Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

Goodbye IBM, hello Intel?

Discussion in 'Mac' started by cowofwar, Jun 4, 2005.

  1. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
  2. SpocKirk

    SpocKirk Forum Moderator and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    25
    Market Rating:
    0
  3. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    If that ever happens, it will likely be an expansion into the x86 market as opposed to a conversion.
     
  4. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Or intel could just make cpus that have compatible instruction sets to the current ppc.
     
  5. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    There is also the problem of Big Endian versus Little Endian memory addressing. These differences are not so easily resolved.
     
  6. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    hm, yes indeed of course...hrm...so how do you turn this thing on again? :scratchh:
     
  7. Baseera

    Baseera MSC Footman

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    I originally thought this would fade away like most of the other Apple-Intel rumors. I'm on the edge of my seat now. I can hardly wait until 10 when Steve makes the announcement. This means I may get to actually help design the new processors. :dancen::banana::hump: (w0oT!)^2
     
  8. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    It also means you get to receive Steve Jobs' wrath if you don't deliver. :bendover:
     
  9. Elbereth

    Elbereth MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    14
    Market Rating:
    0
    http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

    Wow. I didn't think it would really happen.

    and here:

    After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
    However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2005
  10. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Countdown to hacked bios on a pci card. BEGIN!

    I don't know how much I like the idea of the developer thing costing $999. For large developers that's not a large hit but for smaller developers it might mean ditching their mac support.

    If apple provided some sort of super secret special pci card that allowed regular pcs to run their OS then it would make mac development much more friendly as you could have a single development machine for both macs and pcs.

    Having to cover the costs of training your developers to be familiar with the new hardware is hard enough nevermind having to dish out money for redundant hardware. Hopefully there is a compiler environment available on standard macs that emulates the new macs so companies don't have to ditch their entire line of now obsolete mac hardware. Same goes for a compiler environment in windows or whatever. Being able to develop your programs on a pc for macs without even having macs would be nice.

    Also rosetta is the new carbon which sucks as I thought we were done with that crap.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2005
  11. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Yeah because that was a terrible strategy for Microsoft. :rolleyes: Interesting that they are giving tacit approval to run Windows on a Mac, however. Seems counterintuitive to me, I'd think I'd want my OS running on as many systems as possible, while at the same time trying to limit options for the competition, but then Apple still considers themselves a hardware company.

    Overall I think this is a good move for Apple, although I am not nearly as techno-savvy as some of you on here... :bowdown: ...so there may be implications that my feeble mind cannot grasp. I'm hoping it means clock speeds that are more on par with the PC side?
     
  12. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Apple is best known for its hardware design. They make a lot of money off the hardware and stand to make a whole lot more by using intel cpus. If they let os x run on any intel then they'd be watering down their identity which is what drives sales.
     
  13. Calendryll

    Calendryll MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    52
    Market Rating:
    0
    You also have to look on the side of gamers being a huge part of the industry now as well. Apple failed greatly in the beggining stages of their OS in making many companies think it was the next great thing. When it turned out to be terrible and so bugged to be unusable it didnt matter that apple fixed the problems- they were already written off by some major corporations. With the potential to actually run some games on these things their industry in the hardware line may see a big rise. As long as microsoft is out there I dont think anything will ever compete except maybe Linux and that still falls short by a huge amount. I have a feeling their OS is the last thing on their minds at this point if they want to stay competitive. Just my thoughts, may be wrong but its just what I see at this point.
     
  14. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    The mac will end up with more games for it now because someone will compile a version of wine for it. Not native, but it'll still work. Better than virtual PC as well.
     
  15. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    What are the benefits here? I only see detriments.


    [​IMG]
    It seems Apple now buys into the "MHz myth", otherwise they would have gone with AMD (better performance, cooler running). Notice how they cite MHz as one of the reasons for leaving IBM.

    [​IMG]
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember several keynotes at various Mac conventions over the past several years where Steve spent a long time bashing the P4. Now they are running OS X on a P4. Interesting...

    [​IMG]
    Changing architectures? Yay for interpreted code and performance slowdowns. As cow says, it's the next Carbon.

    [​IMG]
    Mac OS X can only run on Mactel hardware? Way to close the platform. Apple has always done this so I can't say I'm surprised, but I still resent them for it.

    [​IMG]
    Apple just killed their sales for the next two years. I certainly would not buy a computer if I knew its hardware platform would be deprecated in 2 years.

    Apple has balls if they think they can move into the enemy camp and section off their own exclusive region. I doubt Apple's loyal followers will like this move either... Apple has been dispensing "anti-Intel propaganda" for years, and now they expect their followers to forget all of that. That's like saying, "Commies suck... hey let's move to China and use their social systems."

    Will some one please enlighten me as to some advantages of this move? I don't see any, real or perceived.
     
  16. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    The only thing I can surmise is that Apple has inside info on upcoming Intel products, and believes that in the next two years Intel will have superior chips to AMD. Remember they've been in casual talks with both companies for years now? Maybe that was just a front to get a grasp on both of their future product lines. The P4 is dead - everyone thinks that in a year or two the architecture will be completely discontinued.
     
  17. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Is it really a myth? Haven't most of you who've converted to the "dark side" (for lack of a better term) done so because PCs outperform Macs? As Jobs said, the PPC architecture is going nowhere, time to get out.

    You're not wrong. Steve likes to fire up his user base. But is that really relevant to whether this is a good move for the platform? I'd wager most Mac users care more about the chassis than the engine. Plus, it's not like this is a big shocker. As Haite pointed out, this has been coming for a while.

    And yet, Apple survived the first Carbon. Many "experts" predicted OS X would kill the platform, too, by driving off all the remaining software developers. Didn't happen. There will be growing pains at first, no doubt, but this will allow more powerful Macs, with easier porting from the PC side. Hard to be upset about that.

    Here you probably have a point. I'd also like to see them open their OS, but then I understand why they don't, even though I don't necessarily agree with it. And it remains to be seen how big a sales impact this will have, although it's reasonable to assume it will have some. I myself am now second guessing my plans to buy a dual G5. (Although 2007 is a long time to wait.) But you may be surprised. As I said before, Mac users buy the chassis. If we were power users we'd have PCs.

    You got that right. Is that so bad?
     
  18. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    1. Intel has the best mobile cpu with performance/heat/power consumption ratios. Laptops are where Apple's money comes from and AMD doesn't have any good notebook cpu offerings. Also AMD is small and does not have the capability to deliver the volume Apple requires. On top of that Intel has a much larger capital with which to innovate so they are more stable than AMD which is focused completely on consumer processors.

    2. Steve bashed the P4 because it's the main processor of their competition. The benchmarks were always doctored up. It's either Intel or AMD and AMD can't cut it.

    3. yeah

    4. The hardware market is important to Apple. It gives them their identity, to have people running os x on an ugly beige box dilutes their identity and harms their market image. Also it gives Apple something to use to sell their products to people that don't understand computers. It's like selling george bush to americans. You don't go on about how he is a good politician, you sell him as a friend and a nice guy who believes in morals and true american values.

    5. Don't disagree with that. However it'll be two years by the time the mactel platform has totally rolled out and at least a couple years after that before developers start dropping ppc support. By that time any computer you buy now would be obsolete anyways.

    I think moving was the right move for Apple. IBM can't deliver and they've been stagnating. With all the new console contracts for IBM Apple's on the backburner which means even less innovation. The change also probably stems from the fact that a mobile G5 processor isn't going to happen due to power and heat issues. Once again the mobile market is Apple's baby and they need innovation to push sales. Crappy low clock speed G4s don't move product.

    While there aren't any immediate benefits to the switch this was all preventitive. If Apple had done nothing but wait on IBM's slow butt to do something they would be back in the early 90s. I'm pretty sure Steve doesn't want to see Apple back in the poor house and he's taking steps to prevent that even if it spells short term suffering.
     
  19. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Here's what I'm sure persuaded cupertino.

    It's a beast.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    But it doesn't have the Velocity Engine for teh gigaflops. Don't be fooled by real performance.
     

Hitometer: 53,594,573 since 1995