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.
Really switching to Intel!!??
- Thread starter dodonutter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
artifex said:It's possible Intel will be tapped to make Power architecture chips for Apple, or something. I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with them using XScale for some things, either, and it'd be great for the rumored tablet, actually. But if they're going to go to an x86 based architecture, they should at least use AMD instead, since they're already using HyperTransport. I know I've mentioned it before, but it's a big deal when talking about multiple CPUs and/or multiple cores.
Hey, if you really feel bad about it, I'm a poor college kid, wanna give me your machine?You can give it to me in 2 years, if you want. I'll wait, because I'll still find it useful
Hah, I'll find an use for it. I was just so shocked and awe at first that I put my ebay thing out of anger. I would just be so disappointed if Apple did switch to Intel. This is going to be one longggg weekend.
[YoN] said:
The Reuters website itself right now still shows the May 23 WSJ speculation, and that's it.
[YoN] said:
This doesn't add any credibility to the story, because Reuters (and Yahoo), are just re-reporting the CNet story.
So in other words, Yahoo says that Reuters says that CNets says Apple will use Intel in '06.
EDIT: Wait! My girlfriend's cousin just sent me a link to the Yahoo story, so now my girlfriend's cousin says Yahoo says Reuters says CNet says Apple will use Intel! This is getting more credible by the second!
MacTruck said:
It kills Windows in the long run, just as Firefox is killing IE. The only thing holding people back from migrating to OSX is, simply, those few exclusive programs that run on Windows but not on Mac.
If Mac were able to convince all those people who still needed access to those Windows programs to jump, then Apple's market share would grow large enough for the companies to release OSX-based versions of their software and make money doing so.
Then, like the demise of OS9, people would only boot OSX and leave Windows off.
Too many IBM/PPC fanboys
Picked out a few gems to comment on.....
Yadda yadda another one... "Software, in a word, is the genie in Apple's multibillion-dollar hardware business." .... "The upgrades also fuel Apple's computer hardware business, which still accounts for 60% of annual sales. Jobs sees applications like iLife as the centerpiece of his marketing strategy, which is to differentiate the Macintosh from Windows PCs by positioning it as a complete multimedia machine." It goes on to talk about how software (iTunes) made the iPod what it is today. It says.. "The company that had once begged to get PC software adapted to the Mac now found itself supplying some of the hottest software in the PC world." (in regards to iTunes for Windows)
AND HERE IS THE MONEY QUOTE!.....
"Most tantalizing of all is scuttlebutt that three of the biggest PC makers are wooing Jobs to let them license OS X and adapt it to computers built around standard Intel chips. Why? They want to offer customers, many of whom are sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn, an alternative. And besides, Apple has buzz now, and Microsoft does not."
Lets face it, OSX is hot sex in some areas. People don't care what is running OSX, just that it works well and looks spiffy. Are you telling me if Apple switches to Intel chips that are able to run OSX faster? and for less money? that you wouldnt buy their gear just because there is no PPC chip inside??? As Rick James would say, "That is absurd!"
Now what would you do if you were Steve Jobs and you had the major PC makers coming to you saying, "Your software is hot, make it work with the hardware we sell." ?? I doubt it would be "Gee golly, sure take the one thing that we are really good at and use it to sell more hardware" WRONG! I bet he would be saying, "My software is shizzle....maybe I should make it work on hardware that is in the majority of the computers in the world. Maybe I could even use that hardware to build computers that embody the mac "user experience" (easy to use, sleek, sexy) and sell them to customers myself."
This news could play out in a number of ways but I think that SOME of the IBM/PPC fanboys need to wake-up and realize that hardware isnt what makes Apple what it is, its software. Smaller/faster/cheaper/cooler/quieter is the game of the day for hardware and if PPC kit can't provide these needs to meet Apple's requirements.....face it....they CAN and WILL (?) be replaced.
Tap
Picked out a few gems to comment on.....
Seriously, why should it matter what OSX runs on?? I mean god forbid Apple being able to make more profit by using cheaper (and faster?) Intel chips to run OSX.
I didnt realize CPU architectures had such an impact on specific applications (to some extent folks). If that were true then OBVIOUSLY PPCs have an advantage over x86 in 3D graphics/gaming too?? I mean a dual G5 with a Radeon x800 (x850? i forget what they benched with) was able to run Doom 3 at how many frames per second?? It was a crying ass shame thats for sure....even a lower end x86 with a lesser video card could whoop it. BUT WAIT!... .. PPCs are running the next-gen consoles and can produce all of those dope graphics, what gives?? Again its well written software that allows for PPCs to perform well in next-gens, not just the architecture of the processor. x86 isnt dead, last I checked it was running on a majority of the computers in the world.
Transition to Apple you say?? You mean transition to OSX and the Apple "user experience". Super low-end machines?? Wouldn't you just **** a brick if Jobs showed OSX running on a dual-core Intel or AMD chip and it was *GASP* faster than on a G5?? Apple IS SOFTWARE!! Here are a few quotes from a Fortune interview with Jobs earlier this year. "Apple's core strength is to bring very high technology to mere mortals in a way that surprises and delights them and that they can figure out how to use. Software is the key to that. In fact, software is the user experience." IT GETS BETTER! "Steve doesn't talk about the next gotta-have-it gizmo or ultracool ad campaign or trendsetting industrial design. None of those, he says, is Apple's core strength or primary competitive advantage. Instead he's going to talk about softwarethe central strand that runs through all of Apple's success."
Yadda yadda another one... "Software, in a word, is the genie in Apple's multibillion-dollar hardware business." .... "The upgrades also fuel Apple's computer hardware business, which still accounts for 60% of annual sales. Jobs sees applications like iLife as the centerpiece of his marketing strategy, which is to differentiate the Macintosh from Windows PCs by positioning it as a complete multimedia machine." It goes on to talk about how software (iTunes) made the iPod what it is today. It says.. "The company that had once begged to get PC software adapted to the Mac now found itself supplying some of the hottest software in the PC world." (in regards to iTunes for Windows)
AND HERE IS THE MONEY QUOTE!.....
"Most tantalizing of all is scuttlebutt that three of the biggest PC makers are wooing Jobs to let them license OS X and adapt it to computers built around standard Intel chips. Why? They want to offer customers, many of whom are sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn, an alternative. And besides, Apple has buzz now, and Microsoft does not."
Lets face it, OSX is hot sex in some areas. People don't care what is running OSX, just that it works well and looks spiffy. Are you telling me if Apple switches to Intel chips that are able to run OSX faster? and for less money? that you wouldnt buy their gear just because there is no PPC chip inside??? As Rick James would say, "That is absurd!"
Now what would you do if you were Steve Jobs and you had the major PC makers coming to you saying, "Your software is hot, make it work with the hardware we sell." ?? I doubt it would be "Gee golly, sure take the one thing that we are really good at and use it to sell more hardware" WRONG! I bet he would be saying, "My software is shizzle....maybe I should make it work on hardware that is in the majority of the computers in the world. Maybe I could even use that hardware to build computers that embody the mac "user experience" (easy to use, sleek, sexy) and sell them to customers myself."
This news could play out in a number of ways but I think that SOME of the IBM/PPC fanboys need to wake-up and realize that hardware isnt what makes Apple what it is, its software. Smaller/faster/cheaper/cooler/quieter is the game of the day for hardware and if PPC kit can't provide these needs to meet Apple's requirements.....face it....they CAN and WILL (?) be replaced.
Tap
J-Ray1000 said:
But what if it happens the other way around, and more people stick with Windows since thats what they are used to? That's why Apple isn't going to do this.
OS9 died cause OS X is an upgrade to it, and the people who "switched" to OS X were already Mac people...no real leap there.
what sources does cnet have on this? i read it, no sources- honestly guys I know a good article and this one makes no sense
Tap said:
If it's an x86 chip inside, all apps will have to be recompiled to work with it. There are little-endian vs. big-endian issues, among other things. If you're a company that has an investment in software you bought for PPC-based OSX, you will not be able to use that investment on whatever x86 based OSX machine you buy, unless you get a compatible version from the vendor, which probably means more $$$. So no, it's not absurd to reject a hardware platform change that is that major.
Tap said:
I'd venture to say, and suspect a number of others will agree with me here, that what makes Apple is the combination of software AND hardware.
53399 said:
That would be windows. If Apple does this, they aren't moving to windows, they are running hte same OS on a different CPU. There is a huge difference from a secrutity standpoint. For example, just because Safari runs on an x86 wouldn't mean it would be vulnerable to spyware.
Last edited by a moderator:
admanimal said:
No...People will use OSX because it's superior as long as the option is right there for them. Safari/Mail/iMovie/iPhoto etc vs. all the windows junk AND the spyware and viruses??? It's a no-brainer.
After all, the iPod doesn't offer more storage space, better price, features or even smaller size, it just works better. Same with iTunes on Windows - it's simply better than anything else out there.
So why wouldn't people use a secure platform with better software 95% of the time and use Windows only when they want to play a game or use some proprietary business/scientific program?
The point is they would as long as there is some easy Expose-like switching between the two.
Oh, and if you need a proof of concept: Firefox. So much for sticking with what's familiar and pre-loaded...
It's right there in the second paragraph, "sources familiar with the situation" said so. So we know it's at least two people, and the smart money is on John Dvorak and Rob Enderle as the sources. Rock solid!DPazdanISU said:
Would you rather we go back to discussing Tetris on the iPod?
MegaSignal said:
I know you are joking but is security of PCs really an issue/reason so many people want to switch to OSX? I mean its not THAT difficult to have a secure machine/compute without exposing yourself to too many threats. I'm guessing the people that switch to OSX are the people that had 500 spyware infections on their PC and opened every email attachment that said "YOU WIN" or whatever.
Its just a numbers game at this point as far as expliots/viruses/spy/adware is concerned. OSX is so "secure" because most of the above are targeted at the other 95% (or whatever) of computers in the world. Switch it around with OSX being on 95% of the computer in the world and Windows would look "secure".
Tap
Well, basically the squiggles say they are not pleased with the PowerPC from a security point of view (note #2). If you do some googling, you will see some problems with G3 / G4 buffer overflows (I couldn't find a definitive word on the G5 / 970). OS X is secure because of the software, and Microsoft is to blame for Windows security not Intel. OpenBSD is very secure and runs on Intel.Sedulous said:
Intel did try. The product of that change is the much hated Itanium (EPIC) which is currently running at 1.6 ghz at 130 watts or 1.3 ghz at 62 watts (not quite usable in a portable). Looking at the Itanium2, the G5 / 970 isn't so bad.Sedulous said:
AMD went with a 64-bit expansion of the x86, Intel never came out with a cheap / cool Itanium, No cloner followed Intel, and Microsoft and Linux backed the AMD 64-bit path.
I am not a big fan of the x86.
alandail said:
What about the idea that Intel's HyperThreading (not to be confused with HyperTransport
) is a security risk at the hardware level ?
from the article said:
pretty funny... i dont think Cnet realized that april fools was a couple months ago. I don't know about you guys, but the only site ive seen that have "officially" written reports about it is Cnet.. it always comes back to Cnet... reliable on a huge technology switch like this...eh... i sure wouldn't put my money on the line.
