Really switching to Intel!!??

[MarcelV]

Over and over I am surprised....

with peoples response. Everyone seems to forget that Apple is opening retail outlets left and right. Apple is not going to cut into their quality and hardware/software integration. Just generic x86 doesn't make sense. It will make their retail outlets useless. Something that is highly profitable and helped in their comeback and is strategic in their future growth plans. Something much bigger is on the way...

As I posted before, my projection.
OSX will run on both platforms. PPC and Intel. Intel chips will be proprietary. PPC emulation build in the CPU. This will enable Sony, HP and maybe a third other one, to sell OSX based systems, without them have to redesign their lines. Sony, Apple and HP are working together on a total digital home system.
Sony, because they have PSP. A market not feasible to get in by either HP or Apple. Apple for infrastructure. iTMS, soon iTVS, wireless access. Apple already has the technology. Think Bonjour!! Besides, do you think it is a coincedent that the video's in Itunes are running on PSP's display format? HP is needed for the retail space and has oggd R&D budget. In addition, Sony and HP are very unhappy with Microsoft. But all HP and Sony design has been build around P4 and Pentium M. So, to make this work, and Apple to be a major partner, OSX was ported to x86. Does everyone really think that keeping Darwin x86 up to date was just to be nice by Apple?
And don't rule out Motorola, the phone stuff is still out there, and is close to be released. (If not this week at the WWDC).

Apple's hardware will still be 'different', they will not canibalize their retail outlets and sales. And plans for future growth are centered around expansion of the retail outlets. Why would that be, if they would go all generic x86. No one would pay the premium in Apple's stores to get just a generic system. Why would you... Yes, the design will be nicer and there will be a group of people, like me, willing to pay for that. But it will be much less than the 3.8%, Apple currently has as market share....

Just my .02.....

 

[jiggie2g]

Has anyone herd from Hector , you'd think after nearly 1400 post he's show up and defend his precious PPC. I guess he's somewhere hiding in a closet too distrought to speak.

Well i for One can't Wait Till WWDC and see Steve'O show the Intel Logo on the Jumbo screen.I can't just hear the hearts of the PPC Fanboys breaking right now.

Lastly for you Zealots saying crap like "If Apple goes x86 I will neverr buy a Mac or I will go Linux"... then Please go , you are the kind of Fanatic that gave Apple a bad name to PC users anyway. Enjoy your Salad Dressing Variety of Linux Distros.

 

[sedarby]

End of the World as We Know It!!!

You have been assimilated. It is futile to fight.

 

[emotion]

That no one will buy.

nonsense.

if they announce a switch to x86 the powerpc stuff (g4 especially) will be very hard to shift.

seriously, mac sales are being held back by the slowness of what's to offer.
no-one really cares what chip they use as long as it performs well.

and if anyone thinks macosx will be allowed to run on every x86 machine they're dreaming. it'll all be on closed hardware.

 

[tsk]

QUALITY QUALITY QUALITY, actually CONTROL over quality. I love my crap-homebuild PC for what it is, but its not a reliable tool for me like my Mac. If OSX goes x86, at least hopefully Apple will still be the only ones or one of the very few actually building the systems. If not, wouldn't that mean TONS of new drivers, compatibility issues, ect, wearing out the developement team? Wouldn't this neccessitate a (at least a temporary) cut back on quality control, given Apple would no longer have total control over hardware. Bad news for people who are happy to shell out and sacrifice speed and universal compatibility for exactly what Apple offers; quality and fantastic niche compatibility.

This may actually accellerate my new mac purchase, I want one of the last few top-quality all-Apple machines!!

Seems to me that if Apple is going x86, they will be cherry picking the hardware they run on it. They'll be building their own custom machines which should guarantee the same reliability you've seen in the past.

And I think this actually gives OSX an unfair (in some ways) aura of reliability compared with Windows since Windows has to run on everything anyone puts together. Apple is a select list of components only. I don't mean to imply that OSX is on par with Windows.

 

[dicklacara]

When I first heard the latest rumor that Apple would ditch/switch IBM chips for Intel chips in its line of computers, I thought it was total BS... Now, I'm not so sure. Based on some posts by others, I've done some investigating and a lot of thinking... It just might be doable and a good, no, a great thing to do!

Soliloquy:

-- It is believed by many (me included) that Apple has OS X and all Apple-supplied applications running on Intel chips.

-- Apple could introduce an Apple/Intel box running OS X/Intel at any time.

-- So what, you say 3rd-party apps written for OS X/PPC won't run on OS X/Intel

-- And, the Apple development community, having just ported their apps to OS X/PPC isn't going to want to do another conversion to OS X/Intel... especially since they won't make any money on the conversion

-- And, end users, having purchased OS X/PPC apps will not want to re-purchase these just so they can run them in OS X/Intel

-- Enter QuickTransit.

-- QuickTransit sits as a layer between the OS and the application and allows any Unix/Linux app written for one supported hardware platform to run on another Unix/Linux supported platform.

-- The apps run at 80% of the performance which is not noticeable for most apps.

-- If Apple were to bundle QuickTransit in it's OS X/PPC and its OS X/Intel it would have a whole 'nother thing... OS X/Duallie

-- Well, if Apple does this, then OS X/Duallie will get ripped off & people will try running it on any trash x86 configuration... Apple will lose money and the OS X experience will suffer

-- Not necessarily, Apple can put things into OS X/Duallie to make sure it only runs on Apple hardware.. and vigorously prosecute hackers.

-- Well, what about all the loyal PPC fans... they won't be happy to see their hardware platform abandoned and be forced to run on a different one.

-- Now, here's the beauty of OS X/Duallie... Apple doesn't need to ditch & switch... they can offer Apple solutions, the whole package, on either or both platforms... whatever makes sense, for any given Apple box, at any given point in time... No need to burn bridges with current suppliers & Apple can take advantage of new chips/architectures as they become available (from whomever).

-- Well, won't this complicate the Apple product line, support infrastructure, etc.

-- Not necessarily. CPU selection just becomes another BTO product option... giving the user more choices... choices are good!

-- Nah, the Apple/Intel boxes will be too pricey compared to the Dells, etc.

-- Maybe for people who build their own boxes. But for people who buy solutions, when you price the total package, current Apple products are quite competitive... this could make Apple more competitive.

--Back to the developer and his native PPC app running at 80% on OS X/Duallie... his app doesn't look good when compared to running native on the PPC vs a competitor's app running native on a Wintel box

-- At his convenience, the developer could convert to the other CPU and tweak it for max performance... possibly selling an Upgrade

-- Apple could/should supply some tools to assist the developers... Apple has experience with ITunes, QuickTime, etc.

-- Oh no, now you've complicated the Developer's product line... he has 2 flavors of each program

-- Well, suppose that Apple adds a facility to OS X Fat Binaries to allow code for both CPUs to co-exist in the same package... hmm... pretty cool, 1 app that runs on 2 different CPUs.

-- But why should Apple and its developers go to all this trouble?

-- To increase sales & profits... if they can't do that... don't bother

-- Big deal, the IT departments aren't going to wholesale-replace all their Wintel boxes... too much of an investment in hardware/software/training/support/infrastructure....

-- No, they won't! But you might want to add to the above list: applying service packs/detecting & removing spyware and viruses/reformatting HDDs & reinstalling the OS...

-- If the necessary applications exist on the OS X/Duallie platform, and prices/costs are competitive, IT departments likely would consider an Apple solution as they add or replace boxes... they do play well together

-- OK, but what about all the apps that only exist on Wintel... like AutoCad

-- If Apple can increase its computer sales (the reason for doing all this) Wintel-only developers may be more amenable to porting their apps to OS X/Duallie... after all they will be able to use a familiar Intel CPU, so that should ease the pain.

-- Oh, BTW, these apps would now be available on both CPUs... hmmm...... Net new sales!

-- Yeah, but what about the Elephant in the room... and things like IE, Access, Active-X, ODBC, OLE, Poo-Poo-Pe-Doo?

-- AFAIK, it hasn't been done, yet, but it appears that QuickTransit could be extended to interface Windows apps... well behaved Windows apps, ones that don't use undocumented OS calls & backdoors (the things that let in viruses).

-- If Apple were to offer a QuickTransit that allowed legal, well-behaved windows apps to run on OS X/Duallie, that would be quite an accomplishment. That would be quite an accomplishment!

-- And, these windows apps should run at closer to 100% performance on the Apple/Intel box... and about 80% on the Apple/PPC boxes.

-- Without doing anything, these [previously] Wintel-Only apps are now available for purchase on the millions of Apple/PPC boxes... hmmm... Net new sales!

-- And, at their leisure, using Apple tools and Fat Binaries, the developers can port their apps to native PPC.

-- Well, you weave a pretty good tale.. everybody wins!

-- Almost everybody....

Dick

 

[emaja]

Do you think that if apple switches to x86 it will be able to maintain its present appeal and identity, though?

Most users of either platform do not know or care what the hardware is. They make the choice based on the software and how it makes their lives better.

If Apple does switch architecture, I am sure that the very first priority in implementing the switch will be maintaining the Apple OS X identity. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[jwdsail]

Let's say I "know someone that works at Intel" . . . Intel does not have the IP nor the IP licensing required to make PPC. Even if they did, the financial incentive to fab a totall different CPU architecture for 3% of the PC market is not there.

And it's also impossible that they could be interested in PPC tech to get the xBox back, or steel Nintendo away from IBM in the next nextgen box designs (PS4, XBox3, etc..)??? Why wouldn't Intel want to start getting it's feet wet in PPC with Apple toll-producing an existing design (970) then expand into making a better mobile version and then some designs for the game box makers...

No incentive?

Shrug.

 

[Panoctopi]

Most users of either platform do not know or care what the hardware is. They make the choice based on the software and how it makes their lives better.

If Apple does switch architecture, I am sure that the very first priority in implementing the switch will be maintaining the Apple OS X identity. Otherwise, why bother?

The general public maybe, but they aren't part of the segment of users that has helped create, disseminate and defend apple's identity. It can't be overlooked that if this goes forth as a switch to x86 apple would be in ways joining that which for the past few years it criticized and to which apple served as an alternative.
This only makes sense as bottom line decision which anyone can understand but not necessarily respect.
Still, the more i think about the less probable it seems to me that steve would do something like this, it doesn't make sense.
Either Intel is making ppc or some other non x86 chip for the next generation of macs or tiger is going available in both platforms and microsoft can start seriously freaking out if this is the case, 'cause they don't have an answer to this for another year or two.

 

[~Shard~]

Might as well get used to it:

 

[skunk]

Is that "Core Graphics"?

 

[~Shard~]

Is that "Core Graphics"?

Haha - nice one, I approve! Glad to see some of us still have our wits in top shape even after reading through thousands of mind-numbing posts these past couple of days...

 

[kainjow]

If Apple switches to x86, then this causes Virtual PC to become obsolete because Wine would finally be usable on OS X.

 

[iThinkThatIsNea]

What if he says absolutely nothing about this tomorrow? Maybe this will happen, but he won't say anything about it for 8 or so months. Why are we assuming he will talk about it tomorrow?

 

[~Shard~]

What if he says absolutely nothing about this tomorrow? Maybe this will happen, but he won't say anything about it for 8 or so months. Why are we assuming he will talk about it tomorrow?

If this isn't appropriate news for the Worldwide Developers Conference then I don't know what is.

 

[skunk]

What if he says absolutely nothing about this tomorrow? Maybe this will happen, but he won't say anything about it for 8 or so months. Why are we assuming he will talk about it tomorrow?

Because CNet, WSJ and many others are saying so. Makes a great deal of sense to me. All they did in switching to IBM was exchange one single supplier for another. If AMD are in the frame as well as Intel, as the rumours have it, then all is well.

 

[kainjow]

The dream...

Steve announces dual-core dual-processor PowerMac G5's @ 3.0Ghz tomorrow, then goes on to say that IBM barely got this G5 out, and is having bad luck with getting the G5 into any kind of mobile, thus the switch to x86 beginning in 2006. Then he'd demo the Transitive's software on an iBook running a Pentium M, and you would notice no difference with performance running native PPC code on the x86...

So... it wouldn't leave a huge gap, you could buy a really fast and impressive computer now, but you could expect powerful laptops next year...

 

[Doctor Q]

What if Mac OS X came in two versions:

1. A version that runs "faster". Some Intel-made processor. Satisfying those who are sold on "Intel Inside" and who count gigahertz to measure the worth of a system.

2. A version that ran "better". PPC/G5. Current benefits remain, e.g., AltiVec/Velocity Engine. Satisfying to current Mac users.

Could Apple make it fly? Could Apple afford to maintain both? Which way would the market shift? How would a sensible consumer decide between them?

 

[jharju]

Then he'd demo the Transitive's software on an iBook running a Pentium M, and you would notice no difference with performance running native PPC code on the x86...

So you would buy totally new PB/iB in 2006 just to see that it runs as good that models that came 2005? Should new models be faster than older ones? No matter how great that new emulation software is there is still big performance gap. Why would Apple switch to Intel and emulate to get lower performance that they have now?

 

[dicklacara]

What if Mac OS X came in two versions:

1. A version that runs "faster". Some Intel-made processor. Satisfying those who are sold on "Intel Inside" and who count gigahertz to measure the worth of a system.

2. A version that ran "better". PPC/G5. Current benefits remain, e.g., AltiVec/Velocity Engine. Satisfying to current Mac users.

Could Apple make it fly? Could Apple afford to maintain both? Which way would the market shift? How would a sensible consumer decide between them?

Yes!

-- Each (appropriate) Apple box with an option for a Intel CPU/MB or a PPC CPU/MB

-- OS X that installs/runs on either CPU/MB

The consumer would have additional choices & would weigh the options according to whatever is important to him.

Apple can/should do it!

Dick

 

[pontecorvo]

Even if Apple goes with these intel processors (which i strongly disapose)...

"disapose"?

 

[Panoctopi]

"disapose"?

disapose, def: to pose disapprovingly. i.e. hundreds of wwdc attendees stood in disapose when steve jobs confirmed apple's switch to intel x86 cpus.

 

[vatel]

Then he'd demo the Transitive's software on an iBook running a Pentium M, and you would notice no difference with performance running native PPC code on the x86

Emulation is not a magic box. Any process that uses Altivec will run 3-4X faster on a G4 than it can run on any single core x86. That means even if your emulator is so good it's running 1-1 instructions, you will still be hosed on Altivec heavy code. The biggest problem is that as end users we really have no idea which parts of which programs will be impacted. It'll just be Russian Roulette.

I really hope that Intel, seeing the 140 million+ PPC based processors IBM will sell in 2006 (based on last years numbers), feels that this is an opportunity to get some valuable IP to get into that game.

But if its just OS X on x86, that's fine with me. The resale value of my PB just went to s!#%, but at least in two years I won't be trying to re-convince myself that great OS trumps mediocre hardware.

 

[wannabe]

transitive emulation?

And, as pointed out by Christopher Ong on the MacJournals-Talk mailing list, Transitive’s board chairman is Peter van Cuylenburg, who — according to his biography on the Transitive web site — was the president and COO of a certain company called NeXT Computer in 1992.

Upper level mgt Nick White also worked at a certain computer company called NeXt

Very interesting

 

[tazznb]

What's wrong with everybody.....!?!

Some of you folks act as this is the end of the world. Who cares if Tiger runs on an IBM chipset or an Intel chipset?

As long as it is still stable and performs to the standards that were set before the switch, who really gives a rats a$$? The bottom line is that Apple makes the best operating system and the sleekest hardware out there, and as long as it still operates the same running on Intel chips, I don't care.

Some of you really need to chill out...

I concur. This is getting rediculous. If you love Apple products stay, if you do not then leave. It's as simple as that.