Ars editor Jon “Hannibal” Stokes looks at the Apple-to-Intel transition with an eye on Intel’s road map and which CPUs will end up in which Apple models. OSViews & Cringely also have editorials.
Hannibal on the Apple-to-Intel transition
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I have a question. Apple has a rather large R&D budget. Did any of that go into CPU/chipset R&D? The obvious answer to that is no, since Apple is abandoning the AIM alliance in the long run. However, is that truly the case, and if it isn’t the case, and Apple did spend funds on CPU/chipset R&D, will they continue to with Intel? Where will that money go otherwise?
Where will that money go otherwise?
To reviving Cambridge Research Labs projects like Apple Dylan and the Newton!
I can dream, can’t I
before this topic gets completely worn especially considering it’s NOT THAT BIG A DEAL?
Hannibal produces another eloquently written article.
…In your opinion….
But give it a few weeks. It’ll die out. It IS getting kind of annoying..
True, the topic might me getting a little old now. At least this is a well-written and thought out article.
Most of the stuff out there concerning this topic is emotional drivel (both PRO and CON).
Good Job…
Would be too much to ask to curb the world according to Apple storys? Every stinking day this week, MacOS X86 this, MacOS X86 that.
I’m going back to listening to Rush, he is less biased.
I mean honestly, how much of a real difference is this going to make? It’s not. It’s only the PPC fanatics that are up in arms about it. Otherwise, life will go on the same for Macs and Mac users.
The article predicts that the first Intel Macs will not be 64bit capable. However, x86-64 is superior to x86 in performance. Moreover, introducing 32bit Intel Macs would require supporting another platform by providing 32bit drivers and 32bit libraries. Since legacy Mac software is for PowerPC archictecture, there is no need to support 32bit x86 software. Therefore, it is easier and better to use only x86-64 processors, which is probably what Apple will do.
I know that, You know that.. but it still wont make a lot of difference to some people
Theres lots of emotion floating around because of this. Lots of people that like the PPC cpu for whatever reason (nice isa, its “not x86” blahblahblah) and don’t like x86.. or they think apple will just become another “PC” maker (whatever..)…
For the most part, it really WONT make a difference. The new Pentium M cpus are looking nice as far as x86 goes..
This will allow Apple to actually have FAST laptops. Once the change over happens it’ll all go back to normal. Imagine 10 years from now when apple switches to another cpu arch (it will happen, history says so! ;P), the same sort of stuff will go on.
Why do I always end up with the feeling that his conspiracy theories are about as insighful as reporting that “Snap, Crackle, and Pop are the love triples of Aunt Jemima and Tony the Tiger”…
Apple currently develops good but not great chipsets. I suspect that Apple will use Intel chipsets to reduce cost. Apple doesn’t do any processor development. (And apparently they aren’t willing to pay anyone else to develop processors either…)
About the ministry of truth, I’d rather see a blatantly wrong item removed rather than left up to attract more and more flames, like /. does.
It’s articles like this with their attention to intricacy over steadfastism that make me like Ars. It’s also nice that this is someone that actually uses a Mac. I use Windows, Linux and a Mac and the G4 isn’t a terrible processor. I work on a G4 and it’s great, but I can also see its limitations and that it probably doesn’t have tons of capability for the future. The fact is that this converstion isn’t about drastic things. It’s about nuance. Like, even if one assumes that Intel and IBM can develop at the same rates, Intel can be more accurate in delivery times and has better manufacturing capability. It isn’t a night and day thing, but I remember when the G5s came out. IBM had made the chip, but then they had unforseen delays and such.
I think the most important thing that no one seems to be saying is that by moving to x86, Apple is casting its die with the fates of all the other computer companies out there. If Intel can’t deliver better, Apple doesn’t loose sales to HP, Dell, etc. because Intel can’t deliver to all of them. Now, Apple’s fate is a lot more independent from the other PC vendors. For example, when Motorola couldn’t get even an extra 50MHz out of the G4 in what seemed like forever, the PC world was just trouncing Apple. While Intel can have the same setbacks, it won’t set Apple back seperately. Oh, and it leaves the door open for AMD or Via parts to be swapped in without too much hassle.
Not sure why you think it would reduce costs. Apple gear (asside from Apple laptops) already costs less for equally-spec’d machines (including hardware and software) than PCs. x86 chips cost more to produce than PPC but due to economies of scale, Intel is able to deliver them at the same price as PPC chips.
The price perception problem stems from the fact that Apple doesn’t have the same number of options as PCs thus forcing you to compare a loaded Mac with a PC which may have similar specs (at least according to the bullet points that *you’re* interested in) though are rarely (Apple’s laptops) actually less expensive when matched equally.
“I think the most important thing that no one seems to be saying is that by moving to x86, Apple is casting its die with the fates of all the other computer companies out there.”
That assumption stems from the idea that Apple doesn’t have anything to differentiate itself from the rest of x86 competition out there. Did you not read the osViews editorial which quashed that argument?
“Intel is fed up with Microsoft. Microsoft has no innovation that drives what Intel must have, which is a use for more processing power. And when they did have one with the Xbox, they went elsewhere.”
The entire piece is funny, but this is enough to get me going…
The CEO of Intel is a sales person now, if I remember correctly. That is, the engineers have taken a step back and let the sales people make deals and get the chips out there. Apple coming onboard is just a normal business done by good sales people. They aren’t after the business of Apple, like Mr. Cringely made it seem.
“Remember, you read it here first.”
I won’t forget it. 🙂
Not “They aren’t after the business of Apple”.
Sorry. 🙂
This would be a great time for M$ to buy AMD
… Intel and Apple would piss their pants if they found out billy-boy and Bald-mer were going to buy AMD and pump $2 billion into R&D.
Microsoft could go vertical! That might work out well for Intel because Oracle, IBM, HP, and Sun would all go to Intel for chips. Either way AMD would have been a great buy when they were at $4 — Sun should have bought them.
Sometimes Cringely can be an idiot. Here’s equally rational answers to his questions without having to jump to the illogical conclusion he has…
Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC’s supposed performance advantage over Intel?
Answer 1: Neither the G4’s or G5’s were ramping up at the same speed as the x86 offerings. Sure they might have been superb at first, but they’ve aged poorly only because they haven’t been able to keep up with the competition.
Question 2: What happened to Apple’s 64-bit operating system?
Answer 2: Nothing. Apple has no choice if they want to survive. Better to shelve the 64-bit OS temporarily (everyone wants to go 64-bit so it’s just a matter of time until the Intel hardware is what Apple is looking for) than to use a fancy 64-bit OS and see your company slowly bleed to death.
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
Answer 3: At this stage it doesn’t really matter. Intel has deep pockets and they really want every OS running on their processors. Look at Be, Inc. Intel gave money to Be because Intel understands that Microsoft pretty much runs the ship unless there are alternatives. Intel gave the money to Be without requiring that they only allow booting on Intel. Where’s the difference here? There isn’t one. AMD can’t afford to financially help Apple lke Intel can. And if x86 compatibility exists, Apple can switch to AMD anytime they want. I’d be shocked if they didn’t use both brands eventually. Finally, Apple is seen as a progressive, high-quality and innovative company. Who wouldn’t want to be associated with that?
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
Answer 4: How in the name of all that is holy could Apple have started manufacturing Intel machines without word leaking out months in advance? It would have *never* happened. I think they wanted it leaked a few days prior to the developers conference but to ramp up production would have made secrecy impossible. Plus, now your developers have a chance to make binaries ready-to-run for the new architecture when its released. How else would Apple have done this switch?
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
Answer 5: Maybe, maybe not. What does this have to do with Intel buying Apple? Nothing that I can discern from his logic.
It seems like Cringely is hoping to throw something against the wall that sticks. Who knows – maybe in three years Intel will want to buy Apple. Maybe in ten. Cringely can then crow that he predicted it. If it never happens then everyone forgets and he’s no worse for the wear.
Considering how Jobs was pushed out of running Apple once before, I can’t see him allowing the company to be sold to anyone while he’s running things. He’s been stabbed in the back before when he lost power. I doubt he’d let that happen again.
Sorry this is so long but people are getting nuts with this Apple-Intel thing. This is one of the nuttiest.
I think the most important thing that no one seems to be saying is that by moving to x86, Apple is casting its die with the fates of all the other computer companies out there. If Intel can’t deliver better, Apple doesn’t loose sales to HP, Dell, etc. because Intel can’t deliver to all of them. Now, Apple’s fate is a lot more independent from the other PC vendors. For example, when Motorola couldn’t get even an extra 50MHz out of the G4 in what seemed like forever, the PC world was just trouncing Apple. While Intel can have the same setbacks, it won’t set Apple back seperately. Oh, and it leaves the door open for AMD or Via parts to be swapped in without too much hassle.
>
>
No it won’t. All you have to do see the future of an Intel-based Mac is look to the *PAST*
Remember the *OLD* Packard Bells from the 1980’s?
This is what an Intel-based Mac is going to be like.
No standard motherboard or BIOS here kiddies.
Most likely XBOX-style ports/connectors. Pain-in-the-ass to find non-Apple approved mice and other such hardware
Quite the troll you are, hmmm.
It’s late, I’m cranky, and I don’t want a gullible person falling for your crap.
Look to the past to find out about the Intel-based Mac’s future?
Packard Bells == Intel Mac’s?
Packard Bell made cheap computers with cheap parts to run the standard Microsoft OS of the day. Apple, OTOH, makes premium computers with a PowerPC processor – soon they’ll be doing the same with an Intel processor.
See that? Nothing else has changed!
Apple had a different method of boot-up with a PowerPC, so how is it any different if they end up doing that with the Intel Macs?
XBOX-style ports/connectors? Non-Apple approved mice?
No and no.
“I mean honestly, how much of a real difference is this going to make? It’s not. It’s only the PPC fanatics that are up in arms about it. Otherwise, life will go on the same for Macs and Mac users.”
I agree it’s the PPC Fanatics that are making the fuss and it’s getting so LAME!
YOU can tell they worshipped the “PPC IDOL”. They are saying they will never buy a Mac again. What are they going to Windows? Or some other OS? Come on Cry-babies!
A Mac is still a Mac, now with a better Partner. Intel can deliver and makes great processors.
By the way, Intel has been trying to break into Apple for Decades. Thank you IBM for being like MOTO! 970’s great, I still will get one, but you can’t deliver.
This article is spot on and basically confirms my thoughts about the whole thing. Of course I can’t put my ideas into better words than Hannibal has. That “Open Letter to Apple” guy needs to read this really badly, maybe it will put some sense into his head.
-mojo
After reading through quite a bit of the news floating around, I’d say that this is a really good thing for Apple.
Finally a processor supplier that will be up to date performancewise. No more promises of faster computers, and then waiting an eternity at 500mhz (G4) or going to water cooling to squeeze out an extra 100mhz (G5).
Apple can give out benchmarks that stand on thier own, rather than be cut to pieces by more unbiased testers, which will help thier credibility with possible “switchers”. A lot of potential users have been turned off by some of the smoke and mirror comparisons coming out of Apple the last few years. Verifiability is important, you know…
It’s not a sure thing, but Apple also has the opportunity to put out a product at a comparable price, using this years technology rather than last years. They really didn’t have a chance to survive over the long haul with more expensive, yet slower computers (not withstanding the blathering of some mouthpieces that post here often), even if the OS is nice to use…
So all in all, it’s a big win for Apple if they do it right.
After reading through quite a bit of the news floating around, I’d say that this is a really good thing for Apple.
Finally a processor supplier that will be up to date performancewise. No more promises of faster computers, and then waiting an eternity at 500mhz (G4) or going to water cooling to squeeze out an extra 100mhz (G5).
Apple can give out benchmarks that stand on thier own, rather than be cut to pieces by more unbiased testers, which will help thier credibility with possible “switchers”. A lot of potential users have been turned off by some of the smoke and mirror comparisons coming out of Apple the last few years. Verifiability is important, you know…
It’s not a sure thing, but Apple also has the opportunity to put out a product at a comparable price, using this years technology rather than last years. They really didn’t have a chance to survive over the long haul with more expensive, yet slower computers (not withstanding the blathering of some mouthpieces that post here often), even if the OS is nice to use…
So all in all, it’s a big win for Apple if they do it right.
Ya know, it would have been very interesting if Apple had just acquired it’s own chip company, like AMD. With AMD valued at 7B and AAPL at 31B….it’s not financially impossible. Tho at a PE of 280, AMD is kinda expensive…
There are a couple of things that us Mac folks are going to miss..
1. Many of us hard core geek types really liked the PPC architecture and Altivec. There is a cleanliness and purity to it that x86 just lacks.
2. The rumor mill. It’s essentially gone. Do you really think that Intel is going to delay announcements for Jobs so he can make his big keynote announcements? Intel makes their roadmaps available, which is needed for all of the PC manufacturers. There is no surprise about what is coming. You want to know what’s going to be in each of Apples computers? Like Hannibal said, look at the Intel roadmap. The days of surprise announcements of new processors and speed bumps is over, it will be more a factor of everyone demanding when Apple will release a computer w/ the latest Intel speed bump in it.
Oh sure, there will be a bit surrounding the software, but with new versions of OS X coming ever 2 years, that really kills the whole rumor mill culture surrounding Apple.
Maybe in 3-4 years, after the transition is complete, Apple could buy AMD. Then they would have control over the CPU’s again and could have their surprise announcements.
Oh well, I get Aqua, high cpu performance, Unix, and MS Office, so I’m happy, but will miss the Macworld and WWDC keynote surprises of old. I’m sure there will still be some stuff, but a lot of it is gone now.
– Kelson
can windows and linux run on intel mac?
i dont know. but somehow i sense that apple switch will help linux in the future.
A really good article over at Anandtech.
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439
by jetting all legacy crap (serial/parrallel, ps/2, bios, etc.) as well as x86 cpu crap
When considering possible designs, it is perhaps worth noting that AMD64 when combined with x64 Edition of os x, allows for the elimination of the physical FPU unit, MMX, and 3DNOW! instructions. Therefore once 64 bit OS Xis a mainstream platform, the potential exists for a clean sheet redesign of x86 hardware. With this in mind, the K9 could prove to be a surprising chip, looking much more like a classic RISC processor, than has traditionally been the case with x86 systems.
it could be “power x86”
Hannibal can always be relied upon to come up with a sane and properly informed view on things. So unlike the silly editorials and open letters appearing on a certain green-tinted OS site.
AMD64 when combined with x64 Edition of os x, allows for the elimination of the physical FPU unit, MMX, and 3DNOW! instructions.
True, but not gonna happen any time soon. Windows will have to be backwards-compatible for many years to come, and neither Intel nor AMD are very likely to do a special edition for Apple.
Wow-
That tirade by Cringley is definitely one of the more imaginitive guesses about Apple’s roadmap. It’s definitely -out- there.
Sometimes Cringely can be an idiot.
I’ve yet to read an article of his where he isn’t. Actually I’ve given up reading his articles, I much prefer reading the article bashing he gets here.
Who much time would take to modify a virtual computer like WMWare, VirtualPC or PearPC… to allow OS X for Intel execution?
Would it be enough fast now?
So good news, I Mac Box for free!!!
The one thing I don’t hear anything about in all these reviews, and the ArsTechnica ones are really good, is what’s going to happen vis-a-vis [do forgive me, I wanted to use vis-a-vis in a sentence] on-board DRM features which would lock the user into a DRM scheme with or without the user’s consent, with all that entails with regards to who now really owns the machine.
Will there be on-board DRM features on the Intel boards? If so, I am not a fan of that at all. I do not want an unseen third party telling what I can and cannot do with the files on my computer, only to protect the rights of film- and music makers. I can do without music and movies on my computer, but I don’t want someone remotely recording what I’m doing with my machine. To me that is a real worry and I’m not seeing it addressed anywhere so far [or else, if you were there eloquently addressing this very issue and I haven’t seen it, I do apologize].
If Apple doesn’t sign away my freedom to run my machine as I see fit [and I really don’t want any more rights than I want roaming through my own house], they can run it on the chip they retrieved from the Terminator’s head for all I care. Just get Sarah Connor out of the way, I hear the thing gets all confused over her].
“However, x86-64 is superior to x86 in performance.”
Appearently, they are not, as every single benchmark shows so far. And the only only reason – more memory – does not apply as the first Macs on Intel will be the Mini-Mac replacements… I hope you don’t need these with 8 GB of RAM for browsing and connecting your iPod.
“However, x86-64 is superior to x86 in performance.”
Appearently, they are not, as every single benchmark shows so far.
And as can also be easily explained: 64-bit pointers and additional instruction prefixes require more memory bandwidth.
More registers don’t necessarily make up for that.
Apple, Intels consumer product wing
Mark my words, this is a *BIG* win for Apple; Dell isn’t gong to lose for one simple reason; the public service and large companies *LOVE* Dell; the pricing, the ease of ordering, the whole shebang.
Apple is going to offer Intel a new dimension; Intel and Apple can work together on consume products, concept ideas that have been remaining concept product; these are now going to appear on the market, with a sexy operating system.
Its a bigger win for Intel than Apple – people here will say, “well, so what?” – the fact is, Intel need their products pushed into new spaces, the only consumer driven company that can do it is Apple – they have the design and the people power to turn Intels dreams, into reality, by developing, designing and marketing the products properly.
The more products out there using Intel chips, the happier they’ll be; be it ‘media devices’, ‘pcs’, hand held computers; the sky is the limit.
“Not sure why you think it would reduce costs. Apple gear (asside from Apple laptops) already costs less for equally-spec’d machines”
Really? The top of the line Mac costs $3000, nothing on the PC side comes anywhere near this price. Plus the speed is far slower than a top of line PC, and since CPU speed is the only justification for increased price, this system should not be compared to a top of the line PC since PC speeds are far far greater than 2.7Ghz. The comparison should be to a PC with the exact same speed CPUs… and I have put together a dual 3Ghz PC for less than $500. And even this price should be reduced by 10% considering it’s 10% faster than the Mac. And actually if I had put in 2.7Ghz CPUs, it would cost less than $400.
Mac is cheaper? No it’s not, it’s far far more expensive for the same CPU speed. In fact it is so much more expensive that it’s obscene.
Yup this is a big win for Intel. There is a lot of Intel technology not used by Dell and other’s that I’m sure Intel would like to see used and Apple with it’s expertise in Innovation will utilize the technology and chips.
Now for the first time OS X will have a public debut running on it’s native processor. People it was meant to run on X86 from the beginning. DARWIN.
Test already show that the released test of OS X on Intel runs better and matches/beats scores on the PPC.
Developer Quotes:
– “the thing is fast”. All iLife apps are already universal binaries
Intel Mac scored well in both the Quartz graphics and OpenGL graphics tests “almost matching or exceeding dual-2.5GHz G5 score”.
I can’t believe you haven’t heard that performance doesn’t depend on GHz only.
Haven’t you noticed that AMD processors actually run at much lower frequencies than comparable Pentium 4s?
>>
Really? The top of the line Mac costs $3000, nothing on the PC side comes anywhere near this price. Plus the speed is far slower than a top of line PC, and since CPU speed is the only justification for increased price, this system should not be compared to a top of the line PC since PC speeds are far far greater than 2.7Ghz. The comparison should be to a PC with the exact same speed CPUs… and I have put together a dual 3Ghz PC for less than $500. And even this price should be reduced by 10% considering it’s 10% faster than the Mac. And actually if I had put in 2.7Ghz CPUs, it would cost less than $400.
>>
Well, looking on the bright side, at least we won’t have to listen to drivel like this for much longer.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<
Mac is cheaper? No it’s not, it’s far far more expensive for the same CPU speed. In fact it is so much more expensive that it’s obscene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>
You’re absolutely right. I wonder what the self-deluded mac-o-philes will use for justification once Apple is charging $3K for a 3.6Ghz computer that sells for less than one fifth the price in the PC world? Whatever it will be, it’ll be funny.
The pressure to drop the price to be more competitive will be enormous. There will be no more happy rationalizations about performance since it will be the exact same CPU. Add in the Osborne effect and the next few years for Apple will be quite challenging financially. Oh yeah, one more thing, I bet the OSX will get cracked to run on generic PCs and if that happens, it’ll be the death of Apple unless they morph from a harware sales based company into a software sales based company. And if they do, they’ll threaten microsoft, who will attempt to crush them like a roach.
No more comparison of Mac and PC processors. Now we can get back to usability, lack of viruses, trojans, malware and really nicely designed software.
In any case, current hardware, PC or PPC, is quite capable- if the OS and software is optimized for it. Remember Word 5.1 ran really well on an LC (25 mHz) but now runs like a dog on even the fastest Mac or PC (due to bloat).
There will be some initial getting used to BIOS instead of Open Firmware, that had some advantages over BIOS, for Mac users – but that’s it.
Many PC users on this and other forums would often say that they would never use a Mac until it was able to run on Intel as if that made all the difference. Now these folks will be able to test Os X on their machines and as many new converts know, once you have tasted worry free computing, there is no going back. Even on a P4 Os X and its included applications seem to running quite spiffily.
MS must be quite worried. Mac already has TextEdit which can open most Word documents, and Keynote which can read PowerPoint. Filemaker can read Excel. So if MS threatens to pull Office from Os X, it is no big deal. Apple probably has contingency plans for that as they did with IBM processor.
Dell, HP and others will be asking to license Os X to install on their computers. If Apple obliges, then every one wins. I don’t care if it is no longer a niche OS anymore. It is time computing became enjoyable to everyone and not only Mac users.
Now the $1000 question for PC users : Do you want a car that breaks down often or do you want one that is stylish, runs for long with little maintenance. Are you willing to pay a little more for that? I know, being a Mac user, when the time to buy a PC became inevitable, I chose an IBM ThinkPad instead of Averatec after checking both out (I was willing a pay a little more for something better).
The future of computing looks bright!
Cheers
The pressure to drop the price to be more competitive will be enormous. There will be no more happy rationalizations about performance since it will be the exact same CPU. Add in the Osborne effect and the next few years for Apple will be quite challenging financially. Oh yeah, one more thing, I bet the OSX will get cracked to run on generic PCs and if that happens, it’ll be the death of Apple unless they morph from a harware sales based company into a software sales based company. And if they do, they’ll threaten microsoft, who will attempt to crush them like a roach.
The level of FUD here is enough to fumigate a house with.
The price will no doubt go down. I’m going to be nagging them about it something unfunny. There is no more justification for not bringing the price down once they are using readily available components. It would be absurd. It’ll still cost more than the time warp machine you built yourself by ripping the innards out of the clothes dryer and mounting SUSE [9!] on top of it, conveniently stored in an empty [well, now no longer] Weeties box, but I’m not going to have to use screws. That’s worth a couple of hundred bucks to me.
Whether or not it’s going to be cracked remains to be seen. At any rate, and people never mention that bit, your cracked machine is going to blow chunks because there’s all sorts of freaky stuff going wrong with it, and you can forget about support for your homegrown version, sweetheart [won’t stop you from whining about it, though].
If the people who crack the system force Apple to use product activation on their system, that to me justifies grievous bodily harm to whomever has me jumping through hoops to be allowed to use a product I bought. Product Activation is a hate crime and the reason why there are so many gnarling Windows users, or so I presume, is that they have to activate stuff on their machines. And you would not have had to do that if it wasn’t for your truly hateful character trait that everything is too expensive, you don’t want to pay for the effort thousands of people made creating a product that you want to use everyday. And because you’d rather steal than buy your software [which I gladly do, you bet!], I would now also have to jump through the same hoops.
IT IS NOT A NICE THING TO DO ME!
And on top of that, it would create an underclass of users who don’t love the Mac, who don’t want to appreciate the experience of using a Mac and deride us who do, who never want to pay for everything [and sneer at the software they stole and then feel free to deride] and who mess up my experience because if they don’t have a life, why should I, right?
You don’t want a Mac, you’ve said so a gazillion times. Don’t bother cracking it then. Don’t create an opportunity for yourself to whine until the lights go out, and especially don’t ruin my experience because you can.
Is that too much to ask? I hope it isn’t. Thank you.
<<<
Well, looking on the bright side, at least we won’t have to listen to drivel like this for much longer.
>>>
No, I doubt it, you macheads will always be lying and provoking others, and then feigning indignance when you’re proven wrong.
Here’s what your $3000 power mac is really worth:
2.7Ghz CPU’s: $82
Motherboard:$97
+ a generous $150 for other parts = $411
and that’s from newegg, other places are even cheaper. And even cheaper still if you have a PC that you’re upgrading, since only MB+CPU need replacing…. something that is impossible in the Mac world… since Apple insists on selling a kitchen sink with every Mac and prevent people from rolling their own at a cheaper price.
blah blah blah blah…
you are being obnoxious.
Macs may be expensive, but comparing a pile of parts with a properly integrated and tested computer with an operating system, a software pack and three years warranty or whatever is just stupid.
<<<
You don’t want a Mac, you’ve said so a gazillion times. Don’t bother cracking it then. Don’t create an opportunity for yourself to whine until the lights go out, and especially don’t ruin my experience because you can.
Is that too much to ask? I hope it isn’t. Thank you.
>>>
I will get a copy of the test intel OSX and crack it and release it on all the warez sites. If I fail, someone else will succeed. This will probably happen by the end of June. Don’t take it personally, it’s a technical challenge, not any other type. If your experience is ruined, it wasn’t directed at you.
And you’re right, I won’t use it even if *I* crack it, Zeta just went gold, and has a far better UI than OSX. I just can’t wait to load it on my PC, BeOS lives again! And even though I’ll have a warez copy by the end of the day, I’ll buy a copy too, just to support them, because both APPL & MSFT suck.
<<<
You don’t want a Mac, you’ve said so a gazillion times. Don’t bother cracking it then. Don’t create an opportunity for yourself to whine until the lights go out, and especially don’t ruin my experience because you can.
Is that too much to ask? I hope it isn’t. Thank you.
>>>
I will get a copy of the test intel OSX and crack it and release it on all the warez sites. If I fail, someone else will succeed. This will probably happen by the end of June. Don’t take it personally, it’s a technical challenge, not any other type. If your experience is ruined, it wasn’t directed at you.
And you’re right, I won’t use it even if *I* crack it, Zeta just went gold, and has a far better UI than OSX. I just can’t wait to load it on my PC, BeOS lives again! And even though I’ll have a warez copy by the end of the day, I’ll buy a copy too, just to support them, because both APPL & MSFT suck.
Quite the troll you are, hmmm.
It’s late, I’m cranky, and I don’t want a gullible person falling for your crap.
Look to the past to find out about the Intel-based Mac’s future?
Packard Bells == Intel Mac’s?
Packard Bell made cheap computers with cheap parts to run the standard Microsoft OS of the day. Apple, OTOH, makes premium computers with a PowerPC processor – soon they’ll be doing the same with an Intel processor.
See that? Nothing else has changed!
Apple had a different method of boot-up with a PowerPC, so how is it any different if they end up doing that with the Intel Macs?
XBOX-style ports/connectors? Non-Apple approved mice?
No and no.
>
>
You don’t get it do you? Packard Bell built PC’s that while they could run the standard Microsoft OS of the day, were to a very large extent very propitary.
You could not easily upgrade those machines by swaping out the motherboard, cpu chip or flashing by a new BIOS.
Apple is going to follow the same design road that Packard Bell did with their designs of their 80’s PC’s.
You can count on it.
So what if OS X gets cracked, that’s no bad thing for Apple, it’ll mostly replace cracked Windows versions. And the wider the user base will be, the more software and web developers will take OS X and Safari seriously. Many just ignore Apple users because of the insignificant market share. Microsoft go so big because of illegal copies of it’s software that just came with your beige clone pc. And there are lots of other examples where software just became market leader not because of their intrinsic qualities but because they were widely spead and many people knew how to work with it.
Thats the beauty of Apple switching to Intel. Now you have a choice. If you don’t like MS or Apple (I doubt you have extensive experience on OS X since you dismiss it so offhandedly), you can load an OS of your choice.
Stop trying to troll, now that Apple is one of the PCs. Get over it- you have fewer and fewer real reasons to dismiss it, except to say inane things like it sucks!
OTOH may PC users will now have an opportunity to seriously try OS X and will make up their own minds if it is worth paying a little more for.
cringely really is a raving lunatic.. isnt he?
So what if you crack the developer’s version of OS X for Intel? It’s not like you’re going to have drivers for all your hardware. Oh wait, since you’re the magical OS X cracker, you’ll just write your own, right?