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

Really switching to Intel!!??

MacTruck said:
Folks,

Here is your evidence that the story is TRUE.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_vs_mini/

This is not a mac mini ripoff, it is the NEW mac mini!
Click to expand...


Ummm no. If Apple moves over to x86 they will still make their own hardware. Guaranteed. You can't say many things about what would happen in the event of a move but you can say that. Apple isn't going to let X reside on cheap (quality wise) hardware.
 
Just Wait

I think it would be wise for all of us to chill out and wait to see what comes of this at WWDC. No need to get into a discussion of what this is until we get some concrete evidence and validation from Apple.

Enjoy your weekend!
 
this isnt the first time apple has teamed with an enemy.

1) in the 1980's wasn't apple competing with IBM?
2) Didn't apple already switch to intel in the early 90's for a short period of time? I know it was unsuccessful, but maybe they found what was wrong and will fix it this time. maybe it'll be a special intel chip that can be the only intel chip that will run on a mac.
 
I don't care, so long as my software still works. Otherwise, I guess I'll be using this G4 iMac until Kingdom come. I have too much invested, software-wise, to just throw it all away.
 
IBM doesn't need to be forced to innovate. They do it every day. Intel are the ones who need to be pushed. Why else are we stuck with i386-based processors today? Oh, that's right, their attachment to Microsoft.

Not that I want this to descend into a Linux flamefest, but there is a serious misconception about software not running on Linux. Most Linux software is as good as, if not better than, its Windows counterpart and it's "free as in freedom." Adobe needs to get with it, but other than that I defy you to name a useful piece of software you can't get to run on native Linux. Plus Linux emulates everyone's favorite platform at near-full speed. Check out Xen.
 
This must have been very difficult decision for Apple to make!

To die of a slow death(by staying with PPC) or
to commit suicide(by moving over to Intel). :(
 
vitaboy said:
The secret ingredient is that OS X for Intel will have the ability to run existing Windows apps.
Click to expand...

And then there will be no incentive for developers to make Mac apps. Remember OS/2? It could run Windows apps. What happened? Developers made Windows apps, which didn't take advantage of OS/2's unique features, so nobody bothered to use OS/2.
 
MacTruck said:
Ummm no. Apple doesn't make their own hardware now. Its all farmed out.
Click to expand...


They sure as hell design it and that's what I'm talking about. :rolleyes: Of course someone else is going to actually BUILD the hardware. The difference is Asus or ABIT or some other no name isn't going to just build a computer and slap OS X in the thing.
 
Anandtech article was about SERVERS

Please stop quoting the Anandtech article if we're discussing desktop systems. The article itself pointed out that MacOS X's performance is solidly competitive at workstation tasks, it just lags severely on server tasks. And that appears to be an OS issue, not a chip issue, so is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

It does point out the need for some kernel rework in the next major revision of the OS, but 10.4 and its APIs set up the groundwork for exactly that.
 
SiliconAddict said:
They sure as hell design it and that's what I'm talking about. :rolleyes: Of course someone else is going to actually BUILD the hardware.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, but Aopen didn't design that mini either, intel did. Sooo its the new mac mini. :)
 
What if... this is all being blown out of proportion?

Apple and Intel (and others) designed the ARM processor. Yes, the ARM processor that is in the Nintendo GameBoy and DS series of handheld doohickies. The ARM is a RISC-based processor, extremely low power, and is fairly common.

I seriously doubt that OS X will run on the x86 or the x86-64 platform. I'm just finding it hard to believe. The number of registers that the PowerPC has over the x86 is amazing, and is one reason why the Mac can beat the x86 in a number of tasks.

brap said:
One can only hope that, if he is to announce an x86-based Mac at WWDC, Steve has a kevlar vest underneath that black sweater.
Click to expand...
Steve would also need to hold the keynote via satelite from some 3rd world country so that he wouldn't be found, beaten, and murderously killed.
:rolleyes:

Sun Baked said:
Can I interest you in some genuine alien artifacts that I have morphed into rocks to hide them from the govt?

Only $100 and include a certificate of authenticity signed by Mork.
Click to expand...
You've got a PM! Are you local?
:p
 
Shoot, and I was looking forward to buying a Powerbook on Monday. If this is true, this will kill sales of their current line dead. I was looking forward to the hotness that is OS X and the freedom from Intel's DRM crapola, too.

I don't know what I'll do if this is true; I need a laptop for college, and I don't want to get a piece of hardware that is destined for the scrapheap ever quicker than most hardware and I don't want Intel to own my machine. :(
 
Bradley W said:
I voted positive. YEAH!

Come on... two years and the PowerMacs are still in the 2 GHz range... PowerBooks still in the 1 GHz range... Apple has no other option! I do feel bad for developers though....
Click to expand...

Why feel bad for developers?

If Apple whole-heartedly goes to Intel architecture and you've written in Objective-C and Cocoa and Mac OS X runs ontop of intel you've written to Cocoa, not PowerPC 970/G5.

If apple handles the translation of Altivec with a few libraries, whats to stop a recompile with the new intel flags/optimizations and off you go?

Not that I'd like to see this happen. I think Intel would be the wrong path because their Xeon DP chips are huge power monsters. AMD is at 95W with their dual core processors.

AMD also has a 35W line of chips that'd work great in laptops as well.
 
Bradley W said:
Well, Apple doesn't make their own hardware... who cares who makes it... unless it is slaves in China (which I hope it isn't)

"Designed by Apple in CA."
Click to expand...

That reminds me of when I went to NYC like two months ago. there was like an exhibit on chinese slavery next to the CBS building. It was kinda sad. But, on the other hand, if you had americans making this we'd be paying like triple. Just think: New iPod 80GB Photo: now available, only $999.

It's still sad though either way.
 
jstrickland said:
Why should Apple move away from the PowerPC when the major players in console gaming are shifting to the Power platform? Wouldn't it make sense to stay on Power to make it easier for console games to be ported to Mac? IBM and the Power architecture can't be that flawed if Microsoft AND Sony are putting Power based chips in their next consoles.
Click to expand...

I don't think you read the post you were replying to. Basically, IBM is going all-out for customers like Microsoft and Sony for their specialized PowerPC chips, but won't even bother to put out a LOW-POWER PowerPC chip for Apple that it can use in the PowerBook.

The reason why IBM is going all-out for MS and Sony is that both chips will sell by the tens of millions per year. IBM sells only 4-5 million CPUs to Apple each year, and that's better than it has been since, well, IBM started making PowerPC chips.

Take a look at the business. 50% of Mac sales are notebooks and increasing, yet IBM has NOTHING that Apple can use in a notebook. IBM furthermore is telling Apple that it isn't worth the investment to develop a notebook chip.

Where do you think Apple will be in January 2006 when the high-end PowerBook is running a 2.0 GHz G4 chip (maybe) with 3 hours of battery life while PC makers have dual-core Pentium notebooks that get 8 hours of battery? The future is the notebook business, not the desktop market.

This issue is much more serious than "IBM still can't get to 3.0 GHz after 2 years." It has to do with the fact that in 2006, Apple iBook and PowerBook segment will be majorly screwed up the wazoo because IBM has no mobile-friendly chip for Apple, and apparently doesn't care.
 
Frankly, while this has major implications for the business approaches of Apple, I am still going to buy whatever the smallest PowerBook is the afternoon following the Keynote on Monday. People will still need to buy computers between now and 2006-2007 or whenever this supposed transition will occur. And people who still want sleek designs will still turn to Apple. Many of them will never even know when a processor switch takes place, if it does in fact.

There's no way that I would suddenly cease to support a company I have admired for their tact and aggressive stances against the virus-infested Windows world.

Ok, that may sound exaggerated, but anyways. I'll have my credit card ready for the minutes after the Keynote.
 
Dude.... :eek: I went to read the article and FireFox just blew up on me. This is the first time this has ever happen with this browser since I moved to 1.0. Its a sign. Its the end!!! :eek:
 
for those that think g4/g5 are slow

I have an emac which is more than two years old, with a g4 1 gigahertz which far outperforms my almost brandnew amd emachines 2.17 ghz...we have g3s that are old (BW G3) that work great for lots of things and run mac os x...can't say that about any 6 year old pcs....
 
aldo said:
Slightly. But in reality the main problem porting is all the graphical elements - menus, buttons, dialog boxes etc. They all need _competely_ rewritten.
Click to expand...

This ain't websites and MSIE vs Gecko rendering...

Apple going x86 for the CPU wouldn't mean ANYTHING as far as compatibility goes... Unless Apple goes with a generic BIOS, generic chipset, etc, to be beige-box compatible. But if they do that, that means OS X can install on any beige box - hence killing Apple's own hardware market.

And about OS X vs Windows vs Linux, it's all different, even if the CPU is the same. Why do you think we don't see x86 Linux ports of x86 Windows games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back