Apple switching to Intel! [Archive]

skoal

June 6th, 2005, 07:21 PM

I think there's another thread around here somewhere already discussing this. I think it's called "you've heard the Rumors..." (or something like that). Anyway, the only compelling reason to own an Apple computer was for the Power PC chip inside. OS X might be spiffy, but good luck pitching that OS to an existing Wintel box owner. I think Apple in this move is trying to become more economically competitive with their systems, negating some of the expense in proprietary matching hardware for the PPC chip - versus allowing OS X customers to select from a plethora of hardware already provided for the Intel boxes.

I for one welcome my new Lintel overlords...

\\//_

Knome_fan

June 6th, 2005, 07:27 PM

I can at least try out my new avatar now. :grin:

poofyhairguy

June 6th, 2005, 07:28 PM

I think there's another thread around here somewhere already discussing this. I think it's called "you've heard the Rumors..." (or something like that).

It mine. Since is was concerning rumors of Apple's activity, I think that a new thread is cool since it says its certain.

This is such a big deal in the tech. industry that it deserves two threads.

betrayed

June 6th, 2005, 07:58 PM

Knome_fan

June 6th, 2005, 08:06 PM

I guess this is something like news the interesting thing will be how apple handles drivers and everything like that if they just open it up to x86. That is a lot of hardware to try and be compatible with. I imagine support calls alone are going to triple.

They will not open it up.
OSX will still run only on Apple Macs, the only difference will be that these are running with Intel Inside now.

jazzorist

June 6th, 2005, 08:40 PM

"Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed “Marklar.”

Mac OS X has been “leading a secret double life” for the past five years, said Jobs. “So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years.”

Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple’s Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system. The system itself was not revealed."

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php

GTKpower

June 6th, 2005, 08:55 PM

Hehe . . . .

Not to worry, you'll see black-market x86 versions of OS X soon enough.

In fact, I woudn't be surprised if OS X is released to run on any generic non-proprietary hardware.

Stevo just proved it'll work, although he didn't reveal the system itself.

BUT . . . .

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR LINUX???

THAT is the real question.

Knome_fan

June 6th, 2005, 09:15 PM

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR LINUX???

Not much, I think.

Seriously, I know that people are heavy at work on /. and the like declaring the end of Linux, the end of Windows, the end of Apple, or simply the end of the world (according to their respective religious faiths), however nothing really changed today except that Macs now have a different processor. Duh.

So I don't really see how this will have any impact on Linux, even if there may be some hacked versions of OSX running illegally on non-Apple hardware.

Btw., someone on OSNEWS just declared this to be the most significant historical event since the fall of the Berlin wall... :grin:

Arthemys

June 6th, 2005, 10:08 PM

Two things I wanna throw into this discussion:

IBM isn't worried...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AIA6000.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down

What's this going to mean for performance on the Apple platform? I've yet to really use a new mac, but I'm going with the rest of the world and saying they have a badass system performance-wise. I'm going to play stupid so that I can just throw this thought out there; "If they move to x86, won't it suck?" I've read in some places that Apple will be moving to x86, but I'm guessing they're going to develop their own platform, instead of just using an x86 chip.

GTKpower

June 6th, 2005, 10:11 PM

poofyhairguy

June 6th, 2005, 11:48 PM

Hehe . . . .

Not to worry, you'll see black-market x86 versions of OS X soon enough.

In fact, I woudn't be surprised if OS X is released to run on any generic non-proprietary hardware.

I would be. Apple is a hardware company with good lawyers. If someone puts OSX on Dells the courts would make them Job's personal slave.

Stevo just proved it'll work, although he didn't reveal the system itself.

He jsut proves that x86 OSX will work. It would be impossible for Apple to support the billions of possible OSX configurations. I bet the x86 machine it ran on is very specialized and thats why it wasn't shown.

BUT . . . .

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR LINUX???

THAT is the real question.

That in a ten years only Gentoo and Debian will still be supporting PPC.

poofyhairguy

June 7th, 2005, 12:11 AM

Hey, here is proof that there will be no OSX on Dells:

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=macintouch

I feel better personally.

poofyhairguy

June 7th, 2005, 12:44 AM

This is fun stuff, I love big tech news.

Here is what Eugenia, the very trollish co-founder of OSnews, thinks about this in regards to Linux. Of course she thinks it will hurt Linux:

http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10768

I quote:

Usually there are two players rather than three: the favorite and the underdog. The "third" person does not matter as much. With Apple moving to x86 it can quickly become the underdog of the platform and put Linux in third (outsider) place.

Its just like the business commentary my teenage friends put forth when the only two big consoles were Genesis and Super Nintendo. Most billion dollar markets (energy, video games, cars, etc.) have many big players. The whole point that it missed is that x86 OSX will require buying a new machine (that will probably cost more) while Linux can be installed on almost any computer (including Macs) that you can touch.

This article ponders how the old Mac fans feel about this:

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/285

Here is an piece that asks a crucial question about how this will affect the image Apple has built for itself:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050606-16210800-bc-us-apple.xml

Another more subtle but perhaps equally pressing issue from a marketing perspective: Apple might be seen as selling out to larger technology companies.

Neat stuff.

Even if the switch goes well, it looks like rough times are ahead for Apple:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/06/technology/apple/

But the switch to Intel chips is a notable risk, which could weigh on the stock. Despite the buzz about the iPod, sales of Macs still make up nearly half of Apple's total revenue.

Wu notes that since Apple has marketed its computers during the past few years as being technologically superior to those that run on the so-called "Wintel" platform -- Microsoft's Windows operating system and Intel processors. So it may not be easy for Apple to convince its loyal user base why it's now reversing course and embracing Intel.

"A transition to Intel is technically possible but from a marketing standpoint it could be more challenging," Wu said. "Why ruin something that's doing well?"

Even though switching to Intel processors could lead to lower costs for Apple in the long run, it could cause significant cost increases in the short term, since Apple software programs would likely need to be redesigned in order to work with Intel chips....

With all this in mind, analysts said shares of Apple could muddle along for the foreseeable future.

Finally, to answer the question "AMD has more powerful chips, why didn't Apple pick AMD," here is the answer:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1477

Despite the fact that AMD’s dual core chips appear to be running circles around those from Intel, could Intel’s offerings be fast enough and could its deeper penetration into the mobile computing markets for notebooks, tablets, and handhelds (way deeper than AMD) be signalling Apple’s future aspirations?

I think the answer is yes; since more people buy laptops than desktops.

CospeFogo

June 7th, 2005, 01:24 AM

This is fun stuff, I love big tech news.

Here is what Eugenia, the very trollish co-founder of OSnews, thinks about this in regards to Linux. Of course she thinks it will hurt Linux:

http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10768

I quote:

Its just like the business commentary my teenage friends put forth when the only two big consoles were Genesis and Super Nintendo. Most billion dollar markets (energy, video games, cars, etc.) have many big players. The whole point that it missed is that x86 OSX will require buying a new machine (that will probably cost more) while Linux can be installed on almost any computer (including Macs) that you can touch.

This article ponders how the old Mac fans feel about this:

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/285

Here is an piece that asks a crucial question about how this will affect the image Apple has built for itself:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050606-16210800-bc-us-apple.xml

Neat stuff.

Even if the switch goes well, it looks like rough times are ahead for Apple:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/06/technology/apple/

Finally, to answer the question "AMD has more powerful chips, why didn't Apple pick AMD," here is the answer:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1477

I think the answer is yes; since more people buy laptops than desktops.
I think this can't harm Linux at all, because if Apple untied their OS from their hardware (CPU is not the only factor here, there's chipset, DRM-like technology) which is very unlikely to happen in my opinion, Windows would just crush MacOSX in equal competition (the average user doesn't want quality, he wants familiarity).

I still think you'll only be able to run MacOSX in Apple's hardware (IMO it will be x86 but not pc compatible).

Most Linux users use it because it's free as in speech and free as in beer. I don't see how would these concepts ever be appliable to MacOSX.

Don't worry, Linux is safe :)

23meg

June 7th, 2005, 03:22 AM

i wouldn't absolutely bet on it, but be prepared to see Palladium / TCPA or a similar scheme implemented into the next major MacOS release. what an ugly world this is..

"soon there will be one single company with one big product that does everything".

GTKpower

June 7th, 2005, 05:15 AM

Apple had no choice.

It's only chip supplier, IBM, is closing its doors and heading to the console market. Can't say I blame them.

It was either Intel or AMD. Intel already had a plan for Apple, so Steve Jobs did the only thing he could do to keep Apple from dying because of IBM's refusal to make a 3ghz G5 and refusal to make a G5 notebook. Modifying its upcoming "Cell" cpu so it wouldn't burn through a notebook keyboard was also going to cost money. Not incentive enough to divert its attentionfrom its new console deal.

It's all about economics. Don't blame Apple.

latrine

June 7th, 2005, 11:13 AM

Well... Linux will suffer but not as bad as it will seem...

Even if someone creates a bastard universal OSX, that becomes The Alternative (tm) to a problem ridled wintel platform, the ones that will be using it will be the ones use pirated copys of software and don't comply to LInux directives...

On the other hand how much different will be a Photoshop CS2 for X86 BSD from a x86 LInux version? (newbie question) won't the bring more software houses to x86 linux kernel based develpments?

And what about drivers? Being somewhat more generic hardware approach won't this make more easier for the hardware guys to create quality drivers for our kernels? and Apple scrutinny of this quality will be tight... won't this be positive for Linux?

CospeFogo

June 7th, 2005, 12:03 PM

nah... IMO, Apple will still sell expensive custom hardware (it's just a new cpu ... there's more to Mac than the cpu) and their OS will still run on their hardware only and will still be mostly bought by design/graphic arts people with specific needs. Windows will still be the main choice for offices and homes, Linux will keep its moderated growth and will still be MS's #1 FUD target.

Really, I don't see how could this change be harmful to other than Apple itself.

tiiim

June 7th, 2005, 12:57 PM

As a apple user, i think this is a gr8 move from apple. I just recently bought a powerbook great system. Mac OS X is a superb OS, not bad for user friendly UNIX.

I think apple moving over to Intel will be good and will expand there market. Yes there will be only mac hardware for OS X but expect faster, more consistent upgrade cycles.

I have used Windows, Linux, BSD, but so far IMHO OS X is the best OS for general customers. Shub Linux on the server and OS X on the desktop now that be good.

Gonna be a rocky year or so for apple now but it will be worth it. if you actually use OS X say for a week or so you will see why. Tiger is a great system, M$ are alreadying copying it.

Come bring out the UNIX family get Linux and OS X into the mainstream!

philcolbourn

June 7th, 2005, 01:34 PM

I think it means that intel have won the laptop/desktop and probably the bulk of the server market.

The world has standardised on x86 instruction set and generally intel chips.

AMD and some others are there keeping intel a little honest, but hardware is mostly the same. And about the same time, Transmeta sold up (and Apple seems to have purchased a bit before it went down).

So. We have standard hardware (intel based) basically a choice between two graphics processors, and standard networking (Ethernet and IP). We have lots of standard protocols and we seem to converging on standard file formats.

What will standardise next? OS? GUI? Office suite? web server? web browser?

poofyhairguy

June 7th, 2005, 07:04 PM

I think it means that intel have won the laptop/desktop and probably the bulk of the server market.

What it means is that is no platform without that trusted computing crap. The DRM that we have all feared (especially me, I love my w32codecs) will now be everywhere.

My plan is to buy one of the first dual core AMD chips. I think it has the DRM built it to, but at first AMD is trying to play the good guy by keeping it turned off. Eventually congress/MS/Intel will bitchslap AMD and force them to sell CPUs with it turned on and I might have to quit computers as a hobby.

CospeFogo

June 7th, 2005, 09:24 PM

Gtaylor

June 7th, 2005, 09:38 PM

What will standardise next? OS? GUI? Office suite? web server? web browser?
There will always be off-shoots and "rebels" especially in the open-source world. The hardware standardization is great as long as there is lots of competition within the particular architecture. This is of course diminished now that Apple is moving over but AMD appears to be doing good.

As for the other software stuff, maybe some standardization (within reason) would help. For example, I wouldn't be upset if everyone ran Firefox :) (Puts on flame suit).

poofyhairguy

June 7th, 2005, 11:02 PM

There is no unbreakable security measure. Every artificial limitation can be bypassed and I think TCPA, DRM or any of those dreaded acronyms won't last long.

They will last as far as the law is concerned. It will be hackable, but doing so will risk your freedom (as in literal you will be put in jail if you do this for sure). Plus with a cop in the box, it will be hard to crack. All it has to do is call home and say "owner is messing with me" for you to get a new piece of hardware you don't want:

http://www.tiggypig.com/acatalog/handcuffs.jpg

The hardware might be hackable, but for us in the U.S. (and Europe eventually I bet) there is no way around the DMCA:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

poofyhairguy

June 7th, 2005, 11:32 PM

Three quicks notes as the excitement in the nerd community dies down:

1. Thinking about it, the best thing this will do is FINALLY put a solid price on OSX. Apple hardware recently has costed more than what it is (especially the powerbooks) and two reasons for the difference was the real cost of using OSX and the CPUs. Now the difference between the prices of Apples and Dells is officially the price of OSX. Before I guessed OSX cost you about $300. I will find out how close I was in late 2008. Unfortunately you cannot tell what OSX costs based on the price of the Minis (even with the current minis this is true) because Apple gains its software margin on those Minis with hardware volume. Thats why the Minis were a bigger deal than this chip switch in the long run for Apple IMHO.

2. I am personally getting too much enjoyment out of constantly linking this article on online forms that crushes the dream of those that want OSX to be officially released on normal PC boxes:

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top

I think partially I like this because it makes economic sense. I mean there are too many drivers in the x86 world for OSX to work its magic. Plus, talking about ******* off the Mac faithful. Partially I like it because OSX on Dells would slow Linux development Linux a little I think:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BD0E8469A-28FC-415D-9281-C97B5FA2CA3D%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=

(note: link above is Mr. "I freaking hate Linux" so take with grain of salt)

And partially I like this because I have the weird notion that I can't really understand. I kinda just enjoy it. There is no reason for me to think this: I have a Sony Viao P4 desktop, I have been on x86 ever since it began, I only have one Mac- a clamshell iBook that runs Ubuntu-thats so old that I only use itas development platform, I like OSX only a little and I like its apps even less in many cases (me murder iTunes). Its weird, I shouldn't care. I should maybe even want it, because then I could play with OSX too. Either the famous distortion field is getting to me, or I really like the notion that "yep, almost everything you can buy in Best Buy besides the video/sound/wireless cards and the Toshiba Laptops are crap (except Apple too of course)."

3. It will be a race to see which OS supports the new Mac platform first- Windows or Linux. I bet Linux will win, but it will be fun. Another race will be "who can crack the new Apple bios to get OSX running in emulation first (or in real time, whatever)?" That will be a fun one as well. Despite the fact that I like how Apple won't sell OSX for non-macs, I love the idea of it being run unofficially. Then nerds can try it, Apple's lawyers can earn their wage, and Windows people might learn some Unix in the process. Win win!

CospeFogo

June 7th, 2005, 11:36 PM

They will last as far as the law is concerned. It will be hackable, but doing so will risk your freedom (as in literal you will be put in jail if you do this for sure). Plus with a cop in the box, it will be hard to crack. All it has to do is call home and say "owner is messing with me" for you to get a new piece of hardware you don't want:

http://www.tiggypig.com/acatalog/handcuffs.jpg

The hardware might be hackable, but for us in the U.S. (and Europe eventually I bet) there is no way around the DMCA:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
If everyone does it, it's not a crime anymore. It turns into a revolution. There's no way to send everyone to jail. I know it can be a pain in the beginning, but I'm sure it won't last. But that's just my opinion....

poofyhairguy

June 7th, 2005, 11:43 PM

If everyone does it, it's not a crime anymore.

People have been trading music since the 90s in the untold millions yet some in the government wants to find ways to decrease this activity instead of allowing it.

It turns into a revolution. There's no way to send everyone to jail.

That doesn't stop the government though. In the U.S. we have been losing the drug war since the 1930s (its still one of the biggest industries, bigger than when the drug was started) and there is no signs in Washington that anyone important wants to stop. They WILL fight a losing war, especially when the industry that paid for their campaign wants it:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

I have studied too much American politics to believe in a nerd revolution outside of GNUish stuff.

CospeFogo

June 7th, 2005, 11:44 PM

...

2. I am personally getting too much enjoyment out of constantly linking this article on online forms that crushes the dream of those that want OSX to be officially released on normal PC boxes:

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top

...

Very good point, and that's one of the reasons that assures me that I will run Ubuntu for a long time. It just works... no, wait, that's the other one's motto .... ;-)

philcolbourn

June 8th, 2005, 12:04 PM

What it means is that is no platform without that trusted computing crap. The DRM that we have all feared (especially me, I love my w32codecs) will now be everywhere.

My plan is to buy one of the first dual core AMD chips. I think it has the DRM built it to, but at first AMD is trying to play the good guy by keeping it turned off. Eventually congress/MS/Intel will bitchslap AMD and force them to sell CPUs with it turned on and I might have to quit computers as a hobby.

...or... the era of open hardware will begin. it will start with simple CPUs made with simple bits such as programable arrays. people will then develop memory management units, add-on dma controllers, interrupt controllers, and optical serial buses to memory and legacy pci/ide/scsi buses. then massively parallel simple CPUs will develop and component manufacturers will begin to make generic CPUs. over time these simple parallel CPUs will become more complex and efficient and will begin to threaten intel, ibm, amd, and most other CPU manufacturers - simply because it is open hardware.

poofyhairguy

June 8th, 2005, 10:01 PM

...or... the era of open hardware will begin.

To bad it costs a lot more to make hardware than it costs to make software. I have never seen anyone have success with open hardware. That one group was working on a open video card recently, but the funding pulled away. Its hard to do when most people don't care about free.

Plus if open hardware does exist, don't look past congress to call it "devices of terrorists" that " are designed to get around American law" followed by a ban on open hardware.

D.C. is a really corrupt place. The only reason that the age of computer darkness has not come yet is because one HUGE aspect of computing (bandwidth providers) know that for now the freedom to use your computer how you wish is in their best interest (aka illegal P2P has been a main reason for many home users to adopt broadband). But they are only one third of the equation (content providers, hardware providers, and bandwidth providers) and they might be overpowered by the combination of the other two (aka laws bought by entertainment industry to FORCE them to care what happens on their lines).

andrewpmk

June 9th, 2005, 12:42 AM

Apparently, since Appl€ will have DRM to prevent people from installing Mac OS X on PCs (even if they are virtually identical to Macs except for their DRM chips and their price tag), I'm boycotting Appl€ and Micro$oft.

--
There are few differences between Windows and Doors -- they both keep people out. A small detail such as transparent glass makes no difference.

Trickyphillips

June 13th, 2005, 09:30 AM

No. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.

Despite this fact, when this was annouced it was like the whole non-Mac nerd world said at the same time on all the nerd forums "Screw you Steve Jobs, I plan to hack your new macs and get OSX running on my POS Dell."

Like it hurts people's feeling that there cheap hardware isn't good enough for OSX.

According to MacDailyNews, the Mac OS X 10.4.1 Tiger has been leaked, and can run on any x86 machine: http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6012/

Many people think this may be a wild marketing technique. From http://www.shapeofdays.com/2005/06/mac_os_x_on_int.html:

This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I’ve ever seen.

Think about it. Apple releases a developers-only preview release of Mac OS X for Intel. It’s a fully functional release of the operating system, not a beta or prerelease copy. It will work reliably, and it will run the vast majority of existing Mac applications unmodified via the Rosetta translation technology. But because this is a one-off developer release, it’s of very little value to computer owners. Future software updates, like the soon-to-be-released 10.4.2 update, won’t install. Existing Mac software will run, but it will run in translation, which means it will be frustratingly slow. But according to reports, Apple’s bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed.

Given Apple’s experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple’s management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife ’05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation.

As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs.

Apple’s giving their potential future customers a free taste, that’s what they’re doing. It’s a try-before-you-buy deal.

It’s possible that any one of the ten items above — well, except number one — is wrong either in detail or completely. It’s possible that I’m totally off-base here. But I don’t think so. I think there’s a possibility, a very real possibility, that I’m right about this. And that thought gives me the chills. In a good way.

I think this could really hurt Microsoft, and may also cause many Linux users to convert.

poofyhairguy

June 13th, 2005, 09:36 AM

Many people think this may be a wild marketing technique. From http://www.shapeofdays.com/2005/06/mac_os_x_on_int.html:
.

I think it is a wild marketing technique for MacDailyNews. I read this story, yet no one seems to be able to actually find the thing.

And it was only a matter of time before it was hacked and put on. Heck, PearPC almost got around the arch. barrier. But just because it is cracked doesn't make drivers for Dell hardware magically appear and it doesn't mean that official support is comming.

tiiim

June 13th, 2005, 09:41 AM

I think this could really hurt Microsoft, and may also cause many Linux users to convert.

Very powerful words...

I been around Windows, Linux, freebsd and now Mac OSX. I never have been happy with any OS up to now. Mac OS Tiger is simply a superb OS. You need to be open minded and just try it to see.

OS Tiger is got everything longhorn wants but today. Remember this also.. later 2006 early 2007 Apple are also going to Launch OS 10.5(?) Leopard.... now consider this... if Tiger is already ahead... where will Leopard be?!

There are strong rumors over it already since Tiger has implemented some key technologies that developers actually like the system it self has now amazing possibilities that may not be unleashed until Leopard.

As you may of heard, a lot of people are now saying Linux is out... but i would wait and see... Windows will be poss. be around for a while with all their money... Linux is free that why people like it... and Apple are full of innovation that even Novell and Red Hat say they are designing similar desktops... 2006/2007 is the year(s) if the Desktop OS begins... M$ have met their challenges.

Trickyphillips

June 13th, 2005, 10:12 AM

I think it is a wild marketing technique for MacDailyNews. I read this story, yet no one seems to be able to actually find the thing.

I finished downloading it a few hours ago, via BitTorrent. I normally don't download software illegally, but I was shocked to hear that I may be able to use OS X, and had to see for myself [-X. I haven't taken the time to test it out, yet.

tiiim

June 13th, 2005, 10:15 AM

I finished downloading it a few hours ago, via BitTorrent. I normally don't download software illegally, but I was shocked to hear that I may be able to use OS X, and had to see for myself [-X. I haven't taken the time to test it out, yet.
i think we like to see screen shot evidence for that one....

Also when the "final" version comes out i think Apple will be restricting it.....

Also illegal software is wrong :O

desdinova

June 13th, 2005, 10:41 AM

Why?

Apple have already said they will lock it so that MacOSX will only install on Apple badged PC's.... I use Linux (as do many other people) because I do not want to be locked to anyone. People conveniently forget that Apple lock people in to their architecture far worse then MS do.

There will be a flurry of fuss, then people will realise its just MS with more clothes on. It won't impact Linux too much. Linux's strengths are its openness.... Perhaps some people will convert, but the development of the BSD's and the Linux's of the world will continue.

poofyhairguy

June 13th, 2005, 05:54 PM

I finished downloading it a few hours ago, via BitTorrent. I normally don't download software illegally, but I was shocked to hear that I may be able to use OS X, and had to see for myself [-X. I haven't taken the time to test it out, yet.

Are you sure it even works and you didn't just waste time downloading the PPC Tiger or tons of old people pron?

When I see screenshots and pictures of OSX running on generic Dell then I believe.

Trickyphillips

June 13th, 2005, 08:43 PM

I decided to test it out this morning, but it didn't work at all. I guess this could be a hoax.

poofyhairguy

June 13th, 2005, 11:41 PM

I decided to test it out this morning, but it didn't work at all. I guess this could be a hoax.

I think some people knew that it would be leaked in the future, so they wanted to jump the gun and be the first to announce it.

Fade

June 14th, 2005, 12:54 PM

In the future, I'm certian Mac will be x86/64bit... I'm still confused why everyone belives the PowerPC chips are better? Jobs seems to belive that intel offers more speed along with the price benifits. Also Intel makes a wide spectrum of cost effect and not always so cost effective chips for the consumor market (like duH right?).

Honestly, having three macs (actualy one is a supermac) with OSX Tiger, I can do without anymore and outside of the eyecandy in OSX.. I prefere linux or windows (GASP!).

Both g4's seem to 'hang' or 'crash' a bit, and my experience on both platforms show me (at least in my opinion) that intel's products are infact just as good if not better.

Anyway, just some extra opinion... as if this threed needed it LoL.