.
Im so happy to open my PowerMac case and see x2 overheating PPC chips in them. I don't care if they're running a few degrees warmer than a P4 might. I dont care if F-all games come out 6months later. I dont care that I have to buy Mac RAM to make sure they work fine in my Mac.
Thats why I bought an Overly Priced Mac.
I Love it - and I would love to buy a late PPC-based PowerMac if I have the chance. Will I run out of Software to run on my 64-bit machine? As long as the open-source trend continues - I'll compile them from source in XCode for my PPC chip with pride.
Screw you MacIntel. Until you show me why I should spend another £3k on what is basically a Dell, it aint gonna happen.
Anyone remember those screen-shots of a PowerMac opened up with a P4 in there?? It was on these forums a few months back - PC's made out of Mac cases. EVRYONE hated them - thought that they were Mac rip-offs. I know these are Dev. machines - but jeeeze.
Im so happy to open my PowerMac case and see x2 overheating PPC chips in them. I don't care if they're running a few degrees warmer than a P4 might. I dont care if F-all games come out 6months later. I dont care that I have to buy Mac RAM to make sure they work fine in my Mac.
Thats why I bought an Overly Priced Mac.
I Love it - and I would love to buy a late PPC-based PowerMac if I have the chance. Will I run out of Software to run on my 64-bit machine? As long as the open-source trend continues - I'll compile them from source in XCode for my PPC chip with pride.
Screw you MacIntel. Until you show me why I should spend another £3k on what is basically a Dell, it aint gonna happen.
FireArse said:
Still at the irrational anger stage...huh Come on man. You are falling behind everyone else. Most are at Depression or Acceptance.
pont said:
For my money it has been the most cost effective due to the least amount of down time. If this exchange (costs more / less down time) continues with Macintel, it'll work for me. But having used PCs for 10 years professionally, and switched to Mac only a few beautiful years ago- I can't believe a mac is not cost effectiove!
Why do people keep saying that if they write a program for Windows that can run on a mac why even port it to Mac. By that logic why even buy a Mac now when you could get a Dell for cheaper and be able to run the programs it sounds like you need (games). How come I'm typing on a Powerbook right now when I can do the same thing on Windows right now on my other computer that can run it.matznentosh said:
Becuase I hardly use Windows unless I need to. Every single one of you are using OSX for some reason. Whether you just like it as an OS or you just can't stand Windows that much, you are using (or want to use) OSX. Photoshop was written for x86 and PPC for the last decade. Why wouldn't they just write it for x86 chips and Windows since they have 95% of the marketshare. Mac has about 3% so why even bother.
People can rest easy with the fact this will be a good thing. And no, some "l337 h@X0r" will not be able to hack OSX to run on any x86 system hate to break it to you. You don't think both Apple and Intel will see that this doesn't happen. They are going to have layers upon layers of ways to insure that it stays on Macs and nothing else. And if by some tiny chance someone could do it Apple will break it the next OS upgrade. Hacking the OS on such a core level is going to be WAY harder than any of you releize.
I am all with you... I have just gone from anger to depression. the gutt of Dev machine looks almost as bad as a generic PeeCee. I have confidence in that Apple wont let the retail machines look as hiddeous.FireArse said:Give me a week or two - and I'll sort my life out. I'll get depressed in the pub later tonight and drown my sorrows. But you have to admit - those photos look dog-ugly!
* where is the prozac when you need it??....
*FireArse said:Give me a week or two - and I'll sort my life out. I'll get depressed in the pub later tonight and drown my sorrows. But you have to admit - those photos look dog-ugly!
I know they look horrid i'm gonna miss seeing those big G5s on the inside of the case and there's so much spare room
FireArse said:
Although i share your fears and i have serious doubts whether apple will gain anything with this new intel partnership, i 'll suggest you give them a chance. I believe that apple now is completely exposed and that there is no more room for error. The only reason why SJ was not booed by the crowd a few days ago at the WWDC was because he promised THE BEST PERSONAL COMPUTERS they could possibly make. With moral within the Apple fan camp being at it's lowest, they will really need to make the best GDMF x86 based computer in the market, if they want to stand even a chance of regaining the trust and support of their fanbase. Should they fail to deliver then i'm afraid apple will simply go out of bussiness.
Oh yes and i can't wait for my new Dual 3GHz Powermac next September!!!
I think we will see a new casing for the new mactel. Knowing Apple I doubt they will leave the machines gutt like it is now. if they do they might as well begin to paint the boxes beige.... UCK!!Macmadant said:I know they look horrid i'm gonna miss seeing those big G5s on the inside of the case and there's so much spare room
OSX86 would s#ck
Boy, you've been inhaling the fumes from the AMD distortion field, haven't you?
OSX86 would probably be a dog on a quad/octo Opteron, unless for some reason Darwin has a state-of-the-art NUMA-aware scheduler and NUMA-optimized memory management system.
Note that those 8 chips have 8 memory controllers, so each chip (each pair of cores) only has direct access to one bank of memory (1/8, if all banks have equal RAM).
To get to memory in a bank attached to a neighboring CPU, the CPU has to send a message over a HyperTransport link to the other system and wait for the response.
If the needed memory isn't on a neighboring CPU, it has to go over as many as four separate HT links in an octo.
I have a half dozen quad Opterons, and on memory intensive benchmarks I've seen a 2 to 1 difference in performance depending on whether the memory is local or two hops away.
Fortunately, Windows 2003, XP-64 and 2.6 Linux understand the system topology and try to allocate memory where the programs are running, and run programs where the memory is allocated.
~loserman~ said:
Boy, you've been inhaling the fumes from the AMD distortion field, haven't you?
OSX86 would probably be a dog on a quad/octo Opteron, unless for some reason Darwin has a state-of-the-art NUMA-aware scheduler and NUMA-optimized memory management system.
Note that those 8 chips have 8 memory controllers, so each chip (each pair of cores) only has direct access to one bank of memory (1/8, if all banks have equal RAM).
To get to memory in a bank attached to a neighboring CPU, the CPU has to send a message over a HyperTransport link to the other system and wait for the response.
If the needed memory isn't on a neighboring CPU, it has to go over as many as four separate HT links in an octo.
I have a half dozen quad Opterons, and on memory intensive benchmarks I've seen a 2 to 1 difference in performance depending on whether the memory is local or two hops away.
Fortunately, Windows 2003, XP-64 and 2.6 Linux understand the system topology and try to allocate memory where the programs are running, and run programs where the memory is allocated.
Its a joke
Watch this whole thing is a joke. Steve is buying time so in a few months when he announces that he has some brand new ppc we will all be shocked and at the end he will say ooo yeah one other thing we would never go to intell hahhahaha it was just a joke. (waking up from dream)
Yes, I am still in the it did not happen state
Watch this whole thing is a joke. Steve is buying time so in a few months when he announces that he has some brand new ppc we will all be shocked and at the end he will say ooo yeah one other thing we would never go to intell hahhahaha it was just a joke. (waking up from dream)
Yes, I am still in the it did not happen state
who isn't... You wake up the sky is blue, the sun is shining, the birds sing,... and then you remember...jdawg4324 said:Yes, I am still in the it did not happen state
FireArse said:
You're in stage 1 I guess (or is it 2?).
Anyway get some anger management.
I'm in the samge stage I've been in since WWDC: the I'm-so-happy-best-thing-for-personal-computing-ever stage.
A few thoughts.
Sorry if this gets long; I have multiple things to say.
#1 New Hardware
While I understand the concerns of the Mac community, I really think everyone needs to remember that the heart of every Mac -- the OS -- isn't changing, only the guts -- something that's been done before (Motorola --> PPC) and will assuredly be done again.
#2 Intel Inside
This is great advertising potential. While almost no one is as excited about Intel as Mac fans are about PPC, almost no one in the non-Mac, non-techie world has even heard of PPC. I think Apple may get a lot more converts (converts are a good thing, right?) with the image, "Apple, with Intel Inside," though I grant you I can't stand Intel's "Doo-dee-dunh-dee" fanfare, either.
#3 OH MY GOSH!!!! OSX WILL RUN ON A DELL!!!! MY LIFE IS OVER!!!
So what? Get a grip.
As far as I'm concerned, this would perhaps be the greatest part of a switch to Intel (though the facts that Macs will (1) probably cost less and (2) will use newer Intel technologies that backwards-compatible PCs can't runs neck-and-neck with that in my mind), though I doubt it'll happen.
The only risks here that I can see is that (1) Apple won't make enough money just selling the O/S (not a good thing) and (2) Apple will decide that DRM is a good idea to "protect" themselves and will become the next M$. Or that (3) Apple will stop selling hardware, but (thankfully) that idea's more or less laughable...
#4 Apple "Sold Out"
Again, why does going with the same processor maker as most PCs change anything else about a true Mac? By that logic, true Mac users should all be refusing to use PPC models, because they were made by IBM. Anyone here still using only old Motorola models?
Though, admittedly, I kinda dislike this, too.
#5 VIRUSES!
As others said, GNU/Linux and various other *NIX O/Ses have been running on Intel x86 machines for years and have had almost no viruses. It's not the hardware, it's the O/S and the popularity.
Anyway, that's my take.
Now when are the iBooks gonna be updated so I ran get a new one without regret?
Sorry if this gets long; I have multiple things to say.
#1 New Hardware
While I understand the concerns of the Mac community, I really think everyone needs to remember that the heart of every Mac -- the OS -- isn't changing, only the guts -- something that's been done before (Motorola --> PPC) and will assuredly be done again.
#2 Intel Inside
This is great advertising potential. While almost no one is as excited about Intel as Mac fans are about PPC, almost no one in the non-Mac, non-techie world has even heard of PPC. I think Apple may get a lot more converts (converts are a good thing, right?) with the image, "Apple, with Intel Inside," though I grant you I can't stand Intel's "Doo-dee-dunh-dee" fanfare, either.
#3 OH MY GOSH!!!! OSX WILL RUN ON A DELL!!!! MY LIFE IS OVER!!!
So what? Get a grip.
As far as I'm concerned, this would perhaps be the greatest part of a switch to Intel (though the facts that Macs will (1) probably cost less and (2) will use newer Intel technologies that backwards-compatible PCs can't runs neck-and-neck with that in my mind), though I doubt it'll happen.
The only risks here that I can see is that (1) Apple won't make enough money just selling the O/S (not a good thing) and (2) Apple will decide that DRM is a good idea to "protect" themselves and will become the next M$. Or that (3) Apple will stop selling hardware, but (thankfully) that idea's more or less laughable...
#4 Apple "Sold Out"
Again, why does going with the same processor maker as most PCs change anything else about a true Mac? By that logic, true Mac users should all be refusing to use PPC models, because they were made by IBM. Anyone here still using only old Motorola models?
Though, admittedly, I kinda dislike this, too.
#5 VIRUSES!
As others said, GNU/Linux and various other *NIX O/Ses have been running on Intel x86 machines for years and have had almost no viruses. It's not the hardware, it's the O/S and the popularity.
Anyway, that's my take.
Now when are the iBooks gonna be updated so I ran get a new one without regret?
kester said:
My worry is echoed exactly over at As the Apple Turns, (number 2 on today's blog, 6/8/05, if the link below doesn't work right):
http://www.appleturns.com/episode/?date=6/8/2005
Macmadant said:the more popular mac osx becomes, more vulnerable it will be
So you think we should keep our fingers crossed and hope their market share drops?
One thing to remember on the OS/2 v. Windows issues is that OS/2 was in no way a mature or existing market; Windows was.
Similarly, the Mac market exists. Now. And is entrenched in a lot of markets...where its marketshare is NOT the miniscule 3-4% it is in the overall market. If there are marginal costs for developing for both markets (and in most cases, the costs will go DOWN), simple market inertia will keep things in place.
Similarly, the Mac market exists. Now. And is entrenched in a lot of markets...where its marketshare is NOT the miniscule 3-4% it is in the overall market. If there are marginal costs for developing for both markets (and in most cases, the costs will go DOWN), simple market inertia will keep things in place.