or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple confirms switch to Intel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple confirms switch to Intel - Page 5

post #161 of 425
Wow, I haven't posted in a long time, but this is big news.

Or is it?

My take:

I'm a very average Mac user. I love OS X because it's easy to use and just WORKS compared to Windows boxes I've used.

iTunes, Safari, Mail, iChat and Appleworks are the applications use 95% of the time.

I buy a new Mac when an application I want comes out my current model can't run, or my old one dies, or one is released I just HAVE to have based on it's looks/design.

Todays announcement has NO affect on me at all.

Am I an unusual case?

J
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
post #162 of 425
in homage and to make sense of what's going on today, i've dug out my old Pentium2-333mhz 128mb RAM machine and using dial-up and internuts exploder 5.0

wtf is wrong with me well i guess i got a bit tired of 'fighting' with my dad for the iBook g4 \

okay WWDC 2005 June

1. i was right that steve would clear up the whole CPU pipeline mess
2. i was almost right that i thought a TabletMac would be their way of getting their foot in the Intel camp
3. i was wrong about apple sticking behind IBM
4. apple just gave a big 'fuck you' to IBM
5. the 1-12 month Mac PowerPC pipeline is a big grey hole now though
6. you can tell that steve WAS a little nervous starting out, although he lightened up towards the end when the developers were somewhat impressed
7. steve's health seems a little off, he seems a bit skinny, and somewhat greyer than usual
8. i feel betrayed but i think i've learnt enough about life that this is actually a good thing in the long run
9. IBM has just not performed to apple's expectations and steve is smart to nip things in the bud right now. apple is using its momentum to hedge against what would normally be a HUGE business risk, to announce switching to Intel, 1 year out, with no shipping products, but thanks to Mac Mini, iMac g5, iBook and PowerBook (what's left of it) they can hold the fort for about one year

10.
the only thing that pisses me off is that now all the good PowerPC hardware is basically in "reserve" for 1-16 months. meaning, apple is going to be very cautious because they have to weather R&D costs AND fully support their developers (more costs) AND survive a possible sliding off in Mac unit sales ~ so, the good PowerPC hardware will be in "reserve" as in only if Mac sales slump too dangerously will Steve bring out the big guns (eg. 1GB ram in powerbooks) to stimulate sales for the next 4 quarters

11.
so i guess it will take a while for the dust to settle

12.
i feel for the developers, but i do believe that in the long run this will encourage longer-term thinking when developing code, and provide a more robust and wider market base for those talented developers.

13.
that demo on a pentium 4 3.6ghz 2gb ram was FAST! photoshop took a little while to load but that was running TRANSLATED!!
post #163 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffyboy
.....

Am I an unusual case?

J

yes, in that you sound rather NORMAL.
post #164 of 425
Just a thought.... do the folks here think that by leveraging xCode, Apple could position the Mac as a more central development platform?

Looking for a bright side....

HSE,

Mandricard,
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #165 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by hugodrax
You should build a shrine to steve. If it was not for him Apple would probably not exist today.

And IBM threw him a curveball and he was smart enough to have planned for this moment years ago and is able to take it in stride.

Steve is a tech visionary in the truest sense of the word. to have OS X compiled and tested for x86 all along, keeping it fully secret for 5 years, is quite phenomenal, and shows an incredible foresight very very few business leaders have.
post #166 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by Mandricard
Just a thought.... do the folks here think that by leveraging xCode, Apple could position the Mac as a more central development platform?

Looking for a bright side....

HSE,

Mandricard,
AppleOutsider

to answer your question, i believe, definitely. steve basically trashed Metrowerks and left it for dead in 1 hour of RDFness.

there is a lot of bright sides. apple's software engineering, while not perfect, is of a generally very high standard... their guidance can be useful in these times.

think about it... if apple can actually 'switch' to Intel in 1 year and deliver reasonable, robust, shipping products even before longhorn comes out, that's a very laudable achievement.
post #167 of 425
Just throwing something out-

Was it about 5 years ago that Apple went through the rut of the Powermacs being stuck at 500 mhz FOREVER?

J
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
post #168 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffyboy
Wow, I haven't posted in a long time, but this is big news.

Or is it?

My take:

I'm a very average Mac user. I love OS X because it's easy to use and just WORKS compared to Windows boxes I've used.

iTunes, Safari, Mail, iChat and Appleworks are the applications use 95% of the time.

I buy a new Mac when an application I want comes out my current model can't run, or my old one dies, or one is released I just HAVE to have based on it's looks/design.

Todays announcement has NO affect on me at all.

Am I an unusual case?

J

That's the way it should be.

I couldn't believe that this would hsppen. But after watching the kenote I realise that it's what Apple wants to happen.

Sit down at your iMac or whatever and just use it. If everything works the way it's supposed to, what's the difference.

No one even thought about it until he said it was running on Intel.

Do most people care if the engine block in their car is aluminum or iron? Not really.

Apple seems to do what other companies have problems doing. But Apple isn't the only company thast's done this. Sun and SGI have as well. so have others.
post #169 of 425
Let's not forget the people hard at work at Darwin as well. I have been using it for several years and it is very stable and robust for what it is applicable. Shantonu, Kevin, Felix, et al. you have been wonderful. Felix, are you still out there?

I thought as much.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #170 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
in homage and to make sense of what's going on today, i've dug out my old Pentium2-333mhz 128mb RAM machine and using dial-up and internuts exploder 5.0

wtf is wrong with me well i guess i got a bit tired of 'fighting' with my dad for the iBook g4 \

okay WWDC 2005 June

1. i was right that steve would clear up the whole CPU pipeline mess
2. i was almost right that i thought a TabletMac would be their way of getting their foot in the Intel camp
3. i was wrong about apple sticking behind IBM
4. apple just gave a big 'fuck you' to IBM
5. the 1-12 month Mac PowerPC pipeline is a big grey hole now though
6. you can tell that steve WAS a little nervous starting out, although he lightened up towards the end when the developers were somewhat impressed
7. steve's health seems a little off, he seems a bit skinny, and somewhat greyer than usual
8. i feel betrayed but i think i've learnt enough about life that this is actually a good thing in the long run
9. IBM has just not performed to apple's expectations and steve is smart to nip things in the bud right now. apple is using its momentum to hedge against what would normally be a HUGE business risk, to announce switching to Intel, 1 year out, with no shipping products, but thanks to Mac Mini, iMac g5, iBook and PowerBook (what's left of it) they can hold the fort for about one year

10.
the only thing that pisses me off is that now all the good PowerPC hardware is basically in "reserve" for 1-16 months. meaning, apple is going to be very cautious because they have to weather R&D costs AND fully support their developers (more costs) AND survive a possible sliding off in Mac unit sales ~ so, the good PowerPC hardware will be in "reserve" as in only if Mac sales slump too dangerously will Steve bring out the big guns (eg. 1GB ram in powerbooks) to stimulate sales for the next 4 quarters

11.
so i guess it will take a while for the dust to settle

12.
i feel for the developers, but i do believe that in the long run this will encourage longer-term thinking when developing code, and provide a more robust and wider market base for those talented developers.

13.
that demo on a pentium 4 3.6ghz 2gb ram was FAST! photoshop took a little while to load but that was running TRANSLATED!!

You and me brother.
post #171 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by starwxrwx
I am unsure about some of the implications of this switch, but here are my thoughts

Pros:
1) OS X - it is the first reason I use a mac. I will NEVER go back to windows.

1b) Coming a VERY close second - Apple design. It rocks. I will never buy a beige or black box. New apple books may have intel processors, but they will also have superior design, hinges, wireless antennas built-in, stunningly clean lines with sexy white and silver (yes, I love white and I love silver), decent port placement and single button trackpads . All the things we take for granted than you have to PAY EXTRA for in a pc laptop.

2) Apple as a complete package - from the colour of the keyboard to the hardware support, Apple products are whole.

3) Cheaper macs - leading to more macs, leading to a happier world and with faster bug fixes (growls at ichat 3, dvd burning and crappy tiger uptimes)

4) Apple using intel technology to push new ideas and get ahead of the market - shaping the world to apple design and ease of use values

Cons:
1) The risk of OS X for x86 leaking out. I assume Apple has this covered (see above posts on motherboard ROMs and so forth) but its a risk

2) Misinformation! The lack of detail in the keynote hasnt helped

3) Possibility of getting screwed over again - slow delivery times, better processors to competitors

4) Intel insider stickers... BARF! Hopefully apple design rules will never allow this idea to surface!!

OK there is heaps more good and bad but i can't take it all in at once, dammit!

nice roundup.


yes, apple does intend to compete on price. they WILL have to if they want to attract the massively emerging 'new middle class' in developing countries - these people have the dough, but they want to see value for their money and at the same time coolness factor since they were raised on fairly frugal culture-mindsets...

i am learning this since 'returning' to Malaysia several months ago after living in USA and Australia.
post #172 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman

7. steve's health seems a little off, he seems a bit skinny, and somewhat greyer than usual

That's because he's apparently been spending all the iPod money on crank.

Steve: You know what we all need right now? Another major friggin transition! Bwaaahhhhhhhhahahahahahahahah!!

One has to wonder if the fourth major transition will be back to PPC. It's like the Mac version of OS/2 now. They might as well cal OS X.5 "Warp."
- - - - - - - -

- J B 7 2 -
Reply
- - - - - - - -

- J B 7 2 -
Reply
post #173 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You and me brother.

thanks for the understanding mate

we've all had our differences on appleInsider but this is a time when our community can pull together

maybe a 'support group'-esque part of appleInsider forums to be set up for the next 6 months - 1 year

that song is starting to play in my head-
"getting to know you...
getting to know you...."

jeez its like dad came back with your new stepbrother/stepsister and is like, Timmy, here's your new brother/sister. Now play nice...! (as he says that i'm reaching for the kitchen knife on the table behind me)


ha hah ha ha hmmm ..........
post #174 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
12.
i feel for the developers, but i do believe that in the long run this will encourage longer-term thinking when developing code, and provide a more robust and wider market base for those talented developers.

I'm a developer. Steve Jobs, and you in your comment above, are both right that this transition probably isn't really going to be much of an issue from a development standpoint. Being forced to write portable code is actually a good thing. It'll only make future processor transitions all that much easier. I've checked out Xcode 2.1 and the relevant documentation. Apple has done a stellar job to make this easy for any developer that cares to spend the couple of hours it would take to get things working on x86. If the Mathematica guy can do it in 2 hours, then most people will manage. I do feel for anyone who has invested significant time in AltiVec optimizations though. I also feel for anyone who will have to deal with the crusty x86 ISA directly for any reason, or who will have to go from AltiVec to what I consider the much less elegant Intel equivalents.

The smart and active developers don't really concern me. What does concern me are applications that won't run in Rosetta at all. There may be a couple, judging by the Universal Binary docs Apple posted - AltiVec apps will not work at all, nor will G4 and G5 specific apps. Also problematic may be applications that do actually run but perform badly. Photoshop sure did take forever to load on Steve's Pentium and I took note of the fact that he didn't bother to demo any intensive filters/plug-ins. He applied some cheesy little effect which is not any sort of measure of speed for Photoshop, believe me. He seemed to be hell bent on blazing through the Photoshop demo. I didn't consider it impressive at all. But I'll certainly be happy if they improve it in the next year. If it works as well as the 68K translator did back in the good old days, this won't be a major issue.

However, for those apps that do perform poorly or simply don't work at all, users will either have to pay another hefty premium for upgrades they may not otherwise have bothered/wanted to acquire, or if the developer is no longer around or supporting the product you're basically screwed. This isn't even mentioning the fact that classic will be left entirely in the dust. I can't say I blame them, but staying with PowerPC would have guaranteed at least quite a few more years of being able to run old applications and games.

[soapbox]Just because it will work doesn't mean x86 is a good architecture. As much money as Intel is pouring into this, mark my words, they are going to run into a dead end. And I'll bet they'll reach that dead end long before PowerPC (or its derivates such as Cell) do. As long as Apple doesn't permanently close the door on PowerPC/RISC I won't be bitching all the time.[/soapbox]
post #175 of 425
He never did mention dual processor or dual-cores in his presentation...

Concerned...
post #176 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by TheOtherRob
Just a couple of things for people to keep in mind:

1. These days, the whole 'PowerPC vs Intel' thing isn't really anything more than posturing. People developed an allegience to it because that's what was inside the box, and difference encourages disproportionate notions of superiority.

2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.

-TheOtherRob


BRAVO! First post in this thread that is actually based on reality.

I switched (couple years ago) from windows to a mac for the following reason:

I am a python programmer and longtime FreeBSD server admin and I wanted to run a desktop UNIX with a real GUI. I have hated KDE/GNOME forever and had been watching OS X since it's beginning and felt panther was the point at which the os was actually mature. I have a humble little eMac (maxed out) and it does everything I *actually* need: browse internet, email, SubEthaEdit, and last but not least: a standard ssh client in a real shell.

So what?
Well - I didn't get it because it had a PPC in it. I have never bothered to research the instruction set of the PPC. I don't need to. I just don't care what is inside as long as it works.

I am certainly more of a geek than most switchers. Do you really think mom & pop care if it's Intel or PPC?

When did the mac become an elitist developer/geek only platform? All I ever heard from mac users when I was still using windows was that the mac was easy to use. It is. And what is inside makes no difference.

Steve Jobs works for the shareholders. And that is a good thing.
post #177 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
yes, apple does intend to compete on price.

Really? He didn't mention that in the keynote, and that would have been the time to do it ya know. The way to save money isn't to make a huge CPU change midstream that will require vast amounts of extra support, time, and engineering for all the foreseeable future. That will cost Apple cash that won't come from Santy Claus. Investors certainly won't eat it. It will come from customers. Yummy!
- - - - - - - -

- J B 7 2 -
Reply
- - - - - - - -

- J B 7 2 -
Reply
post #178 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by cmatech
Well - I didn't get it because it had a PPC in it. I have never bothered to research the instruction set of the PPC. I don't need to. I just don't care what is inside as long as it works.

Which still isn't an argument for using x86. The Soviet Lada car also "worked," it still didn't mean its internal design was something to be particularly proud of.
post #179 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Steve is a tech visionary in the truest sense of the word. to have OS X compiled and tested for x86 all along, keeping it fully secret for 5 years, is quite phenomenal, and shows an incredible foresight very very few business leaders have.

I agree. And imagine working on that project for Apple and having to keep it secret! Finally, they can now step into the spotlight (pun intended) - or is it the crosshairs?
post #180 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
The way to save money isn't to make a huge CPU change midstream that will require vast amounts of extra support, time, and engineering for all the foreseeable future.

maybe everyone at apple is super bored and needed a new challenge!

unfortuantely atm there doesnt seem to be enough follow through on products already released (10.4.2 is needed desperately... and why cant they make ilife and iwork even snappier? that will go a big way to selling the products - sure they are good, they are AWESOME, but even on my dual g5 iphoto aint screaming along!)
post #181 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
Really? He didn't mention that in the keynote, and that would have been the time to do it ya know. The way to save money isn't to make a huge CPU change midstream that will require vast amounts of extra support, time, and engineering for all the foreseeable future. That will cost Apple cash that won't come from Santy Claus. Investors certainly won't eat it. It will come from customers. Yummy!

no, customers have enough choices nowadays. they intend to compete (or just stay competitive at least) on price, i believe, in the medium-long-term (1-5 years). customers won't eat it unless they have too. just watch... people that have followed the keynote are already seriously questioning whether to get a new mac in the next year unless they *Really need it*...

edit:
case in point
i get a Dell brochure in my mailbox or in the Tech section of my newspaper at least 3 times a week. i can assure you this morning i was looking pretty damn hard at it, with a huge sense of guilt. the only thing stopping me is windoze.

..............
here's my crude guess that i pulled out of my a55

of people who have or will have a Mac in the next year
5% are irrelevant whiners
10% are like us, trying to make informed decisions
50% couldn't care less
25% are running mission-critical stuff and they'll generally work through this

the final 10% are contemplating suicide
post #182 of 425
the thing that scares the fuck out of me honestly though, is that the only that's sure is g4 processors and architecture up to 2ghz, and g5 processors and architecture up to *cough* 2.8ghz.

that's the only thing that's definite...

edit: i'll probably get the next iBook rev, in the next few months, with 3 year AppleCare and that's that...

edit2:
or maybe just a 1 year warranty standard, no AppleCare, and watch the situation over the next several years. edit3: i mean next several months...
post #183 of 425
Out of ignorant curiosity...

By moving to Intel architectures, does that mean that Apple will use the exact same chips as are in Crappy Wintel Boxes (TM)?

Wouldn't Intel JUMP at the chance to get rid of the Tinkertoy stuff on those chips that supports their own (and M$) legacy stuff?

It just seems that Intel could be seeing a real chance to make a chip SHINE with a decent OS to run it.

Or has Apple bought the x86 architecture whole-hog?

Hope Springs Eternal,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #184 of 425
Just as an interesting side note for the technically inclined: there's some interesting stuff in usr/include/mach-o/fat.h and arch.h (it's been around for a long time, of course), for anyone interested in how the whole FAT binary thing works.

For a more detailed description: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...chORuntime.pdf
post #185 of 425
Now that it's done we should stop with the hair shirts and get on with it.

There are any number of things in my life that I could have done differently. I could have partnered with my high school friend when he wanted to start a computer company in 1970. If I had I'd be worth at least half a billion today.

But we can't live thinking if this and if that. This is the hand we have and we have to make the best of it. We don't know the actual problems Apple and IBM are having, but we do know that it must really be something to make Apple do this.

Now I'm concentrating on how this is going to help in the long run, and how my 10 thousand shares are going to do. You know what I want there.

So why don't we all concentrate on figuring how this is going to be of benefit us, and how to explain it to those who aren't as knowledgable as we are?
post #186 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by Mandricard
Or has Apple bought the x86 architecture whole-hog?

They've bought into the x86 ISA at least. I'm certain they'll be engineering their own motherboards for a while though so aside from the chip the hardware won't be the same thing as a Dell. I think part of this whole thing is simply to get developers to do the whole universal binary shebang and then to keep both architectures around on the Mac through the foreseeable future, at least should both architectures continue to advance. And that's a big if there, unfortunately, for the PowerPC. But the STI alliance's Cell stuff really does look promising. I'd hate to see the last of the desktop RISCs die like this.
post #187 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
So why don't we all concentrate on figuring how this is going to be of benefit us, and how to explain it to those who aren't as knowledgable as we are?

The easiest argument I think is that it gives Apple options. Much as I hate the x86 ISA, this actually might not be the worst idea from a business perspective. In the next few years Apple will have two architectures to choose from, so no matter which side of the fence stalls on development they can always go and buy the latest and greats from the other side. If Apple plays its cards right this could get quite interesting.
post #188 of 425
But does intel mean full on x86, ISA and all?

Any reason Apple can't just develop it's own architecture ala SGI around the CPU?

It isn't like they are gonna ship running an AWARD BIOS. They will write their own or such and have their own versions of an intel chipsets not available retail.

Z
post #189 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by zaz
But does intel mean full on x86, ISA and all?

Any reason Apple can't just develop it's own architecture ala SGI around the CPU?

It isn't like they are gonna ship running an AWARD BIOS. They will write their own or such and have their own versions of an intel chipsets not available retail.

Z

It's hard to believe that they won't be doing something on their own. Apple doesn't want to use off the shelf machines. If they did, they could probably have them in the market today.

I wonder what was in the iMac that Jobs was using in the demo other than the P4 3.6GHZ chip.
post #190 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by zaz
But does intel mean full on x86, ISA and all?

It sure looks like it. Apple wouldn't be shipping Pentium systems to developers and delivering x86 development tools if this weren't the plan.

Quote:
Any reason Apple can't just develop it's own architecture ala SGI around the CPU?

They could but they clearly aren't. See above. Second, Apple already has a CPU architecture: PowerPC. Presumably this whole Intel/x86 business wouldn't be happening if there were an intention to build a custom CPU architecture and it would make no sense to reinvent the wheel. They'd use PowerPC if that were the plan. As I've speculated above, if this is about leaving the door open to both architectures in the future than the crusty old x86 ISA is the only thing that makes sense. Here they have Intel and AMD for future R&D/supplies. On the other side is IBM/Freescale on G4/G5 and Sony/Toshiba/IBM with the upcoming Cell technology. If that pans out, Apple might be shipping PowerPC based Cell systems in a few years and there will be no discussion at all of any transition, since developers will be shipping FAT applications in full swing. It'll be completely transparent to the user.

Quote:
It isn't like they are gonna ship running an AWARD BIOS. They will write their own or such and have their own versions of an intel chipsets not available retail.

Apparently they aren't going to use Open Firmware either which I find a bit strange. As long as they don't use any of that BIOS trash we'll be fine though.
post #191 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by TheOtherRob
Just a couple of things for people to keep in mind:

1. These days, the whole 'PowerPC vs Intel' thing isn't really anything more than posturing. People developed an allegience to it because that's what was inside the box, and difference encourages disproportionate notions of superiority.

2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.

To all the people saying that they've been betrayed by Steve and how could he stab us in the back, blah, blah, blah - they're just freakin' computers. If you really don't like it, buy another product, or start your own company - that's the reality.

-TheOtherRob

PS. Just to clarify, I'm talking to end users here - for all the developers out there facing the port, I feel for you!

Just something to point out to you. Apple are a company, I am a customer. I don't have to buy their computers if I don't like them. Thus, in order to please their shareholder, they do at some level have to please me.

If it were a religion, I'd do whatever Steve told me. But its not. So if I have question about the rational for this, I am acting as a rational customer. Only in Apple land could Questioning Apples direction be taken as fanatical dedication.
post #192 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
[soapbox]Just because it will work doesn't mean x86 is a good architecture. As much money as Intel is pouring into this, mark my words, they are going to run into a dead end. And I'll bet they'll reach that dead end long before PowerPC (or its derivates such as Cell) do. As long as Apple doesn't permanently close the door on PowerPC/RISC I won't be bitching all the time.[/soapbox] [/B]

You, me, and I'm almost sure Intel all believe this is true.

Consider: Apple and MS are both running on the same hardware. Any hardware advances made now become a race between Apple and MS to support. Who'll be the first to make use of the new GPUs? Who'll jump on the new SIMD implementation? etc.

If Intel ever wants to dump x86 (IA64 tells me they want to) who do you think will be there? And what's more, Apple after this move will be able to commit to it 100% and still have the option of going back. If ever PPC makes a resurgence on the desktop, you KNOW that OS X will have that code branch going. Just another recompile back.

This is how Apple will fight MS---patiently, and with the best development environment.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #193 of 425
I do have some thoughts about where Apple might go with hardware and software.

If Apple's sales of non computer products continues to rise, with Apple coming out with even more of them over the next two years or so, even if the computer sales don't slack off, it might get interesting.

Right now over half of Apple's dollars come from computer hardware sales. This is why clones are out. I'm sure most here also heard the rumors of PC manufacturers wanting OS X on their machines. That may be BS.

But with the new revelations, it could be done with maybe no work at all.

But with half of Apple's revenues coming from that hardware, and the bad experiences Apple had in the past with clones, it's not likely.

However, if Apple's computer hardware sales drop to 25% of revenue, not because of slacking sales but because of added product lines, it would be different.

If Apple then licensed the OS under strict rules regarding how those machines functioned, meaning total compatibility, it could work.

The reason is that the sales of the OS could increase significantly. And the reason for that is pretty simple.

As much as we dislike Dell, as much as for what Michael Dell said about Apple a few years ago, as for anything else, what is the most popular machine in business today?

The enterprise says that as long as Apple's machines are single sourced, e.g. made only by Apple, they won't buy into it. But if it isn't...

This could get Apple back into the business market in a big way.

It would make up for the loss of some computer sales by selling many more OS X seats with their vastly higher profit margins.

Apple would actually have a chance to compete with MS at their own level. As a software company, while still producing machines themselves.
post #194 of 425
I'm so confused! Does this mean that Apple is using the X86 chip or another that is being made by intel? Will this mean going back to 32bit chips? and what will happen to rendering speeds that was the powermacs strong point
also there better not be a sticker that would be to much!!!!!
post #195 of 425
It also seems to me that x86 as a dev foothold (like the g5s for the xbox 360) is extremely likelymuch more so that Apple just cobbling together off the shelf stuff from whoever.

Would a jump to IA-64 be that much of an undertaking?

I mean, if Apple is this far with x86 now, who's to say when the 'PowerMacs' go Intel they will even remotely resemble and x86 box of today. Maybe just the initial consumer macs will be x86.

Z
post #196 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by kiwimac
I'm so confused! Does this mean that Apple is using the X86 chip or another that is being made by intel? Will this mean going back to 32bit chips? and what will happen to rendering speeds that was the powermacs strong point
also there better not be a sticker that would be to much!!!!!

All we have to judge by is the Dev machine, and it's a plain old P4. I don't know what becomes of 64 bitness--I can't image them shipping a machine that supports less memory, but I couldn't see them switching to Intel either.
post #197 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by kiwimac
I'm so confused! Does this mean that Apple is using the X86 chip or another that is being made by intel?

x86, that much is quite clear.

Quote:
Will this mean going back to 32bit chips?

Probably not for long. From my limited knowledge on Intel's offerings I seem to recall they recently introduced a 64 bit Celeron chip.

Quote:
and what will happen to rendering speeds that was the powermacs strong point

This concerns me as well and I have no answer. Intel's chips have SIMD instructions as well, though I don't know how they compare with AltiVec.

Quote:
also there better not be a sticker that would be to much!!!!!

I don't know why everyone's worried about that of all things. If anything I think it's clear Steve Jobs has a good sense of style and slapping Intel InsideĀ® on Apple machines would not only dilute Apple's own brand, it would look ugly and out of place. It's not going to happen.
post #198 of 425
People forget that iA-64 chips cost several thousand dollars apiece for the high end models and are even above a thousand for the slowest. They are also a power hog.

What would be the point of going to those?

I believe that Apple's main concern is power. Jobs made a big point about that.

It doesn't seem that the high end is in as much trouble. Besides, if Apple wanted to go to a workstation chip, they could have gone to the Power 5 and next year the Power 6. Those are ackowledged to be in advance of everyone else's product. But they didn't.
post #199 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I can't image them shipping a machine that supports less memory, but I couldn't see them switching to Intel either.

That's what we get for not keeping track of the weather down in hell. Quite clearly it's already frozen over multiple times.
post #200 of 425
I am very skeptical about the 'switch' only because I feel Steve Jobs left too many questions unanswered.

First and foremost, will the new Macs running on Intel processors be proprietary Intel chips, or will they be running on specially fabricated chips specially made for Macs as IBM made for apple?

Will the new processors be 64 bit as well as dual core? One thing I have always liked about Apple is that for the most part, their processors (G5 / G4) have had other advantages other than sheer MHz power (such as altivec capability and the implementation of 64 bit).

I am very wary that Apple may decide to use Intels Pentium M series for their laptops, which may be power efficient, but are clocked much lower than regular desktop Pentium 4's.

The whole idea of upgrading your Mac has changed. Will you be able to just go out and buy a Pentium processor and pop it in your Mac? What about the graphics cards? We all know something needs to be done about that.

Will Apple release OS X for PC's? Or is that what essentially just happened? I believe OS X running on a pc would be a disaster. Part of the reason why Windows is so awful is because of the enormous amount of hardware options floating around. For instance, there are hundreds upon hundreds of motherboard options for PCs; ANY OS would have difficulty achieving maximum compatibility.

Now that the difference in hardware is gone, Apple is betting on Longhorn being a flop, so they can tout one of the only things that separates them from the windows world; OS X. Apple does still have the advantage of creating great products that interact flawlessly with each other. This will still attract many buyers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple confirms switch to Intel