Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:01 UTC
Editorial Today's confirmation that Apple is going x86 makes today a historic day in the industry. It may mean that Microsoft might see a few percent decline of their market share the next few years, but what about Linux? If Linux were to lose an equal amount of share it would alter its spread to the desktop, a spread that has been very positive so far.
Order by: Score:
this one is serious
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:05 UTC

Apple is a very serious player when it comes to desktop, Linux has no means to compete with it as for now...

Well Priced?
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:07 UTC

> With Apple able to provide well-priced x86 Macs AND giving the re-assurance to these users that can also run x86 Linux in there

Just because they're moving to x86 doesn't mean it'll be well priced. Expect markups because of the apple logo and OS.

It saddens me...
by Jed on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:13 UTC

... to see Apple going to x86, when PPC is a million times better. I hope they switch back... SOON. I was gonna purchase an Apple with Yellowdog Linux and Mac OS X on it, but not now. Screw that! I wanted to get away from lousy x86 CPUS.

OSX won't install on any PC
by Ryland on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:14 UTC

You'll notice that the developers kit for OSX X86 includes a computer. This means that the motherboard probably has apple's ROM on it to allow OSX to boot. This protection will probably be hacked inside of 2 weeks and anyone who wants will be able to download a torrent of OSX for X86. I don't think this will appeal to your typical Linux user.

So this means you'll still have to buy Apple Hardware to run OSX, and Apple hardware will still have a price premium over a build-it your self box or even a Dell. The Mac-Mini, in my opinion, should cost $299 if all you were buying was the hardware. Who's going to spend $500 just to run OSX when you can get Linux for free on a PC and save a couple hundred dollars?

Not me.

re: Pricing
by Anymouse on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:14 UTC

I believe Apple will still charge a premium price for their complete computing solution (hardware & software combination), and people will be willing to pay that premium price.

re: Well Priced?
by Aaron on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:15 UTC

Exactly what I was thinking. They price their hardware at a premium because Apple fans pay it. However, it will be easier to make price comparisons because the processors will be the same. Maybe that will put more pressure on them to lower prices.

Linux users would switch to MacOS?
by Ascay on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:15 UTC

I don't think that Linux users would switch to MacOS. I bought a Mac mini recently and I'm quite disappointed. Sure, for the normal user it's a very nice OS but not for the typical Linux geek. Too less configurable, not enough feature loaded (like KDE e.g.).

And I felt quite patronized by the OS. It's not really geek compatible.

by David Adams on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:16 UTC

Apple hardware will certainly cost more than no-name hardware. But I'm quite confident that Apple x86 hardware will be priced on-par with HP, Gateway, or Dell hardware that's comparably equipped. I don't know whether they'll try to beat Dell's online "specials" that will get you a P4 PC with a 19" LCD for less than $500 after rebate, but they'll at least be on par with Dell's posted prices. I'm sure there will be a little extra premium for industrial design, because Apple won't make a crap-box generic PC like a low-end Dell, so expect to pay an extra $50 there for the apple cachet. But more than that would be a big mistake.

Underdog Test
by . on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:17 UTC

I thought the underdog was the cheaper underhyped alternative. AMD can rightly be called an undergod with regards to Intel. It provides better performance, at a cheaper price and it is totally undehyped in the IT world.

Now OS X is probably going to be expensive, running of expensive hardware, that will be locked to Apple so that only Apple can control with, that will run only Apple products, and that won't probably perform as better as Linux on the x86-64.

I'm sorry, it doesn't pass the underdog test. Also, I think the Linux desktop is evolving at the fastest pace compared to OS X or Windows. By the time Apple begins to hype their x86 OS X platform in 2007, who knows how improved the Linux desktop experience will be.

Cheaper, faster, open, portable, totally customizable award goes to Linux. Hence, Linux will remain the underdog for a long while unless Apple can compete price wise with Linux, which of course they can't.

by Mark on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:18 UTC

I don't see many people spending roughly 30% more for a mac than a comparably equipped Dell. I sure as heck am not. I'd rather wait for a hack to bypass whatever it is that doesn't let OS X work on Dell's or HP's.

I think this move to Intel will turn out to be a HUGE blunder for Apple, espcially if they think they are still going to be a hardware company with a 30% markup.

- Mark

missing some points
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:19 UTC

Apple requires money and meeting dead lines with its OSX.

Linux is free (as in beer and speach).

Linux can run on a vast amount of hardware.

Apple has a closed set of hardware that is allowed for OSX to run on.

It's not so cut and dry.

I disagree.
by A linux user on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:20 UTC

I won't change my mind just because that Apple switch to X86. I think you really, really don't know the main reason to be a Linux's user.
It's sad to see you attacking Linux everytime and make your mind our thoughts.
And hey, I'm graphic designer not a computer engineer...

I think it will help it
by theorz on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:24 UTC

Personally it may effect it a bit in the short term but in the long term if apple manages to increase its market share it will help linux. The same goes the other way around more linux desktop market share is good for apple.

Having more people using non windows platforms forces developers to think interpolarity and that benifits all the small players. Though we like to focus on the little details, it is not the little details that is hurting linux it is the encumbered data. The same is true for apple. Most people I talk to still think that using a mac or linux box means they lose all of their data. Not only that they assume that they will not be able to exchange data with windows users. If apple/linux/anyone can get enough market share to change this perception/reality then it will benifit all of hte small players.

I disagree as well
by youknowmewell on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:28 UTC

Nothing has changed to the end user. They still will need to buy a new computer before they can use OSX. This has always been the barrier to more widespread acceptance.

This is NOT good news from Apple...
by poke on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:28 UTC

This switch is obviously a last resort thing. They didn't ditch IBM, IBM ditched them. IBM just couldn't see the financial sense in supporting such a small market player. For the next year they're going to be selling (PowerPC-based) computers that people are going to be very wary of buying. If their iPod business can't carry them they could take a huge hit financially. Anyone who thinks this switch is a positive business-wise is very naive. This is a very sad day indeed to be an Apple enthusiast.

As for the affect on Linux... Obviously it will be a negative for PPC Linux distros. I think we can be fairly certain that there isn't going to be a sudden surge in Mac sales because they're switching to x86 though; so other than that I don't see how it affects Linux at all.

RE: It saddens me...
by Metic on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:29 UTC

It saddens me to see Apple going to x86, when PPC is a million times better. I wanted to get away from lousy x86 CPUS.

Then just use Linux on you PPC box... Even Linus already switched to PPC... ;-D

Open your eyes!!
by x on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:29 UTC

OSX Will come as binary compatible for x86.
Apple says it will be locked to run only on their machines.

Read that again.
Ok. 1month before it runs on any x86 machine. That's it. People aren't stupid. It'll work on your AMD. All what's needed are chipset drivers and this part is Darwin, that is, opensource, so easily codable.
The other part will be "Apple protection".
Sure. No such protection *ever* resisted "us". So what ?
It'll be cracked. Everyone knows it.

Good luck Apple Computer.

Not really
by Adam on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:31 UTC

I doubt it.

I for one will not buy a Mac just because it runs on Intel; I am less likely to buy a Mac because it runs Intel as AMD processors currently are better designed and perform better for my money.

Re Pricing
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:33 UTC

I have heard that the IBM 970 was cheaper that Intel's xeon P4, so I doubt the price will come down.

by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:36 UTC

I see people
I see geeks
I see caravans
I see dead penguins eaten by leopards.

Don't Buy Linux on PPC Stock
by enloop on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:36 UTC

At best, I think this is a wash for desktop Linux. The thing that is standing in the way of more desktops running Linux is the Linux desktop. It's pretty good and getting better. (I've used it for almost 10 years.) But, no matter how polished DE and Gnome might be, that polish is not enough to lure large numbers of users from Windows to Linux. It is, however, sufficient to not repel users who adopt Linux for reasons other than the quality of its desktop.

For desktop Linux to attract users who could care less about the other virtues of Linux, the Linux desktop needs to delivet something neither Windows or OS X deliver. I don't know what that is. I do know that being "as good as" the competition means no one has a reason to abandon your competition.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Linux on the PPC looks dim.

(I write this on a Mac Mini I purchased last week for lightweight home use. It replaced a big honkin' AMD Linux box because it is small, quiet, and doesn't double as a spaceheater. So far I don't miss Linux. The virtues of choice and open source don't count for much when all the machine does is surfing and email.)

might be a good thing
by nick on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:39 UTC

it's a distinct possability that this could in fact help linux. For instance, ... it would be very easy to port Final Cut pro or any other osx app to linux..., this could open up the graphic design world to linux..... in addition to that, it will give the push to 3rd party hardware manufacturers to make feature heavy high quality drivers that we do not have now in the linux world (i understand the code is different... but would most likely would be very easy to port to linux)

What happens to all these Linux PPC articles on IBM's website
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:40 UTC

I used to enjoy them, especially the Altivec ones.

Openfirmware and Windows
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:42 UTC

If like everyone is saying Apple will use openfirmware rather than the traditional BIOS, in order to allow Mac OS X only to run on Apple hardware, then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS.

disagree - OSS won't be as affected
by tech_user on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:43 UTC

people are forgetting, Linux and OSS are effectively cost-free and in some cases libre-source.

windows neither not macos X will be able to compete with that.

apple will take customer largely from microsoft. don't underestimate the reasons people use linux/oss on the desktop:

* cheap or free
* extremely customisable - the people love to tinker
* controlled by them, the community
* and so som extent the benefits of free/open source licensing

by Pollo Loco on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:43 UTC

This is rediculous, your acting as if OSX will be able to run on any x86 when it wont, people will still have to buy Apple hardware to get OSX,this means buying that 299-399 Dell box or that 499 Apple box still! I think this will actually help Linux. Linux has two years to get as many addopters as it can, people arent going to spend money on a Apple PC when it wont be supported later on, they want somthing that will be useful later too, so this means they will buy a Windows box, but they are fed up with the viruses and what not, so what are they going to do? Go and buy the Apple computer or throw the OS their friends have been telling them about, its free, some are easy to use and for beginners, no viruses no spyware...
Common if anything this wont effect Linux at all, it will probably help it in the long run.

Net meaning is near zero
by BlahBlahBlah on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:43 UTC

what is the number of users who will adopt the mac due to its adoption of x86 based strictly on this? very few i suspect.

not to say people won't drop the mac due to frustration with yet another lane change, but speaking strictly in terms of new adoptions, this is likely a non-event.

to me the real story approaching 2010 is the irrelevance of the OS. what can i do on a mac that i can't do on windows? by 2010 we will be saying the same with linux, the functionality of the software i want will likely be available on all of the platforms i am remotely interested in, which gives support to free platforms over time.

even apart from that, virtualization will make single-OS adherents another anachronism. for desktop apps (those very few apps that are not already on every platform), it will be a simple matter of firing up vmware 2010 or bochs or wine or pearpc or whatever.

thats the kicker for me, steve has just made pearpc projects much more viable. will be interesting to see where they go. needless to say you will be able to run mac, windows, linux, PS3 code etc on your 2010 PC, likely all simultaneously.

@x & @Adam
by enloop on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:43 UTC

x: I'd guess Apple will put some necessary video goodies on a rom chip. Remember, the Mac OS ran only on 68000 in a market with several other 68000-based computers. They have a lot of experience at this. It won't be difficult. If anyone reverse engineers it, they will sue, and win.

Adam: Be rational. Why do your care what chip is in your machine unless your a developer. Bottom line: IBM can't or won't provide PPC chips that are fast enough and don't melt plastic.

by nick on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:44 UTC

jobs even said windows and linux will probably be ported to the apple box... so it must run on standard BIOS

RE Apple Shift
by Anand Pandey on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:44 UTC

I guess this is the biggest mistake Apple is making. Previously Apple fanboys had a separate architecture to brag about. What will they do now - " Hey look, I have a Pentium 4 system that is white in color with an apple on it" . Not only is apple vulnerable in x86 because Microsoft is there but also linux is getting stronger day by day.

osx is unix,...
by oliver oli on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:45 UTC

which is good for linux

it really doesn't matter if linux users switch to osx. software is more portable between linux and osx. the fewer windows users and the more osx user the better for linux

RE:Openfirmware and Windows
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:45 UTC

" then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS. "


Windows does not require BIOS for driver information.
Bill Gates knows better not to rely on BIOS to get driver information. And by the way it is Microsoft's dream to get rid of BIOS.

OSX will appear on whiteboxes
by BlahBlahBlah on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:48 UTC

>> Ok. 1month before it runs on any x86 machine.

agreed. if not less.

but at that point it almost a non-event. why do i really want to run OSX code on my linux box?

so i can get a better web browser? (nope)

so i can run my choice of word processor? (nope)

so i can use free software? (nope)

its not for games, thats for sure.

OSX will be running on whiteboxes for the same reason DVDs play on linux - because someone wanted to make it happen. but really i see little point in having this, unless you are a windows victim (even then, most of them are running antivirus etc which leaves them limping along)

by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:49 UTC

You still have to have Mac hardware to run MacOS even with an Intel chip (google for the whole story).

This really doesn't change anything unless the price of the package drops.

Linux will be just as strong a force tomorrow as it was today. Microsoft is safe in that you can't just run MacOS on any old Dell PC.

by BlahBlahBlah on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:51 UTC

agree that it is IBM that "dropped" apple.

the sales on the next gen game consoles are going to be UNREAL. these things are going to fly off the shelves in ways that make even mac addiction look weak.

the size of the next gen console market will be 100x the max size of the mac market. also the buyers are buying in bulk and with narrow specs, which makes it easier for IBM to scale production and roll in the $$$$.

by nick on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:52 UTC

businesses want both commercial and free (OSS) alternatives, currently linux offers all the free alternatives, and some commercial alternatives.... but the commercial alternatives will become more available as mac aps are ported to linux (which should not be hard to do.... and possably could even run under a wine like program. The difference between Wine for windows and Wine for OSX would be that..... 99% of osx aps would run bug free at native speeds.

by enloop on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:53 UTC

Look where Apple has been making its money the last few years. It's not on desktop PC's. Apple's future is in little mobile gizmos like the iPoc. IBM's chips won't let them do what they want to do. Jobs said as much. Corporations don't make these kind of drastic changes unless no other alternative is out there.

Why I'll be sticking with Linux on X86
by Donald Grayson on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:53 UTC

For one thing, I don't like the Apple 'experience'. Too much hand holding and oversimplification to the point of obfuscation of features.

Second is software. The switch to X86 will not suddenly allow the use of all that Windows software on the Mac, not to mention that they might end up loosing some of the developers who do code for PPC.

Then there's the upgrade price. Linux is essentially free whereas Apple charges full price for every point upgrade. Not to mention the hardware cost included since OSX only runs on Apple PCs.

KDE's Konqueror is a kick ass file manager.

by nick on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:54 UTC

businesses want both commercial and free (OSS) alternatives, currently linux offers all the free alternatives, and some commercial alternatives.... but the commercial alternatives will become more available as mac aps are ported to linux (which should not be hard to do.... and possably could even run under a wine like program. The difference between Wine for windows and Wine for OSX would be that..... 99% of osx aps would run bug free at native speeds.

my buck 25

Lets not forget
by Adurbe on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:54 UTC

One point that has not come up yet.....

WINE for OSX!!!!!

macs compatible with windows binarys?! DirectX games!?!

Linux users have been using it in their switch campagin for years (so did OS/2 come to think of it) Why buy new software when you switch when you can use what you got...

you know WINE will be ported at some point :-)

by nick on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:56 UTC

heh.. didn't i just mention wine lol

RE: Nick
by Adurbe on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:57 UTC

Damn not refreshing a page!

by jjt on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:58 UTC

I started using a Mac in 1986. I've been writing software for the Mac since 1996. Last year I switched to Linux on Althon64 and x86. I basically got tired of being let down by Apple and being forced to depend on them. As with any company, Apple does what is best for Apple. This may or may not be what is best for customers or developers. With Linux I'm not dependent on any one company or architecture or person. I find this freedom is worth more than anything Apple can offer. Freedom isn't as easily marketed to consumers, but it is undeniable and I hope for everyone's sake that it wins in the end. That said, I'm no free software zealot. I use whatever gets the job done and Mac OS X just wasn't cutting it.

Agree with 'blahblahblah'
by RickW on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:59 UTC

Yep IBM sees their future, and it isn't with Apple. Percentage of market share is what it's about if you're trying to make money. What I think Apple's real idea is - to switch to a processor that can prevent music copying using DRM at the hardware level. Look at the Pentium-D. Then look at Apple with iTunes and the iPod. 99 cents a tune adds up fast. They know where they're headed too.

boost for Linux market share
by Jay on Mon 6th Jun 2005 22:59 UTC

Apple switching to Intel might not be a good choice but it will be another huge boost for Linux' on the desktop market. Now it will be the easiest thing to run Linux on a Mac and most likely many people will do exactly that rather than being forced to use priprietory Apple binaries. Just like desktops x86 based Macs will likely make great Linux machines.

Give me a B R E A K please!!!!
by Linux Fanboy on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:01 UTC

This doesn't have anything to do with Linux.

All this theory and speculation and R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N is crazy.

If you're going to write such a long dissertation, please put some action and facts in the prose. It's boring and borish.

We will see and by the time we do, no one will remember this horrible post.

One good thing will come of this
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:01 UTC
Windows on Apple Machines
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:03 UTC

I doubt that Joe Sixpack would buy an Apple computer (x86) with MacOS X, thinking: "Well if all fails, I can still install Windows on it". Why? Because Joe Sixpack would probably don't know how to install Windows. Not to talk about dual boot settings. He would buy an Apple for the same reasons as of now and that won't change.

For the nerds running Linux as their main OS it would be more like MacOS X replacing the Windows partition. And don't forget that MacOS X is very much over hyped. Objective-C sucks. Developing under Linux/Unix is much more fun. More libraries and better languages.

by jefro on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:06 UTC

Apple would have been better off going to a common hardware reference platform. If one wanted to run MS on a PPC then it would run. If one wanted to run MacOS on an x86 that was chrp it would have run too.
Can't imagine how Apple is going to compete in the x86 market. Just no room for an Apple.

Linux & PPC
by Metic on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:06 UTC

I cannot see why IBM, a known Linux supporter, wouldn't want to develop PPC for Linux in the future too. Maybe PPC architecture will suffer from the Apple decision, but I don't see how Linux will suffer in any way?

What ever the major computer architectures will be in the future, Linux will probably run there too.

GNU/Linux (like BSDs) is also strongly driven by its community nature, a bit like arts or science. It is customizable, it is flexible, you can use it as a mini-sized embedded OS, or as a super computer OS, you can tweak it to your heart's content, make your own distro, it has plenty of alternative desktop environments and window managers, both commercial and non-commercial software and support etc.

I'm pretty sure that Linux (and to a smaller extent BSD) is the most popular OS among regular OSNews readers and other such computer geeks. It is easy to understand why.

Another example: It is often much funnier to go to a noisy bazaar, just for the joy of the colorful community experience, than to go to a yet another shiny new super market designed by the advertising and marketing experts. Something that the businessmen with profits usually as their ultimate goal don't often seem to get at all. Linux is not just about business and money.

wait a minute .....
by thomas on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:07 UTC

If IBM is expecting to make a ton off of PPCs b/c of game consoles, why is it not profitable to continue making them for apple??

RE: wait a minute .....
by Eugenia on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:08 UTC

Because these consoles are expected to sell more than 100 million EACH, while Apple was selling 5-6 million G5s per year. That was not enough to get IBM to get interested in fully catering Apple.

RE: Openfirmware and Windows
by Shawn on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:09 UTC

If like everyone is saying Apple will use openfirmware rather than the traditional BIOS, in order to allow Mac OS X only to run on Apple hardware, then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS.

Wrong. Apple has already stated today in an interview that they would do nothing to hinder Windows from running, though it would be officially unsupported to do so.

I sincerely doubt they would do this, it's just too financially valuable to entice people with other options.

wine baby..
by nick on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:10 UTC

ok... i'm goning to go a bit deeper into the OSX aps via wine in linux thing...... imagine this.... (and i could be wrong), but i see no reason why this would not be a huge success... the problems with wine now would really disappear..... osx directory structure, and just the general layout of how it all works at the core is so damn similar to linux.... i see no reason why OSX aps would not run flawlessly on a linux platform which would essentially turn all mac development into "indirect" linux development

by Jay Contonio on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:10 UTC

I can't believe how many times I have read "Now that macs will be intel based, linux will get tons of mac software because it'll be so easy to port!"


Linux apps are easy to port to the Mac.
Mac native apps, WILL NEVER port to linux.

It is impossible unless apple open sources everything which it won't and shouldn't. Why is linux such a problem? Because it's open source. There are too many variants, too much crap, too little UI sense. That's why linux won't succeed as a desktop os.

So I can buy a mac for lets say, 2 grand...a nice one with a nice intel proc in it. I bet I'll be able to triple boot Mac OS, Windows, and Ubuntu x86 all native. For a web developer, that is a wet dream.

since osx intel only for apple's pc
by Anonymous on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:11 UTC

i guess linux will survive, although popularity will be lower, especially if intel mac affordable.

but if someone, somehow make osx run intel everywhere; linux will be extinct.


ALL WRONG! It is all about DRM
by Udo Melis on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:18 UTC

Apple just wants to be able to use upcoming DIGITAL RESTRICTION MANAGEMENT stuff from Intel and those RIAA thugs. Maybe even TCPA ( or whatever it is called right now )

SO: In 2007 no new computer can really be owned.

Sad but true.

Porting and OpenFirmware
by Steve on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:20 UTC

If the new Intel-Macs use OpenFirmware (likely IMHO), getting Linux to run on them will be trivial. Linux already runs on OpenFirmware (LinuxPPC). OpenFirmware just loads linux kernel with OpenFirmware support compiled in and goes.

Getting windows to run on them will be a bit trickier. Likely you would get OpenFirmware to boot a mini-kernel, this mini-kernel would probe OpenFirmware to find out about the hardware (easy to do OpenFirmware is Open -- we have the specs), it would then convert this hardware info into standard PC-BIOS info and load the Windows kernel feeding the Windows kernel the info it requires.

The other choice would be for MS to modify the Windows kernel, which I find highly unlikely.

Flashing OpenFirmware to be a PC-BIOS -- impossible. Completely different chips (well at least very hard).

Getting MacOSX-Intel to run on regular PC's. A bit harder since PC-BIOS does not allow the flexibility of OpenFirmware to boot something else first then have it load a kernel, but it is possible. OpenFirmware can run machine language programs -- PC BIOSes cannot do things like this.

Now, why I figure this will not work, is because of the Intel DRM stuff built into the chip which will likely be used to cause the faked-out MacOSX on regular PCs to not work. Or better but, will be a requirement for MacOSX to run on real Intel-Mac PC's. Can this be hacked? Perhaps, but we don't know much about Intels DRM yet. We do know the whole purpose of it is to make hacking difficult though.

Re: ALL WRONG! It is all about DRM
by Jay Contonio on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:21 UTC

I doubt Apple will hop on the DRM bandwagon as much as other companies, but it will probably happen eventually. Don't blame the computer companies, blame the RIAA and MPAA.

This is where Linux will evolve. If computers have drm on the hardware, linux will blow up like nobody's business.

by Hool on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:23 UTC

You got a mac mini? Have you found the hard drive on that thing to be particularly slow? Because I tested one out at the Apple store, 1.42 Ghz one with 512MB ram and it was slower than molasses running uphill. Just pulling up the system information took awhile, which is a bummer because I was really strongly considering one?

Ibm Dropped Apple and Linux
by BlueCoder on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:29 UTC

IBM, by doing a half assed job, dropped Apple and PPC Linux.
Sure, they've got a game market this year, we'll see how long that lasts.

This really doesn't matter because I can go to IBM and buy my PPC Linux Laptop. Oh Yeah, I can't Because They Don't Sell Any.

OS X Apps on Linux -- will not work!!!!
by Steve on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:30 UTC

Running OS X Apps on Linux has nothing to do with the CPU.

The switch to Intel will not change this one bit.

OS X Apps required the Mac libraries for Quartz and Carbon. These are the GUI and UI stuff. Linux does not have this now and will not have this in the future. Linux uses X11 and things like Gnome or QT (KDE).

These libraries are also excluded from Darwin.

Note: there are some cross platform GUI toolkits like wx that run on windows/macosx/linux and porting apps written with this is trivial.

If all it took was the same CPU then linux/ppc would have tons of mac apps.

by Rayiner Hashem on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:34 UTC

I wanted to get away from lousy x86 CPUS.

Exactly what problems have x86 CPUs ever caused you? Did the cursed EBP register steal your first-born child or something? Did the BCD instructions conspire to cost you your job? Did segmentation run away with your wife?

Re: missing some points By Anonymous
by gwen on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:37 UTC

Linux is free (as in beer and speach).

Linux can run on a vast amount of hardware.

Apple has a closed set of hardware that is allowed for OSX to run on.

Linux may be free, but Linux has a lot of things to work out that the community is not directly addressing. If you want people to migrate to Linux, it needs to have a higher level of usability, a better GUI, and importantly a better installation method that can be used on all flavors of Linux. All of this has been addressed by OS X.

The problem with installation is that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to install software on GNU/Linux. You might argue that it is not the case with apt/yum and other repository installed programs. Sure it's easy to do install using those methods, but try it without a repository.

People don't want to wait for the next software to be available on repositories. They want it now. They want ease of of installing and uninstall software. No fiddling and wondering if everything is setup correctly in their Linux distro. The distros are very scared of an universal installer since they feel their distro won't be special enough without their repositories.

It is no wonder why PC-BSD is addressing this problem and why a college in Melbourne, Australia dumped Debian for OS X. And also it is not surprising why there are less commercial software developers crossing over to Linux. You might argue that Adobe has acrobat, but try letting a new or average user install that without a repository. It's a nightmare.

OS X provides the simplicity, usability, security, and functionality of an operating system that just WORKS!

When Apple comes out with the Intel based computers, you can bet I'll be buying one.

Linux can be better, but the GNU people are very stubborn. You can have it all, but refuse it because you feel your distro won't be special anymore.

More GUI toolkit info
by Steve on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:39 UTC

Windows uses the Win32 toolkit. (and maybe some others )

MacOS X uses Carbon and Quartz

Linux uses GTK+ (gnome), QT (KDE), Motif (old school CDE), or plain old X11 toolkit (very limited).

wx ( ) is a cross platform toolkit that runs on all three.

These are the libraries required for porting GUI apps. These are not changing when the CPU changes.

Now, non-gui apps on MacOS, will be trivial to port, but they already are. You just recompile them. Take almost any non-gui app from linux and you can run it on a mac (except the ones that require low level hardware access). This is what Fink and Darwinports and Mac-gentoo do. It works well.

by Adam on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:39 UTC

Good point, though AMD is also scheduled to include DRM.

However, Intel seems to actually have a chip scheduled for release.

Re:I think it will help it
by Uno Engborg on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:41 UTC

Personally it may effect it a bit in the short term but in the long term if apple manages to increase its market share it will help linux. The same goes the other way around more linux desktop market share is good for apple.

I agree. Especially since MacOS X only will work on Apple x86 boxes. We can assume thes new Intel Macs will be at least as expensive as x86 boxes with windows. If Apple succeds it is more likely to get customers from windows user that allready is willing to pay too much for software, than from Linunx users.

Besides, by the time these boxes hit the market,
the Linux user experience will be much better than today.
(not that it's bad now). Just like in MacOS-X, things will just work even in Linux.

If Apple get resonable success it will also spread
Unix awareness and knowledge. This will be good for Linux.

@ jay contonio
by KadyMae on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:45 UTC

I doubt Apple will hop on the DRM bandwagon as much as other companies, but it will probably happen eventually. Don't blame the computer companies, blame the RIAA and MPAA.

Well, in picking Intel, in my book Apple just jumped on the DRM bandwagon. And that, my friend, is why I'm mega pissed at Apple about this switch.

So, yes, in about 6 months, I'll grab one of the last dual 2.7 G5s and it will have a long life as my last "free" computer.


But on topic, yes, this means that Linux PPC will shrivel except for IBM's flavor, and whatever the hardcore port to their XBoxes. I don't think it will mean the death of Linux on the desktop as a whole, but it's now a case of evolve or die. Given what's going on in India and Latin America, I think Linux will evolve.

(This also means I'll also means that I'll want to grab a non DRM Pentium M laptop off of eBay some time soon for my adventures in Ubuntu.)

does this really mean anything?
by monkeyhead on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:49 UTC

they're still gonna have a proprietary platform that their OS will run on. they said that they won't let it run on non 'mac' hardware. i don't really see this being all that big of a deal simply for that fact.

now if they decided to let OS X run on your run of the mill whitebox... well, then it might be worth all this fuss.

by Adam on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:49 UTC

It is no wonder why PC-BSD is addressing this problem

You talk about compatibility in your post, yet your bring up a completely new operating system. An operating system diverges from FreeBSD's own package system, and created its own installer. Also it is not LSB compliant and is not GNU/Linux, which is the de-facto open-source UNIX-like operating system.

So PC-BSD's attempt at addressing the problem, according to you, is also contributing to the problem.

Average Joes do not use GNU/Linux or Mac OSX.

No BIOS in that Apple Box
by Maxwell309 on Mon 6th Jun 2005 23:51 UTC

Dollars to donuts Intel and Apple use EFI (extensible firmware interface) in the new Apple x86 boxen. EFI has proven itself in Itanium/Itanium2, EFI provides OpenFirmware functionality and Apple can rest safe that AMD and AMI have demonstrated EFI as well (no vendor lock in to intel).

WWDC 2005
by Pollo Loco on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:02 UTC

Just got done watching the WWDC 2005, and those of you that are freaking out that iBooks or Powerbooks wont be useful are worried for nothing, Xcode 2.1 is to the rescue and with one two clicks of a mouse software will be written for the PPC as well as the x86 on the same cd, and for those that buy the new Macs with x86 you will be able to run the old PPC software too! GO APPLE!

I'm switching!
by JD on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:02 UTC

I will certainly be ditching Linux for OSX at the first opportunity.

Currently I am using Linux mainly for the freedom, performance, security and configurability.

But all of these features are irrelevant because Mac OS is really pretty. Who cares about freedom from the most restrictive DRM schemes that Apple & Intel can dream up between them when you can just sit there and watch your windows do some kind of funny genie effect?

There are people that think like this and most of them read OSNews.

Here's a better question for this audience - what does OSX running on x86 mean for Beos? Surely the mighty Beos with all it's advantages (hardware support, massive software library, openness, huge user base and of course the filesystem is 64bit, which is vital for storing all those documents you create while using the apps) couldn't fade into irrelevancy?

not the linux geek - but his relatives
by guidod on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:05 UTC

Eugenia had some nice points in the article - but gone to the wrong conclusions. The OSX DE on-top-of a unixish system is really tempting the linux geeks but not for themselves - but as a good argument to push their relatives over to a unixish underpinning.

That will allow him to rebuild some of 'his' opensource tools easily and make it run in the cosy OSX desktop all around. Today it is a kind of hard for the supergeeks as the win32 environments are quite different - especially about customization of the internet access. The OSX happens to be somewhat in the middle of linux and windows administration tasks.

Perhaps some geeks will switch to OSX fulltime as well just to know the platform better in case a relative is calling in. But more likely it will let their neighbourhood to switch to OSX - those who are often dualbooting with win32 and linux (being mostly in win32) might come to dualboot win32 and OSX (being mostly OSX).

And just a note from the real life - I have seen many students at the university who were running linux on a dozen boxes at home and running around with a powerbook in classes. The Mac OSX will be very welcome by the linux geeks - as an add-on to their life allowing them to squeeze out some parts that were left to win32 platforms.

Missing the real issue
by Piers on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:10 UTC

Now that OS-X is going x86, Microsoft is going to wipe the floor with Apple. There is no way in hell Microsoft is going to allow Apple to survive in it's hardware. As for Linux, no change. You have Linux improving in leaps and bounds every 6 months, Windows Longhorn and now Apple OS-X. Everything comming to a head in 2007, may the best and most open OS system win.

Then again, I will most likely be able to run Haiku and blow the crap out of everything else OS wise by 2007. Ah what a good and pivitol year it's shaping up to be. Long live open standards and community participation in computing.

by a nun, he moos on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:10 UTC

Whether or not OSX is a "better desktop experience" is entirely subjective. It is a matter of opinion, not fact. Having used all three OSes (Windows, Linux, OSX), I can say that the OSX UI is actually my least favored one. So one cannot simply surmise that users will naturally gravitate towards OSX.

Regarding software installation: ordinary users don't install that many applications once they have the tools they need. Getting the "very latest build possible NOW" is not something you'll find much outside of geek circles. The vast majority of users are better served by a combination of repositories + graphical installers for commercial software, which is exactly what we have on Linux now.

Attacking the repository system seems to be the new warhorse of anti-Linux critics, but like so much FUD before it it is based on faulty assumptions. First, repositories usually only contain open-source software, so if one is to compare apples with apples (pun intended), one would first compare to see if, as a general rule, OSX or Windows versions of open-source software are available quicker than repository packages for Debian or Mandriva (as an example). If you can prove to me that the same open-source apps are generally available for OSX or Windows quicker, then your argument might have merit. Otherwise, it's apples and oranges.

There are some interesting alternatives for Linux, such as Autopackage, Klik and Zeroinstall (which resembles the OSX method, IIRC). In the meantime, there's nothing preventing ISVs from using GUI installers, such as the Loki installer, to install across a variety of distro. If Codeweavers can use it, I don't see why others couldn't!

it's all a matter of binary compatibility
by djame on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:14 UTC

It's sad to see that when Apple decide to swithc from one arch to another, their only aim is to make the switch easier for every one providing an emulator, an transition tool and whatever you want to use the apps you buy still work NOW when one guy in the glibc crew decide to change an api or change something in the format of some obscur lib the apps you paid for will never work again without weeks of tweaking :
think about making wordperfect 8 work on a recent distro, think about a loki game to work, think about Houdini, maya and whatever you buy for redhat X to work on redhat Y.

I know, I know, use the source and stuff but normal people have better to do to spent their life recompiling stuff....

not even mention the change in the way the kernel deals with binary only driver....


by sp29 on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:23 UTC

"Apple has a closed set of hardware that is allowed for OSX to run on.

It's not so cut and dry"

I'm sure Apple will have a few tricks up their sleeves to stop it from running on a wal-mart dell-sh pc.

won't affect Linux at all.
by Robocoastie on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:24 UTC

It won't effect Linux at all. OS X has the same closed concept that MSFT does which is why people that want to own and control their own computer rather than feel like a renter use *nix now and not Mac or MSFT.

All this change does is makes the CPU they use Intel. Nothing more. What they should have done of course is still thrown the green light for people to build their own clones and still sell their own hardware that way the power users would be satisfied and would develop use it as their platform for open source software but Apple's too greedy to do that.

So it'll have absolutely zero difference to Linux.

by The_Raven on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:29 UTC

"I for one will not buy a Mac just because it runs on Intel; I am less likely to buy a Mac because it runs Intel as AMD processors currently are better designed and perform better for my money."

A processor is only as good as the OS that runs on it, and nothing comes close to the elegance and power of OS X.

It doesn't mean anything
by Will on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:30 UTC

I didn't read the thread, all of the Apple threads are enormous today.


Intel Mac OS X will have the same impact on Linux as PPC Mac OS X has/had.

Given what we know: Apple will be shipping Intel based Macs. Apple is not selling Mac OS X for install on whitebox hardware. Apple will support the dual architecture systems for some time.

So, the goal is to basically force developers to support both platforms, to create tools, guidelines, and best practices to support that.

Apple is making the strategic decision to not just support Intel, but to support both. This means that developers need to be processor agnostic. Write to the higher level Apple platform, much like you would write to the higher level Java platform -- save that it's easier to cheat.

Then we add in that Apple isn't going to support white box hardware. If Apple doesn't have a video driver for their PPC port, they're not going to have one for the Intel port either. Certainly some enterprising individuals will hack and beat on OS X to try and lever it on to a PC motherboard, and will no doubt have some amount of succes. But this will undoubtedly be an underground project.

When looked at from this perspective, Intel Mac OS X will have as little impact on Linux. Will an OS X be "available" that runs on PCs? Yes, though it won't be a "slip Apple CD into slot and boot" kind of install, so it will have low penetration (if the bitching about Linux installers has any weight whatsoever).

So, for most Linux users, Intel Mac OS X will be as much of an option for them as PPC Mac OS X is for them now.

The one place that Intel Macs will affect Linux users, though, is with notebooks. I think it will be quite easy to get a Intel Mac Notebook with all of its hardware features (power, sleep, etc.) supported on Linux. With an OpenFirmware boot system.

I can easily see Intel Mac Notebooks becoming a notebook of choice for Linux users, but they'll just be running everday Linux on it.

drm implications?
by nick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:33 UTC

what implications does DRM really have on the market, how is it planned to be used and how can it be used down the road,.. i am not totally up on the hardware gossip lol

any info would be helpful

Ignorance runs rampant here at OSNews
by The_Raven on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:34 UTC

"For one thing, I don't like the Apple 'experience'. Too much hand holding and oversimplification to the point of obfuscation of features.

Second is software. The switch to X86 will not suddenly allow the use of all that Windows software on the Mac, not to mention that they might end up loosing some of the developers who do code for PPC."

You make these sound like a bad thing. Besides, who the f**k needs MS crapware?

Tell me again, who uses the PPC besides Apple in desktop and notebook systems? Those coders have to go somewhere.

Many assumptions and little attempt to make arguments that follow
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:38 UTC

> Usually there are two players rather than three: the
> favorite and the underdog. The "third" person does not
> matter as much. With Apple moving to x86 it can quickly
> become the underdog of the platform and put Linux in third
> (outsider) place.

What sort of argument device is this supposed to be? "Usually there are three players instead of four: the winner, the loser, and the loser no one likes. The 'fourth' person does not matter as much. With Apple moving to the x86 it can quickly become the loser that no one likes, and put Linux into the loser category."

Notice that I've just made a lot of stuff up.

> Apple mentioned that Mac OS X will require Apple PCs, but
> you will be able to run Linux/Windows on them just fine.

They said that they wouldn't do anything to prevent someone from running Windows, they didn't say that it would be possible or even simple.

> This is a huge advantage for Apple rather than for Linux
> or Windows.

Which is all the more reason for Microsoft to not officially port Windows to the Mac/x86. It's fairly indifferent to "Linux." If anything it would be a benefit to Mac users with a trivial ancillary benefit to Apple as a result of customers being able to reuse their expensive paperweight should they decide that OS X looked better at the Apple store than it worked on their desk.

> It brings over these last few potential customers who also
> needed Windows but didn't want two computers or commercial
> emulation.

A dual-boot strategy is obnoxious and would see little in the form of interest from businesses. A VMWare-like virtualization bundled with OS X/x86 would do more for Apple than not going out of their way to prevent Windows from working on Mac/x86.

> Apple can sell more Apple PCs when the customer knows that
> this is a normal x86 that can also run native Windows,
> because it allows the customer to think that "oh, well, if
> I don't like OSX, I can always run Windows".

Windows will no better run on Mac/x86 than OS X will run on a generic x86 machine, unless Microsoft is willing to offer support for the platform itself. It has little reason to do so, especially since it might lead to encouraging people to "switch." So individuals will probably "hack" Windows to run on the Mac/x86, but it would be even less appealing of a solution than "hacking" OS X/x86 to run on a generic x86, because if running Windows is really your thing you can get a better deal elsewhere.

> With Mac OS X's great desktop experience, why would anyone
> use X11 and its DEs?

For the same reasons that they use Linux now instead of Windows. There are of course a lot of different religious reasons as well as various forms of elitism and novelty. Then there's the obvious ability to not have to run Windows and not be forced to use the limited hardware options of the Mac/x86.

> They are known to be rather "disconnected" from the
> underpinnings of the underlying OS, making the desktop
> Linux experience worse that it should be.

Should be, or could be? Sure, if you drop support for BSD, commercial Unix, and Windows as targets for your free software, and maybe even "generic linux" instead opting for a tightly-coupled customized linux experience with your software you might create something less "disconnected," but that's obviously no one's goal. If that changes, there's an enormous amount of software available for them to customized and make as incompatible and tightly-coupled as they want. Indeed, Linspire could--for example--do just that. They don't need to care if their programs work on Solaris or Windows. They can dictate that KDE's VFS via KIOSlaves is superfluous and dictate that userland filesystem drivers are the job of the kernel. They can standardize on the Linux proc filesystem for dealing with hardware and create all manner of "control panel" applets for interacting with it. They can dictate that there is One True Firewall, and create a little GUI for it. Let there only be ALSA. There'll be only one GL-X server and all drivers will be in the kernel where they belong. Let's dispose of these sound servers. We can throw things out and push things into our custom kernel and dictate that there is only Lindows.

But of course there isn't only Lindows and developers aren't going to flock to Linspire because it creates this Lindows, and companies like Sun aren't going to fund accessibility development for this Lindows because it doesn't work on Solaris. So all of these custom applications that we've hammered this code into aren't going to see modifications from all of the other developers working on the "disconnected" versions. And maybe you don't care about this and maybe you do.

But "should" that be the way "things" are? No one really seems to think so that's actually willing to write the software.

> and making a commitment to PPC Linux means making a
> commitment to a niche hardware platform.

So will Linux Mac/x86. The port will likely just be an easier one to maintain, and things like Java will be easier to have on it.

> x86 Macs will run the mainstream versions of Linux without
> modification

Says who?

> and once Linux users start making the switch to OSX, their
> favorite Linux apps will become increasingly more
> available on OSX

They already are. Take a look at Fink. Do you know why they're available? Because they're "disconnected" from Linux. Just like a lot of them are available for Windows for the same reason.

You also haven't bothered to establish that Linux users have any reason to migrate to the Mac/x86.

> With the release of the x86 Apple hardware, there will
> probably be a jump in Linux-on-Apple use a first, because
> more than a few Linux users are likely to buy Powerbooks,

Since these Powerbooks will just be Pentium-M laptops, whether they'll buy them will basically depend on whether or not they want to run OS X without a hassle. They could just as well buy a much-more durable Thinkpad or a much more sleek Vaio unless OS X is already something that they want, and they're averse to "hacking" it run on their choice of laptop. These being Linux users, that's not exactly a given.

> With Apple able to provide well-priced x86 Macs AND giving
> the re-assurance to these users that can also run x86
> Linux there

Apple has given absolutely no indication that their pricing model is going to change as a result of them moving to the x86. They've also given no reassurance that Linux will run on their platform, only that they are not going to make any effort to actively prevent support.

The unaddressed issue...
by Jonathan Thompson on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:40 UTC

Is that as much as Apple wants to sell the whole experience, it's possible that Apple may in fact come out ahead, perhaps while helping Microsoft, by creating an Intel-based platform that can also boot Windows. While Apple may not keep as many copies of OS X running on the IntelMacs, it stands a good chance of doing so, even with Windows also installed on the system. What's important to remember is that even above and beyond Apple selling a total experience, is that most of what they sell is hardware. Thus, they may actually come out ahead, even if people install Windows on the IntelMacs, because they will at least have sold Mac hardware to someone that might not otherwise have bought a Mac, due to not running Windows.

And to Steve who said Microsoft wouldn't modify the kernel of Windows to run on an IntelMac, it appears there's a limited understanding of the NT system design: Windows NT from version 3.1 to XP (all versions of NT, even if a different name) have at a very low level something called HAL, for Hardware Abstraction Layer. This makes it fairly trivial for Microsoft to port to a different platform, like they have in the past. It's useful to remember that NT has had versions for the Dec Alpha, the PPC, as well as the MIPS (3000 or 4000 platform, I can't remember) in the past, as well as always being available for the Intel IBM PC Compatible architecture.

I would argue that Microsoft would actually WANT to provide Windows for the new IntelMac platform, because Apple has a tendency to provide a more controlled system architecture than the wild implementations of PC compatible systems in terms of such things as handling of interrupts, DMA, sound hardware, etc. and if a million dedicated Mac users have the option of also running Windows on their IntelMacs, that's serious enough money for them to make the effort. After all, Microsoft doesn't need some of the fancier details of a system ROM to make Windows run, though it'd be nice, perhaps. That would provide Apple with a hardware sale and an automatic sale of the Complete Apple Experience along with OSX, while also allowing Microsoft the option of selling Windows and the associated software. If the IntelMac hardware is very well behaved and always has great drivers, developing for it as a developer (Microsoft creating a version of Windows to run on it) is so much easier, and the user benefits from a predictable system as well. If people know they can run Windows on a nice IntelMac and also try out the unfamiliar-to-them-but-reputedly-nice-Mac OSX, Apple may win more mindshare as well over a longer period of time. Apple is very much aware that software drives hardware sales, and this could benefit them greatly as well.

Now, will that actually happen? Time will tell!

A few thoughts
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:47 UTC

So we are going to have PCs which are able to run virtually every OS on earth. This can only be good. If after all I am going to like OSX more than linux, what does it matter?
For me operating systems are not a religion. Even M$ would be higher in my esteem if they had made a Win 2003 Workstation.

But it is very unlikely that it is ever going to happen (me liking OSX more than linux or BSD): I love them because they are free in both meanings of the word and I can make what I want of them.

Finally, what is going to happen to PPC Macs in the next few months? Nobody with an ounce of common sense is going to buy them and they'll see a dreadful drop in demand/price.
Time to buy one, maybe?

Re: A few thoughts
by Will on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:56 UTC

Finally, what is going to happen to PPC Macs in the next few months? Nobody with an ounce of common sense is going to buy them and they'll see a dreadful drop in demand/price.

It really depends on how well the perception of the Intel shift it portrayed. If, in fact, upgrading from the G5 based Mac to a P4 based Mac will be little different than from a G4 to a G5 (i.e. your software and peripherals will still work, and they'll work faster to boot), then there's really no reason to wait for the Intel machines. Buy a G5 now, and then replace it in two years if you feel like it.

I bet that new software from major developers will still be native on both PPC and Intel in 5 years. If your machine has the performance to run it (and I don't see why it won't), you'll be able to buy the latest and greatest 2010 versions of Photoshop and Final Cut Pro and run it on your Dual G5 Power Mac.

cheap macs WOOO HOOOO
by nick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 00:59 UTC

if i can get a dual cpu power mac g5 2.0 or greater for under $1300, i'll moste definitly snag one..... maybe 2 or 3

by nick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:02 UTC

most... not moste lol

what if apple *wants* the mac to run on generic x86?
by junkit786 on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:07 UTC

Would a hack that lets you run OS X on a Dell or Packard Bell etc really be that bad for Apple? Just like there are people who won't pay for Windows but are very happy to download it - MS knows this, they don't really care, because making it hard to pirate would simply drive those people away form Windows completely.

The average user being able to have OS X installed may be very pleasantly surprised and keep it as their primary OS, it's market exposure for Apple, next time these people are asked by a family/friend what PC they should get.. they may suggest a Mac.

It was planned
by Concrete Nomad on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:09 UTC

There can be only one!!

Look Jobs is smart enough to realize that IT, programmers, and end users don't want to be locked into one system. They just want to sit down at a box and go.

The same thing is happening in language. I speak two languages and have a rudimentary understanding of two others, but I prefer to speak English (not because it is better, but because a large portion of the population understands it).

The UNIX variant known as *nix willbe the ultimate winner. Jobs and Apple have chosen their side. OS X is basically a pretty version of Free BSD.

by sen on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:12 UTC

A hungarian portal made a small interview with Markus Weingartner, the technical marketing manager of the european divison of Intel. He told them that this DRM rumor was a misconception (PC World -,aid,121027,00.asp ) because of Graham Tucker (Intel, Australia).
Mr. Weingartner continued: It's about DTCP-IP (Digital Transmission Content Protection over IP). DTCP-IP is a network protocol designed for digital broadcasting.
It will allow the clients to play this special media.
DTCP-IP is supported by Hitachi, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba as well. There were several digital media adapters supporting this technology.
The DTCP-IP technology is supported by "software ecosystem built on this platform" not by the hardware (Pentium D or the i945 chipset).


original article: (hungarian)

@ Eugenia (IP:
by hammer on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:13 UTC

Note that it took Sony to reach ~80 million PS2 since it's launch. the XBOX is about half of PS2 user base while GC running third in terms of user base. At the same time, X86 rocketed to +195 million units per year(2004)(laptop leading the unit sales growth).

Geeks do the geek thing, non-geeks will do the other
by BeastOfBurden on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:14 UTC

I'm a die hard Linux user who appreciates Macs and tolerates Windows, but this news, while a blow to IBM and a boost to Intel, doesn't really mean much.

Windows users now have two reasons to consider a Mac:

1) Less Viruses
2) They can still run Windows.

The obstacles to this being compelling are as follows:

1) Learning OS X's interface (Where's the "Start" button?)
2) Apps that don't migrate to OS X (the list is getting shorter all the time, but this is a big sticking point)
3) Price (both the hardware itself and the cost of upgrading to new versions of OSX - at least Windows doesn't charge for SP1 or SP2).
4) Users are stil locked in to a proprietary OS vendor (and now hardware as well).

Schools that used to use Macs and switched to PCs will like this development, because they now have a plausible upgrade path back to Macs.

Linux will remain a niche player, because it will only appeal to the small population of users that don't want to be tied down to a particular vendor or hardware platform, and that have the technical expertise to install and maintain it themselves.

Microsoft's Evil Plan ...
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:22 UTC

1. Microsoft can't figure out how to effectively fight Linux and other OSS/Free software because there is no one company to attack and destroy.

2. Apple moves to X86 hardware.

3. OS X is hacked to run on commodity hardware.

4. Drivers for various bits of hardware are contributed by the OSS crowd (lifted from Linux & the *BSDs). A huge community begins to grow around OS X, siphoning away Linux' supporters and coders.

5. OS X becomes the new alternative/geek OS of choice -- that is, the new Linux. Apple officially pretends to condemn the underground spread of OS X, as Microsoft now pretends to condemn the warezing of Windows (for home use), but does nothing substantive to stop it.

6. Those who don't want to use Windows but could never get comfortable with Linux because of lack of commercial app support, ease of use, etc., now have a viable non-Windows OS with plenty of apps: MS Office, all the Adobe-Macromedia stuff, etc.

7. Desktop Linux flounders and eventually joins BeOS in the software graveyard. Linux supporters post often at OSNews, whining about how desktop Linux never got a fair shake and how, one day, it'll be relevant again. Really. One day ... In the meantime, back in the real world, Red Hat and Novell focus entirely on delivering server apps and highly specialized desktop and point-of-sale operations. The lesser distros begin to wither and die.

8. The growing Linux threat to Microsoft's desktop monopoly is soon gone. In its place is Apple, a single company, a corporate entity just like Microsoft.

9. Facing a real, gathering threat and shrinking desktop market share, Microsoft is able to finally take the gloves off now that it finds itself free from the dreaded "monopoly" label.

10. Microsoft, facing its own doom, systematically obliterates Apple and there's nothing anyone can do about it except admire their style and gnash their teeth in frustration.

11. PROFIT!!

nitch players
by nick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:27 UTC

hehe... I find this so ironic.... hard core linux users tend to push push push their linux os's... however.... guaranteed..... if it ever did go mainstream... most of us would jump ship to bsd or some other free os.... heh

I love linux, it is all I use at home on my 3 computers (and freebsd on one to lol)

I just think it's funny.... I know I would probably start complaining about linux and how it sucked and all that if everyone and their mom was using it... linux being only a nitch os is part of what makes it so secure and functional, some things are better left as a nitch... honestly, I think this is mac's fate to.. linux and mac will have it's nitch markets.. at least as it stands now, who knows what will happen down the road.

RE: Microsoft's Evil Plan ...
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:32 UTC

Very good fiction, but nothing else ;)

it will help and hurt linux; yes
by MarkTime on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:33 UTC

apple will immediately be the 800lb gorilla on the block, and yes, it is the unix derivative that can run linux binaries (a.l.a. freebsd) soon.

And its the linux-y like os that can also run microsoft office, adobe photoshop, apple's ilife, final cut pro, the macromedia stuff, and the games....

and so of course, its a better linux than linux.

but it won't be for every linux user, naturally, because they are trying to run a free os on underpowered hardware, and boot their old atari and amiga into something this has nothing to do with that sort of muckity muck, but you can expect as a desktop replacement for linux, it will be great.

I am typing this from a desktop linux...I would love to replace it with mac os x...I've also been a mac user at times too...although I just sold my ibook and this announcement has left me with some pause as to what computer to buy now....

I hate to say it, but they are dead wrong...even a fanboy like me, thinks about waiting now. they better start thinking about 'deep discounts'

What About the BIG Picture?
by Stevo on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:35 UTC

Don't forget that Sony, Toshiba and IBM (STI) teamed up a couple years ago to design & build the processor/architecture of the future...

Shortly after that Microsoft & IBM announced a technology collaboration...

Then, just a few months ago STI unveiled the long-awaited Cell microprocessor...(the future is here)

...and Finally, just a few days ago STI announced that they will open the specifications of the Cell processor to the world:

Excuse me for a second while I read between the lines......///IBM dumped Apple, collaborated with Microsoft, and plans to release the most powerful PC platform ever known to mankind///......///Apple plans propriatorize <--(new word) to the Intel platform/// ...not good for Apple.

Even if Microsoft develops an OS to run on Cell Processor technology, it will probably be released a few years after Longhorn, lol.

Additionally, Linux WILL adapt to the new Cell Processor which will attract many power users to Linux...

I think Linux has a VERY bright future, as for Intel, AMD, and Apple, I already sold my stock, hehehe.

(Testing Linux Since 1998)

1% of 3%
by Ani on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:39 UTC

1% of 3% is 0.03% and not 0.33%

Opportunity for Linux
by Kai on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:40 UTC

Ok, although I don't want to use Linux anymore (I'm a OSX convert), I have to say that this is a great opportunity for Linux on the Desktop.

Soon we will have an x86 platform with _very_ defined hardware. Please, please, please just make a version of Linux (GNU/Linux, whatever) that runs perfectly on all Intel Mac platforms (no configuration needed, no tweaking, etc). You'll soon have very defined hardware to support on the Linux Apple x86 boxes, so please try to get great support for those very specific machines.

Don't worry, keep working on the "generic x86 boxes", but their desktop support will never really get much better than it is right now due to the diversity.

by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:48 UTC

You got only 2 things wrong, 11 should be "cha-ching!!". oh, about the 2nd thing, well do you seriously think that an DRM loving company like Apple would not utilise DRM to make sure that OS/X only runs on their boxes? I can see now. Some poor soul hacks OS X and get it to run on beige box. People start using hacked OS X unaware that it is still calling home. Apple goon squad starts handing out pieces of paying paper (subpeonas for you warez dOOds) to Mac suxxors. LOL

what about terrasoft
by broken_symlink on Tue 7th Jun 2005 01:56 UTC

isn't apple switching to intel a death sentence for terrasoft/yellowdog?

Linux on Cell
by butters on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:06 UTC

Microsoft won't do the work to port Windows Server to POWER. Why? Because AIX rules the POWER market and there's nothing MS can do to catch up at this point. But... MS will support Cell, since there will be a huge gaming market attached to a Cell-based PC. Problem: MS will be very late in the Cell game, and Linux will be there first. Proprietary software would need to be recompiled at best, and most likely would require something closer to a complete rewrite. Open source compilers would have to be first, Intel never learned and keeps ICC closed to this day.

Intel and Apple are on a sinking ship, soon to be consumed by IBM and Microsoft. Linux will feast and get fat on the corpses left behind. How many years are really left for the rich client anyway? In a market where most of the new computing devices are ultraportable, hardware must be special-purpose and software must versatile. Linux was born on the rich client but was designed to thrive on anything. Sadly, my cellphone won't ever have a 450W PSU, so I doubt the Pentium D is applicable.

x86 Apple
by Tim on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:14 UTC

They still don’t get it. Apple just doesn’t get it.
This is just one less reason to buy a Mac.
For more than a decade I’ve heard how MACS ARE THE BEST because of technology they use: NuBUS, SCSI, Power PC.
Then I see them abandon it.
It took Apple eight or ten years to fully update their operating system to run on Power PC.
How many dollars have you spent on upgrades from 7.5 to 8.0 to 9.2, X?
Each time the hyperbole about THE BEST operating system touted “MORE NATIVE CODE.”
Installing one upgrade after another, finding out along the way that many applications no longer work, there was still enough code emulation going on under the hood to slow things down.
Now they are going want me to believe that it is a trivial matter to switch to a different microprocessor. They are going to want me to believe that my world will be better if I fatten Steve Job’s wallet.
Their sales pitch will be designed to make me forget the fact that Windows has the market share Apple thinks they deserve is because IBM lost control of the proprietary hardware paradigm twenty some years ago.
Windows and Linux both run on almost any combination of hardware components that a 14 year-old can jam together and power up; that is the strength they have in the marketplace.
But Apple stubbornly clings to their belief that by claiming to be THE BEST, and repeating it like a mantra, there will be enough new converts to give their little religion some significance.

RE: Opportunity for Linux
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:17 UTC

Very good point indeed.

RE: what about terrasoft
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:19 UTC

"isn't apple switching to intel a death sentence for terrasoft/yellowdog?"

It is linux, do you remember? It can be easily recompiled.

RE: Underdog Test
by Rohan Beckles on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:21 UTC

I don't think that x86 is a bad choice given the circumstances. It's not a good business idea to be dependent on one company's (relatively niche-level) CPU _and_ your own niche-level OS for your workstations.

Given the circumstances, apart from the x86 camp, the only alternative would have been the UltraSPARC IV. SPARC is an open CPU blueprint, so different fabs could produce the chips for Apple, as they do for Sun. A good "underdog" candidate.

I don't think that Intel was a wise choice though. Intel have a bad habit of changing their CPU form factors, a bit too often for my liking. I would have picked AMD instead - not only is their CPU architecture fairly stable, not only do they absolutely cane Intel chips, they also have "underdog" kudos.

If however, Apple do decide to switch to AMD afterwards, it wouldn't actually be that bad. Unlike seasoned PC users, Apple bods don't tend to open up their machines too often.

Apple remind me of a small version of SGI - hanging on for dear death as best they can...:-(

Yellowdog may need to rethink their business strategy
by Paul on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:22 UTC

Right now I'm wondering what their management is thinking?

Open your eyes!!
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:24 UTC

OSX Will come as binary compatible for x86.
Apple says it will be locked to run only on their machines.

Read that again.
Ok. 1month before it runs on any x86 machine. That's it. People aren't stupid. It'll work on your AMD. All what's needed are chipset drivers and this part is Darwin, that is, opensource, so easily codable.
The other part will be "Apple protection".
Sure. No such protection *ever* resisted "us". So what ?
It'll be cracked. Everyone knows it.

Good luck Apple Computer.


1 ) Apple doesn't have to release the source code.
2 ) Isn't their source code released under someother license?

v Linux is dead
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 02:34 UTC
re: Linux is dead
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:03 UTC

Bow down biatches!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

Not too likely. MS hasn't done it, Apple won't do it either. They cater to very different user markets. Also keep in mind that server space will still have a foothold with Linux / BSD. Apple has been trying to get into the server market but they don't have the credibility.

Suck it up junior, ya got a ways to go.

by a nun, he moos on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:03 UTC

A very astute observation. I have only one correction: Linux runs on the Cell now. In fact, you can bet that Linux was closely involved with the development of the Cell. We know how Linux is important to IBM, but Sony is also a Linux-friendly company: they released a Linux PS2 kit, and have commercialized consumer and professional products based on embedded Linux as well.

Of course Cell-based workstations won't be here until next year at the latest, but still it sounds very promising - especially for 3D and multimedia uses. This could be Linux's best chance at the worksation market (and, by extension, the desktop).

by John Blink on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:04 UTC

I have been thinking how will this affect the Yellowdog business. They are an Apple "value added reseller". A lot of their business centers around PPC.

Did jobs say they will stop selling PPC hardware, after the transition?

Will yellowdog just become another rebranded redhat x86 product for HPC?

Will they go out of business eventually?

RE: Linux on Cell
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:08 UTC


I agree with you 100 percent except for the comment "Problem: MS will be very late in the Cell game, and Linux will be there first."

The fact is that Linux is already there first. There are several articles about the cell technology, Linux and IBM, all of which state that the Linux operating system is already running on cell.

Apple is moving more and more toward a locked down proprietary consumer device for selling music/music player and now movies/movies player (with the help of built in DRM on Intel chips that will be in the next Apple hardware). The desktop PC market is history at Apple. The focus is on supplying the living room/portable consumer devices.

Well i for one..
by Kirtis Bakalarczyk on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:14 UTC

Well i for one won't be "switching" away from Linux. I quoted that because i already have a Mac (with 10.3) and a PC. I like my iBook and I like OS X but I have a hard time believing people who claim that OS X is leaps and bounds above (for example) Ubuntu -- it really isn't. There's some nice little touches in OS X, but nothing that can't be done in Linux too.

The Apple cheerleaders like to assume that OS X will always be "ahead" of Linux, but i don't think there's a lot of room for improvement in OS X--it's about as good as the current desktop metaphor is going to get.

I think in the future we will look back on this as the time when open source development really started to come into it's own. We've got a wealth of tools, libraries and languages on which to build the next generation of open source apps. The pinnacle of desktop operating systems as they are right now is not very far away, and what will developers do once we reach this point? Well, then our minds are free to wander.. ;)

In summary, don't count Linux out of the race now; we're just getting warmed up.

Apple, DRM, and Linux
by jjbianchine on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:14 UTC

Understand this: Apple NEEDS to have hardware DRM succeed for this transition to work, period. Apple is a hardware manufacturer that maintains an OS for its hardware--not anybody else's. Steve is betting the company on DRM to force OS X on Intel to run only on Apple hardware. Apple can survive, but not solely on OS X sales.

Linux on the desktop is going nowhere different because of this announcement. Desktop adoption--still a race being run--may slow a bit as prospective users glance at the shiny new things bearing Apple logos. I expect that once the strings attached to these new things are discovered, the sort of brand loyalty that has steeled Apple through two decades will rapidly deteriorate.

Loyal people do NOT like being betrayed, and despite what can be argued as the inevitability of this platform transition, it will come off as betrayal. By staying free as in freedom, Linux will provide safe haven for these exiles.

Apple is Dead
by Triple H on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:20 UTC

If anything, Apple is dead. Who is going to move to a platform that has a history of breaking backwards compatibility every 7-10 years and is more expensive? Basically, you can't trust Apple.

I wonder what the people who spent all that money over the years on Apple G4's and G5's are thinking now that their platform is heading fast towards being obsolete. In the near future, their choice will be to either run your current apps on Rosetta, the new Classic Environment of 2006-07, or ditch it for a more stable, cheaper, faster, more available Win or Lin platform--both of which probably have or will have more native software, and is still running a Pentium or equivalent anyway.

A smart person or organization would just buy/build AMD boxes and run whatever they want on it. I'm glad I never wasted money on a G5 or something of the like--should I need to take advantage of the next generation of computing power, all I have to do is swap out the motherboard/CPU on my desktop for a 64-bit combo. I guess a person with a G5 will have to store it away in the closet next to their Amiga 500.

That i say...
by anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:29 UTC

1.- the moving of fedora to support PPC, mind something to apple!!, especialy in the market share, what is it, only the time say....

2.- this moving of apple was thinking long time ago, why take so long... and i think this move is strategy from apple to reduce the market of windows in one way that microsoft can't stop them.

Ha Ha Ha Ha
by Macwack on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:35 UTC

Why do I buy Intel Apple?

Look guys, Linux + MacOnLinux will do a job.

Why am I going to ditch Linux?

Linux is different player in the market.

Oh, One more~~~~~
by Macwack on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:41 UTC






You people are missing the point.
by mrgreen on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:57 UTC

This is all Jobs preparing to take on Microsoft directly. x86 Macs will run Windows, removing the age-old obstacle to a larger user base. I don't know how many times I've heard the "but can I run my windows programs on it??" question from people who would otherwise use a mac. Why would you buy a normal PC when only Apple's can run both OSes (yes and linux as well)? Apple will be making the big profits here, while MS tries to play catch-up. Then I suppose in the future, depending on the circumstances (how badly Microsoft is doing) Jobs will "unlock" OSX for all x86 PCs, thereby delivering a crushing blow to Gates and Co.

Sorry for abuse
by Macwack on Tue 7th Jun 2005 03:59 UTC

One more thing,

Apple can not survive without parasiting on GNU.

Please consider mutualism APPLE!

Then you will at least manage your market share.

and linux
by mrgreen on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:00 UTC

None of which changes anything for linux, except using OSX will help linux go in a more innovative direction. It will live on.

Apple's move into X86 architecture means absolutely nothing to current and future Linux users. I say that for a number of reasons:
1. Apple has a history of making these dramatic 'architectural' changes ever since the introduction of the Macintosh. As a former Apple user, I was caught TWICE (slow on the up-take) and had expensive near-new systems made obsolete and worthless overnight by such changes. This is one of the factors why people like me have been leaving the Apple community. Since moving to Windows/Linux, it has never happened.
2. Apple will probably install custom ROMs in their Intel hardware to stop people running OS-X on much cheaper hardware, so Apple will remain a more expensive option.
3. How many people purchase a MAC today because it runs on Power PC hardware? Not many I would guess. So the Intel hardware will not be a significant factor in the purchase decision.
4. There are generally good technical or financial reasons why one opts for MS Windows or Linux based systems. The decision to purchase an Apple MAC is generally made by the 'heart' - its a fashion accessory (like the iPod).
5. Look at OS-X, Windows XP and Linux (Ubuntu for example); where is the significant differences? They are all good GUI based operating systems. These days OS-X DOES NOT have an advantage over Windows or Linux.
6. Apple has continued to loose market share while Windows is stable or declining slightly and Linux is increasing. A change to Intel hardware WILL NOT alter this situation.

Apple still does not understand or know what it wants to be. Its best option is to get out of the PC systems business (unless it stays for home entertainment integration type systems) and concentrate on consumer products. It ought to concentrate on areas of smart design and innovation.


by Rick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:12 UTC

Linux will always be a good server OS

My Assessment - It's A Wash
by Richard Steven Hack on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:15 UTC

No change.

Apple remains a niche player (or gains a couple percentage points) with a new CPU platform.

Apple cannot compete with Dell or HP (and almost certainly not Lenovo once they get fully in the game) on price, inventory, and probably not on service (in terms of the number of customers they can handle compared to the larger companies.)

OSX is locked in to their hardware - even if it becomes cracked, that won't help the average user that doesn't run cracked software (unless Apple decides to OSS it.)

Linux will continue to innovate faster than Apple can, and OSX will run Linux stuff later than Linux, which means catch up.

While OSX has the best user interface, I have yet to see anyone PROVE that it is THE best operating system in ALL respects - especially in comparison to Linux.

Linux is not likely to be seriously affected by this - or at most have its rise delayed by a couple percentage points over the next five or ten years.

My prediction is just as valid as the article's prediction. In other words, wait and see.

RE: What Apple's Switch Means to Desktop Linux
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:16 UTC

... and had expensive near-new systems made obsolete and worthless overnight by such changes.

I don't get it. How did it become "worthless" overnight? Did it stop working? Did Apple sneak into your house one night and do something awful to it so you'd have to buy one of the newer machines?

the mac user logic
by zeke on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:32 UTC

>Buy a G5 now, and then replace it in two years if you feel >like it.

Yes, there is nothing like having the deep pockets of a Mac user. Hell, why wait two years if you can afford it? You could change it seasonally.

Why do I have the impression that Mac users have an Imelda-like shoe collection as well?


by Rick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:36 UTC

the open unixes will always be nice server box for the closet. Linux had a chance on the desktop about 3 years ago. too bad

Linux advantage
by Kyle on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:38 UTC

Apple's move to x86 is not a good one but it gives Linux an advantage. Many will be using Linux on their Macs and a fair share of former OS X users will switch. Linux might in fact become the standard OS on Macs.

Sad to see the switch..
by erktrek on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:42 UTC

Having recently (few months ago) purchased a Mac Mini to check out what all the excitement was about I must say I am now extremely conflicted (the FUD is beginning to sink in I guess).

To me this looks like the beginnings of a high tech version of the "Old Coke" versus "New Coke" debacle.

Apple's move makes sense in that X86 is a more widely accepted (not necessarily better) and stable (consistent, I guess) platform. For the future this is a good thing maybe. But like "New Coke" the concept appears somewhat bland.

Some thoughts/fears/questions that are causing me angst (YMMV):

- Apple computers have had a certain unique design mystique that was easy to buy into (even if you were paying a premium). For me (and apparently for others) this is rapidly fading.

- It is harder to now commit time or more $$$ when I'm not sure where things are going. I can't recommend Apple to my clients in the next 2 years - there is no guarantee of stability that I am willing to support (not that I am that experienced in OSX anyway).

- Down the road who's to say that Apple won't pull another big surprise. Apple always seems to be on the "revolutionary" side of change rather than "evolutionary". This might be cool and trendy for Joe Sixpack and Stefan Artfart but somewhat alarming for businesses trying to maximize their computer investment. Apple does want to sell to businesses right? In fairness though the X86 move seems like a good move to a more longterm "stable" platform but at what short term cost?

- Given a level hardware playing field doesn't the "Apple Premium" seem like a much harder sell? Margins are so much tighter in the X86 world. The competition is already established and very aggressive. It remains to be seen if Apple, as a hardware company can compete against vendors like Dell. Maybe licensing/branding is the way to go but ultimately then what's the real incentive for a distributor?

- Longhorn may not be better than OSX but in 2 years it won't be bad either. The question is will it really be worth the extra $$$ with less software relative to Windows for a proprietary platform? Apple's R&D will be going into new stuff, legacy stuff and conversion stuff. The concern here is that innovation will slow down while Microsoft with more resources will keep improving.

- How are the smaller "bread and butter" developers going to react to this?

- What's going to happen to the once loyal users who think that Apple has "sold out" or are peeved because they think (whatever the reality) their hw purchases have been rendered obsolete sooner than expected.

- What happens now? If things get bad can Apple survive the next few years on their other successes?

Sigh... I guess it's time to wait and see what happens next maybe in the end it's all sugar water anyway.

This is great
by Rick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:49 UTC

Now we have a nice server os (Linux) for the backroom and a rocking desktop Unix (OSX)

by Jon Smirl on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:50 UTC

Is the delay until next year because it will require Intel VT on the processor to run? Requiring VT would probably lock out all existing machines. It would also be difficult to emulate on existing chips. VT specific shuts out AMD too.

The simple reason for requiring VT is to get MS Windows support. Windows would run in another VM. A virtual graphics card would then make it appear inside the Mac display.

Running an SMB server interally allows partitions to be shared.

Daemons in each OS could export the clipboard over a virtual network to make DND work. And do things like mouse handoff.

Any rumors of Apple working on a hypervisor?

v Linux never had a chance
by Thomas Magnum on Tue 7th Jun 2005 04:57 UTC
Re: Linux never had a chance
by Macwack on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:04 UTC

To you?

Yeah, Never

To them?

No. Always

Comparing apples and oranges with a social movement
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:24 UTC

How can you compare two commercial software products (MS Windows and Mac OSX) with a social movement (GNU/Linux)? A social movement cannot be measured with market share! GNU/Linux is free, it can peacefully co-exist on the same machine with a commercial OS, and an up-to-date version of GNU/Linux usually runs beatifully on a bit dated hardware while upgrading the commercial operating systems often requires upgrading hardware. GNU/Linux doesn't compete with other operating systems -- it is a non-exclusive alternative. Regardless of the commercial success and market share of other OS's, GNU/Linux will keep providing a free alternative that is always easily available for anyone who likes to try it.

by tim @ on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:24 UTC


Mac OX X, BeOS' Desktop, Windows.. are all totally superior to kde and gnome.

If the OSS community produced something that was more lightweight and not bloated and stuff then it will be a serious competitor.

I use Linux desktops for basic stuff like internet access only computers or PCs that i want to restrict what users can put on it... basicly it's really useful as a business PC or networking that uses like what? 1 or 5 apps at once???

They need something different or KDE and GNOME need to get their act together and stop worrying about the mono crap

You obviously have not compared the good x86 PCs and good PPC servers in terms of performance per price..

The principle of "you get what you pay for" is thrown out the door quickly...WHY DO YOU THINK APPLE SWITCHED? do you think they are retarded or something??! intel and apple go way back anyway

good god.. repeat after me.. YOU CAN'T COMPETE WITH FREE
by Matthew on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:27 UTC

Say it outloud. MacOSX on x86 means nothing to any real linux user. We use linux because its part of our lives, what we beleive in. I could give a flip about macosx coming to x86; good for the Maccies.

It still doesn't change that i can install a professional linux desktop or server for free. Come back to me when OSX is free and non-proprietary. Come back to me when OSX makes a good server platform and a good desktop at the same time, FOR FREE.

Once again, you cant compete with free. Linux has jack and squat to fear from this architecture change. Maybe linux can become the premier PPC OS now and actually show how powerful the arch is, god knows MacOSX couldn't. (see the anandtech article from last week)

"Obviously it will be a negative for PPC Linux distros" The real application of linux on PPC wasn't bi-curious mac users. Its what IBM is doing with their new blade technology. Not to mention that IBM could give a shit about PPC when they are throwing their weight behind their CELL processors in every possible application from the PS3 to getting a linux port for cluster farms.

Zero impact on Linux
by Andrewg on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:27 UTC

As far as the decision to choose Mac OS, Windows or GNU/Linux is concerned nothing has changed at all.

I was there to play with the CPU
by edomaur on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:29 UTC

I don't care about Mac OS X. I will buy a PPC box before they go the dodo way, but I have to admit that this will only to try another kind of CPU than the x86 families. I prefer GNU/Linux for a host of reason. It sadden me though.

by Thomas Magnum on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:40 UTC

Everybody will end up running OpenSolaris on the desktop before Linux

Who Dares Wins
by netpython on Tue 7th Jun 2005 05:42 UTC

An Apple on x86(_64) is easier to compare to other PC's on equivalent Intel/AMD chipsets.GHZ myth is now permanently send to the land of fairytales.What matters now is how serious the OS deals with various security issues,how stable is it,and last but not least what does it look/feel like.This will most defenitely stimulate innovation,and who doesn't want that?

Means more compitation!
1. Linux will struggle to match the UI of Mac and professional feel of Mac
2. Linux has come long way and still has not managed to really give a tough time to Windows desktop so fighting against the Mac desktop is atleast 3 years away.
3. If the Mac is available on x86 its time for MS people to worry and Linux can now more focus on Server side.
4. If at all Linux wants to fight against the Mac desktop then we have to adopt the X skills what Mac practics. Cause their is not compitation to UI of Mac as of now.
5. People who doesnt want to spend a penny can still stick to Linux and enjoy then have nothing to do with Mac switching to x86, for them it is just another choice on x86!

by macboy on Tue 7th Jun 2005 06:28 UTC

The most important reasons [for adopting Intel] are... as we look ahead we can envision some amazing products for you, and we can't imagine how we will get there building them with the PowerPC chipset," Jobs said.

He knows what he is on about, I look forward to further domination of the market with the Mac, it seems like a very good idea to me.

IS microsoft worrried? Don't know, we'll see over the next couple years how things go, sit tight people, strap yourselves in, this is gonna be one heck of a ride!

I feel dirty
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 06:31 UTC

Having just got a 12" iBook, just before tiger I am starting to get disapointed. As a student I have been unable to afford the upgrade and just as I am planning to get it (purely for XCode 2), they announce this. Now I am doubting OS upgrades near when I was planning the end of life for this laptop (07-08). As for now I am considering waiting for OS 10.5 and may upgrade then.

I have just been reading up on Objective-C and Cocca, but am starting to doubt the use in learning Mac specific APIs, because while they will be available on the x86 Mac I'm not sure that I will either be able to afford one or even want one.

As for how this will affect linux, well I expect that linux/ppc will get quite a boost as tons of people pick up old macs and turn them into linux boxen, so linux/ppc will surge for at least a short period.

For the longer term, I don't see this directly affecting linux, some of the users of linux may switch to MacOS but I would have expected most of them to have switched already. I think linux/BSD/* will continue improving until one day when it is "good enough" that it isn't really worth using anything else (probibly at least a decade away until it becomes a / the domenant platform). Considering the ammount of software that has already become standardized / Commoditized by Open Source one has to expect it to happen .... eventually.

I don't expect apple to be around forever in the PC market, purely because it is too much work for too little profit. I expect that apple will build a platform then exit the market and licence vendors to produce the machines for that platform OR make MacOS a generic x86 OS and make there major money on professional tools (Final Cut Pro, etc) and Web Services (iTunes).

If like everyone is saying Apple will use openfirmware rather than the traditional BIOS, in order to allow Mac OS X only to run on Apple hardware, then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS.

I don't see them using OpenBoot - it would require a total re-write for Intel. I would say the most likely senario will be the adoption of a customised EFI by Apple; this will allow them to source video cards from more suppliers rather than them needing to virtually re-write the video BIOS from scratch as to get it to work with OpenBoot.

Coupled with PCI-Express and numerous other advancements, it should be an interesting site to see, how they get everything working.

v re
by caveman/rexxor on Tue 7th Jun 2005 07:53 UTC
A sad day begins
by Scott Cabana on Tue 7th Jun 2005 07:59 UTC

This is the day ive dreaded and yet now it is confirmed and here. This will destroy Apples hardware division. Even tho Apple will do its best to stop people from using Mac OS X on x86 machines I feel someone will crack that and it will spread. Its far easier to crack a bios check than rebuild all the libraries from PPC to x86. Being along side of Microsoft selling another operating system is going to spell doom for Apple. Alot of us have the skill to build an x86 Apple machine so why buy one? Just for Mac OS X? Well ill just crack it or load Linux on it, problem solved. This isnt a change in processer, this is now a platform change. Apple is now an IBM platform PC, running a Mac OS. No one sees what is going to happen? What is my drive to continue to stay with Apple? Its almost like Apple is conviencing the world to buy a IBM PC. Well thats it folks, Apple turned into a sellout. Looks like ill be loading Linux in 2007 after all.

No effect what so ever...
by Papa Lazarou on Tue 7th Jun 2005 08:07 UTC

I don't see this news effecting Linux on desktops....

1) x86 folks who currently use Linux are happy to use it, mostly they complain, but they'd complain more if they had to purchase all the software, lol ;) change.

2) x86 folks who currently don't use Linux might still switch from grey-box XP to Linux desktop. change. (They do NOT have a third option of OSX on their grey box, not "officially".)

3) PPC folks who currently use OSX/PPC have a choice too, they can switch to YD Linux or one of the other PPC distis.
...Linux gain.

For new hardware there's also a choice :

1) Buy a Dell, run Linux, BeOS, BSD, XP etc
2) Buy a McIntel, run OSX

...and yes, of course the McIntel will be more expensive for essentially the same hardware, and yes it will be harder to justify the "difference".

Apple will make it very difficult to go beyond these choices, they don't want to compete with M$, and so they can't afford to allow grey-box built installs.

A more expensive McIntel will use Intel DRM'd CPUs on a Apple DRM'd OS, not such a good choice when compared against Linux and it's OpenSource goodness.

Linux vs grey-install pirate OSX
by Papa Lazarou on Tue 7th Jun 2005 08:12 UTC

Speculation, However, my guess it that it will happen, but it'll take time to perfect and Apple are quite happy to re-program the DRM tripwires, just look at the iPod and the carry on with Real Networks for evidence of this.

People will get pissed with this, and switch to Linux.

Oh, and don't forget Linux will be WAY better by 2006!

Dual boot Windows MacOS
by Steffo on Tue 7th Jun 2005 08:32 UTC

Well, dual booting the Intel-Mac would be very expensive since you would have to pay retail price for Windows. So, first you have to pay a premium for the computer, and then you have to shell out for the OS.

It is of course a good feature, but I doubt that this would lure any customers that wants to try OS X but are uncertain that they would like it.

For the cost of dual booting (price premium + cost of Windows) you could probably buy a cheap Dell. Of course, then it'll be just a cheap Dell, not a Mac. But I think most people won't care as long as it's cheap.

My feelings on this as a Linux user
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 08:32 UTC

As a Linux user, all I have to say is:

- It runs on very cheap hardware
- It may be not as fancy as Mac OS X, but is good enough and better everyday
- KDE is awesome
- It's Free Software, and so I trust the software I run

That's why I will not switch to OS X

It's all good for linux
by craig on Tue 7th Jun 2005 08:55 UTC

This is all good for linux. The more widespread Apple becomes, the more people will have the opportunity to pick up unix skills. They will eventually transition to linux, because linux offers more: the fact it's open source from top to bottom gives you peace of mind that there's nobody doing nasty things underneath you; I find gnome a nicer UI than aqua; you can easily run linux without having an interface running; and the hardware will always be cheaper for linux geeks because Apple will never try to compete against the cheap generic hardware that linux runs best on. That's not to knock Apple - I have one sitting right here - but it's not exactly the ultimate geek machine. However, it's a really nice way to get to geekdom.

by Micheas on Tue 7th Jun 2005 09:53 UTC

I would guess that this means that if PhotoShop, for example, gets ported to OS X intel, There is a real chance that Gnustep would run the PhotoShop as well. (ok, with a lot of library tweaking, but I suspect someone would be motivated to make the translation work)

I have a friend that converted to OS X about three years ago and he complained about the fact that a lot of Linux software just does not compile on OS X. I am guessing that this is less of an issue, but darwin ports lists 2,500 ports as compared to the 12,500 ports listed at and the 15,500 packages at debian

I don't know that this won't make it easier for Linux to claim even more UNIX marketshare, as more and more OS X apps are closer to running on Linux.

Gnome and KDE are slowly converging, GnuStep could enter the mix if it added applications that are in demand.

In a Word....
by David on Tue 7th Jun 2005 10:21 UTC Here we go. We've now got a lot of extremely stupid people who don't know what is happening assuming that Mac OS X will run on any Intel box you can find.

What's going to happen is that Apple is going to sell you a Mac PC for a far, far higher price than a white-box for no gain whatsoever, they're going to lock Mac OS X to that hardware and they're going to sue the arse off anyone that tries to run it on anything else. Doesn't sound much of a competitor to me.

Apple is a very dead company unless they manage this well. All evidence and history says they won't manage this well, nor even be aware of what it means.

Re: In a Word ...
by nimble on Tue 7th Jun 2005 10:49 UTC

What's going to happen is that Apple is going to sell you a Mac PC for a far, far higher price than a white-box for no gain whatsoever, they're going to lock Mac OS X to that hardware and they're going to sue the arse off anyone that tries to run it on anything else. Doesn't sound much of a competitor to me.

Yes, Apple won't officially support generic PC hardware because they don't have the drivers, because it would kill their hardware business, and because they need Microsoft's Office. Therefore they'll come down hard on anyone trying to sell PCs with MacOS pre-installed.

But they might quietly tolerate people hacking and installing OS X on their PCs, because that would be limited to a relatively small number of geeks who probably wouldn't be buying Macs anyway. In fact, Apple might welcome the mindshare and the Darwin driver development they could gain from that.

@ Nimble - Apple to tolerate hacking?
by Papa Lazarou on Tue 7th Jun 2005 11:37 UTC

No kidding? I think you'll find they chase and shut down every website which even so much as hosts or links to a hacked driver or BIOS, yelling DMCA (whilst feverishly changing the DRM in the next "update" which kills all grey-boxed replicants - They do this with the iPod already).

This isn't about Apple wanting you to run OSX on your greyboxen, no, this far far more curious, Apple side with Intel? I still can't quite comprehend this one, but there are other things apprearing which make the whole thing even stranger....

OSX isn't going to scare Linux, I think Linux already scared Apple, and maybe had something to do with the change....

1) Changes to the linux kernel for "The Broadband Processor Architecture (BPA)" [Read : Cell Processor]

2) Sony talking up the Cell and teasing with the prospect of a desktop -

3) IBM's support for Linux PPC

Apple's PPC exclusivity suddenly looks wobbly, so they cut a deal with Intel and the rest is history.

Linux on Cell, no THAT's REALLY interesting ;)

by cdr on Tue 7th Jun 2005 12:03 UTC

"The percentage of Mac users using a Linux on PPC is way lower than the percentage of x86 users also using Linux. For example, 3% of all x86 users use Linux according to some recent stats, but less than 1% of the 3% of the Mac users use Linux (that's 0.33%)."

Your logic is flawed. Apple was expensive, so to buy Apple in the sole pourpose to run linux was pretty ridiculous. Most of Apple users is not that computer savvy (the whole goal of Aple was to make OS easy). OS X is mostly for people who love Apple.
Again Intel or not, it will be proprietary hardware more expensive that white box so buying iMac (Intel-Mac) to run linux will make even less sense.
OS X on Intel will have exactly the same problems as on PowerPC: quite limited choice of the hardware, and slower that other OSes. So even it will be relatively faster that on PPC it will be still behind.
Most of the linuxers represent young generation, pretty much discovering/learning OS internals, people who like "tinkering". For them linux cheaper and much more flexible is OS of choice.
In other words, The balance will stay for very long time.

"Quoting myself:"
You should not qoute yourself, I remember you bashing whiners who asked about iMac five years ago.
Also articularly if it is about MS because it was so obvious.
Redmond will support Apple as before because of the same reasons:
they need "competinion".
Linux will be only in danger when MS stops to support Apple: this would mean that Apple is a menace for MS. So even more for linux.
In other words this was so predictable that "quoting yourself" is rather funny.

"For example, OSX just "works with the hardware" rather than "Gnome/KDE working on TOP of a kernel". "
That is because hardware for Apple is so limited, You can do that with linux too if buying hardware for linux. I never had compatibility problems because I knew what I need. Usually people are getting box with windows then eventually they try linux on the hardware that may not work.

"With Mac OS X's great desktop experience, why would anyone use X11 and its DEs?"
This one is as subjective as possible.
I prefer Pisarro over Signac, so even Signac may be the best visual experience for you and that only means we prefer different estetics.

I don't know if OS X will take over linux fans. I don't care what other people are using.
Ther whole point is, that your argumentation is rather weak.

This whole mess is a good reason to flee vendor lock-in.
by Dougan on Tue 7th Jun 2005 12:07 UTC

You're forgetting the main lesson from Apple's weaving in and out of traffic - if you're tied to a single vendor they will yank your chain this way, yank your chain that way, waste your time and leave you screwed. That's why FOSS will always be a great alternative.

by enloop on Tue 7th Jun 2005 12:16 UTC

I only wory about speed differences that I can notice without reading the specs. The Mini's drive is fast enough. Is it slower than the drives in my Intel box? Of course. I do nothing that requires extensive disk use, so the speed of the drives in the Intel was wasted. I bought the Mini to do browsing and email at home, something I had been doing on the big, ugly, noisy and windy (6 fans) and hot Intel box (AMD, actually...).

What's so good about Mac OSX
by Cam1mi on Tue 7th Jun 2005 12:32 UTC

I dual booted Mac OSX and Linux on a Powerbook for awhile. I removed Mac OS and haven't looked back since.

Re: What Apple's Switch Means to Desktop Linux
by Janis on Tue 7th Jun 2005 12:54 UTC

OSXn will cost more than Linux and as such will only be competing with M$, not Linux. Additionally, it is not open source or free, as in beer or otherwise and will not stop the adoption of Linux, especially in developing countries and outside of North America.

OSX is a nice OS but a one button mouse just wont cut it ;)

@linux will be way better in 2006 crowd
by matt on Tue 7th Jun 2005 13:23 UTC

in 2006, will i be able to install a free linux distro and play mp3's, movies, etc without configuring my package manager to look at the shady repository and download codecs, software, etc that might be illegal?

this is my biggest beef with linux right now. I know the multimedia issues, and inability to include browser plugins, etc is not "linux's fault". But the problem still exists. Like a friend of mine said: "linux is free if your time is worth nothing"

This will have as much impact on Linux as.....
by Bill Burdick on Tue 7th Jun 2005 13:52 UTC

Microsoft releasing Windows 95 closed source
Microsoft releasing Windows 98 closed source
Microsoft releasing Windows 2k closed source
Microsoft releasing Windows XP closed source

Sun Microsystems releasing Solaris 10 their brand of "open source"

FreeBSD dying (not really) :-)
OpenBSD having a remote exploit
The number of penguins per iceberg in Anartica

In other words, I don't think _anyone_ will notice _anything_ except the people who write trade articles and host alarmist websites that like to claim any number of the above events will destroy Linux.

Of course, the best way for us Linuxers to deal with the competition is to come to the realization ..... There is no competition. (think Matrix)

RE: @linux will be way better in 2006 crowd
by Ookaze on Tue 7th Jun 2005 14:39 UTC

in 2006, will i be able to install a free linux distro and play mp3's, movies, etc without configuring my package manager to look at the shady repository and download codecs, software, etc that might be illegal?

You troll amaze me :
You are asking if in 2006, a problem which has nothing to do with Linux will be resolved, without using the solution available to you now ? Can't you be at least subtle in your stupidity ?

this is my biggest beef with linux right now.

Obviously, as a good troll that can't use his brain, you forgot to say that what you ask for is simply impossible in other OS (because other OS that include MP3, movie codecs are NOT free). But still Linux has to do it, of course. Amazing.

I know the multimedia issues, and inability to include browser plugins, etc is not "linux's fault". But the problem still exists. Like a friend of mine said: "linux is free if your time is worth nothing"

You are of course completely wrong. There ARE Linux distro that include these things in shrink-wrapped boxes (like Mandriva). You, as a pitiful freeloader, just don't want to pay for them, you want it free, but don't want to move a finger for it.
Fight for your right, instead of relying on others to do all the work for you.
Actually, what you and your friend should understand, is that "Linux is free if you have a brain".
I find this way better than what I was experiencing with WinXP : "Windows is expensive if your time is worth nothing. If it's worth sth, then it is even worse".

v Another clueless Eugenia editorial...
by Joe on Tue 7th Jun 2005 15:20 UTC
My two cents
by Brian Emenaker on Tue 7th Jun 2005 15:46 UTC

Whether the switch to Intel is good or bad for Apple is totally up to Apple at this point. In the past they had the luxury of being the only player on PPC so they could get away with their BS overpricing. When you move onto x86 architecture, you now only have your OS as your sales motivation. If it is not vastly superior, another "as good as" OS for a cheaper price will outsell it.

With the way Apple is saying they are going to limit the supported hardware, that is a shot in the foot. NOONE survives on x86 without BROAD hardware support. There is plenty of history to support this claim.

The advantage I see for Apple to make a success, is they can get games ported much more easily now. This is the must have to survive. Games are the most overlooked aspect of home PC markets.

I have long been wanting to see OS X on x86, and now that it is possible, I will when the hack is out. I won't buy expensive x86 crap to run an x86 OS. And I won't buy and Intel proc, AMD BABY!!!!

A lot depends on whether Intel Macs are much cheaper
by Anonymous on Tue 7th Jun 2005 16:19 UTC

The whole of this article collapses either if the Intel Macs aren't significantly cheaper than the PowerPC Macs (or *much* faster than the PowerPC Macs for the same price) or if Windows can't be run on the Intel Macs. I think at least one of these things will happen (most likely that Apple will keep the Intel price close to the PowerPC price).

It should be noted that people use Linux primarily because it's cheap or free and runs on all sorts of hardware architectures - neither can be said of either Windows or Mac OS X. Hence, I don't think Intel Mac OS X will change much in the market compared to PowerPC Mac OS X - to the average user out there, they care about the user interface and the range of apps available...and this will be roughly the same (in fact, initially, it's probably going to be worse on the Intel Macs !). The fact that the CPU will have changed only matters w.r.t. the number of apps available for the new CPU (and with emulation and fat binaries, gaps will soon be filled).

Conclusion: This switch will keep Mac OS X at status quo w.r.t. market share and I don't see mass defections in either direction.

Since OS X will only run on hardware blessed by Apple, the fact that Apple's hardware now uses an x86 CPU really isn't that important. There's still a barrier to entry, namely the requirement to purchase Apple hardware.

I use Linux myself for a number of reasons:

* it's a low cost solution.
* it runs on hardware I already own.
* specialized versions exist to solve my specific problems.
* it's relatively free from corporate interests.

Apple's operating system doesn't address any of those things.

At last
by Trond Abrahamsen on Tue 7th Jun 2005 16:27 UTC

Apple has been using pc hardware for a long time now, so it was just a matter of time before they switched cpu-plattform as well. Companies such as Adobe will now rush their programmers to create OSX-x86 versions of their software (which now will be a much, much simpler task), making an x86 OSX a true alternative to Windows. I think the software giants just were waiting for Apple to make the switch, which is why they haven't bothered to make Linux versions of their applications. If they really thought that Linux would kill Windows, we would have Photoshop, Freehand or even 3D Studio Max for Linux.

Future PC games will now be able to run on both Windows and OSX, without OSX users having to wait 18 months for the ported version.

As Anandtech noted on their latest OSX/Linux/Windows-test, OSX is no good on servers, due to the microkernel architecture - so I think this will be the domain of Linux (which will be the preferred server OS instead of Solaris).

by vai on Tue 7th Jun 2005 16:36 UTC

I think Apple might be able to limit/cripple attempts of a hacked OSX ISO reaching the interweb, simply because only a small subset of "supported drivers" will probably be made available to run on Apple produced machines. Who would bother installing it on a Dell/HP/No-name box if their video/sound card won't be detected? I could be wrong, but I doubt Windows drivers could be used by OSx86

RE: My two cents
by Rohan Beckles on Tue 7th Jun 2005 17:28 UTC

I agree with you on most of your points there. I too would have picked AMD instead - not only is their CPU architecture fairly stable, they absolutely cane Intel chips.

I don't think games will save Apple though. Windows is the dominant PC gaming platform, and already uses commodity hardware (ATI, nVidia). Apple can't offer anything extra.

I think Apple's workstation will be a failure, reminiscent of the Intel-based SGI Visual Workstations (remember them?). The only thing that might save Apple is application exclusivity, but that's a fairly thin wedge these days, and may get even thinner.

Without an exclusivity agreement, it wouldn't take much for Photoshop and Premier to find their way onto Linux, giving those application vendors a widening market. You could soon see the likes of BOXX Technologies selling Adobe-based DCC workstations, workstations that now run a stable OSS operating system.

Apple themselves remind me of a small version of SGI - hanging on for dear death as best they can...:-(

by graig on Tue 7th Jun 2005 17:35 UTC

well apple's hardware, now that its going x86. will be a full fledged pc. with nearly standard hardware. but probably a special bios. that enables osX. if the motherboard goes bad, you still can't just buy a new motherboard. you will have to go to apple. this is what makes running a mac less desirable. And the switch to x86 processors has not fixed it.

by graig on Tue 7th Jun 2005 17:57 UTC

"The advantage I see for Apple to make a success, is they can get games ported much more easily now. This is the must have to survive. Games are the most overlooked aspect of home PC markets. "

since when did apple get directx? most games require that.

changing processors only means apple will have to recompile programs that are already written for mac to work with mac intel.

its not going to speed up writing games for mac. unless you count the compile time which is likely to be faster on the x86 hardware ;)

Linux's Worst Enemy is Linux
by Ranty on Tue 7th Jun 2005 18:13 UTC

Linuxites spend way too much time on Linux, and not enough on APPLICATIONS. Major players must come over to Linux or Linux reamins a cool hobby and not a major OS contender. This means applications for the arts, music and video mainly, because Linux is already okay for minor processing, browsing, writing, etc.

Apple? Eff Apple, and Jobs, and their "special hardware". That company is every bit the monopoly Microsoft is, just smaller. Waiting, waiting, waiting for the "Mac version" of some piece of software to come out, often a yer after the Windows version. I won't buy into it. I detest Bill Gates and MS, but will stick with the "devil I know", until Linux gets its act together. There is no reason Linux/BSD can't evolve into something amazing, in the same way Mac OS did using the same foundations.

Dont believe a word
by unholy on Tue 7th Jun 2005 22:27 UTC

I could argue with almost every statement in that article, but the important issue, and the one the article omits, is the reason people choose linux.

Linux is not just good software, its a community and a free (virtual) world. Apple can choose whatever chip they like, they cannot offer everything linux offers.

And to say there are usually two main players is nonsense. Are there only two car manufacturers making good profits?? Of course not. No offence to the author, but that article is badly thought through and full of holes.

Apple still has...
by benspace on Wed 8th Jun 2005 01:10 UTC

3% marketshare. Linux has around 6%. You guys can post editorials that say that Apple will somehow hurt Linux all you want, but it won't make it true.

It's more likely that this will hurt Apple's share than anyone else's.

When an x86 isn't an x86...
by Tom Eisenmenger on Wed 8th Jun 2005 03:20 UTC

Everyone's thinking Apple will be building near-PC clones after the switch. I suspect this assumption is incorrect. Instead, I anticipate an x86 architecture quite different from the standard Dell fare. Apple has always seen one of its advantages as being able to tightly integrate the OS with the hardware. This won't be possible if they simply adapt OS X to the standard PC architecture.

While it is correct to say that the G5 is (in most respects) a superior chip to the P4, Jobs noted in his keynote address that there was some unspecified future development on the Intel roadmap that eclipsed IBM's coming offerings. I suspect we're talking multicore processors - IBM's Cell chip would probably present many of the same challenges Apple would face moving to Intel so it was a good time for them to consider a switch.

Apple moving to the x86 != generic hardware
by GeneD on Wed 8th Jun 2005 14:00 UTC

As far as I am told this announcement does not mean that osx will be installable on whitebox/dell/hp/lenovo etc. So that kinda of blows your theory out of the water. All they are doing is changing a processor. nothing more.

Comparing apples and penguins
by Elizabeth campbell on Wed 8th Jun 2005 14:28 UTC

Youve got Apple(the hardware and the OSX)
Youve got Lemon(Microsoft) and youve got the penguin. This event is not comparable.

The OSX and windows are the same thing with the exception on a pretty interface. Linux isnt about being pretty, or being able to make a pretty picture, its about the user. Anyone who sees Linux for what it is, wouldnt even question not using Linux.

before this switch, Mac was at least somwhat configurable, and user friendly, but this is just them jumping onto the commercialized boat. I believe this move will only make Linux on the desktop as people are going to stop paying thousands of dollars for pretty machines that dont let them "work with the computer".
people complained about the monopoly microsoft was, and how rediculous it was to have one company distribute so much of its product as it was the only company that made / sold that product. Now x86 are going to have even more market share and will be able to do whatever they want with their own pricing.
There is nothing about this event that will hinder Linux's growth on the Desktop, in fact, I believe it will expedite the whole process.

Two player markets, which ones?
by er on Wed 15th Jun 2005 02:41 UTC

I really can't see the two players in
Real Estate
Consumer Food Retail
Which are the 2 player markets
left and right hand side driving on the roads?
Most people in the world can not afford a computer today and the choice for new consumers in Asia, Africa, South America and Eastern Europe is linux computers.