or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel-based Macs coming soon? - Page 6

post #201 of 434
Well, you know it is entirely possible that one day, a year or two ago, Jobs and Gates per chance passed by eachother at a Washington Super WalMart one afternoon and started some friendly chit-chat over a box of Lucky Charms and Gates said," F-IT! Why bicker over whose is bigger anymore? Why don't we just combine forces and license everything to eachother and confuse the hell out of the whole frickin' world!"
Then Jobs said,"You know what, Apple just doesn't seem viable to me anymore, in the configuration that I currently have it as and I don't want to be different anymore (Bill at this moment cuddles Jobs and they weep on each others shoulders) so you know what? I'm going to switch everything over to Intel and we'll work hand in hand now, Bill!"



I guess we'll see tomorrow won't we?
post #202 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by paperfrog
... and one more thing.

I think it is of great interest that Apple is currently running some very expensive, double-truck print ads featuring OS X. You'll notice the only hardware shown is Apple's new display line, which can be plugged into pretty much anything these days.

Since OS X currently requires Apple hardware, these ads are like writing a sales contract without a line for a signature.

My suspicion is that Apple will be primarily known as an entertainment brand a decade from now, marketing appliances that sell and store music and video content on demand. To achieve this, Apple must increase their market share.

If OS X can run via emulation on Intel-chipped Apple hardware, it could also run on these new Mac Mini clones. They were displayed running Windows, but could just as easily represent a careful program to license OS X on non-Apple boxes.

Tough to say.

Well, we don't have that many more hours to go. I have a fair amount of stock, and to tell the truth, my stomach is churning.
post #203 of 434
I think we should spend more time on the name of this alliance:

TIGERTEL

...has a nice ring to it.
Thinking Better & Faster with Tiger
iMac G5 1.6 ghz 512MB
Reply
Thinking Better & Faster with Tiger
iMac G5 1.6 ghz 512MB
Reply
post #204 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
Well, you know it is entirely possible that one day, a year or two ago, Jobs and Gates per chance passed by eachother at a Washington Super WalMart one afternoon and started some friendly chit-chat over a box of Lucky Charms and Gates said," F-IT! Why bicker over whose is bigger anymore? Why don't we just combine forces and license everything to eachother and confuse the hell out of the whole frickin' world!"
Then Jobs said,"You know what, Apple just doesn't seem viable to me anymore, in the configuration that I currently have it as and I don't want to be different anymore (Bill at this moment cuddles Jobs and they weep on each others shoulders) so you know what? I'm going to switch everything over to Intel and we'll work hand in hand now, Bill!"



I guess we'll see tomorrow won't we?

You should have stopped at three posts.
post #205 of 434
Also, Gates will get to use the 'i' prefix from now on as well, to further confuse the f*ck out of the ignorant masses.
iBox
iTablet
iWindows

The new tagline for Tigertel will be, "Think the same."


I should've stopped at 3 but I haven't
post #206 of 434
I prefer to think of it this way.

Steve Jobs sends a courier Pidgeon to Bill Gate's estate.

Bill opens the message scroll and it reads

Remember the Titanic!
post #207 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, a recompile will work.

Not always. You are forgetting the endiannes issue. On-disk binary file loading code will be broken on the x86 for example.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

But a recompile will result in some very bloated code. Code that will run slowly, because platform crossed re-compiles are inefficient. Even with a compatibility layer.

I don't see a need for a compatibility layer. In the context of a chip change such a layer could only be an emulator - which is crazy.

Also: neither recompiling nor cross-compiling generate bloated code.

While I think the technical discussions are interesting I am much more interested in the strategic side to the potential switch. Frankly, I still can't find good reasons for Apple to switch to Intel. IBM having problems with supply are not enough to cause a change over to x86. PPC is a differentiator for Apple. My bet is that Apple is getting Intel to fab the PPC.

BTW, Scoble has said that he "heard it from several different executive-level sources inside Apple." Intrepet that anyway you like.
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
post #208 of 434
I agree with UnixPoet - either this news is a BIG smoke screen or Apple is going to get Intel to fab the PPC.

If Apple were to announce a switch to X86, imagine what this would do to their stock prices. I, for one, am in the market for a new powerbook. If I hear tomorrow that powerbook/2006 is going to be x86 based, I would either go with a low end powerbook to "tide me over" or wait altogether.

On the other hand, if Apple were to announce x86, imagine a 20x increase in market potential. They would have to be ready to ship right away - not wait for a year though.

I am still holding out for a PBG5 myself... Tomorrow we will all know...
post #209 of 434
I would be please to hear Intel is going to produce PPC chips. Would be a great thing for Intel, too.
post #210 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Not always. You are forgetting the endiannes issue. On-disk binary file loading code will be broken on the x86 for example.



I don't see a need for a compatibility layer. In the context of a chip change such a layer could only be an emulator - which is crazy.

Also: neither recompiling nor cross-compiling generate bloated code.

While I think the technical discussions are interesting I am much more interested in the strategic side to the potential switch. Frankly, I still can't find good reasons for Apple to switch to Intel. IBM having problems with supply are not enough to cause a change over to x86. PPC is a differentiator for Apple. My bet is that Apple is getting Intel to fab the PPC.

BTW, Scoble has said that he "heard it from several different executive-level sources inside Apple." Intrepet that anyway you like.

The endian issue can be resolved on a recompile, this is done all the time. It's work, that's true.

OS X has a compatibility layer. This is what isolates the high level code of the programs from the hardware underneath. If a developer follows instructions (even Apple doesn't always do that!) then they only write to the OS. In the old days it was common to write directly to the hardware. When that changed, the software wouldn't work. That's what's behind the idea of software portability.

Mind you, it would still be a bear. I'm not for the idea. But it could be done.

Sure it generates bloated code, slow code. The best example that we Mac users have is the old Office 6. A double whammy. Ported from Windows as well as the x86. The new versions are generated with Xcode.

Well, I haven't programmed in years. Fortran IV no less.

So, how would developers do this? Would they port their Windows x86 versions? Or their OS X PPC versions? Assuming that there are both, of course.
post #211 of 434
This is just a stupid stream of conscious thought but ThinkSecret has stated "Think Secret sources have heard nothing to date regarding any collaboration between Apple and Intel."
Wouldn't they, of all the rumor blogs, be the ones to have heard something, anything? I mean they were sued by Apple for always releasing the good juice because they have the really good inside sources.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the rumor.
post #212 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
This is just a stupid stream of conscious thought but ThinkSecret has stated "Think Secret sources have heard nothing to date regarding any collaboration between Apple and Intel."
Wouldn't they, of all the rumor blogs, be the ones to have heard something, anything? I mean they were sued by Apple for always releasing the good juice because they have the really good inside sources.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the rumor.

I'm with you.

It's hard to think that nothing would have leaked out before.

Unless no work on this was done at all yet, and only those at the very top at both Apple and Intel know.
post #213 of 434
It just doesn't make sense that some random Wintel blogger/reporter got the scoop before ANY of the major Apple blogs. This is akin to a reporter from MacNN, Apple Insider, or Think Secret dropping a bombshell about Longhorn before any major Wintel blog for no reason whatsoever even though the Wintel bloggers would have all the deep throat contacts in the M$ hierarchy & the Apple blogs don't.
post #214 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
It just doesn't make sense that some random Wintel blogger/reporter got the scoop before ANY of the major Apple blogs. This is akin to a reporter from MacNN, Apple Insider, or Think Secret dropping a bombshell about Longhorn before any major Wintel blog for no reason whatsoever even though the Wintel bloggers would have all the deep throat contacts in the M$ hierarchy & the Apple blogs don't.

I don't think so either, even though I've read about as many good reasons for doing it as bad ones.

But you know, Jobs is Jobs.
post #215 of 434
thats the problem i have with this. nothing, and then boom. but since it came from cnet (not known for being pro mac) who knows?
has anyone from apple denied this rumor yet? didn't steve deny a rumor last time? i remember when itunes came out and they said apple was buying a record company and they denied that.
post #216 of 434
I suspect that Intel will take over the PPC fab'ing if this pans out and I am betting this is a rumor gone wrong. Intel doesn't need another chip to manufacture. There does come a time in the business world that if you produce a high percentage of product X, you decide you want to produce the left over amount too. Call it greed, dominance or just plain childish but it always happens.

A switch to Intel doing the Fab isn't a bad idea and I am sure they are eager to explore the power processing world (Apple Servers on Intel chips means more exposure for Apple and Intel).

I just want FCP 6 and 7 to work on my iMac G5.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #217 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
This is just a stupid stream of conscious thought but ThinkSecret has stated "Think Secret sources have heard nothing to date regarding any collaboration between Apple and Intel."
Wouldn't they, of all the rumor blogs, be the ones to have heard something, anything? I mean they were sued by Apple for always releasing the good juice because they have the really good inside sources.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the rumor.

Maybe no insiders are contacting them because they know they are being closely watched by Apple. Better to go through a rumor/news site that isn't under the magnifying glass. Anyone think that maybe Apple leaked the news in order to gauge reaction? I see a 'premature speculation' comment from Steve tomorrow.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #218 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
Maybe no insiders are contacting them because they know they are being closely watched by Apple. Better to go through a rumor/news site that isn't under the magnifying glass. Anyone think that maybe Apple leaked the news in order to gauge reaction? I see a 'premature speculation' comment from Steve tomorrow.

I don't think that Apple would know who they are going to. An e-mail from a third party's anonomus e-mail account would work well. Just put something in that the site would recognize as being you.
post #219 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm with you.

It's hard to think that nothing would have leaked out before.

Unless no work on this was done at all yet, and only those at the very top at both Apple and Intel know.

But is has leaked before - Marklar, Thurrot's comments, now the more formal part of it.

That Apple kept their end of it quiet is not surprising at all - think how long they had samples of G5s before it really started to leak?

For it to leak now is not surprising based on assumption that Apple has likely been working with Intel chips for quite some time - they don't need an agreement with Intel for that.

It leaks now because Jobs had to go to Intel to negotiate supply of chips - no doubt he was also calling on AMD, but it looks like Intel won.

That negotiation probably only started a few of months ago, same as any customer does with a new supplier.

Now that Apple has a contract with Intel (I assume) more people around Intel know and it begins to leak - first via gossip to people like Thurot at a conference (from experience, it's amazing what people will say at a conference, especially over lunch or drinks). Now we see more formal leaking of the information via senior level contacts journalists have.

Looks like the normal progress of a story of this magnitude.
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
post #220 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
Maybe no insiders are contacting them because they know they are being closely watched by Apple. Better to go through a rumor/news site that isn't under the magnifying glass. Anyone think that maybe Apple leaked the news in order to gauge reaction? I see a 'premature speculation' comment from Steve tomorrow.

I very much doubt Steve would leak a falsehood like this, or even deliberate leaks of factual information - it's a lawsuit for stock price manipulation waiting to happen.
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
post #221 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
Maybe no insiders are contacting them because they know they are being closely watched by Apple. Better to go through a rumor/news site that isn't under the magnifying glass. Anyone think that maybe Apple leaked the news in order to gauge reaction? I see a 'premature speculation' comment from Steve tomorrow.

An announcement like this is frickin huge and sources within Apple can be watched while they are at work.....I seriously doubt Apple has an Internal Affairs Agency that tracks and monitors (not too mention disregards the constitiutional rights of) all it's employees or even just a few OUTSIDE of the Infinity Loop. Hell a bombshell like this would even be worth some compensation if I were an insider ready to drop it. There would be nothing stopping me from going down too Chinatown and finding a payphone to call an anonymous 800 number and this news is that big to go to that kind of trouble.
post #222 of 434
Quote:
originally posted by paperfrog:
The upside to all this chipmongering would be to catch-up Apple in the mobility market in very short order. We could have greatly improved Powerbooks and a refreshed iBook almost immediately, product-differentiated by dual- or single-core chipsets. When a true Power alternative is ready for the Powerbook, it gets dropped in without upsetting the developers and the consumer base.

Apple serves notice to IBM that it is very, very serious about chip supply. The next step would be a painful transition to x86, which I still doubt, or a jointly developed high-end Power chip with Intel. I'm not sure Power licensing would allow the latter alternative, though.

Now this strikes me as sensible. Very sensible. Perhaps too sensible for Jobs, but I like it.
post #223 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
But is has leaked before - Marklar, Thurrot's comments, now the more formal part of it.

That Apple kept their end of it quiet is not surprising at all - think how long they had samples of G5s before it really started to leak?

For it to leak now is not surprising based on assumption that Apple has likely been working with Intel chips for quite some time - they don't need an agreement with Intel for that.

It leaks now because Jobs had to go to Intel to negotiate supply of chips - no doubt he was also calling on AMD, but it looks like Intel won.

That negotiation probably only started a few of months ago, same as any customer does with a new supplier.

Now that Apple has a contract with Intel (I assume) more people around Intel know and it begins to leak - first via gossip to people like Thurot at a conference (from experience, it's amazing what people will say at a conference, especially over lunch or drinks). Now we see more formal leaking of the information via senior level contacts journalists have.

Looks like the normal progress of a story of this magnitude.

You're assuming it's true. We don't know that yet.
post #224 of 434
I'll bet Virtual PC would get quite a speed boost.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #225 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
I'll bet Virtual PC would get quite a speed boost.

I figured that was the whole point of switching to x86
post #226 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by asdasd
Well as a software guy that specialised in OS X for a long time I know that this is not much of an issue...In other words there is no need for developers to really test anything - it should just work. All bugs are Apple bugs - the developer has to be aware of nothing. Apple will probably issue testing machines to certain developers - but not to iron out developer bugs caused by developers - but bugs that Apple has in it's frameworks, mostly.

Then apparently you've worked with a different Apple computer then the rest of us. As a developer of software as well, I know one thing. When you rely on other people's software, you expect it to 'just work'. However, you know better than that. It won't 'just work'. They have bugs. Sometimes lots of them. Which leads to the next thing we all should know: Just because there are bugs doesn't mean they're going to get fixed, or get fixed in a timely fashion.

You try to use objects and frameworks and all that fun stuff, but if some method in the object is buggy, you can't just call the developer, say "Hey, method XXX doesn't work right, fix it!" and tomorrow they'll have a fix. And even if they did, this leads to the next thing you should know: Not all users update their software to the latest version. So you have issues where it'll work with some people, but not others (always a pain if you're always up-to-date, trying to figure out what was broken two versions ago).

But then all of this revolves around the most important thing: If you're software fails do to a bug in someone else's software (say OS X for Intel), the customer doesn't care. They think its your software that's buggy, and they expect YOU to fix it. They don't want to hear how its Apple's fault. They just want it to work. Which means you need to spend time working around the problem.

Now, if you're saying that you won't spend time testing your software on Intel as well as PPC, that shows me that you don't understand programming, don't understand the testing philosophy, and don't understand that its your job to make sure your software works, not Apples. And I'd be advising any of your customers to look for a new vendor, as you apparently don't understand what being a good programmer is about.
post #227 of 434
Quote:
OS X has a compatibility layer. This is what isolates the high level code of the programs from the hardware underneath. If a developer follows instructions (even Apple doesn't always do that!) then they only write to the OS. In the old days it was common to write directly to the hardware. When that changed, the software wouldn't work. That's what's behind the idea of software portability.

Mind you, it would still be a bear. I'm not for the idea. But it could be done.

That "compatibilty" is there, but you are obstucating the issue a bit by implying that the layer does some kind of conversion at runtime. Not so. People who write to the higher level ( all developers) will be abstracted from the hardware level, yes, but that does not imply some type of runtime emulation. On an intel machine the entire OS is compiled down to intel byte code, and the applications that run in that space are intel byte coded.

Big endianess is an issue only if the developer bypasses normal read/write API to write or read in data. I imagine that is negligible in the real world.

As for the non-technical issues. I see this as a total benefit.

1) The OS will not be licenced so no talk, please, about clones destroying OS X's marketshare. The nerds who install on Dell's this will be a tiny percentage.
2) OS X will have the top megahertz chips. Nobody cares about the technical ideologies behind the chips, but the speed.
3) Apple can port Cocoa to windows ( and thus the iLife suite) and allow dual booting of Mac based machines into windows. This will facilitate switching, and just people who want to buy an Apple branded machine. i know boatloads of people who would buy a mac if it could also run windows for a time. This is the only way that Apple could ever hope to get to 10% or more of the market again.

Then it is up to Apple to have a much better operating system than the Windows side , so that people who buy the mac for the Form Factor, for the brand etc. will switch to OS X rather than stay with Windows. For those of you who are Mac fans to deny this possibility, is a bit rich, no?

I think Apple is confident enough with OS X - and more importantly - with it's stellar trajectory to assume it can compete with windows on the same machine. they should however, start to reduce the cost of both the .Mac services and the annual(ish) update costs.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #228 of 434
Quote:
Then apparently you've worked with a different Apple computer then the rest of us. As a developer of software as well, I know one thing. When you rely on other people's software, you expect it to 'just work'. However, you know better than that. It won't 'just work'. They have bugs. Sometimes lots of them. Which leads to the next thing we all should know: Just because there are bugs doesn't mean they're going to get fixed, or get fixed in a timely fashion.

You try to use objects and frameworks and all that fun stuff, but if some method in the object is buggy, you can't just call the developer, say "Hey, method XXX doesn't work right, fix it!" and tomorrow they'll have a fix. And even if they did, this leads to the next thing you should know: Not all users update their software to the latest version. So you have issues where it'll work with some people, but not others (always a pain if you're always up-to-date, trying to figure out what was broken two versions ago).

all of this is true but also true of Apple's normal update cycle. OS X.4 introduced bugs as you mention. So will the update to Intel. Any intel bugs could be fixed in a " timely fashion " , or not, as with any other bugs introduced in an update.

You argument that Apple releases with too many bugs is taken, but not really relevant to this argument. The process of moving to Intel will be the same for the developer as if the OS changed underneath his application. Either can cause developer unreleated bugs as we are so much more dependent on the OS for frameworks and other services. But that is not reason enough to not do this, or else it would be reason enough to not have serious updates on the Mac.

I think the technical issues have been explained from my point of view.

The ideology behind this is more of an issue I think. I personally agree with it, but admit it may be a risk - and possible be seen as a capitulation of sorts.

It will be interesting to see market reaction tomorrow if this pans out.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #229 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, a recompile will work. That's never been questioned here. But a recompile will result in some very bloated code. Code that will run slowly, because platform crossed re-compiles are inefficient. Even with a compatibility layer.

No, you don't understand the way OS X is designed. Its not one big app where all the compiled code for PPC and Intel are together. You can have separate sets of binaries inside your Application package, one for Intel and one for PPC (so you might say you compile it twice, with different platform flags). When you run the program, the OS picks the appropriate binary(s). There's no bloat, as the code doesn't require bloating, and the compiler should be optimizing it for each platform when its compiled.

Basically, there is no compatibility layer.

Oh, and even if there were, it shouldn't cause humongous slowdowns either, as you would be compiling to an intermediate code language that would be interpreted/compiled at run-time by the appropriate compatibility layer for the platform. (Of course, if the layer sucks, so does the performance, but that's a different story).
post #230 of 434
Quote:
It will be interesting to see market reaction tomorrow if this pans out. [/B]

I'm no stock market analyst but wouldn't an announcement lik this destroy Apples stock? I mean think of the impact an announcement like this will have especially if all Jobs has is a 'gameplan' albeit an excellent one. Until he could produce viable results (sounds like at least a year away) Apple's worth would just nosedive to 0. I mean the whole basis for Apple and OSX is it's a totally different hardware/software alternative to Windows/Intel.
I.E. just the other day APPL took a hit just because it was reported Apple has a backstock of iPods. It would be great to be a fly on the wall in the shareholder board meeting if this all turns out to be true. Steveie-poo wuld have to be the greatest Closer of all time to pull support for something like this.
post #231 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You're assuming it's true. We don't know that yet.

Yes, I'm assuming it's true - the evidence is too strong IMO, and anyway, I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong the "something amazing from IBM" or the "Intel fabbing PPC" theories are right, where as the people in those camps will be really disappointed...
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
post #232 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by asdasd
all of this is true but also true of Apple's normal update cycle. OS X.4 introduced bugs as you mention. So will the update to Intel. Any intel bugs could be fixed in a " timely fashion " , or not, as with any other bugs introduced in an update.

You argument that Apple releases with too many bugs is taken, but not really relevant to this argument. The process of moving to Intel will be the same for the developer as if the OS changed underneath his application. Either can cause developer unreleated bugs as we are so much more dependent on the OS for frameworks and other services. But that is not reason enough to not do this, or else it would be reason enough to not have serious updates on the Mac.

I think the technical issues have been explained from my point of view.

The ideology behind this is more of an issue I think. I personally agree with it, but admit it may be a risk - and possible be seen as a capitulation of sorts.

It will be interesting to see market reaction tomorrow if this pans out.

I wasn't arguing this as a reason Apple shouldn't do this. I was just arguing that this has to be taken into consideration by the developer (the one who I was replying to stated 'no further testing is needed', which I just find ludicrous). I also don't feel (or if I did it was unintentional) that I was singling Apple out on bugs in its OS. They are there, as they would be for an Intel version. But I was just stating any software (OS or stand-alone app) by any vendor (MS, Apple, Adobe, etc) has bugs, and if you plan on having your software work on/with other's software, you can't make the mistake that those problems that aren't your bugs can be just dismissed.

Oh, and keep in mind that besides just the frameworks and OS being issues, processors themselves (both PPC and Intel) are known to contain bugs that must be worked around. These are almost always handled at the compiler/OS level, but its one more thing that Apple has to realize, coded for, and that has to be tested against.

Finally, this is just off the top of my head, speaking of processors. Aren't the floating point (and perhaps integer, but I don't think so) processors and registers different in an Intel chip then on the PPC? I'm speaking mostly on a bit-size and computation front. For if they are different, doesn't that lead to the possibiltiy of different results on different computers? Not sure if its the kind of thing that truly makes a difference, as I do little Floating Point code, just wondering.
post #233 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by asdasd
That "compatibilty" is there, but you are obstucating the issue a bit by implying that the layer does some kind of conversion at runtime. Not so. People who write to the higher level ( all developers) will be abstracted from the hardware level, yes, but that does not imply some type of runtime emulation. On an intel machine the entire OS is compiled down to intel byte code, and the applications that run in that space are intel byte coded.

Big endianess is an issue only if the developer bypasses normal read/write API to write or read in data. I imagine that is negligible in the real world.

As for the non-technical issues. I see this as a total benefit.

1) The OS will not be licenced so no talk, please, about clones destroying OS X's marketshare. The nerds who install on Dell's this will be a tiny percentage.
2) OS X will have the top megahertz chips. Nobody cares about the technical ideologies behind the chips, but the speed.
3) Apple can port Cocoa to windows ( and thus the iLife suite) and allow dual booting of Mac based machines into windows. This will facilitate switching, and just people who want to buy an Apple branded machine. i know boatloads of people who would buy a mac if it could also run windows for a time. This is the only way that Apple could ever hope to get to 10% or more of the market again.

Then it is up to Apple to have a much better operating system than the Windows side , so that people who buy the mac for the Form Factor, for the brand etc. will switch to OS X rather than stay with Windows. For those of you who are Mac fans to deny this possibility, is a bit rich, no?

I think Apple is confident enough with OS X - and more importantly - with it's stellar trajectory to assume it can compete with windows on the same machine. they should however, start to reduce the cost of both the .Mac services and the annual(ish) update costs.

You're right, I used the wrong term (I said I haven't programmed for a while)

I should have abstraction as that was what I was describing. I was never implying that there was any conversion being done. As I said, the OS shields the programs from the hardware. It's not 100% but it's enough that when a chip is redesigned, the software will still work, if it were properly written.

I wasn't meaning to say that this was true from PPC to x86. If you had read my other posts you would have seen that. I was referring to (and, yes, I should have been more specific) the G3-G4-G5 shifts.
post #234 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
Yes, I'm assuming it's true - the evidence is too strong IMO, and anyway, I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong the "something amazing from IBM" or the "Intel fabbing PPC" theories are right, where as the people in those camps will be really disappointed...

What evidence? Randomly leaked statements by "industry execs"? Sorry for being a true skeptic about anything but I don't just buy fly-by-night theories because Jim-Bob the IT exec at such and such "industry" company heard something thru a chain-letter email that supposedly came straight from Steve Jobs on the HUSH HUSH and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. Like I said before there is such a thing as shoddy reporting.
I'm also not denying anything. I see both sides of the argument but I also look at the big picture and the skeptic part of me is winning the argument.
post #235 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
What evidence?

[snip]

I see both sides of the argument but I also look at the big picture and the skeptic part of me is winning the argument.

I am with ya.

I am pretty much with the Mac world's most reliable source right now:

Quote:
Think Secret sources have heard nothing to date regarding any collaboration between Apple and Intel.

Link
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #236 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
No, you don't understand the way OS X is designed. Its not one big app where all the compiled code for PPC and Intel are together. You can have separate sets of binaries inside your Application package, one for Intel and one for PPC (so you might say you compile it twice, with different platform flags). When you run the program, the OS picks the appropriate binary(s). There's no bloat, as the code doesn't require bloating, and the compiler should be optimizing it for each platform when its compiled.

Basically, there is no compatibility layer.

Oh, and even if there were, it shouldn't cause humongous slowdowns either, as you would be compiling to an intermediate code language that would be interpreted/compiled at run-time by the appropriate compatibility layer for the platform. (Of course, if the layer sucks, so does the performance, but that's a different story).

You don't call that bloat? I think most would.

Compatibility; read my reply to "asdasd".

I'm not saying "humongous" slowdowns. But if it is interpreted/compiled at runtime, that would be bad. That was the big problem Apple had with the 68xx to PPC conversion, interpreted code. I think it was Connectix that stored the code and fixed most of the performance problems You might not remember, or weren't old enough at the time, but 68xx programs ran at about half the speed they ran on the 68xx.
post #237 of 434
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #238 of 434
What about the idea that apple will license fairplay to Intel for embedding on their chipsets?


QT and apple then is/hold the defacto standard.
post #239 of 434
I hope Apple switches to x86. Then we would be rid of all those stupid "When is Apple switching to x86" threads
post #240 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Hugi
I hope Apple switches to x86. Then we would be rid of all those stupid "When is Apple switching to x86" threads

Good point.

You don't have to read them though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?