Really switching to Intel!!??

[Eric5h5]

atleast with x86 u have the choice to let AMD in the fold when Intel starts slacking off. Plus you have hardware that is very widely supported. Imagine being able to shop at newegg for a Sound Blaster card or the newest ATI/ Nvidia card for your new Powermac

If Apple does this I will buy a Powermac + Powerbook myself.

This doesn't follow. The reason why you need Mac versions of some cards is because of firmware issues; it has nothing to do with x86 or PPC. In fact, I have a PPC machine sitting next to my G5 that uses PC video cards, because the firmware allows for this. In fact I'm not sure if Mac video cards will even work. Just recently I got an M-Audio Revolution sound card from Newegg and stuck it in my PowerMac, and it works. Because it has OS X drivers.

Apple could very well make an x86 Mac that still needs Mac-specific video cards. And you'd still need OS X drivers for anything that you put in the machine. This has the makings of a customer support nightmare, if people start thinking they can put any old hardware in an x86 Mac, "because it's x86", and it will somehow magically just work without any OS X drivers. See, not to pick on you, but this is a good example of why I wish that more people in this thread would start thinking about what they're saying before they post. This issue obviously hits some sort of button where people suddenly just start typing nonsense...weird....

--Eric

 

[mklos]

What Mac-only applications are out there? I know Apple has a ton of them, but I can't think of any third-party apps that are Mac-only. If they move to x86 processor architecture, the PC versions (x86) of existing applications would be easy to run because they are compiled for x86, correct?

If that were the case, Apple would not loose their own software developers because of the transition, so no Mac-only applications would be in jeopardy.

...And it could open up the PC only apps (and viruses, unfortunately) to the Mac platform.

There are a lot of people on these boards that are smarter than I am. Does this theory hold water?

Its not quite that simple. Those applications are made for Windows, not Mac OS X. Windows and OS X are completely different OS's with completely different architectures. For example, there's no registry in Mac OS X, nothing that even resembles a registry. So if you have a Windows version of Adobe Photoshop, then how would it install in Mac OS X? It can't because the two OS's are different. Things install in different places. So if Apple does go x86 Intel, then Adobe would have to partially redesign Photoshop for an x86 version of OS X and then recompile it. I don't think this is a task that developers want to go through AGAIN like they did with the OS 9 to OS X transition.

 

[finchna]

Are WinPC problems in chips or software?

I use both Mac and Win machines in my work. XP Pro continues to crash and show the blue screen of death every couple of weeks and laptops freeze when waking from sleep/hibernation (Centrino and Pentium Xeon chipsets). My Macs (G4/G5) running 10.3.x and 10.4.x don't crash, laptops wake from sleep without a problem--they work and they work all the time.

Are the problems I experience with Win machines chipset/CPU/architecture problems or are they software (XP Pro) problems?

If software is the issue, then if Apple can get it's system software running natively on Intel (with a velocity engine replacement) and get all software authors to revise their progams so there's no emulation then running on Intel would seem fine.

If the problems are related to PC/Intel architecture then I'm sorry if Apple make the change from IBM PPC to Intel.

 

[JJTiger1]

Mac OS on Intel-chip.

Just what we need: another beta-ware Mac OSX from Apple.

 

[MikeBike]

CNet's been Wrong Before..

You people need to THINK a bit.
Put yourself in Steve's position.

The RISK of moving to x86 is HUGE!
If Apple decided to go x86 Steve would do these things first:
- Make all Apple's current SOFTWARE and ACCESSARY Hardware be x86 compatible.

Why?
Steve has to answer to Stock Holders like every other CEO. He's not allowed to KILL the Company on such a RISKY Move.
Steve would have to make a SERIOUS Attempt to shrink the size of the Apple COMPUTER business by GROWING it's Software business on the x86 platform first. Then when the Computer business is only 10% or less of Apples business, then it could move to INTEL.

 

[noneis]

Remeber this?

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208161229.shtml

Steve Jobs reveals in a recent in-depth interview he did with Fortune mag that “three of the biggest PC makers” are trying to convince him to license OS X for use in their machines, because their customers are “sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn.”

This likely has more to do with the ability to run os x on a pc, and less to do with apple switching their hardware right away.

 

[-Jeff]

Yeeh
Lets use SPARC!
They just released dual core Sparc64 in 1.94ghz. One of the fastest processor there is.

I dont whant to use CISC(x86).
RISC is a lot better. The processor may not be faster in RISC, but the programs are faster.
Since RISC is reduces set computer, a program is smaller than on a CISC. Complex set of instruction.

I still remeber when I Switched 3 years ago to Apple:
My 7000 dollar PC with 10000 RPM SCSI disks and 1.5ghz highend AMD could compress my MPEG2 project in 15 hours.
The same project on my Powerbook 667mhz took 90 minutes.

Its still the same. On paper X86 sounds good, but you are still looked to a complex processor and all that legency problems whit BOIS, IRQ and so on.

But people love buzz words

IDE SUCKS.. We need SATA (no better preformence IRL)

AGP SUCKS.. We need PCI-E (no better preformence IRL)

WE need XXX RMP Hard drives. (The RPM is not as importent to how much density of the platter on the disk. A high RPM disk has little density, thats why often a new high density disk is better.)

WE need GhZ frontside bus. (The CPU makers whant fast frontside bus so they dont need to put L3 cache. L3 cache is extremly expensive. Fast frontside bus = no L3 cache. Thats why a G4 is almost as fast per clock cykle as G5. 167mhz frontside vs 1ghz+)

And so on.

Apple should just do like AMD and brand a performence number on the CPU:
G5 2.7 ghz branded 5000+

Actually, RISC programs are larger than CISC programs. A RISC processor does have a reduced instruction set, so it must rely on combinations of simple instructions to do the same thing a CISC chip can do with one comlex instruction (at the assembly level). The advantage of a RISC chip is that the reduced instruction set frees up die "real estate" for more internal storage and more parallel processing circuitry.

Compare the sizes of Mac and PC versions of the same application. The Mac version is larger.

 

[whooleytoo]

pffff, it's evolution for god sake. Something had to change sometime, besides, OS X has been around for years now.

More like revolution than evolution, while other OSs evolved through evolutionary changes, Apple switched to an entirely new OS in one fell swoop.

(Similar to the drastic jump from 680x0 to PowerPC).

 

[Maxiseller]

You people need to THINK a bit.
Put yourself in Steve's position.

The RISK of moving to x86 is HUGE!
If Apple decided to go x86 Steve would do these things first:
- Make all Apple's current SOFTWARE and ACCESSARY Hardware be x86 compatible.

Why?
Steve has to answer to Stock Holders like every other CEO. He's not allowed to KILL the Company on such a RISKY Move.
Steve would have to make a SERIOUS Attempt to shrink the size of the Apple COMPUTER business by GROWING it's Software business on the x86 platform first. Then when the Computer business is only 10% or less of Apples business, then it could move to INTEL.

Agreed - and also not forgetting that Apple is in a stronger position right now than it has been in a long time looking back at the past. The Apple name seems to have a lot more respect now, and I think people are actually starting to notice that it offers a better alternative. You know that when one of your avid Windows fans friend actually asks you genuine questions about what Mac can do for him!

 

[whooleytoo]

No need to waste time speculating on X, Y, and Z without knowing the facts. The best thing to do is wait about 48 hours until Monday morning PST to see what comes of this story. It is interesting news considering that CNet posted that article but they don't even know the all the facts of the Apple-Intel discussions.

We're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Once we know the details then let's engage in a discussion related to the facts and details.

Just my 2 cents

Great post! (Shame it's on MacRumors!)

 

[Zachariah]

Are the problems I experience with Win machines chipset/CPU/architecture problems or are they software (XP Pro) problems?

If you're on an Intel motherboard with an Intel processor and quality RAM, then it is not the hardware -- those are rock-solid components.

If you are on other hardware it is possible that's the problem, but not as likely as the software or the OS on your machine.


In fact, since I'm not a gamer, I use Intel processors when building machines because of the stability and quality of Intel motherboards. I would use AMD (since they're cheaper) but they don't make their own motherboards (and while there are third party mobo makers out there, they sometimes have random periods of lower reliability).

 

[Eric5h5]

I dont whant to use CISC(x86).
RISC is a lot better. The processor may not be faster in RISC, but the programs are faster.
Since RISC is reduces set computer, a program is smaller than on a CISC. Complex set of instruction.

No no no no. RISC programs are LARGER. Because the instruction set is reduced, it takes more instructions to do the same thing! PPC programs are always bigger than 68K programs using identical source code, for example. The theory being that, since RISC chips are simpler, it's easier to make them go a lot faster, in order to make up for the bigger, more inefficient programs. Which is pretty much what happened, and even x86 is more RISC than CISC these days.

--Eric

 

[michaellehn]

I do not see the problem...

A software developer just writes his code on his Mac which has a G5 or some Intel or whatever processor. Before roling out the software he presses the "create bundle" button an the compiler creates optimized code for all supported processors: G3, G4, G5, ... and now an Intel processor. This is already working like this. On my PB I can create code, which is optimized for a G5. That's called cross compiling...

When you install software the install programm checks, which processor you have and installs the corresponding binary version.

If there was a rumor about a new G6, which is not binary compatible to the G5 nobody would panic I guess...

 

[Tattoo]

Interesting Comment from CNET

"Apple is feeling ignored and feeling that IBM is paying too much attention to the gaming guys," he said. "This is just a maneuver by Apple to whack IBM. Do you know how you can tell that Apple isn't serious? Has Apple sued the Wall Street Journal for releasing trade secrets?"

Gotta good point there hu?

 

[michaellehn]

Just because they use an Intel process or in a Mac it doesn't mean that Mac OS X will run on any other PC using an Intel chip.

And just because Microsoft uses a PowerPC for the new XBox it does not mean that the games would run on a PowerPC under Mac OS X.

 

[calyxman]

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208161229.shtml

Steve Jobs reveals in a recent in-depth interview he did with Fortune mag that “three of the biggest PC makers” are trying to convince him to license OS X for use in their machines, because their customers are “sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn.”

This likely has more to do with the ability to run os x on a pc, and less to do with apple switching their hardware right away.

If Apple licenses it's OS to a few of these PC makers (HP being one of them), I'll begin counting the days to Microsoft's demise.

 

[mac-er]

People are going to be eating a lot of crow on Monday...

In the first thread that came up about this, I said that this was really happening this time because of other sources reporting it...and no one believed me.

I expect some apologies..

 

[Bear]

A software developer just writes his code on his Mac which has a G5 or some Intel or whatever processor. Before roling out the software he presses the "create bundle" button an the compiler creates optimized code for all supported processors: G3, G4, G5, ... and now an Intel processor. This is already working like this. On my PB I can create code, which is optimized for a G5. That's called cross compiling...

Some programs or sections of programs are done in assembly language for faster code and these just can't be compiled for a different platform.

Also, anything that uses AltiVec would have issues.

When you install software the install programm checks, which processor you have and installs the corresponding binary version.

This part is simple enough.

The real issue in the above is that developers have to essentially double the amount of tetsing they're doing. One of the issues is that there could be compiler bugs. Another is where the code is so different that it could cause problems.

Not simple. It really does double the amount of testing needed. And you really need to test on all your target environemnts at the same time so you can get one set of code that works everywhere.

 

[J-Ray1000]

With 600+ posts, I don't know if someone mentioned this, but...

I believe this move will dramatically increase the demand for Apple computers. If they go with an Intel chip that can also run WinXP (and allow a dual-boot option to choose between OS X and WinXP), the corporate masses who are usually asked to choose between a Dell and HP laptop can now request an Apple laptop. This will have a huge effect on sales!

Not only that, but if the masses have both systems available on their laptop, and find that they prefer OS X (looks/acts better, crashes less, etc.), then it might lead to greater demand to support OS X within their organizations.

With a dual-boot option to support WinXP, I predict that Apple will easily double their laptop sales in 2006. If you don't have stock already, buy Apple now.

YES!!!! THANK YOU!!! I said this earlier and finally some else mentioned it!

Doing something like this would kill Microsoft because it would allow those last few users who use Windows-only software to run OSX for everything else. Here's how it would work:

=Double-boots both Windows and OSX and allows an Expose-like switch between the GUIs.
=Then, a program like Synergy http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ allows easy file-swapping between the two - hit a button, both windows shrink, drag and drop files between.
=Instant REAL compatibility between the two.

I know MANY people who would do this, all the way from high-end power users to garden variety know-nothings.

I think this is the real strategy under the table - no way will Intel make PPC, there just isn't the market for it. Invest in researching a PPC laptop chip with, say, 2 million purchasers a year vs. Pentium M dual core with 40+ million adopters a year. Jobs will WANT to go were the research is being done and NEVER have to worry about hardware again.

Remember, that's his strategy with the iPod - off the shelf components in a better package.

 

[Eric5h5]

Steve Jobs reveals in a recent in-depth interview he did with Fortune mag that “three of the biggest PC makers” are trying to convince him to license OS X for use in their machines, because their customers are “sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn.”

This is off-topic, but I don't understand that last bit. In the Win95/98/ME days it was "Microsoft! Stop with the constant upgrades already!" but now it's "Microsoft! Where the heck is the next upgrade already!" What do people want? Ya can't have it both ways....

--Eric

 

[MikeBike]

Agreed - and also not forgetting that Apple is in a stronger position right now than it has been in a long time looking back at the past. The Apple name seems to have a lot more respect now, and I think people are actually starting to notice that it offers a better alternative. You know that when one of your avid Windows fans friend actually asks you genuine questions about what Mac can do for him!

Apple is in a stronger position via the iPod and the Mini.
But, I'm firmly in favor of apple selling more Hardward and Software into the x86 market, but only High quality stuff, to entice those people to consider Apple, but also to suck some of the Life Blood out of the x86 market to grow the PowerPC side of the market.

IBM has been the disappointment.
This is their GREAT Opportunity.
Take back the PC business with a growing Apple Computer.
But, IBM sees concerns that Apple servers cut into possible Power Server growth. Still, desktop market is very profitable.
IBM is the big loser here, even if Apple doesn't move.
Lost Opportunity.

 

[J-Ray1000]

If Apple licenses it's OS to a few of these PC makers (HP being one of them), I'll begin counting the days to Microsoft's demise.

You know, you could be right. With these HUGE companies advertising "switch to the most secure platform in the world...no viruses, spyware, etc" people would jump. Besides, the "scared" users who just use Windows because it's easy would then have a confidence level built in with an HP, Dell, Sony, etc.

Let us not forget the lesson of the iPod - Apple can go toe to toe with any hardware manufacturer out there with THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT. If Apple released generic Intel boxes, people would snap them up the same way they did the iPod - design, cool-factor, reliability, etc. Why buy a 11 pound Dell 17" laptop when you can get a PBook 17" that weighs, what, 7 pounds??? And for the same price, no less.

Apple could dominate both software and hardware without requiring mutual exclusivity.

 

[Eric5h5]

Doing something like this would kill Microsoft because it would allow those last few users who use Windows-only software to run OSX for everything else. Here's how it would work:

=Double-boots both Windows and OSX and allows an Expose-like switch between the GUIs.
=Then, a program like Synergy http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ allows easy file-swapping between the two - hit a button, both windows shrink, drag and drop files between.
=Instant REAL compatibility between the two.

I know MANY people who would do this, all the way from high-end power users to garden variety know-nothings.

That would utterly fail to work...your garden variety know-nothings can barely deal with one GUI, never mind two at once. A lot of people can't even deal with Classic in OS X, and they integrated that as much as they could. You're vastly over-estimating the computer competence of most people....

--Eric

 

[MikeBike]

YES!!!! THANK YOU!!! I said this earlier and finally some else mentioned it!

I thought this 3 years ago with the Linux movement.
DualBoots don't sell.
Except to a few programmers.

 

[Bradley W]

_