So, you no doubt heard the rumors..

[poofyhairguy]

That Apple is going to use Intel chips as the CPU:

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

I think the idea is neat, but I hope that Apple doesn't switch to x86 (even the new 64bit x86). Its kinda nice having PPC out there. Plus I would love to see Intel's version of the G5 (or maybe a new G6). It would be great. If Intel makes PPC, I am getting the parts off ebay and I am building me a PPC machine for Ubuntu.

[bored2k]

If the hardware supporting Mac's get cheaper, I would definitely be interested.

[enquiry]

From this thread: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=195871#post195871

Their hardware at a higher cost for less compared to x86 hardware. The day x86 OSX comes around is the day they lose all of those hardware sales.

Which is why it won't come.
So never say never (although I know Apple haven't said that OS X will run on any x86 CPU, but who knows). It's kind of strange if Intel will start making PPC, as it's IBM's architecture, so I think it will be some other platform.

[weekend warrior]

Well the Macsters over at www.macrumors.com are having fun with this, 750+ posts over 30 pages since yesterday evening. Some of them sound ready to jump off a bridge. The poor devils, that's what happens when you live (and die) in a "company town" :razz:

[GTKpower]

So, "Apple moves to Intel" means that one can (if it does happen) run OS X on any PC, including AMD . . . right?

Probably a dumb question since x86 is x86, any way you slice it.

[enquiry]

So, "Apple moves to Intel" means that one can (if it does happen) run OS X on any PC, including AMD . . . right?

Probably a dumb question since x86 is x86, any way you slice it.
It doesn't necessarily mean that. Intel might very well make another chip for Apple that is not compatible with x86.

[poofyhairguy]

So, "Apple moves to Intel" means that one can (if it does happen) run OS X on any PC, including AMD . . . right?


Nope. Very small chance.

Instead Intel might make a new PPC chip (g6). Or if Apple does switch to x86 there will be some hardware lock used that the DMCA will make illegal to get around (in the States at least).

Apple is a hardware company. They aren't going to do anything that turns them into a software company because:

1. they don't want to deal with piracy.

2. they don't want to go head on with MS

(the most important one is next)

3. They can't possibly support all of those crap x86 parts in existance. Cameras, video cards, sound cards, cheap RAM, wireless cards, etc. In x86 land there are over one billion possibilities of how hardware can be arranged. This cheap x86 hardware is the reason Linux will never be "ready for the desktop" in the minds of many because it is impossible to support all of this junk. MS doesn't even really support it, it relies on (often poor) drivers to make it all work.

OSX works great. But the reason its so far advanced beyond Linux/MS is because it doesn't have to try to support all of this hardware; all of this dead weight.

Nothing could be a bigger headache for Apple then to open up OSX. Nerds might love the idea of some other Unix they can install on their Dell from Limewire, but it will never happen. Apple doesn't want that kind of lack of business (or if it does that is the end of Apple).

[WildTangent]

Mr. Hair's right, Apple wouldnt do anything that would mean less hardware sales. theyre prefectly happy selling their expensive (but well made and attractive) hardware, why would they hurt themselves?

-Wild

[poofyhairguy]

Add this to the whole thing:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp

Fun thing about Apple is that despite its numbers, its like the funnest Tech company to speculate about.

Lets keep it up till monday when the annoucement it made.

[tread]

On the other hand, even Apple has to face the fact that hardware is really cheap now, and and Mac machines are becoming more of a niche than ever. If they were to run OSX on x86 architectures, they could woo a lot of Windows customers .. and there is eventually more money to be made in software than hardware .. the profit margins in hardware are slim, and with China and Taiwan in the hardware manufacturing field, hardware costs are reducing rapidly. Imagine if APple managed to tie up with Dell to run OSX on Dell machines! Apple hardware sales, way low, Apple software sales would skyrocket.

[poofyhairguy]

and there is eventually more money to be made in software than hardware ..


eventually....as in long term? Its funny you say that on the Ubuntu forum.



the profit margins in hardware are slim, and with China and Taiwan in the hardware manufacturing field, hardware costs are reducing rapidly. Imagine if APple managed to tie up with Dell to run OSX on Dell machines! Apple hardware sales, way low, Apple software sales would skyrocket.

OSX will never "break in" to another major PC pusher because all the MS agreements say "sell only MS OSes or you lose OEM pricing." Plus Apple sells hardware to hide what OSX really costs I believe. I mean, would it beat MS if it had the price tag its really worth...say $400?! Maybe, because of piracy not profit.

The day I see OSX on Dell is the day I switch to Linux permanetly (and leave the crazy closed work behind).

EDIT: After reading this post I realized that the idea that Apple might move to x86 kinda bugs me. OSX on Dells bug me. Two reasons:

1. Another Unix on all those Dells out there might slow Linux development.

2. I kinda like the idea (even though I have no modern Apple computer) of the more expensive "better than whatever you are doing" computer out there that is like a BMW to the many Fords of the PC world (Dell, HP, Linksys, junk web cam makers, don't get me started). I mean, if the elite goes away what will all the Dells of the world aspire to be?

I'll get off the couch now.

[GTKpower]

Apple hardware is by no means "elite."

In fact, Apple hardware isn't all that impressive.

The fact that the hardware is completely mated to the OS is part of the reason for all this fawning over Apple.

When compared to AMD's 64-bit offerings, the G5 is unimpressive, although it does hold its own nicely as a 64-bit system.

In fact, while the Power cpu currently in the G5 is actually a mighty nice cpu, OS X cripples it in certain key areas, in terms of speed.

Would I buy an Apple (again) ? If Apple decides to stick with IBM after all and not move to Intel, sure, I'd buy one.

But not without an AMD rig sitting right next to it, running Ubuntu. :wink:


. . . all of which begs the question: Isn't it high time that Apple becomes a software company? Imagine OS X (with its UNIX foundations), head-to-head with MS, running on the same hardware.

[poofyhairguy]

Apple hardware is by no means "elite."

Yep. Thats why I would never buy one. But honestly BMW hardware isn't that great- you can get more features and lots more power for cheaper- but the overall quality of the computing experiance is higher (or driving experiance, whatever).

I admit, Apple is also a little to closed for me. But its closed nature is what allows it to do such neat tricks.

[GTKpower]

Yep. Thats why I would never buy one. But honestly BMW hardware isn't that great- you can get more features and lots more power for cheaper- but the overall quality of the computing experiance is higher (or driving experiance, whatever).

I admit, Apple is also a little to closed for me. But its closed nature is what allows it to do such neat tricks.

Exactly.

It's an interesting tradeoff.

The attraction that I do happen to feel for Apple, is really about a few features of OS X, such as the tightly integrated multimedia, and the tight integration of Spotlight.

Some of the eye-candy I can live with, such as window/menu shadows, but other things like ripple effects, and that silly Dashboard (why not have all those meters and widgets just sit on the desktop?) are too frilly.

So, it's the nice multimedia and image editing that impresses me. That's about it.

What excites me is that GNOME is getting there with multimedia. Its UI design is already brilliant (in Ubuntu.) Beagle just sweetens the deal.

[tread]

sell only MS OSes or you lose OEM pricing
ApPle could do this too, right? Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting OSX on x86 .. I don't see myself moving from Linux for a long long time.

Even if this is a Ubuntu forum, I still stand by my statement that there is more money to be made in software than hardware ..

[GTKpower]

It's Sunday morning here in Toronto, and I've been browsing the Internet news-feeds.

It seems that Apple's supposed move to Intel is a done deal, and that talks are going on with AMD as well.

We find out on Monday, but I suspect we'll just hear a confirmation of what we already know.

I certainly hope that if Intel and/or AMD design cpus for OS X, we'll still be ble to use all of our third-party hardware.

Then again, Apple may still want to maintain a "closed architecture", with the move to Intel representing a switch in cpu makers, and nothing more.

[Wide]

Mac has a x86 version of the software based on Tiger, it is currently running on any x86 machine, what they do after beta is beyond me.

Doing a google for info about this from Macromedia & other app providers will show some details.


Should be interesting;)

[xequence]

Mac has a x86 version of the software based on Tiger, it is currently running on any x86 machine, what they do after beta is beyond me.

Doing a google for info about this from Macromedia & other app providers will show some details.


Should be interesting;)

This thread is months old... And no, apple didnt release a version of OSX to run on any x86 CPU. They made a devoleper version that only runs on apple certified intel x86 cpus, but someone cracked it to run on any x86 cpu that is strong enough. Its called OSx86.

[Sirin]

Of course they're going to start making Intel-based PCs, but who said they were gonna stop making PowerPC-based PCs? (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html) ;)

[wmcbrine]

They're going to stop making PowerPC-based machines. It's just not going to happen all at once -- some model lines will switch before others. IIRC, the plan is to take about a year from the introduction of the first x86 Mac, until the end of production for the last PPC Mac. And software will continue to be produced in "Universal binary" format for some time after that, simply because of the large installed base.

[poofyhairguy]

Apple plans to use TPM to make sure the OS sticks with the machines:

http://www.osx86project.org/

And this article explains why the clones might not return:

http://www.silicon.com/silicon/software/os/0,39024651,39153944,00.htm

Good read.

[xequence]

Apple plans to use TPM to make sure the OS sticks with the machines:

http://www.osx86project.org/

And this article explains why the clones might not return:

http://www.silicon.com/silicon/software/os/0,39024651,39153944,00.htm

Good read.

Yes, and I learned something ;)

When I get a new computer I am almost definitally going to go straight for that OSx86 dvd ;)

[Omnios]

Hay Poof you might find this interesting I remember a long time ago that Apples current suppliers refused to put large amounts of funding to keep up with Intels hyperthreading and dual core teck. They stated it would be to expencive to keep up a arms race with intel, now it seems it is going to cost them plenty. I read this a long time before the anouncement that they might be switching. This can be either they are realy switching which is likely or leverage to get what they want.

[xequence]

Hay Poof you might find this interesting I remember a long time ago that Apples current suppliers refused to put large amounts of funding to keep up with Intels hyperthreading and dual core teck. They stated it would be to expencive to keep up a arms race with intel, now it seems it is going to cost them plenty. I read this a long time before the anouncement that they might be switching. This can be either they are realy switching which is likely or leverage to get what they want.

As far as I know, IBM (the makers of powerpc) were going like crazy to give apple better powerpc chips. They even offered a version of the next generation consoles processors. I heard apple switched for two things: The famed volume discounts intel gives and to use the intel Xscale processor to play video in the ipod.

[Omnios]

As far as I know, IBM (the makers of powerpc) were going like crazy to give apple better powerpc chips. They even offered a version of the next generation consoles processors. I heard apple switched for two things: The famed volume discounts intel gives and to use the intel Xscale processor to play video in the ipod.

So either way Apple was not getting what they wanted. Also what I heard was from well over a year ago and needless to say they seem to be switching. I get most of my info from reputable online magz though even they are not always right but it boiled down to IBM not giving them what they wanted.

[poofyhairguy]

So either way Apple was not getting what they wanted. Also what I heard was from well over a year ago and needless to say they seem to be switching. I get most of my info from reputable online magz though even they are not always right but it boiled down to IBM not giving them what they wanted.

And why should IBM now that they will provide chips for all the three next big gaming consoles? They only have to design those once then sell them for years.

[Sirin]

That Apple is going to use Intel chips as the CPU:

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

I think the idea is neat, but I hope that Apple doesn't switch to x86 (even the new 64bit x86). Its kinda nice having PPC out there. Plus I would love to see Intel's version of the G5 (or maybe a new G6). It would be great. If Intel makes PPC, I am getting the parts off ebay and I am building me a PPC machine for Ubuntu.

If Apple makes the switch to x86, we will see both a massive drop in price and performance. Why use the same technology used in normal, average PCs? Let's just hope that if they use x86, they will use a special edition designed specifically for the Macintosh. I wonder what will happen next? The switch to integrated graphics and audio cards? "Windows on a Mac, and Mac on a Dell". this is gonna get good. :cool:

[Sirin]

I found this on Apple's website:

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/8079/macx86humor7qx.png

[dueyfinster]

Right inside scoop, my father works for Intel and he said they are making a "Apple specific chip" he doesn't know what specifically that means, but he gathers it will have some compatability with x86 and some compatability with their existing chips and be a cross between the two. Also he tells me Intel are not interested in the 64-bit being pushed by AMD, so we can rule that out.

[wmcbrine]

Right inside scoop, my father works for Intel and he said they are making a "Apple specific chip" he doesn't know what specifically that means, but he gathers it will have some compatability with x86 and some compatability with their existing chips and be a cross between the two. Also he tells me Intel are not interested in the 64-bit being pushed by AMD, so we can rule that out.
Well I hate to say it, but I don't think your father is all that much of an insider. Intel has already copied AMD's 64-bit architecture into their own chips (redubbing it "EM64t", or sometimes "IA32e"). That's a fact. They may or may not be interested in it, I guess, but they're doing it.

PowerPC compatibility for Intel-based Apples has already been achieved through software emulation, so they don't need Intel to do it in hardware. And personally, I don't believe for a moment that Apple is getting custom processors, because that would defeat what I see as the entire rationale for the switch. But we'll see.

As I've written elsewhere, (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=303430#post303430) the game-oriented CPU that IBM has developed for next-gen consoles would be no bargain for the Mac. I also don't buy the "volume discount" theory at all; it's just poorly thought out speculation. It would take much deeper motivations for Apple to make such a disruptive switch. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=301540#post301540)

I had some better stuff about this written up on DSLReports.com, but it seems to have expired now. :(