Really switching to Intel!!??

[alandail]

Will someone who really knows their stuff tell me if this is possible:

=Apple builds x86 boxes that can run Windows.
=Transition of OSX to intel macs (without support for 3rd party boxes, which is what will most likely happen anyway)
=Then, the mac double-boots both Windows and OSX and allows an Expose-like switch between the GUIs.
=Finally, 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.

Seems to me this is the way to kill Windows, is it not? Really, a dream come true: OSX/PowerMac with Half-Life when you want it.

It's completely possible, except, it'd make more sense to run windows inside a window under OS X, with the option of making that window full screen. It's also completely possible for an x86 version of MacOS X to support OpenFirmware on apple branded hardware and support bios.

How many people out there would try MacOS X if it didn't mean abandoning their existing hardware or software? How many people here, even ones who are complaining about this possiblity, own x86 hardware?

Some people seem to think Apple would lose developers from this move. That couldn't be furhter from the truth. THe best way to get more Mac developers is for apple to double their market share. They could do thiat within weeks of shipping OS X for x86, especially if windows can run as described above. The killer product from Apple would be OS X for x86 that flawlessly installed over a windows install and automatically configured the machine for dual boot AND windows in a window. Let people run OS X without losing their investment in windows software or hardware.

 

[Bonte]

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.

Yeah me thinks so to, like selling osX for x86 and support 2 platforms for the time being. In the long run were all getting to dual or more cores x86 in a few years. Apple's going for the full software company it wants to be, Steve is not a PPC addict. Its is now time for the big kill to wipe out Bill's mall-ware.

They did it with the ipod and now they want to take full control of the MP3 player market by eliminating Windows.

 

[MikeBike]

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

Let me add abit more comment.
Most Windows Programmers are barely competent at Windows.
They actually think Windows is a fantastic OS!
Of course, when your only car is a Yugo it seems great.

Most of these programmers haven't got a CLUE about other OS's.
I'd say 98% of all windows programmers know( barely ) ONLY WINDOWS.

They're just not interested in any other OS.

 

[morgoth]

Jumping to Sinking Ships

There's good reason to believe this. Someone from IBM basically confirmed to me a few weeks back that something like this was up.

Good riddance if it is true. IBM suck.

What? I would love to know who your source on this is. Apple would have to be stupid to switch architectures at this point. The only advantage x86 has over PPC is in game performance and that is solely due to the fact that games are primarily written and optimized on x86.

Fast forward five years and that is very unlikely to be the case. Name a single next generation console that uses x86. Oh wait, they all use PPC. I guess everyone's gone crazy since you think "IBM suck". IBM has a lot of very talented people working in both the hardware design and compiler groups. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all see this clearly and have decided to use PPC for their game consoles.

Now if we imagine where the Macintosh will be in five years if switched to x86 it would likely look similar to today: embarrassing game benchmarks that are inconsistent with SPEC and an even more marginalized user base. Switching architectures is insanity. The premium for PowerPC chips will drop significantly with the swarm of consoles using them. In fairness, if Sony's PS3 takes a large chunk of the market the Mac won't benefit since it uses Cell whose chipset differs dramatically from the desktop-style PowerPCs being used in Revolution and XBox 360. So Apple could stick with PowerPC without incurring any real penalties and see lower prices and better game performance or it could pistol whip the Mac development community with another architecture change and bleed off another half of the user base. That's a pretty obvious choice, but Steve Jobs is unpredictable so I'll keep an open mind.

 

[paulypants]

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

I have found that to be the opposite in many cases...

 

[J-Ray1000]

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

LOL, yes, people are stupid - but here's the point - if Apple said "get all your current windows programs PLUS get to use Apple's amazing software all in a secure environment" or something similar, people wouldn't even need to think about dual boot.

Besides, who really needs dual-boot? It's the power users, big business, scientists and gamers - all of which would have no problem hitting some function key for an Expose-like jump between the two OSes when they need it.

For everyone else who surfs the internet, writes e-mail and plays solitaire, there already is NO reason for them to be with Windows, right? Except the fear of not being able to, for some reason, be without the Windows standard.

Tell them they're safe and never worry again.

 

[cr2sh]

Some analysts are saying "970MP" on Monday... some are saying "low power 970 powerbooks!" and some are saying "Intel! Intel! Intel!".

I'm sorry... but none of these folks know ****... I'm going to sit back and wait for the one person who really knows to talk.... that guys name, Nick dePlume.

 

[TrenchMouth]

I am all about Apple expanding to new markets and charting the uncharted. I think Apple is kind of at an impass here. They can either continue with what they are doing...trying to expand the OSX+PPC market, which we have evidence that they are getting better at, but at best it is a slow process. OR and this is a big or, they can make the transition over to an architecture that has the potential to be much more lucrative and expansive, all the while not harming Apples ability to innovate (too much) and possibly even allowing for more affordable/powerful hardware.

Wouldn't you like to see Apple going head to head with other x86 box makers and software designers? It is easy to attribute Apple's success to its very loyal user base and the quasi-closed system in which it opperates. Open that up, and let them go to town on the mainstream and I am sure we will all be impressed.

In the even that we are not impressed....I wont be selling this iBook any time soon...lol

At any rate, I wont hold my breath on this whole thing. Time will tell.

 

[J-Ray1000]

It's completely possible, except, it'd make more sense to run windows inside a window under OS X, with the option of making that window full screen. It's also completely possible for an x86 version of MacOS X to support OpenFirmware on apple branded hardware and support bios.

How many people out there would try MacOS X if it didn't mean abandoning their existing hardware or software? How many people here, even ones who are complaining about this possiblity, own x86 hardware?

Some people seem to think Apple would lose developers from this move. That couldn't be furhter from the truth. THe best way to get more Mac developers is for apple to double their market share. They could do thiat within weeks of shipping OS X for x86, especially if windows can run as described above. The killer product from Apple would be OS X for x86 that flawlessly installed over a windows install and automatically configured the machine for dual boot AND windows in a window. Let people run OS X without losing their investment in windows software or hardware.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Is there a single person among us who doesn't wish they could play Half-Life 2, Doom 3 etc right off their mac???

 

[Mechcozmo]

I got to sleep for a few hours and when I wake up this thread is nearly 30 pages!?

What is wrong with you people?!?!?!

 

[alandail]

How can you kill windows if you are double booting into it?

because it would give windows users a viable and inexpensive way to try OS X. Windows in a window is the key, though. Give Mac OS X the role or primary OS, reduce windows to a legacy OS for legacy apps. i.e. the same role classic played in the trasition to OS X. OS X ran classic apps, but they just aren't as good as OS X native apps. OS X for x86 could support running windows apps, but have the confidece to show users that OS X native apps are better despite the fact that the windows app is not crippled in the enviromenent in any way.

For instance, users with such an environment would run Safari over IE, use iTunes for Mac instead of iTunes for Windows, use iPhoto, iCal, Address Book, etc, but could run their exisiting copy of windows to run their existing copy of Office or could get Office for Mac. The biggest challenge for Apple would be to get MS to release a MacOS X x86 version of Office.

 

[nagromme]

The only advantage x86 has over PPC is in game performance and that is solely due to the fact that games are primarily written and optimized on x86.

I believe a lot of it has to do with software--in a GOOD way for Macs:

Games on Windows use direct hardware hacks to bypass the OS squeeze out more performance.

But on Mac, the OpenGL layer and the video drivers are separated from each other. You can't do those hacks. That's good OS design. As a result, OpenGL is available to all Mac apps simultaneously--in fact, the whole UI is OpenGL. Not so with Windows.

Sounds like exactly the kind of Windows mess I do NOT want Apple to get into. Keep the design, clean, efficient, and with the layers properly separated, please. That means more to me--even for gaming!--than frames per second.

That's oversimplified, but Glenda Adams explained a lot of this in a good concise article recently. At InsideMacGames.com I think.

(And Apple's hiring a team and working on improving OpenGL now... maybe in ways that compensate nicely in the end?)

 

[xsnightclub]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Is there a single person among us who doesn't wish they could play Half-Life 2, Doom 3 etc right off their mac???

Me.

Get a game console.

 

[leftbanke7]

I am mixed about the whole thing.

I am totally cool with Apple making moves that will help it in the short/long run.

However, because of the marketing of computers nowadays, Intel is synonymous with Windows (ie. at the end of almost every PC commercial, you hear the famous chime and get the Intel Inside logo).

We all gripe about how Microsoft's dominance sways the computing industry and plead for people to "Think Different". With Apple possibly switching to Intel, this essentually leaves 2 chip makers as PPC for computers will essentually die. With Intel's even larger market share lead, should we not be as wary of them as we are of Microsoft? Or is it cool because we are finally on the "winning team"? Kind of hypocritical?

And I suppose you sang a sad song about Motorola too, please...

What the hell does your response have to do with anything I wrote?

All I wrote is that if Apple goes to x86, then, for all intents and purposes, the PPC for computers will die. Added to that, I commented that Intel will now have a larger marketshare and that we, as Mac users, have historically panned those with the larger market share (ie. Microsoft, Dell). I summed it up asking whether or not we would be hypocrites to be pro-Intel if they put their chips in Macs.

Now, how exactly does your post make any sense?

 

[tny]

If there's a switch, I'd guess it will be to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montecito> Montecito, then <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tukwila> Tukwila, not i386. After all, Intel is having trouble finding a high-profile customer willing to make the switch, the dates are right, the features are right. The Montecito won't a fast chip, but it would be a nice 64-bit chip to replace the G4s in Mac minis, eMacs, iMacs, and iBooks; the Tukwila will be a quad-core chip featuring SMT (somebody who knows more about CPUs - will this address the threading issues with the Mach core?). Yeah, I know, "Itanic," but the old DEC Alpha people working on the Tukwila are bright folks who just need some marketing help.

IA64 would be an acceptable substitute for PPC64; I'll buy one. If they switch to the i386-64 architecture, I'll have trouble justifying buying another Apple next year as I'd planned, because I don't think a switch to i386-64 will be survivable, when most folks will think they can get the same hardware platform slightly cheaper from a Lenovo or a Dell and slap Longhorn on it; so I'll probably wait until 2007 to see what shakes out or buy a new display instead (they should be a lot cheaper at the iTunes store).

 

[Eric5h5]

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...

G3, G4, and G5 are all PPC. x86 is completely different. It really, really, really isn't as simple as "clicking an x86 button." If you don't believe me, ask the Debian people (Debian is a version of Linux), who make their packages run on on lots of different CPU architectures, by dint of massive amounts of testing. I was reading recently that they're reducing the number to just a few, though, precisely because it takes so much time. At least with 68K -> PPC, both chips are big-endian, but x86 is little-endian. Endian problems crop up in all sorts of weird places. Ask people who port PC games if you don't believe me.

And yes, a completely different, non-PPC compatible G6 would cause panic, for the same reasons. (Fortunately, assuming Apple doesn't switch to x86 CPUs, the real G6 is likely to be a desktop version of Power5, like the G5 is a desktop version of Power4 with Altivec bolted on.)

--Eric

 

[-Jeff]

I have found that to be the opposite in many cases...

Wow. That's kind of disturbing. It just shows that the in many cases PC applicaitions are not even using the additional instructions that CISC provides. If the instructions aren't being used, they are a waste of die space. The more I think about it, RISC processing makes more more sense.

 

[leftbanke7]

Me.

Get a game console.

Amen to that brother. Computers are for work, PS2/XBox is for play.

 

[Bear]

Actually...

Thanks for clearing that up.

Is there a single person among us who doesn't wish they could play Half-Life 2, Doom 3 etc right off their mac???

Actually Doom 3 is available for the Mac.

 

[Mechcozmo]

(And Apple's hiring a team and working on improving OpenGL now... maybe in ways that compensate nicely in the end?)

Yeah, if the OpenGL layer become very optimized, etc. then there is less overhead and less need to go behind the OS's back.

 

[electric]

POWERBOOK

 

[scu]

I agree in part ... only one problem. Windows can't double its market share as it has more than 50%. <may it shrink well below 50% though>

LOL

 

[J-Ray1000]

Me.

Get a game console.

LOL, yeah, because Half-Life on the xbo...oh, wait, never mind. And all the RTS and FPS that aren't on the consoles simply offer an inferior playing experience on a controller.

The point is Alienware, Falcon and Voodoo are in business for a reason: the PC gaming industry is huge and isn't going anywhere. When a household's resident 16 yr old male is the computer expert, why would he ever pick the family's computer to be game-devoid? He wouldn't - I didn't when I was a kid nor did any of my friends (nor their parents for that matter)

But get the iPod of computers that runs Half-Life or World of Warcraft and, well, you get the idea...

 

[electric]

Centrino

 

[leftbanke7]

HOLY CRAP! It just came to me.

Intel and Apple joining forces to create.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
THE PIPPIN II!!!!!!!!!!!

Intel wants back into gaming after the large migration to PPC
Apple, well, I really don't know Apple's reasoning behind this but, hey, why the hell not!