cheapass Gundam
CAGiversary!
http://www.pluginz.com/news/3098
I wonder if this means we'll be seeing cheap Intel systems running Mac OS X soon...
I wonder if this means we'll be seeing cheap Intel systems running Mac OS X soon...
Adios PowerPC, Apple gets in bed with Intel
- Thread starter cheapass Gundam
- Start date
ZeroSupporT
CAGiversary!
Means there will probably be a new version of MAC OS X coming out with the new chips for the architecture
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
MS Office for MAC, switching to Intel processors...
Why not just buy a more powerful PC for thousands of dollars less?
Why not just buy a more powerful PC for thousands of dollars less?
cheapass Gundam
CAGiversary!
I doubt most people buy Macs to use MS Office. Macs are mostly used by creative professionals in the graphics/video/music areas.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Quackzilla']MS Office for MAC, switching to Intel processors...
Why not just buy a more powerful PC for thousands of dollars less?[/QUOTE]
Some people prefer quality.
Why not just buy a more powerful PC for thousands of dollars less?[/QUOTE]
Some people prefer quality.
jeffreyjrose
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I've been trying to determine Apple's real motive behind this switch since the initial news hit a few weeks ago. This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that Intel may have some chip architecture up it's sleeve that would allow Apple to start production of Powerbook G5s sooner than if they had stayed with IBM.
markholladay
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 10 (100%)
This is exciting news.
Finally real competition for Windows. This can only be good for everybody.
I am pretty happy to hear about this.
Finally real competition for Windows. This can only be good for everybody.
I am pretty happy to hear about this.
cheapass Gundam
CAGiversary!
[quote name='jeffreyjrose']I've been trying to determine Apple's real motive behind this switch since the initial news hit a few weeks ago. This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that Intel may have some chip architecture up it's sleeve that would allow Apple to start production of Powerbook G5s sooner than if they had stayed with IBM.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't a PowerBook G5, by definition, have to use PowerPC G5 chips made by IBM?
I doubt the new Intel-based Macs will keep "Power" as part of its name, as the PowerPC chips will no longer be part of their architectures.
Wouldn't a PowerBook G5, by definition, have to use PowerPC G5 chips made by IBM?
I doubt the new Intel-based Macs will keep "Power" as part of its name, as the PowerPC chips will no longer be part of their architectures.
I wonder what took them so long to make the move. If they've been using x86 versions of MacOS for the last 5 years, why haven't they released it as a retail product? Their market share is going to increase dramatically now that they have an open hardware platform.
[quote name='radjago']I wonder what took them so long to make the move. If they've been using x86 versions of MacOS for the last 5 years, why haven't they released it as a retail product? Their market share is going to increase dramatically now that they have an open hardware platform.[/QUOTE]
You make the mistake (like a lot of people) by assuming that it will be an x86 processor. Intel has been experimenting with 64-bit ISAs for quite a long time. It's very unlikely that Apple will be running on x86 chips.
Right now, most people are guessing that it will be some variant of the Itanium 2. It makes a lot of sense from an Intel point of view since Intel has been trying to find marketshare for the Itanium forever.
Apple's motives are harder to figure out. A lot of people guess that it has something to do with IBM's recent focus change to consoles. Perhaps IBM really believes in the Cell, and Apple doesn't like being marginalized.
At any rate, I don't think that this will blur the lines between PCs and Apples. Apple's machine is still going to be some sort of custom 64-bit architecture, whereas PCs will continue on their x86 path, with a focus on multicore designs.
You make the mistake (like a lot of people) by assuming that it will be an x86 processor. Intel has been experimenting with 64-bit ISAs for quite a long time. It's very unlikely that Apple will be running on x86 chips.
Right now, most people are guessing that it will be some variant of the Itanium 2. It makes a lot of sense from an Intel point of view since Intel has been trying to find marketshare for the Itanium forever.
Apple's motives are harder to figure out. A lot of people guess that it has something to do with IBM's recent focus change to consoles. Perhaps IBM really believes in the Cell, and Apple doesn't like being marginalized.
At any rate, I don't think that this will blur the lines between PCs and Apples. Apple's machine is still going to be some sort of custom 64-bit architecture, whereas PCs will continue on their x86 path, with a focus on multicore designs.
PawnTakesKing
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='jeffreyjrose']I've been trying to determine Apple's real motive behind this switch since the initial news hit a few weeks ago. This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that Intel may have some chip architecture up it's sleeve that would allow Apple to start production of Powerbook G5s sooner than if they had stayed with IBM.[/QUOTE]
Bingo. Apple execs have made several complaints about trying to put a G5 in a laptop for some time now. The cooling system, for one thing, would be outrageously expensive and not very feasible. G5 Powerbooks actually should have been a reality quite some time ago. Not to mention Jobs foolheartedly promised 3 GHz Powermacs two years ago and was unable to deliver, thanks in part to IBM. Switching to Intel will most likely allow Apple to realize increased power in their machines, as well as making them less expensive. I can foresee some variant of the Pentium M showing up in Apple's laptops next year.
My only question is: Will I be able to purchase a Mac and run Windows on it? Without Virtual PC? (Of course I'd be using OS X more often, but Windows functionality and the ability to dual-boot would be an added perk, although I doubt they'll be using the x86 platform.)
Bingo. Apple execs have made several complaints about trying to put a G5 in a laptop for some time now. The cooling system, for one thing, would be outrageously expensive and not very feasible. G5 Powerbooks actually should have been a reality quite some time ago. Not to mention Jobs foolheartedly promised 3 GHz Powermacs two years ago and was unable to deliver, thanks in part to IBM. Switching to Intel will most likely allow Apple to realize increased power in their machines, as well as making them less expensive. I can foresee some variant of the Pentium M showing up in Apple's laptops next year.
My only question is: Will I be able to purchase a Mac and run Windows on it? Without Virtual PC? (Of course I'd be using OS X more often, but Windows functionality and the ability to dual-boot would be an added perk, although I doubt they'll be using the x86 platform.)
[quote name='spaceloaf']You make the mistake (like a lot of people) by assuming that it will be an x86 processor. Intel has been experimenting with 64-bit ISAs for quite a long time. It's very unlikely that Apple will be running on x86 chips.
Right now, most people are guessing that it will be some variant of the Itanium 2. It makes a lot of sense from an Intel point of view since Intel has been trying to find marketshare for the Itanium forever.
Apple's motives are harder to figure out. A lot of people guess that it has something to do with IBM's recent focus change to consoles. Perhaps IBM really believes in the Cell, and Apple doesn't like being marginalized.
At any rate, I don't think that this will blur the lines between PCs and Apples. Apple's machine is still going to be some sort of custom 64-bit architecture, whereas PCs will continue on their x86 path, with a focus on multicore designs.[/QUOTE]
No, Jobs plainly stated they'd be using mainstream Intel chips and that the presentation behind him had been running on a P4 system the entire time.
In case you haven't been paying attention lately, Intel x86 processors ARE 64-bit these days. They've been available for purchase for several month. They call it EMT-64 but it's nearly identical to AMD's 64-bit extensions. By the time the first 'Intel Inside' Macs ship the Intel product line will be 64-bit capable throughout except for the most inexpensive low-end products.
For Apple to adopt Itanium would be utter insanity and suicide. Itanium chips are very expensive and completely impractical for desktop systems and not even remotely possible any time soon for portables. The entire reason Apple is doing this is to have a reliable supply of high performance desktop and portable CPUs. IBM wasn't able to do this when their only customer for such items was Apple. Intel can but only if Apple uses their commodity products. For Intel to add Apple doesn't strain their production capacity. Apple's needs are no greater than the additional inventory needed to fuel an extra strong quarter at Dell.
If Apple were looking for customization they'd stay with IBM. It was customization IBM provided for Nintendo that played a large role in allowed the GameCube to have a consistently 50% lower price than the competing consoles. Intel was not interested in doing the same for Microsoft with an assurance of many time greater volumes than Xbox could be expected to achieve.
The one area IBM wasn't willing to give Apple what they wanted was the major project that would have been required to produce a G5 class chip suitable for a PowerBook. Apple has never been one for the semi-portable desktop replacement behemoths that use desktop parts and have battery life measured in minutes rather than hours. Apple simply couldn't guarantee IBM enough sales volume to make it worth the investment. Intel, OTOH, is already the #1 supplier of laptop CPUs and has a massive investment in continuing development for that sector. The Pentium M line of products is expected to have multi-core and EMT-64 support around the same time Apple stated the first Intel-Macs would arrive, by no small coincidence.
IBM did not "change focus" to consoles, they simply served their new customers exactly as they did Apple. The problem is that Apples needs are greater than their capital can buy from a company that has no reason otherwise to be in the desktop PC CPU business. IBM makes more off of one POWER mainframe than Intel does from 10,000 P4s but Intel has the kind of volume to make those little chips a huge market. Apple cannot deliver those volumes for IBM, so they've no reason to pursue that business.
Right now, most people are guessing that it will be some variant of the Itanium 2. It makes a lot of sense from an Intel point of view since Intel has been trying to find marketshare for the Itanium forever.
Apple's motives are harder to figure out. A lot of people guess that it has something to do with IBM's recent focus change to consoles. Perhaps IBM really believes in the Cell, and Apple doesn't like being marginalized.
At any rate, I don't think that this will blur the lines between PCs and Apples. Apple's machine is still going to be some sort of custom 64-bit architecture, whereas PCs will continue on their x86 path, with a focus on multicore designs.[/QUOTE]
No, Jobs plainly stated they'd be using mainstream Intel chips and that the presentation behind him had been running on a P4 system the entire time.
In case you haven't been paying attention lately, Intel x86 processors ARE 64-bit these days. They've been available for purchase for several month. They call it EMT-64 but it's nearly identical to AMD's 64-bit extensions. By the time the first 'Intel Inside' Macs ship the Intel product line will be 64-bit capable throughout except for the most inexpensive low-end products.
For Apple to adopt Itanium would be utter insanity and suicide. Itanium chips are very expensive and completely impractical for desktop systems and not even remotely possible any time soon for portables. The entire reason Apple is doing this is to have a reliable supply of high performance desktop and portable CPUs. IBM wasn't able to do this when their only customer for such items was Apple. Intel can but only if Apple uses their commodity products. For Intel to add Apple doesn't strain their production capacity. Apple's needs are no greater than the additional inventory needed to fuel an extra strong quarter at Dell.
If Apple were looking for customization they'd stay with IBM. It was customization IBM provided for Nintendo that played a large role in allowed the GameCube to have a consistently 50% lower price than the competing consoles. Intel was not interested in doing the same for Microsoft with an assurance of many time greater volumes than Xbox could be expected to achieve.
The one area IBM wasn't willing to give Apple what they wanted was the major project that would have been required to produce a G5 class chip suitable for a PowerBook. Apple has never been one for the semi-portable desktop replacement behemoths that use desktop parts and have battery life measured in minutes rather than hours. Apple simply couldn't guarantee IBM enough sales volume to make it worth the investment. Intel, OTOH, is already the #1 supplier of laptop CPUs and has a massive investment in continuing development for that sector. The Pentium M line of products is expected to have multi-core and EMT-64 support around the same time Apple stated the first Intel-Macs would arrive, by no small coincidence.
IBM did not "change focus" to consoles, they simply served their new customers exactly as they did Apple. The problem is that Apples needs are greater than their capital can buy from a company that has no reason otherwise to be in the desktop PC CPU business. IBM makes more off of one POWER mainframe than Intel does from 10,000 P4s but Intel has the kind of volume to make those little chips a huge market. Apple cannot deliver those volumes for IBM, so they've no reason to pursue that business.
[quote name='Maverick CRV']Bingo. Apple execs have made several complaints about trying to put a G5 in a laptop for some time now. The cooling system, for one thing, would be outrageously expensive and not very feasible. G5 Powerbooks actually should have been a reality quite some time ago. Not to mention Jobs foolheartedly promised 3 GHz Powermacs two years ago and was unable to deliver, thanks in part to IBM. Switching to Intel will most likely allow Apple to realize increased power in their machines, as well as making them less expensive. I can foresee some variant of the Pentium M showing up in Apple's laptops next year.
My only question is: Will I be able to purchase a Mac and run Windows on it? Without Virtual PC? (Of course I'd be using OS X more often, but Windows functionality and the ability to dual-boot would be an added perk, although I doubt they'll be using the x86 platform.)[/QUOTE]
An Apple exec said yesterday that they won't do anything to prevent other operating systems from running on their machines but they will keep their OS exclusive to official Mac systems. At the very least Apple will continue the MAc firmware requirements that have always been the main obstacle to running MacOS on non-Apple hardware going all the way back to David Small's stuff for the Atari ST. (Hard to believe that was almost 20 years ago.)
The simplest approach is a dual boot if you have a spare Windows license on hand. The WINE folks will start porting their stuff to OS X-x86 as soon as they can get their hands on it but there will very probably be a version of Virtaul PC that has Microsoft's direct support to host Windows apps within OS X and offer live interaction with OS X native software and generally just work a lot better than WINE since it will Microsoft's proprietary code. Expect it to cost about the same as a Windows license. Works out the same for Microsoft, who doesn't care what version of Office Mac users buy just so long as they do buy it.
My only question is: Will I be able to purchase a Mac and run Windows on it? Without Virtual PC? (Of course I'd be using OS X more often, but Windows functionality and the ability to dual-boot would be an added perk, although I doubt they'll be using the x86 platform.)[/QUOTE]
An Apple exec said yesterday that they won't do anything to prevent other operating systems from running on their machines but they will keep their OS exclusive to official Mac systems. At the very least Apple will continue the MAc firmware requirements that have always been the main obstacle to running MacOS on non-Apple hardware going all the way back to David Small's stuff for the Atari ST. (Hard to believe that was almost 20 years ago.)
The simplest approach is a dual boot if you have a spare Windows license on hand. The WINE folks will start porting their stuff to OS X-x86 as soon as they can get their hands on it but there will very probably be a version of Virtaul PC that has Microsoft's direct support to host Windows apps within OS X and offer live interaction with OS X native software and generally just work a lot better than WINE since it will Microsoft's proprietary code. Expect it to cost about the same as a Windows license. Works out the same for Microsoft, who doesn't care what version of Office Mac users buy just so long as they do buy it.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='MrBadExample']Some people prefer quality. [/QUOTE]
The extra cost buys them artist cred. :lol:
[/QUOTE]The extra cost buys them artist cred. :lol:
bread's done