Apple/Intel, and what people don't understand.
<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp</a>;
I don't doubt that this info is true. Apple would be stupid not to keep the back door open, in case of an emergency. Many people seem to think that x86 means that any moron with a PC could run OSX. I doubt Apple would ever attempt such a disaster. You'd still buy new macs from the Apple Store. They'd still look kick ass. They'd be ahead of the market in features/ease of use. BUT THEY'D STILL BE APPLES. No one will EVER be able to buy OSX and for their HP pavilion(maybe the linux guys who make toasters can make it work, but it won't work right, and not be worth using) I personally don't care what processor my mac uses. We all know the G4 is a dead end now. But it has to look, feel, work, and act like a mac. Then I'll buy it. No one but Apple can pull that off.
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: Mack Damon ]</p>
I don't doubt that this info is true. Apple would be stupid not to keep the back door open, in case of an emergency. Many people seem to think that x86 means that any moron with a PC could run OSX. I doubt Apple would ever attempt such a disaster. You'd still buy new macs from the Apple Store. They'd still look kick ass. They'd be ahead of the market in features/ease of use. BUT THEY'D STILL BE APPLES. No one will EVER be able to buy OSX and for their HP pavilion(maybe the linux guys who make toasters can make it work, but it won't work right, and not be worth using) I personally don't care what processor my mac uses. We all know the G4 is a dead end now. But it has to look, feel, work, and act like a mac. Then I'll buy it. No one but Apple can pull that off.
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: Mack Damon ]</p>
Comments
This has been discussed to death. Every "Mac OS on Intel" thread eventually ends up here. Yes, the part about still having to buy your Mac from Apple, even though it's x86-based. Although, this is the only possible way this could ever work, there are still problems with the idea...
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: spotbug ]</p>
<strong>
We all know the G4 is a dead end now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is simply not true. The Motorola G4 may be dead because they have done so little with it. This does not mean IBM couldn't make a 2 GHz G4 with a good system bus. A G5 from IBM will take the Mac into really high performance workstation territory. (Also, switching to a different CPU would mean present Mac software will not work. How would customers and developers like that?)
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>Look x86 sucks, and so does this thread. Use search next time, you'll find hundreds of them. we don't need another winblows crossover in here sturring this stuff up from scratch again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
-First if IBM can give us chips then power to them because I love IBM (get it power...POWER4)
I think you under estimate AMD's chips. When you buy a new AMD chip and build your computer yourself PC's are actually not that bad (most imporantly if ur running linux!). Now if Apple could put to gether a nice mac using an x86 I wouldn't care. Honestly I'd feel kinda naked or unfaithful using a non-PPC chip but what does it really matter? If apple makes the OS, and it only runs on its apple certified hardware then I'm not sure it matters because you would stil have the same hand-in-hand stability you've come to know. I'm just hoping AMD can keep up the good work and doesn't turn into Moto. because they seem like their current chips are kinda taxed out and intel is speeding along to keep up ahead. I'm not really worried about this but if an AMD chip means faster performance and still not use intel, then I will be the envy of my PC user friends and can live with feeling naked without a PPC inside.
(I will have to take out the PPC chip in my IIGS and keep it with me at all times though, just to make me feel good)
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: ast3r3x ]</p>
<strong>
... I think you under estimate AMD's chips.
... Now if Apple could put to gether a nice mac using an x86 I wouldn't care.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I think you under estimate what the upcoming G5 chip from IBM will do for the Mac.
And I suppose you wouldn't care if you had to buy all new software too, for your new x86 Macintosh?
Edit: dar, that sleep thing, I should give it a whirl sometime
[ 08-31-2002: Message edited by: Mount_my_floppy ]</p>
<strong>If apple kept rhapsody the way it was going then he would not have to buy all new apps, It makes one think, this was done with technology from NeXTStep witch is partly rolled into cocoa well what if the apps will still run X86 but only after apple ports os x?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. Mac applications are compiled for the PPC and will only run on a PPC. All applications will need to be recompiled for the x86 before they will work. It does not matter whether apps are written in Cocoa or Carbon. That is simply how the an application talks to the OS. The binary code on the CD program must be for the processor in the computer.
The bottom line is that an x86 Mac needs apps for the x86 AND OS X combined. It will not run x86 Windows apps, and it will not run PPC OS X apps.
<strong>Snoopy thats odd because in the one build i have in rhapsody it asks me if i want to compile my program for PPC intel or both?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that's what I mentioned. An application must be compiled for the processor that will run it. The "both" option would give you two programs, one for PPC and one for an Intel processor. But all your Mac OS X software now only gives you the PPC program. If Apple ever did swithch, developers would have to provide both versions on the CD, or sell two separate CDs. In any case, whatever you have now for the Mac will not run on an Intel box.
'Pull Office and we may just drop this onto the market...'
<strong>
And I think you under estimate what the upcoming G5 chip from IBM will do for the Mac.
And I suppose you wouldn't care if you had to buy all new software too, for your new x86 Macintosh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
-I would be glad if a G5 came out from IBM. Also would love if it would clean up on Intel. I also would love proof there will be one here within the next yr.
-I wouldn't care, because I don't normally buy any software, I dont use any software I need to buy. I only use photoshop and dreamweaver (professional software wise) I can afford a new dreamweaver if it means added speed.
*What about when apple went from the old processors to the new ones (by that i mean PPC). They had the problem of new software taht wouldnt'' run on the old comptuer. Food for thought
<strong>When you compile for both you get a Fat binary. One application that would run on both CPU type. You would not need two different CDs, most of the applications data would be shared between the 2 architectures.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that didn't come to mind last night. From what I remember, it is still two separate sets of binary code for loading into RAM, one for each CPU. An application's data usually takes up the most space, and that is shared. So, it is a way to have both versions without needing twice the space, and it usually fits on just one CD. If this isn't quite right, please let me know.
<strong>Isn't the idea behind coco to allow for easy porting between different environments?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and a recompile is about as simple as a port gets, at least with a compiled language.
Carbon is a bit more difficult, especially since a Carbon app can be a barely tweaked MacOS Toolbox app.
Classic would break completely.
And, of course, all that AltiVec code that Apple and Adobe and others have worked on suddenly becomes useless. SSE/SSE2 isn't even in the ballpark as a replacement.
And do you prefer weeners or porc sausages?
Soft bread or Parisette?
G-News
[ 09-01-2002: Message edited by: TigerWoods99 ]</p>
<strong>When you compile for both you get a Fat binary. One application that would run on both CPU type. You would not need two different CDs, most of the applications data would be shared between the 2 architectures.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a practical example of this, think back to the PowerPC transition starting in 1994. Many applications from that time shipped as fat binaries; containing code for the 680x0 and the PowerPC processors.
Ever since MOTO started increasing the G4's clock speed again, it has been going up at about 2x per 18 months. That is just as good as the P4 is doing.
The only problem is that our MHz numbers are a full 18 months behind.
<strong>
-I would be glad if a G5 came out from IBM. ...
I also would love proof there will be one here within the next yr.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if I was being too critical. I can see why many Mac users are very disappointed with the G4. Motorola made tiny improvements compared to what happened with Intel/AMD chips. Many of us expect that to change soon, but nobody outside Apple has proof. We can only make reasonable guesses from what we know.
Motorola embarrassed Apple badly with performance of the early G4.
IBM is an alternate PPC supplier with better manufacturing capabilities and technology, beyond what Motorola can offer.
IBM shares patent rights to AltiVec, with Apple and Motorola.
IBM has a new, very high capacity chip plant that they need to utilize for return on investment.
IBM publicly described a powerful chip, now in development, that would be perfect for very high end Macs.
Apple buys several high end video and special effects developers, and these applications need very high performance, workstation-class Macs to run them properly.
Don't we have more FACTS staring us in the face than we ever had, about future Apple products? If we can't figure this one out, we can't make a good guess about anything.