Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
x86 = bye bye

Unless this news is paired with the announcement of a completely new revenue stream from Apple, this will put them out of business - or at the very least, on the auction block. Their computer sales will drop to virtually zero for the next year+.

Sorry folks, that's just the hard numbers.
 
-Jeff said:
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.


or it could simply mean it takes less code to write an app for the MacOS.
 
I find it weird that nobody has commented on my post yet (#577).

(topic is Intel buying Freescale, with stock tickers and prices as a "proof").

WTF is "FSL-B"? The dashboard widget doesn't know what it is (Quote.com), but Yahoo! Finance does... And FSL-B is less than 1 week old...

Something really is going on if you ask me! :eek:
 
if this happens won't it be quite easy to install Mac OSX on any pc? I mean if they make a OSX for x86 then it will work with any pc am i right? This makes me think apple would never do such a thing because it would be the end of their computer hardware business but the begining of their software one.
 
someone do me a HUGE favor, and make an archive of this thread, so that every 9-18 months when this crap comes out again, we can just post the entire archive and get on with our lives?

how long has this been going on now, a decade?

....oh, and the guy who confirmed this woke up in a tub of ice with a note that he should call 911 before he died, seems they harvested his kidneys, and....
 
Yvan256 said:
I find it weird that nobody has commented on my post yet (#577).

(topic is Intel buying Freescale, with stock tickers and prices as a "proof").

WTF is "FSL-B"? The dashboard widget doesn't know what it is (Quote.com), but Yahoo! Finance does... And FSL-B is less than 1 week old...

Something really is going on if you ask me! :eek:

i would be actualy kinda happy if intel bought freescale. they could but a lot more money into chip development and r and d
 
e-coli said:
Unless this news is paired with the announcement of a completely new revenue stream from Apple, this will put them out of business - or at the very least, on the auction block. Their computer sales will drop to virtually zero for the next year+.

Sorry folks, that's just the hard numbers.


Uh, what hard numbers? The hard numbers are the pBooks are still on a G4, pMacs at 2.7 ghz (2 years after "3.0 in a year") and IBM cuckolding Apple with the gaming market.

Apple is still Apple regardless of what's under the hood.

And even if Apple went the road of opening up OSX to run on any X86 box and building generic X86 macs, do you really think Apple couldn't compete directly with Microsoft (the way iTunes and Firefox do) and HP, Sony, Dell (the way the iPod does)?

So once again, what hard numbers?
 
CybrCyfr said:
You are out of your ****ing mind. I am a Windows and a Unix programmer, and almost everyone I work with (inside or outside of my company) is extremely technical. Saying that "Most Windows Programmers are barely competent at Windows" is just complete bull ****. You apparently know some Jr Level developers and script kiddies. Just because one of your friends reads a "teach yourself C# in 24 hours" book, does NOT make them a Windows programmer.

Windows is a fantastic OS with regards to certain things. I personally believe OSX is better all around for the user, but Windows XP is certainly a fine OS (with exceptions to the security related issues).

I am constantly evaluating other operating systems. Monthly I review the KDE and Gnome projects, waiting for something good to happen. I'm not alone in this... Many other programmers are interested in different operating systems and technology in general.

Don't make a blanket statement like that, it shows how closed minded and distant from reality you actually are.

He's probably right - he said most - he didn't say all. Maybe he should have said many. It doesn't mean he's talking about you. You'd be amazed at how many windows programmers in the corporate world simply use visual basic and don't understand the technology very well. I run into it all of the time.
 
I just had a thought... do you think we might be seeing something kin to the DOS compatibility cards in early Macs? They were the Peforma 630CD and Performa 640CD, and the DOS compatible cards had a x86 processor on them that allowed System 7 to run Windows apps and also allowed booting of DOS or Windows 3.1.

What might happen is something similar, except the Mac would simply run Windows apps as normal OS X apps (Darwine might help here) and offer the ability to run Windows in a window, but no full boot capability.

The main problem with full Windows booting is that too many Windows-lovers would look at the Mac and say "oooh, pretty hardware", buy it, boot into Windows, and never consider OS X again - bad news.


EDIT for clarification: In this scenario, Macs keep PPCs as their main processor but have the Pentium card as an add-on.
 
iindigo said:
I just had a thought... do you think we might be seeing something kin to the DOS compatibility cards in early Macs? They were the Peforma 630CD and Performa 640CD, and the DOS compatible cards had a x86 processor on them that allowed System 7 to run Windows apps and also allowed booting of DOS or Windows 3.1.

What might happen is something similar, except the Mac would simply run Windows apps as normal OS X apps (Darwine might help here) and offer the ability to run Windows in a window, but no full boot capability.

The main problem with full Windows booting is that too many Windows-lovers would look at the Mac and say "oooh, pretty hardware", buy it, boot into Windows, and never consider OS X again - bad news.


EDIT for clarification: In this scenario, Macs keep PPCs as their main processor but have the Pentium card as an add-on.

I think you're incorrect in the way it would work: Macs would boot into OSX by default and then, if you must use Windows, a "Windows Classic" program would be there, just like OS9 Classic.

No one will use Window's programs if Apple's far superior suite is immediately available.

Oh, and this is scenario has both dual-booting on x86. But, I imagine, a program like Synergy could be written to easily switch back and forth between PPC and the Pentium card, though no one in their right mind would buy both when OSX86 is a cheaper solution.
 
poundsmack said:
you know what i jsut realized. darwin 8.1 nativly build on intel x86......mabey there is some truth to this after all
Darwin has been natively built for the x86 since version 6 or maybe earlier than that.

Capt Underpants said:
Well how about you do a little research before you go and bash the Pentium-M. It has slower clock speeds, yet blows both the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4 out of the water. If you don't believe me, check here: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html
I wasn't bashing it, I was just reminding whoever that numbers don't really mean much.
 
poundsmack said:
you know what i jsut realized. darwin 8.1 nativly build on intel x86......mabey there is some truth to this after all


Darwin has been running on PCs for a long time -- though Unix on that platform is mainly focused on Linux, and to a lesser extent, non-Darwin BSDs.
 
MCCFR said:
've had a think about this overnight and there is a scenario that would make sense to everyone and disadvantage nobody, except some people who might live in Washington State.

Anyone reviewing Apple's situation objectively would be amazed that the company has managed to survive this long: declining market share, an extended period of what could only have been called uninspiring leadership (take a bow, all the CEOs between Jobs I and Jobs II), confused marketing, need I continue…

Even now, Apple - with it's 4.5% of global PC market share - relies disproportionately on the health of the US market: something like 55% of Apple's quarterly sales are made in a country that has around 3% of the world's population, which means that the other 97% accounts for the other 45%.

In reality, even this interpretation is false: Apple is - and will probably always be - a "First World" or developed world company (BTW, I apologize to anyone to whom those terms are insensitive; I'm not a fan of First World myself, but it's commonly understood so there you go): it's products simply do not make economic sense to the vast majority of the markets in the developing world nor are they necessarily easy to find as the local Apple representation is either a distributor or a direct Apple office that simply isn't scaled up to fight the Wintel hegemony.

Before I break, here are some figures according to the CIA World Factbook…

People's Republic of China: Population: 1.30 billion 71% aged 15-64
India: Population: 1.08 billion, 63% aged 15-64
Indonesia: 0.24 billion, 65.7%
Brazil: 0.18 billion, 67.9%

With the exception of Brazil, all of these countries - with a combined population of 2.8 billion have wealth distribution as good as or better than the United States. The problem is that the wealth simply could never afford pure Apple technology, except possibly the mini.

SFW, I hear you ask…

What if Apple decided to accede to the overtures of a select group of PC manufacturers who are…

a) well established, for whatever reason, in these developing markets with mature distribution channels and brand presence.
b) Sick and tired of waiting for MSFT to ship yet another revision of a discredited operating system.
c) Even more sick and tired of maintaining outsized customer support functions to keep alive the machines of customers running the current version of MSFT's discredited operating system.

All that would be needed would be a reference Intel motherboard design (which would inevitably require a Firewire port - ring any bells?) and a list of approved components (disc drives, optical, and video card) and an Intel version of Mac OS X with reduced localisation features, probably limited to International English and the local language which would reduce global cannibalization of Apple's existing markets, and some strict licensing terms ("try and import one of these systems into the USA, the EU or Australasia and we'll use your ass as an umbrella stand - and the umbrella will be open").

Make that deal with Lenovo, Sony and HP (leave those pesky Dell critters out, just because Michael needs a lesson in humility and Kevin Rollins is a jerk) and let's see whether Apple could ever be a real global player.

Existing developers should also be happy: after all, they get to sell product to billions of people who have never heard of them. And, even more importantly, Apple gets to encourage a new developer community in China and India - neither of which are laggards in having an educated workforce.

The hardware partners free themselves of the yoke of having their fortunes tied to a software company who couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map.

Businesses in the developing world get access to a secure operating system with a reasonable applications portfolio, whilst private individuals get access to a contemporary operating system today (as opposed to waiting to the middle of 2007) and they don't even have to buy a dual-core system to run it.

This is a solution that would make a lot of sense of all of the rumours, without any unreasonable downsides…at least, that's my opinion.

People in developing nations can't afford HP, Sony and Lenovo computers either and many them are outright rejecting Windows because of its licensing fees, turning instead to open source. I seriously doubt that Apple would significantly lower its licensing fees, it simply makes no sense. They're a high-end niche player. Just look at the design work that goes into any Apple product and tell me with a straight face that they're going to change their business model to go after consumers in developing nations. They can't even appeal to the low-end computer buys in the U.S. :rolleyes:
 
alandail said:
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.

And if developers know that they can create just one version of their software - Windows - and it'll run in a window on the Mac OS, where's the incentive for them to provide Mac versions. Really, this is a dangerous, multi-edged sword that's being played with here.
 
sord said:
I wasn't bashing it, I was just reminding whoever that numbers don't really mean much.

Right but these aren't synthetic benchmarks (sure, there were one or two synthetics, but most were application based). Application based benchmarks you can count on...
 
Freescale? FSL and/or FSL-B?

Seriously, can anyone tell me what's the deal with the new "FSL-B" ticker that's about one week old?! FSL and FSL-B both seem to be Freescale semiconductor....
 
albinogoldfish said:
Top 3 reasons for Apple to adopt Intel:

1) WIMAX
2) WIMAX
3) WIMAX

All the other reasons come with good and bad. But the risk/reward does not pan out until you understand how wireless is going to play out in the future of consumer electronics.

I'll say it again: Wimax
Intel got a bloody nose the last couple times Apple set standards with Airport.

Apple and Intel working together would save some bucks for both companies, especially the one that loses the next generation wireless standards war.

If Apple did go with the WIMAX, it would likely also mean would likely be using a Intel CPU + Intel wireless chip combo -- instead of the current AMD MIPS CPU + Broadcom combo right now.

We had the same exact rumors when AMD was working with Apple on the Airport.

But I'd still like to see Apple run Cocoa x86 within Windows, we really need more support for Cocoa -- especially since so many people are still using Carbon.

The current incarnation of Cocoa is a good chunk of the what NeXT tried at the end to shop around to a bunch of platforms, plus it's what Apple promised to offer to x86 way back in the Rhapsody days.

---

Hard to tell if this is a new info article, or speculation based on the WSJ article. But we'll find out soon.
 
Yvan256 said:
Seriously, can anyone tell me what's the deal with the new "FSL-B" ticker that's about one week old?! FSL and FSL-B both seem to be Freescale semiconductor....

As far as I know, "B" usually indicates a different classification of stock, such as stock that has different rules to it, such as who can purchase, sell, when to sell, what quantity can be traded etc. Sometimes "A" or "B" is reserved for employees only.

From "B" alone I wouldn't imagine this has anything to do with a buy-out by IBM. It's possible Freescale may be trying to buy back all it's "A" stock by offering incentives to move to "B" stock - a common practice called a "tender" that's usually done to consolidate control of the company and for other business-related purposes like allowing the board members to purchase islands, private jets, etc.
 
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet but Cnet has an update to their story:
"update: Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned."
Whoa.
 
MikeBike said:
You must work in a small shop.
In some some shops the programming staff is highly qualified.
I now work in a large shop with a few hundred programmers.
The Windows fanatics Don't Learn anything but Windows.
And most of them don't spend 1 Extra Minute learning Anything about anyother OS. You are delusional if you think most programmers know what they're doing. Do a survey, and ask how many people have dual-boot capability? Out of 100, less then 5 is the answer.

Make a single coherent point please. Are you saying that Windows developers don't know anything about Windows (as stated in your last post)? Or are you stating that Windows developers don't evaluate and care about other operating systems?

MikeBike said:
You must work in a small shop.
MikeBike said:
You are delusional if you think most programmers know what they're doing.
My companies parent company is the largest IT company in the Middle East. They also own twelve other companies here in the states, and a few in the UK. I have over fifty programs that work under me (in an advisory and mentoring role) and another fifty or so that work as peers throughout our sister companies. We have a gamut of programmers, Jr, Mid, and Sr levels. There will always be programmers with a different level of talent, but you assume everyone is stupid and has no idea of what they are doing. Even my Jr level developers have a basic understanding of the Win32 API. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand in-depth Windows Messaging, COM+, IIS processes, CLR and MSIL and GDI. But some do.

I don't know where you work, but in a company like mine we strive to hire all different levels of developers. If your company only hires incompetent people, maybe it is time to brush up your resume.

Don't assume that just because you work in a fairly large IT shop and most of the people you work with know nothing about Windows, that the rest of the world is the same. That is true ignorance.

I will succeed that most Windows programs are not interested in other operating systems. But I expect anyone on my team that has a "Senior" title should be busting his/her ass continually researching unfamiliar technologies (this includes operating systems).

Actually, I would estimate about 15-20% of our development staff use an operating system other than Windows at home. Mostly Linux flavors. I am a great example. I am the principle developer and software architect, and I only run OSX at home.

[edit]I apologize to the other readers of this thread, Mike and I have gone way off topic.[/edit]
 
J-Ray1000 said:
As far as I know, "B" usually indicates a different classification of stock, such as stock that has different rules to it, such as who can purchase, sell, when to sell, what quantity can be traded etc. Sometimes "A" or "B" is reserved for employees only.

From "B" alone I wouldn't imagine this has anything to do with a buy-out by IBM. It's possible Freescale may be trying to buy back all it's "A" stock by offering incentives to move to "B" stock - a common practice called a "tender" that's usually done to consolidate control of the company and for other business-related purposes like allowing the board members to purchase islands, private jets, etc.

Or maybe the B shares are for Intel investment? I mean, the sticker is only one week old. I find it strange to see new shares of Freescale at the same time this (old) rumor surfaces.
 
d.perel said:
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet but Cnet has an update to their story:
"update: Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned."
Whoa.

That's the same thing from yesterday.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.