DescentBB

Wow. the next years will be interesting to watch Apple.


If they cave, Apple will only have themselves to blame.

heh, there goes my Apple stock.

yeah
DIVE DIVE!
(*voot voot voot*)

Yep, there goes Apple. Using the IBM chips was their best part.

it entirely possible they're getting Intel just to fab their brand of powerpc that they use, rather than switching to x86.

Yeah, I don't see Apple switching to x86 ever.

Makes sense to me. Unfortunately, from what I've read Mac OSX will only run on Itanium so that your average Pentium user will still have to buy hardware from Apple if they wish to switch. On the other hand I'm guessing game/software developers will have a much easier port to OSX if it's on Intel architecture. For all it's claim to fame for multimedia application dominance, Apple will never get more market share without more games and cheaper hardware. The economy of scale provided by switching to Intel predictably will enable Macs to be priced far more competively to XP boxes. That said, Jobs is still a rat bastid (far worse than Gates, imo) so I doubt I'll switch to Tiger unless it runs on my existing P4 hardware.

There was an article on Anandtech about some of the latest mac OSes vs common x86 OSes as a server platform. Things got really ugly for OSX in the Apache and Mysql benchmarks.

Don't know what I think of this yet. The problem with IBM seemed to be that they were not exactly innovating with regard to chips for desktops. The G5 was not improving in speed as it should have, no efficient processor for the laptop line, etc.

the nicest thing for me is the following:
You won't be able to run OS X on regular hardware from walmart or something, but you will be able to run Windows on your Intel-based Mac. so this means goodbye for a second PC just for playing.

Yeah, that does seem to be good news.

you have an idea why the moved to Intel and not AMD? I thought the AMD chips were much faster nowadays. Or is there something in the pipeline that might shift this to the other way around?

bash wrote:For all it's claim to fame for multimedia application dominance, Apple will never get more market share without more games and cheaper hardware. The economy of scale provided by switching to Intel predictably will enable Macs to be priced far more competively to XP boxes.

I honestly doubt we'll see a price reduction simply because Macs will now have "Intel Inside". Macs have been running mostly PC components for years now yet they're still ridiculously overpriced for what they offer. An Intel CPU will most likely end up being yet another PC component Apple will put in a box, slap an apple logo onto and charge an exorbitant price for.

Pandora wrote:you have an idea why the moved to Intel and not AMD? I thought the AMD chips were much faster nowadays. Or is there something in the pipeline that might shift this to the other way around?

Two words: Brand Recognition.

I thought it was just the x86 archetecture and that they named Intel as a platform because of brand recognition and not because it will run exclusively on Intel only. I would really like to see a Mac OS running on a PC. THat is if it was good. With all of the layers it uses to operate Windows may still be better.

Top Wop wrote:I thought it was just the x86 archetecture and that they named Intel as a platform because of brand recognition and not because it will run exclusively on Intel only. I would really like to see a Mac OS running on a PC. THat is if it was good. With all of the layers it uses to operate Windows may still be better.

OS X's Darwin core is pretty much a derivative of FreeBSD, so there shouldn't be much of any issues with running on x86 hardware versus PPC hardware. I'm pretty sure that there was a distribution of x86 Darwin a long time ago, so it wouldn't be too difficult to get the layers on top running as well.

If you believe the rumors, Mac OS X for x86 already exists within Apple. Maybe not in full form, but at least as development versions that would just need to be polished up.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes. I would've preferred to see them stick with PPC, but going x86 gives them a larger base to work with, and lets them potentially harness existing equipment to nab extra software sales. Of course, then that gets them into the problem of all these other OSes: having to run on any random hardware and not the controlled systems that Apple designates and QAs.

Ferno wrote:http://www.overclockers.com/tips00790/

I think that guy's making a mistake predicting Jobs and Apple are just trying to be like all the other computer manufacturers and looking for an exit strategy. They are not known for looking at what others do and trying to run just ahead or even with them.
I read the new chip will have the security features that can protect copyrighted material ie; music and video. It might be that in order to get the rights to video downloads they have to provide some level of protection to the content providers. I'd expect Jobs and Apple to keep pushing the envelope with their don't just make it great...make it insanely great attitude.

A new box that can do it all in the home entertainment field, tied to major music, movie and television providers...Blockbuster and TiVo be damned...all the music and movies on demand all the time...

Something worthy of their trailblazing reputations.

OK putting DRM on the mobo to help artists get paid may be a laudible goal.

But the real reason they are putting DRM on the mobo has absolutely nothing to do with that. They want to make it impossible for you to run software that isnt approved software. Open source software will of course be excluded.

And since when did the big media co's give artists any sizeable share of the profits anyway?

Remember our little D3 video that Rake did such a great job putting together? The music was from the group Gravity Kills. From what I understand Gravity Kills broke up because they were screwed over by their record label. A$$holes all of them.

I'm not too worried about Apple: Mac fans really don't care what's inside their box. To them it's neither here nor there that a PowerPC or x86 is inside. The "Intel Inside" logo on the side of an Apple will make a few people shiver though - I'm sure!

For me, the best thing about this, is I am 100% convinced Mike Dell is currently in big negotiations with AMD.

Intel can't expect they can retain an Intel-Only Dell, while also wooing Apple without consequence.

Hector Ruiz might well turn out to be the biggest winner out of this whole thing.

Mike Dell will only deal with AMD if they can find the capitial to match Intel's production capacity and unit price - the reason why Apple went with Intel.

fliptw wrote:Mike Dell will only deal with AMD if they can find the capitial to match Intel's production capacity and unit price - the reason why Apple went with Intel.

Yup, AMD can't meet a million chip order like Intel can, thats why AMD doesn't get a Dell cookie.

On the other hand AMD is fully able to handle the orders that would come through Apple Computer, but without that production and Brand Recognition like Intel, they are still not interesting enough.

However, if Apple made it reletively easy for OSX to be able to run on an AMD chip it could still be good news for AMD.

OS X has been up and running on x86 for five years, as Steve Jobs confirmed on tuesday. Meaning that ideally it will run just as well on an AMD chip as on an Intel chip.

Nosfertau: if open source software were excluded from running on OS X/x86, then I guess Apple's own OpenDarwin would not be able to run. Or a vast majority of the BSD-based Open Source software on which OS X and its applications are reliant. The whole thing about OS X is that it's a closed-source presentation framework built on a tried-and-true open-source BSD kernel.

Mobius wrote:I'm not too worried about Apple: Mac fans really don't care what's inside their box. To them it's neither here nor there that a PowerPC or x86 is inside. ...

really?
http://www.overclockers.com/tips1133/

Will, that guy's made some pretty accurate calls in the past. have a read of the other articles and see if they match up with what happened.

DCrazy wrote:Nosfertau: if open source software were excluded from running on OS X/x86, then I guess Apple's own OpenDarwin would not be able to run. Or a vast majority of the BSD-based Open Source software on which OS X and its applications are reliant. The whole thing about OS X is that it's a closed-source presentation framework built on a tried-and-true open-source BSD kernel.

IANAL but....

Doesn't the BSD license just make it "free to use" and doesn't require you to distribute derivative work?

Linux is release under the GPL and does require that derivative work be released as source code.

OK, it is pretty obvious to me that for a DRM scheme to work, coders will obviously have to sign a nondisclosure agreement. If the above is true, then there is no problem adding functionality to BSD but Linux is out completely. <sarcasm mode=dripping>So ya, lets cut out the one system that guarantees freedom (as in speech) and completely stomp on the little guy as long as we say that some open source stuff can run.</sarcasm>

Oh and BTW, for the record, yes I am a paranoid and cynical bastard. I thank anyone ahead of time right now who calls me that.

When I said BSD-based, I didn't mean BSD-licensed, I meant compilable to BSD binaries. Guess I should have been a bit more clear, but my point still stands that OpenDarwin is open-sourced and parts are covered under GPL. Apple would be foolish to bite the hand that fed it OS X's success by eliminating open-source software.

Rather, they would likely restrict the use of OS X to their own hardware.

Whatever. I'm going to remain my cynical paranoid self about the whole situation until proved wrong, thank you very much.

Corporations are required to maximize their shareholders value if they are publicly owned, and if that means they have to stab open source in the back to do so then they will do so.

This now well known and infamous case has lead me to believe that corps will indeed stoop to anything if its in their own best interest.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/07/toysamrtt ... tement.htm

Floyd: you forget: 90% of Apple users won't even know what a CPU *IS* let alone care if it's P-PC or x86. Yes yes - they Apple weirdos know, but they are a tiny minority of Apple users in total.

This won't hurt them at all.

can it mobius.

The good thing about Apple computers always was the OS. Who cares about the hardware, as long as it is half-way decent. As most, if not all software today is written in some high level language (e.g. C++), it will not be all that hard to port the current Mac software, I believe.

Cocoa software (OS X) is written in Objective C, which is significantly different from C++. Not so much that porting is a huge problem, but enough that it takes a bit of work to do it right. But of course it's totally possible to compile C++ code for OS X.

If Apple started selling OS X for any computer whatsoever, their sales would skyrocket. But I have a feeling that their margin is higher on hardware than software.