Macrumors said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes
It's too bad IBM is so silent on this whole Apple x86 mess. It would be hilarious to have a counterpoint to the barrage of Apple spin.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
More Details on Apple's Intel Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes
It's too bad IBM is so silent on this whole Apple x86 mess. It would be hilarious to have a counterpoint to the barrage of Apple spin.
virus1 said:oh, damn.. you are right.. that flopped my opinion on it. i honestly don't care if ibm is a little slower. now that i think about it, now there will be more viruses, more complaints, and now apple is turning into m$.. apple is going to like the marketshare, and they will want to keep it. now i know why igary was depressed, and im joining him.. well off to sulk..
This FUD has to stop. Viruses do not target a processor architecture. They target an operating system, or particular applications running on that operating system. How many viruses does Linux running on Intel suffer from? How are Windows viruses and malware, which specifically target weaknesses in the Windows networking code, security code, Internet Explorer bugs, etc going to magically start executing on Mac OS X systems?
Apple has already said that their machines won't be anything like these developer machines. So it has a BIOS and integrated graphics. Its the cheapest thing Apple could do to get something out there for developers.
HONESTLY, I hope Apple uses an industry standard BIOS or Intel's new future OF type system only because it will make using PC graphics cards that much easier. There won't be any requirement for "Mac ROMs" as there is now.
But mark my words - if Apple does use a BIOS, it won't look like a BIOS. It will look like an Apple proprietary thing. You'll get a happy mac on startup and the same keys that you have now. I've seen some custom BIOSes from some PCs and they were completely Mac like graphical.
Don't get so hung up on the tech. Apple has up to this point only cared about getting OS X working on Intel chips in their labs. For that to happen, they aren't going to be designing new motherboards yearly. They'll use something stock. Now that they've committed to shipping Intel based Macs, they'll actually design a custom motherboard for it.
HONESTLY, I hope Apple uses an industry standard BIOS or Intel's new future OF type system only because it will make using PC graphics cards that much easier. There won't be any requirement for "Mac ROMs" as there is now.
But mark my words - if Apple does use a BIOS, it won't look like a BIOS. It will look like an Apple proprietary thing. You'll get a happy mac on startup and the same keys that you have now. I've seen some custom BIOSes from some PCs and they were completely Mac like graphical.
Don't get so hung up on the tech. Apple has up to this point only cared about getting OS X working on Intel chips in their labs. For that to happen, they aren't going to be designing new motherboards yearly. They'll use something stock. Now that they've committed to shipping Intel based Macs, they'll actually design a custom motherboard for it.
Macrumors said:
This is a hashed together Frankenstein Macintel just for developers to test code on. It's using the bare minimum that they can get away with to run OSX86 reasonably - bare bones integrated graphics (because they hadn't asked ATI/Nvidia to produce OSX86 drivers) and a standard BIOS.
From everything I've read, it sounds more like Apple are going to use Intel's
EFI which Intel are keen to move people over to (and who better to start with) since Apple will want to keep the functionality they had in Open Firmware. But since they haven't programmed the EFI, naturally it's going to have boot with an open BIOS for the moment.
Smaller case
From these pictures, it becomes clear that the Powermac case will shrink in size. Can't wait to see them for real.
You have to admit that the Powermac G5 inside looks fantastic compared to a standard PC. I wonder what Apple engineers will cook up for the big P.
I just purchased a Powermac, so by the time these babies ship I be ready for a new one.
From these pictures, it becomes clear that the Powermac case will shrink in size. Can't wait to see them for real.
You have to admit that the Powermac G5 inside looks fantastic compared to a standard PC. I wonder what Apple engineers will cook up for the big P.
I just purchased a Powermac, so by the time these babies ship I be ready for a new one.
How do we know that the Mac mini will be the first to switch to Intel? When I first heard the news, I figured PowerMacs would be first, and it would "trickle down the line," just like the switch to G4s and G5s.
To the person who mentioned iTunes running under Rosetta (when Steve demoed podcasting), that's not how I took it. I think the point was that iLife has been ported to x86 already, so Rosetta was not being used to run iTunes. I'm sure that most or all Apple apps are already ported to x86, based on what Steve said about making sure that all of their software is cross-platform.
To the person who mentioned iTunes running under Rosetta (when Steve demoed podcasting), that's not how I took it. I think the point was that iLife has been ported to x86 already, so Rosetta was not being used to run iTunes. I'm sure that most or all Apple apps are already ported to x86, based on what Steve said about making sure that all of their software is cross-platform.
The normal group at ARS has been trying to think it through, but don't let the specs of this machine send you off in the wrong direction.arn said:
This machine is a development platform, it may OR may not represent what ships.
Apple has a bunch of options open to them now that most PC builders do not have.
They can elect to use Intel's BIOS replacement, or any number of new technologies waiting for a chance.
Even though the Mac may become just another PC, Apple isn't locked into delivering a bland current generation PC -- they can elect to innovate an bring to market the next generation PC.
We will see.
more people have osx because of everything.stcanard said:
evil virusmakers go "hey look lets go invade the mac"
then they invade the mac
then we have more viruses.
listen.. i know os x is a lot more secure than windows, but it is inevitable that there are some holes in it, and if there are hundreds of virus writers out there trying to find them, they will.
btw: my username has nothing to do with anything like that..
barneygumble said:
I share the same views. All you whiners need to take a few chill pills cause you're making me sick. It's still going to be a mac. This is only the early version. And don't worry, Apple wouldn't do the whole integrated graphics thing. That's just bogus.
Applespider said:
If this x86 version of OSX leaks, you will have every wintel person
running OSX 2 years before the new MACs come out.
MacFan25863 said:
Ram's cheap....add more... All of the Intel CPU's that Apple will be shiping are EMT64's they support LOTS of ram....
A PC Bios lacks a lot of flexibility that OpenFirmware does not so I am sure Apple will ship OF with the final Macs. FireWire target disk mode and the ability to boot off Firewire drives is definitely something that Apple could not take away.
virus1 said:
So you are proposing that Apple shrink their marketshare to nothing so that we stay under the radar?
You do realize you can still get BeOS systems? It may suit you more... it appears to have everything you want (well except it, too, can run on x86 but I'm pretty sure there are PPC ports).
oh so that's where those shots came from. strait from the conference. okay.
man, some people need to take a break. half the time i never post anything because i write something down, then i read what i wrote, and realize that it's either, a) stupid b) not really worth anyone's time or c) something that i really don't know what i'm talking about. sometimes it can be more than one of those at once.
man, some people need to take a break. half the time i never post anything because i write something down, then i read what i wrote, and realize that it's either, a) stupid b) not really worth anyone's time or c) something that i really don't know what i'm talking about. sometimes it can be more than one of those at once.
About the graphics:
I realize this is a dev box, but Intel Intergrated graphics truely do suck. So I am concerned that this may mean intergrated graphics in future Macs. Though they may be "intergrated" in a sense now (on Mac minis and such), they are NVidea and ATI chips put onto the mobo, with their own RAM and stuff. The intel graphics chips use system RAM, and are not as powerful as those by NVidea and ATI.
I realize this is a dev box, but Intel Intergrated graphics truely do suck. So I am concerned that this may mean intergrated graphics in future Macs. Though they may be "intergrated" in a sense now (on Mac minis and such), they are NVidea and ATI chips put onto the mobo, with their own RAM and stuff. The intel graphics chips use system RAM, and are not as powerful as those by NVidea and ATI.
animefan_1 said:
You make many good points, but Open Firmware is probably gone for good. The Universal Binary Programming guidelines from Apple state that x86 Macs will not use Open Firmware. I don't think that the new production Macs will use a traditional BIOS either, mind you. Intel has been working on BIOS replacements for some time. Apple, probably more so than any Wintel manufacturer at the moment, could really push forward some of Intel's newer technology without any fears of maintaining backward compatibility with older versions of Windows, older hardware, etc etc.
Remember Intel invented USB, but it wasn't until Apple adopted it in the iMac (and ditched all the old legacy connectors) that the standard really took off. Intel could really get some mileage from Apple in terms of rolling out next generation platform technologies that vendors like Dell are too conservative to embrace quickly.
bryanzak said:
You are giving specifics on transition machines that no one will ever be able to buy... they are rented & are to be returned to Apple by December 2006.
It is nonsense to speculate that the real Mac Intel boxes will have any similarity other than some x86 architecture CPU... all other bets are off.