http://www.osnews.com/story/10757/Editorial_Why_Apple_s_Switch_Makes_Sense_NOW Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:28:17 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Okay, I have different predictions ( http://thom-holwerda.blogspot.com/2005/06/final-thoughts-on-apple.h... ), but your scenario makes a lot of sense.

It still has a high gamble factor though.

Another problem is how they're gonna treat us ppc customers. Apple isn't exactly known for its backwards compatibility...

Can't wait until tomorrow. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One of the things I hear Apple being ding upon is software. Usually it's games. Hopefully this move will help address this issue. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple maybe able to just emulate the old powerpc OSx version of its binaries. A sort of cross between Wine and PearPC projects should beable to do this rather easy as the host OS would be OSx itself. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? They have a niche market, perhaps if they are going for x-86/64 they would want to go with the new AMD X-2. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree that i would LOVE to see a powerbook running OS X with a Pentium M class chip and integrated WiFi; save space and power but still be faster than current G4s. I would be first in line to buy it.

On The other hand, PPC is just going to OWN in the high end space with the advent of cell, 970MP, Power 6... The G5 STILL competes in the Workstation market and it's hardly been upgraded since its debut.

It would be cool to see if Apple can manage this right. I like AMD for desktop chips, Intel for Laptops, and PPC for Server/Workstation. Can Apple satisfy everyone? Only tomorrow will tell. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I had decided to go all Apple in the next year or two, good thing I didn't do that earlier. Now I'll wait and see how it all goes and THEN make the switch. Until then, my Athlon XP 3200+ with FreeBSD and Windows XP, and my 14" iBook G3 800MHz will keep me company. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You will still have incompatabilities between software written for x86/Microsoft and x86 OS-X. Can't assume that games will automatically run on OS-X now that there is a x86 based processor doing the grunt. No more so than any other Nix or the state of things currently on OS-X.

Apple would still have to work hard on the game industry to port titles accross. What they could try is with a consortium, go for cross platform API's that allow easy migration from one platform to another and push it hard as an alternative to DirectX. Personally I still prefer OpenGL based titles compared to their DirectX versions as OpenGL just seems to be more vivid and vibrant with texturing compared to DirectX which can looked washed-out by comparison. Also OpenGL is cross platform which is great. Now for the rest like OpenAL, and something to deal with the otehr missing parts covered by the DirectX suit of API's. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? please save me from this
It's like every major keynote, "will it be a PDA?" -- "no, no, really, it will be a phone!"... "no, no they are really doing it! They are switching to x86"

Let just wait and see, this x86 discussion is making me want to vomit Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? All of the 'real' news articles point to a 2006 to 2007 conversion date...isn't that when Longhorn comes out? People must have forgotten Microsoft's marketing muscle. If you think a conversion to an Intel chip in '06 and '07 time frame wouldn't be lost in the signal to noise ratio of a Longhorn launch that's selling MS short.

Also the progression cited in the news.com article makes little to know sense. It talks about the Mac Mini going first. Their flagship products would be the ones that need to go first if speed & time to market are the concern.

I also wonder about the 'osborne effect' where announcing something that yes years away is a wonderful idea. Who is going to want to buy something now knowing it's a dead platform? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In the past we all expected the x86 family to go the way of the dodo. But time and time again it's seen off other designs and just keeps getting faster, cheaper. Really, for the desktop, the processor wars are over and Apple is just facing up to reality sooner rather than later. The average home user just doesn't care whether they're using PPC or x86 ... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It would mean more affordable macs, better videocards
(not the ones that are specially made for the mac and are always outdated)

More software, better compatibility in the future (easier to port stuff or emulate)
More games to the mac as well!

As long as they do not print Intel or AMD stickers on my mac, and I really don't want to hear the "Dun dun dun dun" at the end of an Apple commercial of course.

for the rest, monday will be a very very nice day in history,
and i better buy some Apple stock before the WWDC starts to roll.....

PS: TheInquirer confirmed the cnet story and told apple was also talking to AMD!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714 Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Apple switches to Intel, it sure won't stick with the aging x86. Instead IA64 makes much more sense now.

These Xeons and Xeons MP currently runs pretty fast @ 3.66 Ghz, so Apple could get the "promised" PowerMac to 3.0Ghz+ in no time and get these Xeons in the Powerbook also. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Have to agree with Tom on this. If Apple switched to x86-64 then who would want to buy into a dead platform? I know I would not and I'm sure a lot of others wouldn't either. Thats a lot of prospective/real customers to loose in one fell swoop. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've got a news flash for all of you:
Do a bang per buck and you will see that macs are comparably priced as Windows computers. Apple does not produce junk PCs that are crap as soon as you get them out of the box, that is why you dont get $500 macs with KB/MS/LCD/CPU !

All of the parts that apple uses to make its macs now are comodity hardware! nothing special. Further more, just because something uses x86 doesn't mean that games would be easier to port. A lot of games use DirectX which STILL does not have a mac version Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple is overpriced. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I *still* believe MS is going to come out on top. We all love to give MS the occasional (or frequent) bash but it still dosent negate the fact that MS has been doing a fanastic job lately, no doubt becuase of competition from Linux.

Apple can try anything they want, in the end they will fail. Just stick to your ipods Steve. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Linux is no real threat on the desktop compared to Mac OS X"

Hehe, Eugenia is trolling again... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? From what I've read the Opteron(Dual core)/Althon64X2's put the Xeon 64bit CPU's into the shade on nearly every benchmark. The logical approach for Apple would be Intel for the powerbooks/ibook/mac mini and the Opteron(Dual core)/AMDX2's for the desktop/XServe's. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Do you have any proof that apple is overpriced? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) Apple is currently walking over money from their recent ipod sales and so it can support low sales of their mac hardware for some time.

2) Apple as refocused their business to the ipod and is not so dependent on mac sales.

3) Apple's big advantage is on good marketing and design decisions and that can be achieved either with a PPC ou x86 arquitecture. The brand can still achieve higher recognition with "common" hardware.

4) Software has been the wheel that moved Apple's business and not hardware. Just think what you prefer the most: MacOSX on x86 or WinXP over PPC/Apple hardware?

5) Apple can take advantage of some big CPU players (AMD and Intel) who's main business is selling chips for desktop computers. No more problems with low offer of cpus when they starting to release new products and must take advantage of the momentum.

6) When buying new hardware from Apple, businesses will no longer be locked into Apple's software and can possibly install WinXP ou Longhorn if they want. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have to disagree.
As much as I love OS X, the *only* reason that apple succeeded in going from OS 9 to OS X is that there was a way to run old software, without recompiliing, with no performance hit!

If apple switches to x86, this advantage goes bye bye.

Linux has an advantage of OS X with all the software that it has already running on it. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Go to any computer store and compare the prices (pc/apple). Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As far as 64-bitness, Tiger is actually behind XP. Yes, the kernel is 64-bit, but beyond that only the BSD layer has been updated.

Microsoft takes flak evertime a new version of Windows (or a service pack, for that matter) breaks a small handful of programs. Can Apple survive such a drastic platform change?

Remember, the switch from 68k to PPC was when the Pentiums were new, and before Windows 95 came out. The switch from OS 9 to X was looooong overdue and was also desperately needed.

Let's not forget the other times Steve Jobs has set some speed goal for the G4 chips that Motorola never met, and look how long it took to ditch them. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Go to any computer store and compare the prices (pc/apple)."

If that is your only comparison....you need help in sharpening your investigative skills Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >> Linux is no threat on the desktop compared to Mac OS X"
> Hehe, Eugenia is trolling again...

When I am saying no "competition on the desktop", I am talking abnout the desktop EXPERIENCE, not the actual strategic and market advantages. OSX offers ways better desktop experience than any linux. That's no trolling, that's the truth. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia

"When I am saying no "competition on the desktop", I am talking abnout the desktop EXPERIENCE, not the actual strategic and market advantages. OSX offers ways better desktop experience than any linux. That's no trolling, that's the truth."

Just spot on with that quote. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A better means diddly squat :-)
Look at BeOS... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just so you know, those Xeons you are referring to are IA32 architecture chips with 64 bit extensions. IA64 is the Itanium / Itanium2 family, which is an entirely other species of animal. Apple will most certainly NOT move to IA64 because just ONE of those processors, and I mean the slow one (>1GHz) with the little cache (3MB) (and just one core), will cost over $1000. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just so you guys know, Intel makes other processors. And since Intel owns huge chip fabs, they could (relatively) easily start producing PPC chips in mass quantity (considering Apples's mass is miniscule compared to the amount of x86 processors produced). So, just wait a little while before jumping to the conclusion that it's got to be x86. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In reference to:

"Remember, we are not talking about having OSX running on random PCs here, Apple would never get into the "generic PC" market. This market is impossible to support fully; that was one of the reasons BeOS was killed when it moved from PPC to x86 as well. Apple won't make the same mistake. They know better and they have the infrastructure to modify the stock x86 platform to lock-in Mac OS X to their modified PCs only."

Why do some people assume that Apple will closed minded by only offering their software on custom systems? If Steve Jobs is paying attention to current global market trends he should realize that people want options both with software and hardware. Vendor lock in is not going to make consumers rush to spend their hard earned cash. Also it's idiotic for someone to claim that if Apple expanded the support to include all x86 processors that Apple would fail. Sorry but hello...anyone one home? How is it that developers such as Microsoft, Novell and Red Hat can be successful at supporting a wide variety of hardware but Apple wouldn't? I believe Apple moving to x86 is a wise decision and will only increase profits for Apple as being seen as more competitive by giving consumers more options. They don't need to make their money strictly from selling computers as they have software to sell. I wish some people would realize this. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "If that is your only comparison....you need help in sharpening your investigative skills"

eMac G4 Desktop
PowerPC G4 1.25GHz Processor, 256MB RAM, 40GB Hard Drive, 12X DVD / 32X10X32 CD-RW Combo Drive, Built-in 17-inch (16.0 vis) Flat CRT Monitor, Mac OS X Panther v10.3

U$ 799,00

Bundle: HP Pavilion a810n (3300+ AMD Athlon 64 Processor) and HP 15-inch LCD Monitor

U$ 859,00 (It has a 64 Processor, LCD monitor)...

Any other question, sir? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Quote:

"[Apple] know[s] better and they have the infrastructure to modify the stock x86 platform to lock-in Mac OS X to their modified PCs only."

I agree, Eugenia. Your above point is the one most people miss. If people think OS X is gonna run on any old PC hardware, they're dead wrong. Apple sells a complete computing solution that people are willing to pay a premium price for. Apple's not gonna jeopardize that by letting OS X run on any old PC hardware. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well, All I can say is IBM surely dropped the ball if this is true.
- Rising Apple sales.
- Brand recognition for Power
- Long term contracts to help fund Power R&D.

But, I still don't believe it.
19 hours to go.

If Apple were really moving to x86, and giving up the Virus doesn't run on Power advantage, they would have:
1 - Started developing all their software to run on x86 and sold Windows version
2 - All accessories would also have Windows versions, not just IPOD.

The purpose of this would be to shrink the hardward business as much as possible to reduce the Business Risk. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Porting of OSX to x86 either 32bit or 64bit does not mean simplification for the software designers.
1) Driver architecture model should be adjusted not only to the platform but also to the OS.
2) Apple will be needed to supply the relevant APIs to the third party software designers. I do not think the companies that do not collaborate with Apple nowdays will gamble on it. Microsoft supplies software designers with perfect tools. Apple is many levels bellow MS.
3) DirectX counterpart is not designed for MAC, this will significantly retard game development
4) Popularity of Windows is not only a lot of software and games, but also wide hardware support. Apple cannot afford to support wide spectrum of hardware. Locked-in hardware supply decreases option. I do not think that people will be satisfied with clones of MAC.
Of course, eye-candy craving people will be inspired to get x86 based MAC, but they will frustrate quite quickly.
Another thing, actually switch of OSX to x86 will overthrow it to a Linux evolution path, similar to Linux 4-5 years ago
Btw, did anybody test Darwin for x86. It is complete crap. I really wanted to run it on several PII computers with configurations pointed out in the manual.... disaster....
So, I think Steve Jobs is blinded with its mass-media popularity and he is gambling, but this case he is pulling a wrong card... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If the "time is right" for Linux because of Longhorn's problems, then the time is even more right for Apple!

Not necessarily. The people who are claiming this don't think that people are going to run out and buy new hardware to run Linux on the desktop, but that's what they'd have to do to run Mac OS X86. The only way you can compare these is if Apple would support OS X on generic PCs, and you're right, Eugenia--that will never happen.

Without that, this is an Apples to oranges comparison. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Personally, I think this whole rumor is just that. A rumor leaked by Apple to keep the thunder from being stolen from what they're really going to announce. Whatever that is. It would accomplish something Apple would like to have: skepticism about the mac rumor mill. I don't believe Apple will break binary compatibility. I simply do not. Come Monday I may be looking for a good recipe for crow. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Microsoft's Xbox (err, media center PC) runs on PPC. Will Longhorn? (Hint: change two bytes in media center's install registry to turn it into Longhorn.) OS X runs on PPC. Linus uses PPC at home, and everybody emulates Linus.

IBM is back-ordered.

It was only time before Intel became the next big PPC player. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...like they did for the Mac Mini? Assuming, of course, that the story is actually true. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? eMac G4 Desktop
G4 1.25GHz
256MB RAM
40GB
12X DVD / 32X10X32 CD-RW
17-inch (16.0 vis) Flat CRT Monitor
Mac OS X Panther v10.3

U$ 799.00

Dimension 3000
P4 2.80GHz, 533 FSB
256MB RAM
40GB
16x DVD-ROM Drive / 48x CD-RW Drive
17-inch Flat Panel Monitor
Windows XP Home

U$ 719.00

If you live in Canada, you can purchase Cicero (Future Shop house brand) for even cheaper! Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? if apple do this and price it high, sure the apple loyalists will buy it - but the mass market won't.

the mass market is in fact purchaing no-brand white-boxes with extremely cheap copies of windows. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ... even though the article is slightly incorrect.

(1) Drivers. The linux kernel was written to allow the average computer science student to make up quickly a new driver as needed. More than half of the hardware djungle pieces are supported today. That even helps Mac OS X given its BSD-ish kernel as many of the driver stacks are very similar across unix kernels. Apple may easily provide a wealth of new hardware that its current customers could never enjoy before. It will not be there suddenly but the darwin kernel is open and ready to be a target for that computer science student to port some drivers from linux or the other BSDs.

(2) Desktop. The gain of linux on the desktop market is not so much for longhorn being late. It is about all those viruses. The effort to make a windows PC ready for the rough internet world is very high, compared to a one-step installation of a linux distro. Many win32 users skip that and allow consiously their machines to be filled with trojans.

(3) Industry. The gaming industry as well as the backyard far-east hardware manufacturer were not targeting linux because... it is a kind of moving target. The kernel and base libraries are changing quickly. For example database vendors only support few big distros but not linux as a general term. Apple will be in the game nicely.

(4) Software. The common linux distro ships with thousands of free little helper programs from the opensoure domain. Making them ready for win32 was always a hard thing but for Mac OS X it will be easy. One day per program. Latest releases of Mac OS X even included X11 support, AFAIR.

I guess that darwin/Mac will provide a big opportunity. Linux users will find a unixish environment that they can safely recommend to their computer-phobic relatives. It has fine stuff for the desktop for sure. I do not know whether it can draw the win32 power gamer but (a) that is largely a choice of the game makers and (b) catching some part of the x86 unix market is a good share in the pocket as well.

Remember that Apple does already build (unix) network servers... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Scratch my last post. Here's why Apple is switching:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

DRM on the motherboard! Its the only way to make the movie industry happy. Hmm, lets start with the Mini first...duh! Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I guess it would take YEARS for IBM to develop hardward DRM!
Sheesh.... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Because it means to bye again same version of soft....


one other word :

Microsoft Office suite ->
Microsoft would never developp a x86 office suite for mac, it would mean compete on their own land...

more over
the double switch : frome one arch (PPC to x86) and to bigendien to little endian is just too hard for apple


you talked about fat binaries, you better talk about emulation in double sens : x86 ppc and with fine speed....

if and only if they are able to make intel make proc with double instruction set (ala transmetta) it's possible...
in the other hand : no. Nobody will be willing paying twice just for a recompile (and believe me : the switch is not that easy) Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I still think that it is a big "if" if Apple moves its mainstream computers to the x86 processor family, and I would be disappointed if they did.

I mentioned in the other thread that I thought that lots of other architectures were better than x86 and that even Intel have tried to move away from it. But I am aware that x86 has economies of scale behind it and most people don't care about elegance of instruction set architecture. Pure performance is the order of the day and unfortunately x86 with both its good points and its bad points is certainly going to live on for a very long time yet.

Now I agree with most that if Apple *does* switch to x86 they will probably make their own proprietary boxes. I think they will do this just because of Apples' past performance and not because of the other arguments put forth.

I would buy OS X if it would run on my current boxes.

If they do make proprietary boxes, price/performance ratio would be the only reason that people would buy them. OS X is good, but not *that* good. If it can't run on regular x86 boxes then there is little real advantage over PPC. They would certainly gain many more users if they supported regular boxes, or at least a certified hardware list. Lots of people want to run OS X on their existing boxes or on boxes they build themselves. Proprietary boxes would grow their market share more slowly.

I don't think that supporting hardware on x86 boxes was BeOS downfall. I think that it raised their mindshare and introduced more people to BeOS than would have tried it had Be Inc. stuck to PPC. The company had other problems.

If Apples' goal is to increase market share and decrease price/performance ratio then supporting generic x86 is the way to go. Otherwise they may as well stick with PPC. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple is probably exausted from having to provide a lot of the momentum for IBM Power on the desktop. With x86, they don't need to do that, since the momentum is already there. No more sweating it out to see if IBM's priorities are in making faster desktop chips, if they're priorities don't change down the road, to push them to get a certain chip out in time. All of that is already provided with x86, without Apple doing a damn thing. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It thinks a great time for Apple to switch and I believe thay have prepared themselves for this with x86 version of their softwares. Can't wait to play with the iApp's, Motion and Final Cut Pro on Intel.

I would bet to that most of Apple's software hacks have Windows experience, given the companies Apple has aquired in the past few years, Next, Nothing Real, Silicon Gr...etc.

I think IBM really dropped the ball on this one. Much like Adobe did with Apple in the past and also Avid's number a few years ago at NAB. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? CNet, a known hack for INTEL, trying to pump up it's stats is more likely. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...consumers want to play their movies on all their computers in their house. How will IBM help here? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? mini me wrote:
Do you have any proof that apple is overpriced?


---
Do you have any proof that Apple is using higher quality hardware? Who makes their RAM? Who makes their optical drives? I remember a report a couple years ago on Tech Report, I think from Damage, where he peeled off the cas2 sticker on the PC133 RAM in a Mac to find 3-3-3 screened on the chip. As much as I'd love to own a PPC970, I can build a PC with a Gigabyte motherboard, Plextor DVD+/-RW, Crucial RAM, M-Audio Sound, and Leadtek graphics and be sure of the quality of all my components.

I do agree that the average PC that your average Joe comes home with from Fry's or CompUSA is absolute garbage, however, besides the flat panels, I'm not so sure Apple is any better.


All that said, I'd love to see Apple move to x86 for one reason, and one reason only: Apple will never sell a quality barebones for a reasonable price. Also, IBM is much less likely market the PPC970 anywhere near the desktop as long as Apple is buying their chips. It's still not likely, but at least there's a better chance.

Eugenia's thought that laptop needs are what's driving Apple to x86 got me thinking, though. Pentium M is a great chip, powerful and cool-running at the same time. But in tests I've seen, it struggles heavily in compiling code (the test I saw was a Linux kernel). Wouldn't that transfer over to most pro design? I'm especially thinking Photoshop and building 3D scenes, but maybe even audio and video editing.

With Freescale's design for the dual core 8641D with it's oncore memory and hypertransport controllers... does anyone know if it got delayed? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i also think it's the right time to make a switch and it seems that steve jobs is targeting the windows user, 2% market share is not enough for apple. they need 10%-30%

but i don't believe that apple will announce a switch to x86 processors tomorrow, especially not for the Power Macs (G5)

they will propably announce a tablet mac with a ultra low voltage pentium M processor. it make sense to introduce the x86 platform in a machine that does not replace a powerpc machine, but is a new type of apple computer. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I still don't get why pc users (linux and windows) are so excited about apple's future. Everyone seem to want OSX on their box.

The fact is, we don't need OSX at all. We have already most of the infrastructure to make a free alternative quite fast. I don't get why so many programmers still work hard on gnome/kde projects when they are always thinking about switching to OSX.

Did you guys forget gnustep? With a bit more work it could become almost 100% compatible with apple's cocoa. Both are based on openstep anyway. I think someone could just rework Windowmaker and theme the widgets and it would almost feel like OSX. But it could become even WAY better if alot of people were concerned about it. The community is able to make some kind of "open osx" trust me.

People tried for a long time to reproduce microsoft stuff for the linux platform, but why not reproduce (and improve!) mac products?

Why are the open source people so lovely with apple anyway? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apparently Apple offered a job to Pavel Machek, reported to work on the linux kernel, seeking in his words an "ACPI & BIOS person" Which is kinda sorta x86 specific :-D.

Ars article : http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050603-4970.html
Livejournal of Pavel Machek http://www.livejournal.com/users/pavelmachek/7323.html

For the record, I still don't believe it will happen :-) Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I liked the editorial, but my take is this:

People buy Apple for the OS and software. As long as they can compute the Mac way, the hardware it runs on is actually immaterial. If Apple had put in a no brand CPU in my Powerbook, but my applications behaved as I expect it to, I wouldn't care.

Os X Tiger for all PCs! At $99 a license, they would sell millions of copies to Windows users who are tired of all the trojans and worms. Instead of going to Linux, now they have Os X as a choice. All the top Apple programs (iLife etc) just need to be recompiled for Intel to run. They probably have all the important programs compiled for the new architecture already.


Within a year, Apple share of all the currently running OSes will increase by at least 10-fold. Even if many pirated copies are run on Intel, in the long run this would increase the number of PCs running Os X astronomically. That is how MS became as big as it has and now has to resort to DRM and other schemes to prevent pirating.


Its time Steve exacted his revenge on Bill for continuously stealing ideas from Mac Os.

Way to go Apple! Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? people arent thinking here. What would be the advantage of jumpin to intel? Apples bread n butter has been laptops and the fact that OSX runs 64bit on PPC, even on laptops, even Intel's new powerhouse chip, Yothan is only 32bit, yes it'll be smaller and cooler, but not necessarily as powerful and capable. Apple is also huge on multicore and making gains in supercomputing, IBM is king of that castle and Apple has touted touted them for that by praising the g5's in the xserve and how well they performed not to mention that all 3 gaming consoles are touting IBM multicore chips, i smell bull$h!te Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > "That's no trolling, that's the truth."

Wow... Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? you are so right. thanks for the reminder... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I couldn't really care 2c if Apple moves to the x86 platform - but if they want to use GPL'd stuff then they sure as hell better offer the src code and provide any improvements back to the community and not try and hide them by obscurity.

Apple will offer locked in specially built PC hardware that'll have modified bios and run OS X on x86-64. It will also have heavy drm and palladium built into the bios. No thanks, i'll pass. TCPA is utterly evil and should have long been banned by the US government for being an infringement of basic rights and privacy. The only reason it isn't is because Bush jr. is a paranoid hick and wants to know what *every* single individual is doing - ie. spy on them in his 'war on terrorism' bullshit - this will offer him a way of doing so.

Apple, Intel, AMD, Microsoft have long since been big supports of TCPA for a variety of reasons - vendor lock in being the big one. Spying on your customers 'habits' being the other.

Most people haven't even heard of TCPA, let alone know what it means, and the majority couldn't give a shit. That's rather worrying, because it means due to others stupidity or ignorance (or both!) i'm gonna get stuck with a technology that is evil. I'm not impressed with Linus and others working on Linux to become TCPA compliant either. So, in the end, it might be GNU Hurd for me (and I suspect many others) who don't want to play the modern game. Either that or i'll just stop using a computer at home - I did it before and I can do it again!

Dave Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think they are out of options - IBM is busy making consoles and it wants out of it's agreement to supply apple with chips. Jobs now has to either secure a supply of top of the range Power chips (preferably 3Ghz and G5 compatible), or else he has to go back to all those people he said were phoning him asking him to supply OsX for Intel and agree to supply it in OEM packages. Unfortunately, the alternative chip suppliers are also busy, and well, apple are not on good terms with them either anyway, which leaves either the licensing option or Stevie finding something else to do between weekends.

Meanwhile IBM keeps showing that mac mini knockoff, presumably there would be laws against selling it, so perhaps they are making it for apple as part of a settlement for breaking contract. If so, it's a fair bet they are also involved in software side too, perhaps modifying either smartsuite or the compatibility layer from Os/2 to fit OsX for Intel. Now that would be fun, OsX for Intel with built-in windows compatibility, maybe bundled with a shuffle for the same price as XP!

OK. So not very likely, but then again, neither was the other story last friday... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You guys are making alot of false prediction on this topic. Biaised prediction. I doubt Windows users would switch to MacOS in general. I will give you 2 reasons (there are more):

1- Windows is the OS of choice for the Joe user. Most people on this planet think of DOS/Windows when they think about computers. People fully embraced it, learned it and dealed with it for years. Average people won't switch to anything else. Why? They don't want to learn something else. They want backward compatibility for their old stuff. Microsoft has been awesome on backward compatibility: my mom still uses some Win16 programs XP!

2- Real life programmers. Most of the real life programmers are Windows programmers. I say real life programmers as a reference to those who are actually employed by big companies like Symantec. All these programmers are used to the Windows platform and don't want to switch to something else anytime soon. You really believe that all those C++ programmers (with a couple of C one) would start learning objective-c and make softwares for the mac platform? That would cost too much for most company anyway.

For these reasons, I'm sure that most of the pc users are stuck to the Windows platform for a long time. We are a minority of powerusers anyway...

Never forget about your mom using Word and Excel for ages, your sister using MSN, mIRC and Winamp all day long, all your best friends using Nero to burn cds of mp3 they downloaded once on Napter, once on KaZaa and now who know what's next, almost all your family having Norton or McAfee as their antivirus...ect...ect...ect... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The inquirer has jumped on this bandwagon, but as an added twist are claiming "sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force" - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

Looks like Apple might be ticking off a lot of journos if they announce they won't switch after all. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The are a couple of problems with your reasons as to why this makes sense:

1.) Longhorn is late.

Sure. But as you pointed out, Apple is never going to be selling OS X as a standalone product for generic x86 machines even if they do use an x86 in their own machines. If the Mac remains a proprietary platform, what difference does it make what processor it runs on? You'd still have to buy a Mac to run OS X and associated applications.

Advantage: None.

2.) x86-64 is still a virgin market.

OK, but again, OS X is not going to be running on generic x86-64 boxes. It's going to be running on Apple x86-64 boxes. So, again, the processor powering those boxes is superfluous. It's not as if your Windows applications will run on it just because it's running an x86. It's still an entirely different platform from a generic Windows box. To the user, it isn't going to make any difference what processor it uses. He still isn't going to be able to take his Windows apps or his Linux apps and run them on his Mac, or vice versa. It's still an entirely different platform.

Again, no advantage.

There may be other advantages to using x86, such as cost or supply, or a greater variety of chips for applications for different kinds of computers (i.e. laptops or desktops), but the reasons you've given don't really make much sense as reasons to change architectures. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple will definitly die, if it goes about pc market, if they do switch. That's sure, and will be only question of time. They cannot, and will not win with ms-win. Sorry - hard life. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Now it's the right time to IBM, to look into Cell architecture and see if it's the future of Server Processing.

I have to agree, with the switch, but my questions are, how much it will cust to apple to rewrite kernel core, and compatiblity layers so that the new Mac OSX will run on x86! Does the cost reproduce in terms of performance, or price!

It's still a long way to go, but i think that the switch will cause a lot of headache to steve.

By the way chosing Intel has some logic, or not!
Because in terms of desktop AMD rules,and now with 2 new fabrication units it probably can cover the requirements to apple. I only see intel viable for laptop, notebooks. But here i can be wrong.

And by the way when ppl say that they overcover, they have good hardware in their computers i personally checked it's not all cheap parts.. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >It's not as if your Windows applications will run on it just because it's running an x86.

You are wrong. There will be no reason why someone could not run Windows there. Also, most people don't have 64bit computers yet, but they WILL be moving to them soon. So, why not get an Apple machine, when you will be able to also run windows and linux on it just fine?

> If the Mac remains a proprietary platform, what difference does it make what processor it runs on?

it will be running on industry standard cpus (so no 'cpu x is slower than cpu y' anymore), and you will be able to run Windows if you want. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? powerusers always under-rate windows anyway. that's nothing new. alot of people are also under-rating longhorn alot... i think alot of people will be surprised on the release date... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Most of your points are valid except for the bit about "Real-life programmers". I think that many of those would jump ship in a heartbeat. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? but it's cool Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? MacOS X is worser than Windows because you have less freedom. You have to buy your hardware from a single vendor and make forced ans stupid upgrades when Apple decides to change CPU (68xxx -> PowerPC -> x86 -> ?) and release new operating system version that doesn't work on old computer models.

MacOS is overpriced in USA and much more outside USA. Here in Latin America only some snob playboys use Macs. Put on mind that linux is already the second platform globally. It is the third platform only in USA and some countries like Japan (which mimics all USA does).

Linux is the wright way for anyone who loves true freedom of choice. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Some fantastic points there, you have some great insights.

However, I do wonder, if the hardware needed to run OS X is proprietary, how will it compete with Windows (longhorn or otherwise)? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think you're also wrong dude. Because if Apple would want to use specific x86 hardware for their pc it would be all about making money with mac custom box.

But that would require using some kind of different BIOS that wouldn't be supported by Linux/Windows. Why? If the everything would be identical...people could start making clones with selected hardware. And even if there was some apple-only hardware, there would be no Windows drivers for it then... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ..of apple.

if apple is really going to switch to x86_64, that will be their dead. they could only exist, if they are not a "#1 danger" for microsoft. microsoft will crush them like a bug. apple can try to sell their crappy slow os x on x86, but in the end, users will switch to real OSes like longhorn (yeah, it has something that os x never had...speed) or (on the server side) linux. linux is much faster than os x.(apache etc) and windows( on the other side) is much faster when it comes to gaming/desktop things.

bye apple...

RIP Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? you're rude but i do agree for the most part. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? About Fat binaries
This is actually one of the best things about OS X. In bundles they are able to have machinecode for both different CPUs as well as different versions of OS X if needed.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/2q00/macos-x-dp4/macos-x-dp4-2.html#...

Of course the main OS files will due to space considerations be for only one CPU but 3rd party apps doesn't have to.

You just have to buy the Mac OS version and you're set.

About x86 proprietary hardware
This is very true. Apple is a hardware company. HOWEVER my guess is that they are taking a hint from MS book here. Why did Windows reach the penetration it has today (and no, you can be a monopoly from the beginning unless you are the only company with a solution), piracy. Windows got installed just about everywhere BECAUSE it was "free" and no antipiracy measures existed until WinXP. While people will not be able to run Mac OS X natively on their x86 boxes, they will SURELY within very short time be able to do so in emulation. And with something like a modified LinuxBIOS and a few hacked binaries perhaps even natively (in not that into LinuxBIOS to now for sure). But being able to run Mac OS X on emulation with DECENT speed may be able to get people to change hardware company next time they buy a computer.

If I said all was well with this move, some people would almost start to think I've fallen on the head or something so here are some bad points.

"We are all drones"
While x86 makes sense in many way not the least scale of economics, it may appear as a very unimaginative move. Up until this point Jobs (as the snakeoil salesman as he very often appears as) could say "This is NOT your average computer box with a standard CPU" etc but rather "This is an AMAZING computer with a PowerPC processor that is supercomputer" (however performance and truth told otherwise). Now I know which salespitch sells more computer to average Joes and Janes and now the only special ingredient in the "sauce" will be the design and the OS. "Think different" just lost it's glow.

Benchmarks and price
This will NOT be good for the new x86 Macs. Now, any comparisons between a PPC Mac and a x86 PC have many "flaws" that can be used by zealots (on both sides mind you) to discard the results. "GCC is bad at vectorizing code for G5" or "Vendor X did not optimize for that CPU" etc. Any benchmarks run on future x86 Macs will for MOST things have only one difference, the OS. If a x86 Mac is slower than an Win box of the same speed at file operations or in game benchmarks (OpenGL) then that difference will (mostly) be due to OS X. OS X better shine real good then because it doesn't right now in some ways (threading mostly comes to mind). A few benchmarks where OS X does bad and soon the word will spread even to those NOT reading those articles (word of mouth tells you which cars perform best too). That would not be good for sales if the OS is the main difference between two computers and the 14 year old son tells his father what computer to buy.

Developers
What can I say, if you want to be on the "Mac OS team" you gotta take one for the team. One from 68000 to PPC, one from OS9 to OS X and now another from PPC to x86. Had enough? However MS ever have conducted its buisness one thing was sure, if you were a developer for the average company you were catered for on many ways. They didn't screw you over with compatibility issues (many issues with WinXP are due to that) etc.

Computers "2010" (or RealSoonNow(tm)) ...
will likely not be quite as they are today. Likely scale of economics, process refinements, networking and FOSS will make the expensive and monolithic computer of today a dinosaur. A home network with a server and specified clients will likely be the standard. Why do you think MS has gone into consoles, media and tablet PCs? We will use smaller cheaper "computers" that are more tailored to specific needs with processing power that is more efficient (in terms of Wattage) to their actual use. Doing browsing? What the hell is that 3Ghz monster doing that for?

That move is something Apple needs to be ready for. Perhaps this is a transition into a more software based company where the "service" is the selling point and the hardware is generic.

Suddenly, Apple's future is a lot less clear whatever we might feel for the company. We do live in interresting times, indeed we do. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ which already runs on x86 and PPC and is basically OS X 10.4 and 8.1 is equivalent to OS X 10.4.1

i think (like others have already posted) that Intel will take over manufacturing the PPC and that's the big announcement tomorrow.
cheers
peter Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? what are the fat binaries? i always thought "fat binaries" are , when a binary contains a 32 and a 64-bit version of the same programm (and, of course ppc32 and ppc64 binaries NOT x86_64 etc). so instead of using one 32-bit bin and another 64 bit bin, they are using a fat binary. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You are wrong. There will be no reason why someone could not run Windows there.

Yes, you can run Windows in an emulator such as Virtual Machine, but I'm doing that now. It might be true that you would now be able to run Windows as your primary OS, but then, why would you buy a Mac? I doubt Apple is looking to get into the Windows pc business.

Also, most people don't have 64bit computers yet, but they WILL be moving to them soon. So, why not get an Apple machine, when you will be able to also run windows and linux on it just fine?

As I pointed out, you can already run Windows and Linux on your Mac, if you really want to do it. As to 64 bitness, G5's are already 64 bit.

I think you're looking at this as a geek. The problem is, most of Apple's customers aren't geeks, they're people that want a computer that Just Works. Geeks that want to run Windows and Linux and care about things like 64-bits aren't a big enough customer base to justify changing your architecture. Anyway, these things are already available to geeks if they really want them.

it will be running on industry standard cpus (so no 'cpu x is slower than cpu y' anymore), and you will be able to run Windows if you want.

Well, again, do you really think Apple wants to get into the IBM clone business? If you really want to run Windows on your Mac, there are ways to do that now. But running Windows is not a primary reason to buy a Mac. I run Windows on my Mac occasionally, but that's because there are some Windows applications I can't do without. But if I wanted to run Windows as my primary OS, I wouldn't buy a Mac. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? anyone can remember me the pourcentage of market shares microsoft got in apple? do apple people bought them back? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? yep i could have not agreed more Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? My two cents:
I think that we all miss one important factor. Going to x86 architecture did not save neither Sun nor SGI. Both of them switched to x86 and it brought them nothing in the terms of market share or increased profits.
So, if Apple go Intel then the most likely it will bring them nothing but loosing of loyal customers and making life more difficult for developers but they don't like it, they will kill all the sales of current models until x86 boxes appear in stores - they can not afford it !!!
Actually PowerPC architecture rocks and Apple knows it - x86 right now does not have any significant advantages over PPC, so if Apple will switch to Intel they will repeat history of Sun and SGI.
These all recent hype about x86 in Macs is one big mistake !!! If Apple cooperates with Intel right now then it means that Intel will manufacture PPC for Apple which makes a lot of sense but nothing more.
However if Apple really switches to x86 then it means that their situation is worse than we all think and therefore it is better to stay far far away from them !!! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First, changing architecture will not give them much price advantage against current PPC processors. Macs will still be expensive, so they will only get a minimal slice of the OS pie. Microsoft has nothing to care of. Not even Linux. Remember Linux born without any commercial support and it currently keeps penetrating market with a lot of developers working for free to have a better OS for all people.

Second, there is an OS price factor. OS X could be cheaper than Longhorn, but none of them will be cheaper than Linux. If you are willing to get a fast & quality computer, you are surely able to spend a lot of your money in it; so chances are you could get a Mac. But if you don't have any need to get so much quality or don't have that money, a regular PC is a better choice, whether you put in it Linux or Windows. But you couldn't load an OS X in it, could you?

Third, they don't sell just hardware, they sell software too. So it would be wiser to allow anyone to load OS X in any PC. They would still get sales for those that want quality hard, and sales for those that want an easy to use/virus free OS for their PCs. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I am a Linux/Windows user. But without trying to get in an argument, isnt OS X the best desktop OS out there? I do not see why people are so upset for Apple dropping PPC. Yes I know, it is hard to see a lower architecture be all over the place like x86. But it has happened over and over again. I do not care if they use a Z80 (my favorite processor of all time), as long as they keep making great products. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While it would be nice to see Apple give MS a run for its money on the x86 platform, I do not see Apple displacing Linux.

After all, as much as Apple inherents some good qualities from *nix with the Mach kernel, it is still *proprietary* and would cost more to run when you consider the apps.

Linux is still going to be rock solid with all of the programs anyone could ever want. And it just keeps getting better and better.

I do wish Apple well, however. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, you can run Windows in an emulator such as Virtual Machine, but I'm doing that now. It might be true that you would now be able to run Windows as your primary OS, but then, why would you buy a Mac? I doubt Apple is looking to get into the Windows pc business.
one word. games. who fucking cares if games are supported in OSX if i can just boot into windows and play them. imagine being able to run the best non-console gaming OS and the best productivity OS on the one set of hardware. all of a sudden splurging for the top of the line desktop mac wouldnt seem like quite such a waste of GPU power and money Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple probably sees OSX as for those that want to graduate up to a polished desktop for those that are sick of the open source desktops. They're already seeing all the switchers from Linux to OSX, so they'll ride on the Unix-x86 coat tail when it suits them. So they probably see OpenSource Unix as an ally and enemy at the same time.

Intel probably gave them a deal they couldn't refuse with Intel's 64bit offerings (not Itanium). This way Intel can get their chips out their to compete with AMD and Apple can lower costs.

I wonder how this will affect Apple sales in the short run though. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple already looking at Wine code. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, this are really interesting times. My opinion is that Steve has to make this really hard decision of switching NOW. Because the time is flying an the markets are changing.
If Apple waits to long with an decision they could loose the challange on the mobile market, because this is one of the most importent for apples's personal computer sellings.

On the other hand the 64 bit market of personal pcs, as it has been said before, is still young an there is enough space for newcomer. Also microsoft still needs min. one year to release Longhorn, so apple has time to initialse their switch.

I also think that this will be one of most important business decision for apple personal computer branch. If they miss it, they could drift away into meaninglessness.

To point out the positive things: Apple has NOW an running port of the core (and surely of the whole aqua system, too!) of their OS an the x86 architecture!!

My prediction: Apple will do the switch! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Linux can't make it in x86-64 market, I'm sorry there's not a chance in hell that Apple with OS X will make it. That's a bloody pipe dream! Today, the most mature x86-64 software platform is Linux. You'd be totally insane to run any other OS on x86-64 other than Linux. How long do you think it will take OS X to catch up and reach Linux' maturity in terms of drivers and apps?

And we all know how convoluted OS X' internals are. To make matters worse, most OS X developer do not have the vast experience available to Linux developers with regards to writing crossplatform/portable drivers/applications/framework.

Ha! I'd like to see how Apple pulls this off. Perhaps they'll have a new found respect for Linux/*BSD developers. And who's ready to get locked into an x86-64 proprietary platform running OS X when you can run Linux, which at the moment is the cheapest, most open, most mature, most stable and fastest OS that can effectively power it.

Apple had better stick to their niche PPC proprietary platform, because if they switch over to X86-64, it will be killed. Not by Windows, but by Linux. Competing with Linux is utterly retarded at this stage, be it at the desktop or server especially with regards to x86-64 which Linux ownz at the moment.

Seriously though, at really like to see Apple compete against Linux on the x86-64 platform. It'd be pretty interesting. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There seem to be two arguments in the claim that Apple will loose market when trying to switch the underlying hardware platform. Both are comparisons into history.

(a) Apple did loose when switching away from 68000 to powerpc. This is only half side of the truth since they did not only change the processor but the operating system giving it a new foundation on a bsd-kernel making it over with dozen new libraries to push the new advantages upwards to desktop level. The compatibility libraries were never perfect and some software makers did not follow - others did not provide free upgrades (Microsoft offers free x86-64 upgrade btw).

(b) Sun did loose when switching cheaper parts to x86. This is only half side of the truth since linux userspace is largely modelled after solaris - and solaris does offer little more in software services than linux while linux offers far more hardware options that solaris.

Actually, we see that

(a) the switch from powerpc to x86 does not change the operating system - from a programmers view it is about recompiling the software with a different gcc switch. That's it. Anything you find on Mac/ppc will be there on Mac/x86 (unless you ask for drivers which are more dependent on hardware specifics like chipsets and such).

(b) the desktop environment is tempting for many current pc users - including the Apple applications being shipped along with every Mac. The base installation offers more than WinXP home, mind that! And it can be easily added up with linux opensource stuff. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You're failing to see one thing. You're so busy weighing the advantages of moving to x86, you seem to be forgetting about the advantages of OS X.

Sure, people are used to Windows, and that will make uptake slow in the beginning. But people are also sick of Windows and it's lack of security. The fact is, that at this time, OS X has inherited a higher level of security and stability from BSD and obscurity, and that turns all your "no advantages" into big advantages. If Apple can maintain that security and stability if they move to x86 and start to gain market share... who knows.

Plus OS X has a much better design as far as ease of use and leveraging of power goes. I don't think switching operating systems will be so much of an issue as you make it out to be. The question is, will the hardware continue to be cost prohibitive?

This is coming from a user of Arch Linux who would never give up the tweakability for OS X. I would, however, switch over friends and family who rely on me for tech support. Again, assuming cost of hardware isn't prohibitive. If it is, I'll continue my rather slow conversion of them to Linux. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First off people are making a big assumption when they say this will be the end of Linux or a cripling blow to it; there are several reasons people would stick with Linux:
1) Some people love Linux because its Open Source, not just because its a good OS.
2) Some people (notably students) can't afford a lot of proprietary software, especially since most companies like to inflate the prices.
3) Who's to say people won't just continue dual booting or having more than one computer so they can run more than one OS?

Secondly everyone here has already assumed that everyone who isn't currently loyal to Microsoft will just run out to the store to buy one of these new Macs just because the processor changed.

I find these assuptions to be over-optimistic. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I would hazard the reason is the gradual move for Apple into being solely a software vendor. As time goes on, if they can only sell 3-4 million units per year, and the PC side is shipping 200 million this year, 215 or 220 next yr, 240 million the year after that, Apple gets relegated more and more to a niche role. Software vendors will always be there for the Mac side to fill a need and make a buck, but the bulk of ISV's will want to tap the giant market on the PC side.

First comes the PC that runs Apple software (and OS) and is made by Apple only, then comes the PC made by anyone that runs Apple software. Apple is having a harder and harder time making money selling Macs. Their decent profits in the last year or so have come at the same time as the phenomenal success of the iPod. While the iPod has exploded in sales the PowerMacs have fallen through the floor. Lower priced Minis and iBooks are harder to make a decent margin on.

I take all of this, if true, to be a sign of Apple prepping for the departure from machine manufacturing. Truth is, most of the machines they now ship are made for them by contract manufacturers, the same people like Quanta and Asus that make machines for everyone. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Do you have any proof that apple is overpriced?"

yes, see http://pcnmac.com/mini.htm for a pretty harsh breakdown. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is not about the architecture. It is about the products. I respect Linux, its community, I love the OS. But as an user experience, a desktop OS, for a Joe user, OS X is the best operating system. Why are they changing, well maybe Steve Jobs will say it tomorrow. Do you think regular people care about what processor the Ipod uses, the PSP, the Acura Legend, a Toshiba TV, ..... nobody cares. As long as it is a good product. In spanish they have a say, you look for for the triple B. Bueno, Bonito y Barato == Good, Pretty, and Cheap. I do not know if the last one applies to Apple. :-). Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Antares is well into it's development. When it comes out, Apple will have dual core too. So Apple and IBM probably sat down, not too long ago, to map out the next processor. From ppc 970, they know that a "one size fits all" processor is too costly to even attempt. So IBM outlines 3 directions:

1.) The next processor is low power for laptops.
2.) The next processor is performance oriented for workstations/servers.
3.) Design both in parallel.

None of these options look appealing to Apple. The first 2 only get half the job done. The last is just way too expensive. So Apple realizes that they do not have the market share to develope another custom processor. They turned to Intel because Intel has, hands down, the best laptop processor (remember, the powerbooks need an update more then the power mac). So what if Intel doesn't have the best server performance. No one expects the absolute best performance from an xserve. If you do, then you've been blinded by a NIH or "it's not what I'm used to" syndrome. Apple has to be concerned with it's longterm product competivness and Intel is just the best option right now.

This whole situation is just business. It's not Jobs's personal crusade and all of the Apple executives following him blindly. Consider if you were an Apple executive raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=AAPL

Would you let 1 person's ego flush your stock options down the drain? No you would not. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sure, people are used to Windows, and that will make uptake slow in the beginning. But people are also sick of Windows and it's lack of security. The fact is, that at this time, OS X has inherited a higher level of security and stability from BSD and obscurity, and that turns all your "no advantages" into big advantages. If Apple can maintain that security and stability if they move to x86 and start to gain market share... who knows.

OK, but the advantages you just mentioned are inherent in OS X and the Mac's hardware and software integration, not in x86 or PPC. And that's my point of contention. All those factors are operative regardless of the processor architecture. I still don't see how one processor or the other offers an advantage in that respect.

@lucas

one word. games.

You might have a point there. Still, I'd imagine any machine sold by Apple would be optimized for OS X. A Macintosh is a great machine in it's own right, but I doubt it'll ever be the greatest Windows box. Most gamers are looking for a top-of-the-line PC. It's an open question how many would be willing to split the difference for the advantage of running OS X as well.

And remember, Apple once did offer a machine that had an x86 as well as a 68030 and ran MacOS and Windows both (at the same time, even). It tanked in the market place. So I'm not really sure how much of a demand there is for a machine that does both. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sure, people are used to Windows, and that will make uptake slow in the beginning. But people are also sick of Windows and it's lack of security. The fact is, that at this time, OS X has inherited a higher level of security and stability from BSD and obscurity, and that turns all your "no advantages" into big advantages. If Apple can maintain that security and stability if they move to x86 and start to gain market share... who knows.

OK, but the advantages you just mentioned are inherent in OS X and the Mac's hardware and software integration, not in x86 or PPC. And that's my point of contention. All those factors are operative regardless of the processor architecture. I still don't see how one processor or the other offers an advantage in that respect.

@lucas

one word. games.

You might have a point there. Still, I'd imagine any machine sold by Apple would be optimized for OS X. A Macintosh is a great machine in it's own right, but I doubt it'll ever be the greatest Windows box. Most gamers are looking for a top-of-the-line PC. It's an open question how many would be willing to split the difference for the advantage of running OS X as well.

And remember, Apple once did offer a machine that had an x86 as well as a 68030 and ran MacOS and Windows both (at the same time, even). It tanked in the market place. So I'm not really sure how much of a demand there is for a machine that does both. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? not only apple's pc. if they won't do that, than its better for them not to switch to intel. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I dont people will switch to os x they want something easy to use. An the first time i tried reactos i found it to be very nice an like windows 2000 which i have ran inthe past.

I personally dont see anything wrong with windows 2000 or nt 4.0 if it aint broke dont fixit.

But microsoft proves what liars they are they said that win 2000 they would support for ten years but then change their minds.

I only want a basic operating system not something thats bloted to all heck an back. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For the most part you guys have given a lot why the avarage user wont switch, they have to install it them selves, their used to Windows, ect. The only theory that I havent seen is that Apple will work with Dell, Hp, Gateway,Sony, ect. so the drivers wont be an issue, just like with Windows drivers arent an issue, unless you try to install it your self, (and has anyone tried that lately, damn its a pain in the butt). Anyways, I also belive that if they do make the swtith why would it be to a 32 bit platform? Why not AMD 64's? Intels 64's are way over priced.

Also to those that think that Apple is over priced, ok you buy a Apple iBook for $999, you get the OS that a given, but look at all the other software you get, you get a Unix based OS, the iLife suit, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand, then you also get Office 2004, Apple Works 6, and Worldbook Encyclopedia, and more, try getting all that stuff on a Windows computer and your going to go above that $999 price tag, not to mention all the viruses and spyware. That even goes the same for their desktops: bottom of the line Mac,

17-inch widescreen LCD
1.8GHz PowerPC G5
600MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
512MB DDR400 SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load Combo Drive

ATI Radeon 9600
128MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem

Plus all the software included above and # Safari 2
# - Mail 2
# - Address Book 4
# - iChat AV 3
# - iCal 2
# - Font Book 2
# - DVD Player 4.5
# - Preview 3
# - Xcode 2

How is that over priced at 1,299? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i'll keep my mouth shut and wait 'til apple announces whatever it will be

ouch Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If OS X was released on a x86 archetecture, Apple HW, it would be pretty funny to see hackers getting it to run on a beige-box x86. This would really bite into MS's base, and Apple could play innocent. What if ALL those pirated MS boxes became OS boxes :-) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Looks like Apple didn't learn from Be Inc's mistake. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? to see all these writers with pies in their faces around 12pm PST tomorrow.

How can so many writers write full length articles about a rumor that's total speculation? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't see what Apple has to gain at this point in moving to x86 or ia64. True the chip yields are low, an PPC is starting to really fall behind, if just in the numbers game. My question is whether Intel or AMD could actually fab the PPC970 processors, or if IBM, or Motorola owns that IP. That would be the ideal outcome from everyone's perspective (IMHO): The comsumers', Intel (or AMD's), and Apple's. And probably even IBM's. I think the advantages should be obvious, but here they are in no particular order.

1) no necessity for Apple to port to another platform, or divide its resources into supporting a mini or tablet, and desktop edition of its software.

2) Apple can keep the hardware biz, it has built of over the years, and not go down the ill-fated SGI road.

3) Reasonably-priced dual-core PPC970 chips by the end of the year. A dual-core G6 laptop, that doesn't gulp power.

4) Serious workstation class machines for desktop PC prices.

5) Think of what this move will do for the Xserve. From my perspective this is where Apple is still the hard sell in the enterprise. Microsoft (and the big Unix vendors) have some serious, well-thought-out management software both integrated into the deskop, and on the server side. Apple really ought to think outside of the box on this issue, otherwise they'll always be selling a client OS (which may BE where they want to be) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>Looks like Apple didn't learn from Be Inc's mistake.

Please...not even close to be the same situation. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? if they switch to x86, I'll choose another platform to live on, heck, I will buy myself an amigaOne and be happy on a niche market ignoring all this bullshit about sunden CPU changes and stuff Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Microsoft won't allow them to make a competing operating system for x86/64. Did we all forget the Microsoft owns Apple, or has that changed? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've read this and other articles. As for hardware, there really only a few manufacturers of core logic for most devices. Consider that we have two laser printer engines, maybe 3/4 USB manufacturers, etc. If Apple really wants to figure out how well a swtich to Intel platforms would go, they should make up an OS-X 'Live-CD' that supports the major on-board chipsets, memory types, video hardware, etc. If Linux distros can do this, why not Apple? Then make this ISO a give-away ala AOL. Let people try it out and have it generate a report on what works (or will work) and what won't. Then price it $10 below WinXP Home. Frustrated WinXP users would gladly pay to get an OS that is stable and is pop-up and spyware free. It could supr another round of Windows refunds! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I noticed that too.
First she says that longhorn is late then that mac os x will never run on generic pc... DUH!!!!

Why people care about Mac that much anyway? They're like toys for grownups... Childish-looking transparent plastic mumbo jumbo...

Steve jobs should be a hairdresser... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>Microsoft won't allow them to make a competing operating system for x86/64. Did we all forget the Microsoft owns Apple, or has that changed?

What did you say? Or I am living in a parallel universe and I just found out. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Jumping to x86 to take advantage of that platform's ubiquity may be a good idea, if you assume that Power is simply not going to become popular. But it would really suck if they jumped to x86 just as Power took off. If, and this is a big if, the next generation of consoles become the hub of home computing (with hardware vendors making drivers for the consoles) the move to x86 would in hindsight seem like a monumental mistake. To me this seems especially dangerous given that most hardware that consumers care about are USB-like addons, something that the consoles will support. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Microsoft does not, and never has, owned Apple. Microsoft at one time did own some Apple stock but sold it years ago. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >> Microsoft does not, and never has, owned Apple. Microsoft >> at one time did own some Apple stock but sold it years ago.


I know sometime recently, M$ purchased a very large chunk of Apple. Here is an article I found:


Are you saying that Microsoft has sold all of these shares?

If M$ does not own any part of Apple any longer then that is only one way they can't kill them. Right now M$ has such a stranglehold on the industry that competition is impossible. Most users are much more familliar with Windows then MacOS or Linux, so they threaten their OEM customers that they will pull there OEM if they install an alternate OS on their PC. They have done this in the past with Be Inc. and will do this again. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1.- The move of apple to x86, is making in the same time that fedora have support for PPC... may be this mind somethig for apple.

2.- Many years ago, apple was cheking the apple OS in x86, to see how is runnig, or anyone think that the reason for the mach kernel, boot in x86 was a accident?? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Remember that Apple's updates contain BIOS patches for added functionality. Apple still could control what hardware gets used on their machines by implementing their own BIOS.

Just a thougth. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? hmm NYTimes has a reputation other than spin and lies. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What dosn't make sense is x86-64 is amd's place, intel is still playing catchup with their emt64t rip off.

Apple will adventually go generic x86. People's desire to get their x86 hardware running on OSX will cause projects to spring up porting FreeBSD code over to the DarwinBSD kernel. It's inevitable that the code will be ported once Apple steps into x86 land.

Another big thing to look forward too, assuming Apple does go into x86, is Wine! Once on x86 we will see working Wine providing a windows layer for apps that are not Apple ready yet. Wine is also working on dx9 libs that are getting near native performance. Should be interesting to see unfold. Also what about Qemu and GNU cross compilers (just use crossdev from gentoo forinstance), the two could provide a great way to move between ppc and x86. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why people care about Mac that much anyway? They're like toys for grownups... Childish-looking transparent plastic mumbo jumbo...

Wow ! A real expert in all things Mac at last. Knowing perfectly the last developments of the platform. Probably an insider ? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>1.- The move of apple to x86, is making in the same time that fedora have support for PPC... may be this mind somethig for apple.

Do you think apple cares about fedora? How many linux distributions support PPC? Please.

The fact is that Steve Jobs has said many times that technically speaking, Apple could port OS X to x86. However, he said that is was not convinient for Apple. Apparently, things have changed. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This is a question cause I really dont know:
Are new technologies like DDR2, PCI express, SATA represented on the Macs already? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I know sometime recently, M$ purchased a very large chunk of Apple. Here is an article I found:


Are you saying that Microsoft has sold all of these shares?

If M$ does not own any part of Apple any longer then that is only one way they can't kill them. Right now M$ has such a stranglehold on the industry that competition is impossible. Most users are much more familliar with Windows then MacOS or Linux, so they threaten their OEM customers that they will pull there OEM if they install an alternate OS on their PC. They have done this in the past with Be Inc. and will do this again.

Yes, Microsoft sold all of their shares Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One of the primary attractions to Linux on x86 has been the fact that it is Unix-like. If Apple moves OSX to x86, the combination of ease-of-use and Unix core will virtually guarantee that Linux never gets a foothold on the desktop. Ever. Doubt it? Price has never been the reason for keeping Linux off the desktop. It's always been a question of usability. Apple has that. And consumers have shown that they're willing to pay for that kind of usability. Hence, ... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Has anyone ever thought that Apple might get Intel to simply manufacture ppc chips for them? That's what they had IBM and Motorola do. Everyone is getting way too worked up on this one..... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) Apple is pre-announcing hardware that won't be released for two years.

I know they have a lot of money, but what would possess them to kill all of their computer hardware sales for the next two years? This isn't just a matter of killing your income; shareholders will have an absolute fit, and Apple stock will plummet.

2) What about users who actually use Macs for business?

So now that I've invested several thousand dollars in video and animation software for my business, I have to turn around and plan to spend several thousand more just for the sake of upgrading my hardware? That's ridiculous. Breaking backwards compatibility happens sooner or later, but not all at once. Apple has been trying to prove that they're not just a pretty desktop system for the artist or grandma, but a serious business solution. Screwing over your customers on a whim is not a good strategy for making friends.

How do you think Virginia Tech, the US military, and other big institutions who have invested in multi-node XServe clusters are going to feel when they suddenly discover Apple isn't going to support the hardware on their thousands of computers anymore?

3) It's great that Darwin runs on Intel, but what about Apple's new Core architectures?

How are you enjoying Quicktime 7 for Windows? Oh, wait, Apple hasn't released that yet, have they? Strange, considering that they have that completely current version of OSX running on Intel hardware back at Steve's secret underground lair. So now that Apple has spent a couple of years perfecting these technologies to run on the PowerPC and take advantage of things such as Altivec, they're just going to turn around and start porting it to x86? It's not even like we're talking about a mature architecture here; it's still version 1.0 in the user world. Talk about your QA nightmares.

2) How long before enterprising hackers release a "Mac-independent" version of OSX?

I'll bet Steve froths at the mouth at the mere idea.

1) "Gee, it will be so cool to be able to port apps over so easily!"

Assuming that people do. OSX is still a completely different architecture. Even if the processor is the same, the way the system handles things is completely different. How many major x86-based Windows apps have been ported over to Linux? Not many, huh? Why would OSX be any different? For those who answered, "WINE," that doesn't solve the problem. It will require the WINE developers to actually get behind the project, and Apple can't afford to have a business strategy reliant upon the goodwill of others. Apple would have to fork WINE just like they did the Konqueror kode for Safari. How long did it take Apple to release an officially supported version of X11?

Also, once you have the ability to run Windows-based apps with native-speed emulation through WINE, how can you guarantee that you won't be inheriting a whole bunch of exploits, viruses, adware, spyware, etc., that can be run without recompiling? No thanks. Even if you set it up to run in a sandbox, adware in a sandbox is still annoying and sucking up precious memory and processing power. You know, like Dashboard.

In conclusion: whereas I'm sure Steve is pissed at IBM, it's not the PowerPC architecture, but Apple's chip suppliers, that have historically been at fault for performance issues. What Apple is looking for is a partner who will offer reliable development of the PowerPC, not a different chip architecture. With the recent hype about how cool the PPC-based Cell processors are, why would Apple give up that free marketing boost to say, "yeah, it's cool, but we're going to go to go use Intel."

When you do business, you look for partnerships that will make you money, not cost you money. If Intel could, for example, offer a reliable development cycle for the PowerPC (assuming that the deal is even about a CPU at all), then Apple would be set and Intel would have a really nice feather in their cap: all of the major operating system developers would be looking to Intel for their chips. Yes, I know, AMD is better. The geek community likes AMD (heck, I like AMD), but the majority of desktop and business systems still ship with Intel Inside. Let me put it another way: those people responsible for maintaining Microsoft's 95% install base aren't the kind who frequent sites like OS News.

Apple is married to PowerPC. They could have dumped it when Motorola screwed them over, but instead they opted to find a new partner. History tends to repeat itself. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "on x86-64, the market is just different, and Apple has a serious start-off advantage."

Ignorance at its best. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't see anywhere in the quotes that the architecture will be switched. The first part of the quote used by CNet states that Apple will be scrapping contract with IBM and form new relationship with Intel. It never explicitly mentions a switch to x86.

It is more likely for Apple to sign a contract with Intel for a custom PPC chip.

However, the most likely case would be more disinformation from Apple to distract the media and stop the spread of the real rumour. Note that WDCC might not have any exciting announcement at all.

Also, what happened to Freescale's MPC8540, The dual core CPU with Hypertransport etc.? From the look of this page, it's already available for shipping (http://tinyurl.com/92agj) Can't Apple use this chip for Powerbook? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I can see this move helping linux more than windows, wine anyone. wine can run on anything x86 from what I have herd, and I would assume apple might start putting resources into getting all the windows apps working in linux/mac if they could. This would kill off any chance windows has since all your favorite windows apps would run in linux and mac, making both of them very good choices. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i have to admit i have mostly stopped coming here, the signal to noise ratio is too poor, but Midnight Brewer, i give you full marks for a well thought out post. now honestly, what are you doing here? ;-) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How long before enterprising hackers release a "Mac-independent" version of OSX?

I'll bet Steve froths at the mouth at the mere idea.

If you think about it, that may actually be what this strategy is all about. This may be a graceful way for Apple to transition from a hardware company to a software company.

Consider: If Apple transitioned to a proprietary x86 platform, the barrier to running OS X on a generic white box machine would largely be issues of OS and driver support. There wouldn't be anything stopping x86 compiled applications from running on white box x86 hardware if there was a version of OS X that supported it.

So...

1.) Transition your OS and applications to a closed x86 platform until you have a big enough catalog of applications and a large enough market share to survive as software company alone.

2.) When you are no longer dependent on hardware revenue alone, release an x86 version of OS X for generic x86 hardware. At that point, you already have your ecosystem of OS X/x86 compatible hardware and application software developed. And it's already far too late for Microsoft to cut you off at the knees. The usual barriers to competing against them, that is, industry application software and hardware support, have been removed.

3.) Profit! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Win XP Pro
FlyakiteOSX
Stardock Object Dock
Topdesk
= fake OSX on Win XP - no compatibility issues.

Play any games you want
Use any hardware you want
still have the elegant OSX front end over the Win XP workhorse
Run whatever software you want - quit jabbering about 1 button mice.

I works so insanely well - its like a perfect convergence of the two OS's. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's just going to be Intel making a ppc chip. All this speculation about x86 is absurd. They won't be making a switch. I wish they would and find it to be a good idea for Apple, but it won't happen. Especially since Apple sells their hardware. I mean, if they are switching to Intel it's for a reason to do it for their hardware alone. Otherwise, OS X will run on AMD 64 bit chips, but they aren't talking to them are they? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A couple things

First, obviously Apple has always kept the Darwin builds up to date on x86. And if they just distribute the fat binaries then that pretty much negates major compatibility headaches. There's just not much assembly language code these days, so it should be quite a bit easier than the early 90s. Some altivec stuff will have to be rewritten, but its probably not that big of a deal. Apple probably has some kind of tool to help the developer along to SSE2 translation if need be

About Wine. You better believe that Apple would just fork Wine. They're not going to work with the Wine guys when they don't have to. Would you? Apple has resources unlike the little guy out there who doesn't get very far with forks. But there's absolutely no incentive to have to ask permission from Wine people to make a commit. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >But running Windows is not a primary reason to buy a Mac.

There are many reasons why a user might NEED to use Windows for something. I think you are failing to understand that I am talking about NATIVE support of Windows/Linux/BSD on an Apple PC, not just through emulation. Windows on one partition, OSX on another... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with you. It's just a matter of numbers. Apple would have to basically get their market share up to a certain number where they could still survive with piracy. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I do agree with you, and I mentioned this in a previous post that sales in the transition could take a serious hit though. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, Microsoft sold all of their shares.

Have any source to back this up? While I've seen many people blindly state this, I have not seen any evidence at all that supports this, and I've looked for it. Unless you can show me some evidence that says otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, Microsoft still holds the original Apple stock it purchased in 1997. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, I agree with Eugenia, it was all about the laptops. I wonder when Jobs finally made his decision, was it late last year? Did Jobs think, back in June 2003 that IBM would eventually introduce a laptop processor?

In the end, Apple had no choice to do this, but it does not mean that they will succeed-the inevitable solution does not ensure success, but staying with IBM seemed to ensure failure, at least in laptops. I think Apple could have remained competitve with workstations for yrs to come, but that obviously was not enough. Next yr is looking really bad for Mac laptops vis Intel, and that's unacceptable to Steve.

I suspect that in 2001-2002, Jobs took the solution that was most expedient for that moment" OSX needed to take route, and IBM G5 in the desktop was good for that. Changing to OSX and Intel at the same time would have been herculean. Now it is time to move on.

For the next two years it will be interesting to see how Powermacs sell, and what type of improvements Apple puts into them; are we stuck at overclocked 2.7 with AGP for the next two yrs? If so, PM's will sell down to zero units in a short order. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A lot of this makes sense... I specially agree with the "custom pc" angle. I think that it would make the most sense to enter through the laptop market first. This is the best chance to customize a pc to just the right specs for apple to do what they need to do. At the same time, apple will be able to move away from the G4 on their laptops.

It makes business sense to move... I just hope apple will not turn into another alienware and does not over charge too much. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It doesn't mean history isn't repeating itself. Of course its not going to BE exactly the same. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. IBM is having problems producing a 3.0 ghz ppc chip for Apple but is able to produce a 3+ ghz triple-core chip for the Xbox 360?

2. Why does everyone believe that Apple is switching to an x86 processor?

3. Why couldn't Intel make a PPC chip a-la Altivec the way Freescale and IBM do? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I really would like to know why haveing BeOS moving from PPC to x86 killed it. Why does this happen? I could argue locking your OS into a box that you control 100% has many downsides as far as trying to get market share and could kill it. You are pretty much saying lock it into a box that only OSX can run on and let the cult followers foot the bill. If you opened the box to all those same cult followers would leave and not foot the bill and no one else would jump on to foot the bill? I used BeOS and it was cool and nice at the time. But I refuse to believe the switch from one cpu arch to another killed it. Lets face it BeOS was not that great for the whole pc market. It was good for freaking geeks like most people on this site. Just like Linux is great buy my mom and grandma won't be using it in this life time. OSX is not just for freaking geeks, but grandmas and computer idiots/dummies. So I think they have a good shot at taking lots of market if they made OSX run on any x86 like windows does. I know because I would run it in two seconds. So would lots of my friends who are computer idiots/dummies. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Do you people recall the AMD/IBM talks awhile ago?
Do you remember the fab work that AMD is using from IBM?
As you all know; Apple is considering a switch to the X86 line.
Could it be possible that Apple will use a stricly enforced X86-64 hybrid from AMD/IBM based in part of PPC?

It's a shot in the dark! Steve Jobs is notorious for rabbit tricks. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >

Which matters not a bit, as ALL of Microsoft's shares were non-voting shares. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Garaunteed: Apple will NOT be using x86 procs. Intel will be fabricating a powerpc or a variant thereof for Apple. Mark my words. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Us geeks are just speculating right now, but I guess it does allow Apple to play AMD against Intel and vice versa in the future. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? this article is far from correct.. linux does NOT have major issues on x86_64 Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why the hell should Apple switch ti x86, when cell architecture is knocking at a door?!?!? I believe if Apple whould switch to cell, it would outperform any Win/Linux box on latest x86 hardware. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? to me this will mean only one thing:

IBM or Motorola will lounch the next-gen PC, using PPC processors and one of the commercial linuxes, and when that happen... bye bye x86

(amd was smarter when intel when they made the move support more pipelines and less frequency, but PPC is way better.) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "So now that I've invested several thousand dollars in video and animation software for my business, I have to turn around and plan to spend several thousand more just for the sake of upgrading my hardware? That's ridiculous. "

Well, it is possible that they would release both x86 and PPC versions of their software for a few years, or have a trade in program that allows you to trade in your exisiting PPC based mac and get a x86 mac at a discounted price. Look at what Avid does with their upgrades that require going from one hardware platfrom to another (ie avbv to meridian or meridian to DNA) they have a trade in program that makes the transition less painfull. I doubt Apple would just say "by new hardware or else" - video applications are one of their most succesfull areas, they wouldnt risk losing all the FCP marketshare back to Avid.

As for Virginia Tech... well yeah, it sucks to be them I guess. I'd imagien they run a lot of custom written software and not as much third party stuff... but mabye not, i'm not to framiler with what kind of work they do. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Take this for what it's worth. Before I left Apple as a NeXT employee who worked on the Rhapsody for Intel initiative, we despised the architecture for Intel 64 bit on NeXTSTEP/Openstep possibilities.

Dean Reece, head of I/O Team who designed and architected I/O Kit as a C++ based architecture was not one bit impressed with the HP-Intel initiative.

We couldn't get shit for support from Intel or any 3rd party device driver, outside of DEC for our ethernet cards. They treated NeXT like shit and said there is no need to give help to a nice platform that wasn't strong in the market.

This attitude fueled the reason why Apple writes their own device drivers and why they have a small set offered. They designed I/O Kit to encourage the prigs from Matrox, nVidia and ATI to write optimized drivers and so far you can see the results.

Apple does not want to be a Gaming Platform, get over it. We buried Sprockets intentionally because it would have only delayed the transition even further with Carbon.

The system is now at a state for companies to either jump onto Cocoa or be left stranded on Carbon.

Apple has a time limit set for Carbon. I'm looking forward to them making this clear at WWDC.

Longhorn way overdue has nothing to do with Apple having an OPPORTUNITY to break into the market.

When you own the OS and the major Productivity Suite standard on commodity x86 hardware you can dictate when you release your next OS.

FAT Binaries has not jack shit to do with making the logical transition to x86.

FAT Binaries supported a lean set from HP Geckos, Sun SPARC 5, 10, Motorola 68k and finally x86 486-Pentium Pro sets, when NeXT sold Openstep.

Both SPARC and Moto were limping along in any commercial demand and thus were not as well maintained.

Intel based would need a major update to its product line that includes Xeon, Celeron and obviously the x86-64.

Making it target specifically x86-64 and nothing else won't make the system a commodity solution. It will be as expensive as a PowerPC G5. It's not smart.

Then the Operating System is not optimized for x86.

Be my guest and download Darwin 8.1 and see for yourself. I have. Rhapsody on Intel had more support.

The shared Interupt model on x86 is dogshit. We had nightmares dealing with that crap on device drivers, especially dealing with shared INT. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? wait till u hear from steve Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>DRM on the motherboard!

That's the very first reason that popped into my head for why Apple would make this switch when I first read about this possibility yesterday. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>I think that it raised their mindshare and introduced more people to BeOS than would have tried it had Be Inc. stuck to PPC. The company had other problems.

Yea Be stopped listening to its users and was dead set on making an internet only os computer. They did this after they kept hitting the monopoly problem of MSFT forbidding h/ware makers to sell any computers with anything else on it*. Be later won their suit against MSFT for that but it did little good because the company was defunct by that time.

*hint, lovers of MSFT stock, THAT is what anti-trust really is, so don't even try the arguement of "well it wasn't really a forbiddance, they could do it, just wouldn't get MSFT discounts for the OS anymore if they did" - that's the same thing Standard Oil did and others guilty of antitrust. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @person - you need only look at the NASDAQ site to see how little Microsoft has to do with Apple shares.

It's true that they bought $250M in shares. Currently Apple is a $31.25B company (according to the NASDAQ site), so even allowing for growth, their $250M wouldn't translate to much now. In fact, at the time MS bought those shares, Apple had $6B in cash reserves! It was purely a symbolic gesture, nothing more.

But look at the holdings report to find the top shareholders. Microsoft don't make the top 5 (and that's from 71M with Barclays down to 19M with Calamos).

The fact is that even if they still held the shares (which they don't, but I can't locate a non-existant shareholder in today's data) and even if those shares were voting shares (which they were not), then Microsoft must have less than 19M shares (else they'd be in the top 5). 19M shares out of 616M shares is a shade over 3% of the total. That's not enough to swing a company.

Microsoft don't own any Apple shares today, but even if they did, they wouldn't have the power to effect strategic changes on their own.

Let the meme die. Freely available information disproves it in a moment. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As for Virginia Tech... well yeah, it sucks to be them I guess. I'd imagien they run a lot of custom written software and not as much third party stuff... but mabye not, i'm not to framiler with what kind of work they do.
----------------------------------------------


As recall all of VT PPC G5 machines run their own custom designed software & OS, I doubt this news has anybearing on them whatso ever, they used the PowerMacs for the G5 processor not the OS Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Comparing prices on different speed CPU's is stupid, since that's the largest component cost of a system.

So, comparing a PowerPC G4 1.25GHz to a 3ghz P4 is not only absurd, it's outright deceit. If you're going to compare a G4 1.25 ghz($799), then compare it to Walmart's $199 pc (1.5 ghz), not a P4 3ghz. BTW, a 17" LCD adds $199, which is still only half the price of the Mac.

And even then it's still not fair, since the CPU speeds should be identical, but you know what, NOBODY makes a PC with a 1.25 ghz CPU. WELCOME BACK TO THE 90's! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And even then it's still not fair, since the CPU speeds should be identical, but you know what, NOBODY makes a PC with a 1.25 ghz CPU. WELCOME BACK TO THE 90's!
----------------------------------------

LOL!


OK, I think your mams calling, its school time Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It seems that IBM put much of its PPC innovation in the PS3/Xbox360 area neglecting to give Apple and Steve jobs the feeling they were the PPC king of the road. This combined with the lack of a marketing-able fast laptop left Apple behind.

Although I fail to see how AMD with its x86-64 fits in. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "And even then it's still not fair, since the CPU speeds should be identical, but you know what, NOBODY makes a PC with a 1.25 ghz CPU."

I picked up a P3 1.3Ghz, used for $20, complete system, plus a 21" NEC CRT for $40. $60 vs $799, that's the true comparison, even the same era for CPU speed. No 1.25Ghz CPU should be compared to a P4, only the P3. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? even bigger LOL

so now we are comparing second hand PCs to new iMacs Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The eMac is a joke, it won the worst of the year award last year for some magazine poll. The Macheads should compare 3Ghz to 3Ghz systems. DOH! They don't have have one! The $2,999 top of the line Mac only has dual 2.7Ghz CPUs. I can buy 4 PCs that are 3Ghz for that price, and still have money left over. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "so now we are comparing second hand PCs to new iMacs"

Not iMacs, eMacs.... and considering the poor quality of the eMac, it's quite appropriate.

Steve Jobs must have gotten tired of lying and decided that he's got to go to x86 to remain speed competitive. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Considering the lack of expansion slots, iMacs and eMacs are inferior to PowerMac and full P4 desktop PCs. The cheapest PowerMac is $1499 and it's still only 1.8Ghz, which is twice the price of a 3Ghz P4. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Let me tell you guys the truth so you don't have to wait till tomorrow nor wonder what it'd be.

It's a PCI add-on card with an Intel CPU on it. Apple's own version of Virtual PC, only it's real. It allows you to run Windows applications at native speed so you get the best of both sides. Certainly, you can run Linux on it as well.

Believe it or not, there's just hours before I have the proof. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple did loose when switching away from 68000 to powerpc. This is only half side of the truth since they did not only change the processor but the operating system giving it a new foundation on a bsd-kernel making it over with dozen new libraries to push the new advantages upwards to desktop level.

Nah. They were two totally separate switches. PowerMacs came out in 1994, while OS X was released in 2001.

The x86 switch will still be a lot easier than the PowerPC switch, because OS X was designed with portability in mind from the start. The previous MacOS was so tied into 68k that even large parts of the operating system had to be emulated on PowerPC. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think there are some serious issues to look over before contemplating a move to a whole new architecture, like the one suggested here.

The Mac is a specialised and it always has been. It's almost religious. Why would Apple even think that they would sell a serious number of x86-64 Apple hardware just because it would be x86-64 and no longer PPC? -It makes absolutely no sense to me.

If the argument is notebook performance, take a look at the dual core e600 processor (G4) from Freescale (formerly Motorola). At 1.5 GHz it performs well in range of a single core 1.8 GHz G5, which is the logical IBM named choice of processor for a next generation PowerBook.

If the argument is a whole new processor market, or platform market, forming around the x86-64, I find this to be a fairly risky approach for Apple, unless it simply intends to be a hardware company doing what everyone else does....only better....

Sun Microsystems has tried this, and to my best belief failed at it... Their own child, the Ultra Sparc processor, is almost dead and nothing dictates the use of Solaris on its Opteron hardware, leaving Sun somewhere inbetween the fields of being a hardware and a software vendor. Apple: Do not go there!!

Bottom line: One needs to carefully examine what makes people buy a Mac compared to a more mainstreaam product, say a Dell. The answer to me is the superior design, the power, beauty and simplicity of Mac OS X. All of this still holds its ground on PPC hardware. The average Mac user does not gain much from having to buy new Apple x86-64 hardware, new Adobe software and so on, compared to what they get now - even if you calculate in the advantages of sheer processing power.

Why not see the Mac for what it really is: An alternative to the mainstream way of computing that is wintel. This is mainly what has kept the company alive, since it carries with it a sense of religion... -So keep it an alternative! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well that's an interesting idea allright. I don't know if you are for real and whether your idea is feasible or not, but your scenario makes _a_lot_ of sense. Interesting. Well done and hats off to the one who thought it. Really. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. IBM is having problems producing a 3.0 ghz ppc chip for Apple but is able to produce a 3+ ghz triple-core chip for the Xbox 360?

No. IBM is not having any problems! This is about the power/heat consumption of the G5. The G5 is a beautiful chip - only problem is that it runs too hot to include it in a laptop. IBM does not find it in their best interest to invest millions of dollars into delivering a low powered (less heat producing) version of their chip. Why would they? IBM will cater to their biggest customers (Sony Playstation and Microsoft XBOX360). These customers want more performance, not reduced power consumption.

======

2. Why does everyone believe that Apple is switching to an x86 processor?

You have to ask, why is Intel interested? There are 3 scenarios:

a) Apple is not switching and the rumors are false.
This would be plausible if it weren't for the fact that Apple just can't put the G5 into a slim, sexy laptop. There is just no cheap way to do this. (I say cheap, since there is probably a way, but it is prohibitive for a consumer product). Apple sees 1+ years down the road where the G4s cannot compete with the new x86 based machines in performance or price. They have to act now and take away control of their future from IBM.

b) Intel is producing a G5 PPC chip.
Why would Intel spend millions (10s of millions+) in producing a LOW POWERED (ie: less heat producing) version of the G5. Just so they sell 2-3 million chips/year to Apple? Hell no, it just doesn't make business sense. [They might if they forsee a future in selling this for use in portable XBox or PS... but this would be a future product - Apple needs something now and cannot wait! Also, this would be a huge risk to Intel. They cannot just jump in and start producing/modifying a chip that they have never worked with (even if they have a completely licensed core identical to what IBM produces - which will never be the case!). It would take time - and time costs customers and money. Apple just can't wait.]

c) Apple is switching.
The NeXT software (which is what the Apple graphical interface is based on) was able to run on x86 several years ago. The OS (Darwin) has been ported/runs on x86. The Altivec (velocity engine for hardware enhanced mathematical manipulations) can be handled by Intel's own hardware engines. All I can say is that the pieces are there, and they work. It is reasonable to believe that Apple already has the OS working on a PC.

======
3. Why couldn't Intel make a PPC chip a-la Altivec the way Freescale and IBM do?

See above. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Combine religious zeal with totally missing the point et voila: Your OSNEWS editorial is ready for consumption.

What keeps amazing me is that Eugenia still doesn't seem to understand the difference between her opinoin and the truth, yet the very same person likes to accuse others of zealotry. Choice quote:

">> Linux is no threat on the desktop compared to Mac OS X"
> Hehe, Eugenia is trolling again...

When I am saying no "competition on the desktop", I am talking abnout the desktop EXPERIENCE, not the actual strategic and market advantages. OSX offers ways better desktop experience than any linux. That's no trolling, that's the truth."

No Eugenia, that's not the truth, that's your opinion. It may be an informed opinion (although I doubt it), but it's still only your opinion.

Now combine that with an editorial that doesn't really have an argument, but manages to waste a lot of space for not making any sense.
So Eugenia tells us that Apple's move to x86-64 makes total sense. So far so good.
But why does it make sense according to Eugenia?
The first reason is that Longhorn is late. Well, it would still be late if Apple staid with ppc, so what exactly is your argument here?

The second reason is that x86-64 is still a virgin platform, as is ppc64, so still no argument.

So without providing any argument why this move does indeed make sense, Eugenia now turns to telling us, why it won't hurt Apple.
Her main point is, that Apple will not move to an open platform, but keep all the control it currently has over the hardware OSX is running on. While this might be true, what Eugenia fails to see is that this point alone brings down her whole argument as to why a move to x86-64 would be good for Apple, as according to her, nothing realy changes.

So she is essentially arguing that it would be a good move, without providing any argument why it would be a good move and combines that with telling us that it won't be a problem as nothing will change.
Amazing. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AGSGQ00.htm?campaign... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan

pony-tail hippy boy needs to get a haircut and real. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Apple does make the switch to x86-64 it won't be long before they are temped to release a mass market version of their OS. The driver situation is a lot simpler than most people are making out. Apple only need to convince a few companies to provide drivers: Intel/Nvidia/ATI/VIA/SIS, by then they'll have support for most motherboard integrated computer functions out there and add-in GFX cards. Even if they only limits themselves to Intel/Nvidia they'll have huge access to a lot of the high/middle tear PCs out there. Once the market begins to be established support for add in cards will develop naturally.

With MS's browser dominance diminishing (at least websites are becoming more standards compliant), Apple's "popular" ITunes taking on the stagnant (IMHO) WMP and threatening MS's attempts to lock people into their proprietary codecs, and people's willingness to at least consider open office document standards this could be a prime time for Apple to work towards releasing an MS competing OS. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Anyone else feel like IBM is getting out of the hardware business (harddrives/computers/cpus(?))? They seem to be turning themselves into purely a consultancy/development house. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? r2d2d3d4d5 : ( wtf with that nick ?? )

IBM still makes HD under hitachi's name..
IBM's deskstar series were fast but most of them died after a year and IBM was not easy with the warranty so most stores no longer want to deal with IBM...

PPCs for apple : they did not meet up to their promises ( 3Ghz PPC ) ...

they'll make a lot of new CPUs for the upcoming consoles though ... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > They seem to be turning themselves into purely
> a consultancy/development house.

Not all that unlikely considering that IBM's biggest cashcow, IIRC, is Global Services. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Who is Apple going to sue for breaking the news if news it is ?

Maybe Intel is going to work on a x86-64 with powerpc instruction set on top of the x86 one ? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Maybe Intel is going to work on a x86-64 with powerpc instruction set on top of the x86 one ?"

erm, why the hell would they do that? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'll believe it when I see it.

Let's see what the man has to say today.

To steal the PC market when Microsoft is not looking... I don't buy that. You would then have to convince hundreds of thousands of people who have fostered an institutional hate for Apple. I just don't see it happening.

And Intel processors aren't that very much faster than PPC either, are they? I mean, it's not as if they're selling 4 Gig boxes. Why is that? Because Intel doesn't want to sell faster machines or because they can't get them cool enough not to melt the copper from the dye? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Win XP Pro
>FlyakiteOSX
>Stardock Object Dock
>Topdesk
>= fake OSX on Win XP - no compatibility issues.

>I works so insanely well - its like a perfect convergence of the two
> OS's.

Ha ha you never have run OSX right.
You can put all the themas and shit on Windows but it still suffers from a crappy underlying kernel and code.

Now you could try BSD or Linux with Aqua theming, LimeRad8 icons, kxdocker etc. That would come close but dressing up Windows XP to make in a OSX tranny do not work your girl would still have a swaety sticking hairy belly underneath those nice clothers.

I feel sorry for people like you. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room. Today you can run Linux Binaries on BSD. Millions of Linux servers are already installed in Corporations and giving Gates Nightmares. Linux sever growth rate is dwarfing the growth rates of Windows and Unix servers.

OSX is based on BSD. With OSX on intel/AMD you get the user-friendly, factory-installed, Linux-compatible, fast desktop system that can run more than 5,000 free GPL applications including top notch office applications like OpenOffice. All this is will be happening at a time that Linux server growth is going through the roof.

Do the Math: Beautiful OSX on the desktop, Rock-solid Linux on servers communicating with open computing standards(like NFS) which Microsoft hates. This is the worst nightmare yet for Redmond. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? mkay, let's summarize...

1. Intel producing PPC's... Don't really think so for basically the same reason IBM is not putting more R&D into the G5 line, intel won't be doing it. Not enough of a market te warrant this. Add to that the fact that intel won't be very willing to tout an architecture they didn't design (look at how they treat the x86-64 platform) and this seems very unlikely.

2. Intel x86 based PCI add-on card. What? And push all that I/O through the PCI bus? Like that would not slow down the system (unless they implement a complete PC on that board, it'll still have to communicate with the other hardware in the PC. They've invented AGP and PCI-Express for a reason ya know).

3. MacOSX runs on x86. Stevie Wonder himself said so. He even persists that the version is kept in sync with the PPC version. Why no QT7 on windows? Platform advantage, new software should always come out on your own platform first!

4. Developpers will switch in a heartbeat. Actually, I'm just waiting for the announcement to go and convince my boss that we should start making crossplatform application from now on (and I'm one of those developpers you speak of).

5. Existing user base generally aren't PPC zealots like you guys like to make them out to be. They're usability zealots, this has nothing to do with processor architecture. They HATE windows, that's why they buy Mac's. Add to that the fact that a lot of windows users als o hate windows but don't buy macs because of the price of the hardware... Even if apple starts making custom x86 hardware, the current userbase won't dimminish (as it would when staying with PPC given it's current spead of development).

6. Backwards compatibility: Userspace programs are always easy to port to a new hardware platform given the API's are the same. Mostly recompile and voila. Updates to all these programs to the new platform might be as simple as an easy download.

7. Hardware compatibility: Apple can "steal" (ie "read and learn") and refine most of the opensource drivers, this is a very rich set of drivers readily available. And as stated, they only NEED support from the biggest vendors. Given that Nvidia even supports freebsd... well... there you are then.

I'm not sure what will happen, sales wise, when apple makes the switch. But form a technical standpoint, a logical standpoint, it all makes sense. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? They surely switch because of (in no particular order):

1) IBM can't deliver
2) Intel is adding DRM to its processors (if not why not go with AMD, just for ads which count a lot of course?).
3)WiMax
4) Being able to run x86 OS mainly windows so people can swithch easily to Apple OS and still being able to run their softwares, game mostly I suppose. (maybe like shapesheaver, dual boot is enough though)

Someone remember Intel saying that they've the technology to run PPC code in their processors? Might be a reason too...

/kml

PS I don't think that they'll go in the console market though, at least not now, but building a console for the next round is the right time. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's been interesting to read the reaction of folks :

1) People currently using x86 hardware who assume they'll be able to use OSX, which is the most unlikely of the rumour threads. You'll need Apple hardware for OSX, until of course the hackers get a hold of it, I give it 6 months.

2) People currently using PPC OSX, who mostly are annoyed at the possibility of Intel-based machines, some will get over it, some like me will refuse to buy Intel Macs. If I wanted an Intel machine I'd buy a PC clone, I know the difference.

3) People who currently use XP/x86 and now because of the rumour, they swear they'll buy Apple/Intel. I don't think they will, OSX is nice, but they'll find it irritating and mostly will try out the hacked version (see 1) on their self-built AMD watercooled beast machine.

4) Ironically, the REAL market this move would be aimed at hasn't yet had much of a say. The majority of people who bought an iPod, the "general masses", whos only experience of Apple is not of the seat-of-the-pants innovator, but of the DRM-embracing pop-music seller.

Not long now 'till we find out for sure! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One thing is recompile to new platafform another is to have same performance. There are programs that are optimized to Altivec, and PPC plataform, is not always a simple recompile. Although the program shoul work correctly.

Let's wait and see!

For me Intel only in latptop/notebooks thing. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The day is here, stop speculating, stop trolling, stop feeding the trolls, cut your loses - the announcement will/wont be made soon! :-) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "After News.com's Friday report that Apple is moving to Intel/x86, the respected publication Wall Street Journal and now NYTimes threw their reputation behind the rumor. Many people still remain skeptical, but I personally believe that the time is right for Apple to switch to x86-64, for two main reasons."

The New York Times threw their reputation behind Jason Blair too, and subsequently their reputation went right down the toilet. x86 has too much baggage. Apple could do a lot better. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? OSX is based on BSD. With OSX on intel/AMD you get the user-friendly, factory-installed, Linux-compatible, fast desktop system that can run more than 5,000 free GPL applications including top notch office applications like OpenOffice. All this is will be happening at a time that Linux server growth is going through the roof.

No, we never have Linux compatibility layer for Darwin. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I just bought a Mac Mini to use at home, replacing my Intel box running Linux. Why? The Intel box is big, loud, and hot. I'm annoyed with all the counterproductive sniping in the Linux community and the unwillingness of much of it accept that Linux is not yet perfect. I'm dismayed at all the energy that seems to go into rolling out Yet More Cookie Cutter Distributions and how not enough energy goes into real creativity and innovation.

My home use is restricted to email and browser use, so this little Mini handles those just fine. Best of all, it is small, very quiet, and doesn't raise the room temperature 5 degrees.

Besides, there's always Fink. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i'll say it again, OSXen Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't give a flying fsck what Steve or Apple will do and why they'll do it. I am sure it will be great and innovative.

And I will buy it. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I was just gonna say the same:
Everyone just shut up... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Apple switches to Intel, does it mean it will be possible to run new versions of Mac OS on PC? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If the keynote hits and the "switch to Intel" rumour turns out to be bull, then it will hopefully shut up the "OS X on Intel!!!!!1111oneone" fannerds once and for all. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Apple switches to Intel, does it mean it will be possible to run new versions of Mac OS on PC?

Not legally, and not without some kind of hack.

That's unless Apple feels suicidal and starts competing with Windows head-on. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "If the keynote hits and the "switch to Intel" rumour turns out to be bull, then it will hopefully shut up the "OS X on Intel!!!!!1111oneone" fannerds once and for all."

i can honestly say, in the last 10 years, i have heard a billion variations on that comment. and as they STILL haven't switched, and yet here we are again, i am thinking that nobody will be "shut up" by today... Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I wouldn't mind checking out osX, it looks neat. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Apple switches to Intel, does it mean it will be possible to run new versions of Mac OS on PC?

Not legally, and not without some kind of hack.

Oh, I forgot. Much of your hardware won't work. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So, it's Monday already, when is this supposed announcement about to happen? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple will move to an Intel-manufactured PPC chip Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 10 A.M. PDT, get live coverage here - http://www.macrumors.com/ . Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? you need to remember, American timezones are behind 90% of the world. its tuesday here already, another few hours until 10am monday in the states Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. WTF does Longhorn being late have to do with Apple switching to the poorly designed, i.e. hacked, x86/64 architecture being a good idea?

2. Big deal. x86/64 is a crappy design, AMD's appears to be slightly better than Intel's(based upon available information), but it still is nothing more than an x86 hack.

Now adding these up, unless Apple a) licenses (and ships) M$ libraries with a Windows emulation layer, or b) get a good version of WINE going the switch makes no sense. I really doubt that developer are going to go: Hey Apple switched to x86, c00l, lets write more software for OSX... but, uh, we still have to use Cocoa/Carbon/etc. so er, uhm... oh well...
(i.e. if it does happen, don't count on suddenly seeing TONS of ported software(games included).) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well, there goes the PowerPC.
Another casualty to Intel.

Who cares if Power runs games.
The real money is in Desktop OS's. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So keep a lid on your emotions and ideas till then
We can have a post keynote commentary later on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually, there's a LOT of money in game-consoles, and it's ironic that the PS3 will be more powerful than most desktops (if you add the Cell and Nvidia grunt) when it's released next year....and guess what? It shouldn't need to be water cooled! Maybe we should all campaign for OSX on PS3 and XBox360! There's almost certainly going to be a linux disti, I'll look forward to that!

I approve of AnonymousCowards's evaluation of x86, and comments in the other thread about it being a poor-mans architecture, the original sucked as do all of its bastard-child mutant siblings...if it were as great as some are convinced then M$ wouldn't have thrown it in the trash in favour of PPC for XBox 360 - despite the backward-compat nightmare consequences (the reverse of which Apple will undoubtedly experience). Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This is Why: http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1125226 Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 15 more minutes :-) Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I always wanted to try OS X, but it sounds like Apple will still have their "very own CPU" & well I have AMD anyway. Mayber this means macs will be cheaper? Why are they not going AMD though? Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Tune your TV....errr...sorry, tune your browser to www.apple.com for the keynote! Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple wants the cell processor, but IBM is unable to supply it as the PS3 will keep its fabs humming for a few more years, dont forget Xbox 360 too will carry IBM chips,

Apple wants Intel to produce the Cell, Intel knows the cell is going to be huge, so they will agree to it after extracting their pound of flesh from Apple by making it agree to put a Intel chip on a new product, to start with, and then a few months later, BANG, "Intel to produce Cell for Apple"

OS X on x86?, keep dreaming Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You stop dreaming and come back to the real life. Apple needs to sell its OS and Leopard will run on Intel chips in a year's time. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v=9 Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? From Engadget.com

10:26am PDT - "Now, let's go to the big topic: Transitions."

10:27am PDT - 1994-1996 Moto 68K -> PowerPC. "I wasn't hear then, but from everything I hear the team did a great job." 2001-2003: OS9 - OS X.

10:28am PDT - "It's time for a third transition. And yes, (puts up slide that says): It's true." Next slide is one word: "Why?"

10:29am PDT - "I stood up two years ago and promised this (3.0G PowerMac), and we haven't been able to deliver." Steve says it's bigger than that, though. No roadmap for the future based on PowerPC - they can't see a future.

10:30am PDT - Intel offers not just increased performance, but reduced power consumption. Transition will be complete by WWDC ‘07.

10:31am PDT - PowerPC - 15 integer perf units (not sure what) per watt. Intel does 70 per watt. "Mac OS X has been living a secret double life" for the past 5 years.

10:32am PDT - Satellite shot with crosshairs shows building where a team has been working on the "Just in Case…" scenario. Every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for Intel for the past 5 years. Here comes the demo!

10:33am PDT - "As a matter of fact, this system I've been using here…" the keynote's been running on a P4 3.6GHz all morning"

10:34am PDT - Steve's hopping through every app. Performance is snappy. He's playing an H264 movie trailer for something wtih Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. "Ok, enough of that" he says after a few seconds.

10:35am PDT - "Here's the geekout for developers". Widgets, scripts, Java: they'll just work. Cocoa - Xcode: small tweak, recompile. Carbon - Xcode - a few weeks of tweaking, recompile. Carbon- Metroworks: Move to XCode.

10:37am PDT - There's a checkbox for builds: "Intel, PowerPC" that makes a cross-platform single binary.

10:38am PDT - Theo Gray, cofounder of Wolfram Research, comes onstage to talk about porting Mathematica in the past 5 days.

10:39am PDT - "I get the most ridiculous phone calls from Apple sometimes. This was like 9 c'clock at night and he says, ‘I can't tell you what it is, but …" they flew out a developer with source code to do a demo for today.

10:40am PDT - Theo is hilarious. "I said, ‘I'll send out our crack team of Mac developers that we keep on standby.'" Turns to guy standing next to computer. "That's you, Rob."

10:41am PDT - Theo says it took 2 days to get it ported: "We had a lot of resources. There's Rob, there's Apple … your mileage may vary. But his biggest problem was figuring out what to do with the rest of the weekend."

10:42am PDT - Mathematica demo. This stuff always makes me wish I'd studied harder at MIT. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I bet how the Apple fans are taking this move to Intel , they must be shocked, that x86 rules.

Even Intels own Itanium has to give into x86. Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments