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:1. Longhorn is late.
Remember all those articles and opinion pieces online that “Linux’s big chance” is now with Longhorn being late and with Longhorn losing features one by one and with many companies claiming that they won’t upgrade to Microsoft’s new monster? Well, what a better time for Apple to get into the x86 market and steal the thunder from both Longhorn and Linux! If the “time is right” for Linux because of Longhorn’s problems, then the time is even more right for Apple! Linux is no real threat on the desktop compared to the Mac OS X experience, while Longhorn hasn’t won many hearts either for different reasons we all know.
2. x86-64 is still a virgin market.
There is no OS today for x86-64 that anyone would call “really mature”. This is essentially a new platform: a platform on which many existing OSes have to “start all over again.” Linux applications still have major problems with x86-64 (weird incompatibilities or even compilation problems), while the newly released WindowsXP-64 has almost no third party drivers for it yet except the very basic stuff. And Microsoft doesn’t seem to care to market it either. If Apple were to come over to x86 today, it would be for full 64bit support for their Apple PCs and it would be good enough to compete on fair terms against Linux and Windows. In the 32bit market, Windows XP is simply unbeatable because of its vast hardware compatibility that it enjoys via third parties. Linux tried and it still has a 2-3% of that market. But on x86-64, the market is just different, and Apple has a serious start-off advantage.
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. I am confident that Windows and Linux and FreeBSD would be able to run just fine on these hypothetical Apple PCs, but Mac OS X won’t run on your random PC. And it would be better that way (for Apple), as third party hardware manufacturers release hardware faster than anyone could add support for them, even if they had the full hardware specs. And these hardware manufacturers could probably not be persuaded to write brand new drivers for Apple which it will still have a fraction of the market share when on x86, so the logical step for Apple is to “lock” OSX to specific hardware so the user experience remains good.
Regarding software compatibility, I won’t be surprised if Apple re-introduces “fat binaries”, like NeXTSTEP had. These are binaries that run on both PPC and x86. Of course, lots of third party software will have to be recompiled, but at least it won’t be necessary to be re-written or heavily modified as it was in the switch from 68k to PPC in 1993 or from OS9 to OSX in 2001. In other words, the move to x86-64 could be really smooth for users! Emulation does not make much sense as emulating the PPC in “OS-mode” like Apple did with 68k inside PPC is complex and it would be slow [update: this is the only part of this editorial that I didn’t predict on target, as there will be emulation *and* fat binary support – Jobs confirmed today the rest of my points in this article]. As for PPC user support, I am sure that Apple would be able to support PPC users for at least 4-5 more years, as they did with 68k support.
For those who claim that Microsoft will never recompile Office for x86-64 for Apple, I can only say that Apple coming to x86 is not bad business for Microsoft initially in terms of “fighting together” Linux. Microsoft has failed to squash the Linux hype but users who go Mac OS X almost never look back. With Apple managing to squash Linux in the x86-64 market, Microsoft will have to fight Apple at a much later future date. And it will be easier for Microsoft to fight an ‘enemy’ that plays with the same rules as they are rather one that doesn’t (open source). My enemy’s enemy is my friend, kind of thing… This is a lot like you are getting beaten at both the club and the school, but you give your lunch money to the bullie at the club guy to come and beat the school guy. At the end, you end up with ONE bully instead of two and that’s a progress…
With all this in mind, I believe that THIS is the best time for Apple to move to x86. I would argue that the best time was actually last year, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to IBM who seem to have managed to anger Jobs, mostly because the G5 doesn’t fit well on laptops rather than because the G5 might not be fast enough. And remember folks, the laptop business, is Apple’s business. If IBM can’t deliver, it’s time to move to someone who can. It makes sense, and the time is right, so why not?
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.
One of the things I hear Apple being ding upon is software. Usually it’s games. Hopefully this move will help address this issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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 …
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Do you have any proof that apple is overpriced?
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.
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.
Go to any computer store and compare the prices (pc/apple).
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.
“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
>> 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.
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.
A better means diddly squat 🙂
Look at BeOS…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
…like they did for the Mac Mini? Assuming, of course, that the story is actually true.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html
… 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…
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!
I guess it would take YEARS for IBM to develop hardward DRM!
Sheesh….
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)
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.
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.
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.
…consumers want to play their movies on all their computers in their house. How will IBM help here?
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?
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.
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?
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 🙂
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 $99 a license, they would sell millions of copies to Windows users who are tired of all the trojans and worms. Instead of going to Linux, now they have Os X as a choice. All the top Apple programs (iLife etc) just need to be recompiled for Intel to run. They probably have all the important programs compiled for the new architecture already.
Within a year, Apple share of all the currently running OSes will increase by at least 10-fold. Even if many pirated copies are run on Intel, in the long run this would increase the number of PCs running Os X astronomically. That is how MS became as big as it has and now has to resort to DRM and other schemes to prevent pirating.
Its time Steve exacted his revenge on Bill for continuously stealing ideas from Mac Os.
Way to go Apple!
people arent thinking here. What would be the advantage of jumpin to intel? Apples bread n butter has been laptops and the fact that OSX runs 64bit on PPC, even on laptops, even Intel’s new powerhouse chip, Yothan is only 32bit, yes it’ll be smaller and cooler, but not necessarily as powerful and capable. Apple is also huge on multicore and making gains in supercomputing, IBM is king of that castle and Apple has touted touted them for that by praising the g5’s in the xserve and how well they performed not to mention that all 3 gaming consoles are touting IBM multicore chips, i smell bull$h!te
you are so right. thanks for the reminder…
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
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…
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…
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.
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.
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.
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..
>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.
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…
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.
but it’s cool
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.
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)?
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…
..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
you’re rude but i do agree for the most part.
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.
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
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.
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.
anyone can remember me the pourcentage of market shares microsoft got in apple? do apple people bought them back?
yep i could have not agreed more
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Apple already looking at Wine code.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Do you have any proof that apple is overpriced?”
yes, see http://pcnmac.com/mini.htm for a pretty harsh breakdown.
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. :-).
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.
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.
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.
not only apple’s pc. if they won’t do that, than its better for them not to switch to intel.
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.
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?
i’ll keep my mouth shut and wait ’til apple announces whatever it will be
ouch
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 🙂
Looks like Apple didn’t learn from Be Inc’s mistake.
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?
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)
>>Looks like Apple didn’t learn from Be Inc’s mistake.
Please…not even close to be the same situation.