I have to admit i have not had the chance to read through the entire thread yet so this may have already been brought up, but one of the main reasons apple may be announcing this so early, much in contrast to their normal style, is because they will need help from outside companies to have software ready for it. What if, on top of that, one of the goals of this transition is to address the uneducated cries that apple lacks software variety? They could be trying to have a whole range of typically pc only software available upon release. But seriously, I do think they would need to give a heads up to all of the third-party software companies to give them time to prep for it, and the likelyhood of them being able to control the mouths of that many people is not very likely. So their plan: announce it now to build hype and keep people thinking about where apple is going instead of where longhorn is supposedly going to go.
Well, how would switching to Intel CPUs get software developers to develop for OS X. Even taking the "there's nothing to a recompile" folks at their word, they'd still have to completely write the software, something they haven't had the urge to do yet (its not a recompile of windows software, they'd still have to code it to Cocoa/Carbon). I don't see how this announcement would somehow drive Intuit, say, to making an OS X version of Quicken on par with the Windows version.
And this whole "OS X vs. Longhorn" thing is just nothing. Most people don't care about longhorn as much as they don't care about OS X. They just need their email and browser to work. And they aren't going to switch OSes just to get where they already are. Hell, no one used Next when it was on PCs, why would OS X be any different.
You got that right. If this news is true, a dual-2.3 PM will be my last Mac. I refuse to pay Apple prices for Intel junk. (Why switch to Intel now, just as they are losing in every way to AMD, and the hot new video games are using PPC? It's like deliberately picking the slowest horse. Unfortunately, that's what makes it so believable. )
Edit: Forgot to mention that, yes, Intel does have the rights to manufacture Alpha, and then there's XScale (formerly known as the Acorn RISC Machine). There's the 860 RISC chip, and 960 and 8051 and other embedded chips. And of course Itanium. Alpha is an intriguing possibility, but not worth putting Apple's customers through yet another transition.
This would still be an Apple machine. Apple could always use AMD chips if they saw a need, if this would be a port to x86 itself and not something else. I wouldn't worry there. Apple wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would be better.
Here's my 2 cents. Maybe Intel is providing a custom OEM daughter card for Apple that will allow the Mac to have the PPC chip and the x86 chip in the same box, with lo level software that recognizes the difference. Now imagine being able to run Windows Programs NATIVELY on the Mac. Insert a PC install disc and it "just works". Developers have a choice... Mac or PC. Launch MS Access or some other MS only program, and it just runs... albeit with some ugly interface leftovers for the program. This becomes the final incentive for PC users to switch to Mac software when they see how the Ugly MS counterparts look. Mac users get the best of both worlds. Virtual PC is history. Your Mac is simply THE computer. Software platforms become a thing of the past. All the Windows people could start using Macs and not lose their software investment. Switchers in the droves. Intel makes more money, MS makes less and less. Dell can jump in a lake.
The oerating system is 100% Mac with custom software directing the CPU calls to the right CPU.
Thoughts??
This is always possible. Apple and others supplied PC cards before. If they could get the price right this time, it might make sense.
I have to admit i have not had the chance to read through the entire thread yet so this may have already been brought up, but one of the main reasons apple may be announcing this so early, much in contrast to their normal style, is because they will need help from outside companies to have software ready for it. What if, on top of that, one of the goals of this transition is to address the uneducated cries that apple lacks software variety? They could be trying to have a whole range of typically pc only software available upon release. But seriously, I do think they would need to give a heads up to all of the third-party software companies to give them time to prep for it, and the likelyhood of them being able to control the mouths of that many people is not very likely. So their plan: announce it now to build hype and keep people thinking about where apple is going instead of where longhorn is supposedly going to go.
Just my two cents, i'm not taking a side as to whether or not I belive it, though I have to admit, i would welcome it, since my Imac G3 several years ago I have not been able to afford a new mac, and even with the release of the mac mini, i'm still working on a home built x86 system running Debian. If i could just plop down a copy of OSX on this comp I would die a happy man!
Don't think about dying just yet then. If Apple does this it won't be an Intel mobo box. You can be quaranteed that it will be exclusively Apple's Mobo, ROM, etc. Nobody will be dropping Windows on it, and you won't be able to drop X into another box.
Remember, Apple is a hardware company. They are not going to lose almost all of their sales.
This year Apple might break $1 billion in software sales for the first time. That includes sales of OS X. Apple's total sales this year might reach $15 billion.
You pretty clearly said a lot of things - the general gist of which is plain uncomplimentary to x86. Then this rumour comes up and all of a sudden the x86 cores are considered "sophisticated". Ahem. Is that egg all over...
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
So what's this, are you agreeing with me?
You raised the possibility of Intel sticking a PPC decoder in an x86. I was quoting a /. comment which mentioned Intel fabbing a PPC for Apple. That's different. And its more plausible.
Look, I am just enjoying the sight of you lot squirming. Even if the switch does not come to pass, which is likely, reading people's rationalizations, backpedalling, disbelief, etc has been hugely entertaining. The creative attempts at explaining away the Switch have been hilarious.
Just let this be a lesson. In future, before badtalking your competition, consider the fact that you may end up in bed with them. You know, like switching
Mac x86 wouldn't happen because of all the work done on Altivec. Everything Apple has done to speed up their apps for Altivec (and that's a lot of stuff) would just be thrown away, along with the problems with emulating older apps, etc. It would kill the Mac and all its software. Not to mention, why would anyone see a premium on Macs with Intel procs in them when Dell sells PC's with Intel's in for sigificantly less? Big marketing hurdle there. At least now they can say PPC blows away Intel (whether it's true or not).
Intel making PPC I can't see being a reality simply because we haven't heard anything about it. Everything we've heard is Apple to x86. Not one person outside of rumor forums has suggested Intel making PPC chips. If they were working on it, you'd think there would at least be something leaked. Apple would have had to keep their own mouths shut about it, and keep Intel's shut as well. I can't see something as big as this happening without anyone hearing a word about it (we've at least had wind of a lot of rumors before they were announced recently, this is bigger than almost any of them. You think it wouldn't slip out?).
You pretty clearly said a lot of things - the general gist of which is plain uncomplimentary to x86. Then this rumour comes up and all of a sudden the x86 cores are considered "sophisticated". Ahem. Is that egg all over...
Yes, I hate the x86 ISA and think it sucks. As you pointed out, however, there is a difference between the architecture and the chip. Intel and AMD have built very sophisticated cores in order to make x86 perform well. In my opinion sticking a decent ISA on them will make them perform even better (and will save a lot of pain for Apple and its developers). I don't see anything inconsistent about my position. I do see that you're trying your best to interpret what I say so that it looks inconsistent.
Quote:
You raised the possibility of Intel sticking a PPC decoder in an x86. I was quoting a /. comment which mentioned Intel fabbing a PPC for Apple. That's different. And its more plausible.
Okay, which PPC are they going to fab? The one IBM owns, or the one Motorola owns? Neither of which get top marks for performance, and neither of which has much of a future if the original designers don't pursue it. If it is just a fab arrangement, why wait until late 2006? I don't know a lot about the fab process, but I was under the impression that fabs aren't fully "compatible" due to process differences so its not just a simple matter of sending the design to Intel to be fabbed -- it would have to be re-cast on Intel's process and would become essentially a new chip. Might even be more work that just replacing the instruction decoder (which is a relatively small %age of the chip in the latest designs).
Quote:
Look, I am just enjoying the sight of you lot squirming. Even if the switch does not come to pass, which is likely, reading people's rationalizations, backpedalling, disbelief, etc has been hugely entertaining. The creative attempts at explaining away the Switch have been hilarious.
No squirming going on here -- just trying to make sense of a very old rumor that seems to have some weight behind it this time. I haven't rationalized or backpedalled, but I do look upon the simple "X on x86" with disbelief because it doesn't seem the sensible thing for Apple to do.
Quote:
Just let this be a lesson. In future, before badtalking your competition, consider the fact that you may end up in bed with them. You know, like switching
Tell Apple that. If the "X on x86" is the real path Steve has chosen, he is going to have some fancy footwork to do.
Already I see skepticism from my readers behind Apple's move to Intel.
Make no mistake. This is a real story and I've gotten confirmation from people who know. I can't say more, though, cause I don't want Apple to sue me to find out my sources.
Either Scobel's dead on, or he's gonna be laughed out of the blogosphere. I can't see him getting laughed out of the blogosphere. My old news instincts seem to suggest that, as wacky as it sounds, we could see Mac OS X on x86.
Also, according to Ars Technica, Apple has offered a Czech programmer a job, saying they were "Seeking ACPI & BIOS person."
Things are heating up. Monday I'll look back at this post and wince.
The Appleinsider news page now says that this report has now been confirmed by The Wall Street Journal. Still no word as to whether it will be Intel x86 or a new Intel PPC.
I'm still very skeptical on this one. I think Thinksecret would have dug something up on this, but their website they say their sources can't confirm this. With their track record I would think they would have confirmation.
x86 doesn't make much sense. I can see an alliance with Intel on something else, maybe a chipset or something? Could Intel fab an Apple designed chip, essentially like what IBM is doing for a lot of people now?
My sources at IBM have said nothing of Apple dumping IBM. I do know that Apple has 970MPs in their posession and the run at 3GHZ at least with 1MB of L2 per core. Apple had been unhappy with supplies earlier, but are fairly happy now - especially with multi-core G5s on the way.
Could this be an intentional bad leak? Is this Intel's people saying this, thus why Thinksecret has nothing, because Apple isn't doing anything with Intel? Is it a cover up for a 970MP unveiling, especially if those MPs are too hit sooner rather than later?
It actually doesn't say anything about Intel it says Pentium. I'd say the chances are high that future Macs will not be running a Pentium chip as we know it... but rather a brand new Intel PPC chip designed specifically for Apple.
Either Scobel's dead on, or he's gonna be laughed out of the blogosphere. I can't see him getting laughed out of the blogosphere. My old news instincts seem to suggest that, as wacky as it sounds, we could see Mac OS X on x86.
Also, according to Ars Technica, Apple has offered a Czech programmer a job, saying they were "Seeking ACPI & BIOS person."
Things are heating up. Monday I'll look back at this post and wince.
Why would he have to be "laughed out of the blogosphere"? 95% of the "news" reported this day and age IS bunk news. Nothing is clear and concise anymre and no one backs anything up either. Most news today, whether it's world news, or technological news, is based on rumor and speculation. If Scobel is wrong, which I'm sure he probably is, he'll be laughed at breifly and fade away back to doing his yellow reporting like all the other news reporters and news agencies out there. The only person I've ever heard of actually getting punished for doing bunk news is Dan Rather and his cronies. Heck, most of the reporting done on ZDNet is laughed at even by the M$ crowd so I never take any of these rumors and speculations seriously. Most people here can use some simple logic and deduce that Apple moving all the way over to x86 would destroy the company and all the software companies that write OSX software. Of course it's plausible but it's not economically or politically probable whatsoever. Not to mention is Jobs was wanting to do this to expand the user base then we can all kiss our virus-free mac OS's goodbye. 50% MS and 50% OSX = 50% virus development for MS 50% virus development for OSX. Also, just because another newspaper "confirms" what another paper has reported doesn't make all that more true. It probably just means they have the same "source" or even worse are just jumping on the rumormill bandwagon.
Why would he have to be "laughed out of the blogosphere"? 95% of the "news" reported this day and age IS bunk news. Nothing is clear and concise anymre and no one backs anything up either. Most news today, whether it's world news, or technological news, is based on rumor and speculation. If Scobel is wrong, which I'm sure he probably is, he'll be laughed at breifly and fade away back to doing his yellow reporting like all the other news reporters and news agencies out there. The only person I've ever heard of actually getting punished for doing bunk news is Dan Rather and his cronies. Heck, most of the reporting done on ZDNet is laughed at even by the M$ crowd so I never take any of these rumors and speculations seriously. Most people here can use some simple logic and deduce that Apple moving all the way over to x86 would destroy the company and all the software companies that write OSX software. Of course it's plausible but it's not economically or politically probable whatsoever. Not to mention is Jobs was wanting to do this to expand the user base then we can all kiss our virus-free mac OS's goodbye. 50% MS and 50% OSX = 50% virus development for MS 50% virus development for OSX. Also, just because another newspaper "confirms" what another paper has reported doesn't make all that more true. It probably just means they have the same "source" or even worse are just jumping on the rumormill bandwagon.
This is from the Appleinsider new page:
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Saturday confirmed CNET's report, stating that an industry executive "familiar with the matter" verified the schedule outlined in the story.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Saturday confirmed CNET's report, stating that an industry executive "familiar with the matter" verified the schedule outlined in the story. [/B]
The term "with the matter" tells me a lot because using the term "with the matter" doesn't say "with the matter of the switch from PPC to x86". It tells me that it could mean a million things or nothing at all and this "industry exec" could be anyone in the industry AHEM and how big is the PC industry?
Not to mention who is to say that this is or isn't the same "industry exec" that CNET got a hold of? (like I stated before).
Comments
Originally posted by osxjamie
I have to admit i have not had the chance to read through the entire thread yet so this may have already been brought up, but one of the main reasons apple may be announcing this so early, much in contrast to their normal style, is because they will need help from outside companies to have software ready for it. What if, on top of that, one of the goals of this transition is to address the uneducated cries that apple lacks software variety? They could be trying to have a whole range of typically pc only software available upon release. But seriously, I do think they would need to give a heads up to all of the third-party software companies to give them time to prep for it, and the likelyhood of them being able to control the mouths of that many people is not very likely. So their plan: announce it now to build hype and keep people thinking about where apple is going instead of where longhorn is supposedly going to go.
Well, how would switching to Intel CPUs get software developers to develop for OS X. Even taking the "there's nothing to a recompile" folks at their word, they'd still have to completely write the software, something they haven't had the urge to do yet (its not a recompile of windows software, they'd still have to code it to Cocoa/Carbon). I don't see how this announcement would somehow drive Intuit, say, to making an OS X version of Quicken on par with the Windows version.
And this whole "OS X vs. Longhorn" thing is just nothing. Most people don't care about longhorn as much as they don't care about OS X. They just need their email and browser to work. And they aren't going to switch OSes just to get where they already are. Hell, no one used Next when it was on PCs, why would OS X be any different.
Originally posted by cubist
You got that right. If this news is true, a dual-2.3 PM will be my last Mac. I refuse to pay Apple prices for Intel junk. (Why switch to Intel now, just as they are losing in every way to AMD, and the hot new video games are using PPC? It's like deliberately picking the slowest horse. Unfortunately, that's what makes it so believable.
Edit: Forgot to mention that, yes, Intel does have the rights to manufacture Alpha, and then there's XScale (formerly known as the Acorn RISC Machine). There's the 860 RISC chip, and 960 and 8051 and other embedded chips. And of course Itanium. Alpha is an intriguing possibility, but not worth putting Apple's customers through yet another transition.
This would still be an Apple machine. Apple could always use AMD chips if they saw a need, if this would be a port to x86 itself and not something else. I wouldn't worry there. Apple wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would be better.
Still think it won't happen though.
Originally posted by jfdesign
Here's my 2 cents. Maybe Intel is providing a custom OEM daughter card for Apple that will allow the Mac to have the PPC chip and the x86 chip in the same box, with lo level software that recognizes the difference. Now imagine being able to run Windows Programs NATIVELY on the Mac. Insert a PC install disc and it "just works". Developers have a choice... Mac or PC. Launch MS Access or some other MS only program, and it just runs... albeit with some ugly interface leftovers for the program. This becomes the final incentive for PC users to switch to Mac software when they see how the Ugly MS counterparts look. Mac users get the best of both worlds. Virtual PC is history. Your Mac is simply THE computer. Software platforms become a thing of the past. All the Windows people could start using Macs and not lose their software investment. Switchers in the droves. Intel makes more money, MS makes less and less. Dell can jump in a lake.
The oerating system is 100% Mac with custom software directing the CPU calls to the right CPU.
Thoughts??
This is always possible. Apple and others supplied PC cards before. If they could get the price right this time, it might make sense.
Originally posted by osxjamie
I have to admit i have not had the chance to read through the entire thread yet so this may have already been brought up, but one of the main reasons apple may be announcing this so early, much in contrast to their normal style, is because they will need help from outside companies to have software ready for it. What if, on top of that, one of the goals of this transition is to address the uneducated cries that apple lacks software variety? They could be trying to have a whole range of typically pc only software available upon release. But seriously, I do think they would need to give a heads up to all of the third-party software companies to give them time to prep for it, and the likelyhood of them being able to control the mouths of that many people is not very likely. So their plan: announce it now to build hype and keep people thinking about where apple is going instead of where longhorn is supposedly going to go.
Just my two cents, i'm not taking a side as to whether or not I belive it, though I have to admit, i would welcome it, since my Imac G3 several years ago I have not been able to afford a new mac, and even with the release of the mac mini, i'm still working on a home built x86 system running Debian. If i could just plop down a copy of OSX on this comp I would die a happy man!
Don't think about dying just yet then. If Apple does this it won't be an Intel mobo box. You can be quaranteed that it will be exclusively Apple's Mobo, ROM, etc. Nobody will be dropping Windows on it, and you won't be able to drop X into another box.
Remember, Apple is a hardware company. They are not going to lose almost all of their sales.
This year Apple might break $1 billion in software sales for the first time. That includes sales of OS X. Apple's total sales this year might reach $15 billion.
Originally posted by melgross
... and you won't be able to drop X into another box. ...
Oh yes you would. It'd require a bit of effort from the MOL guys, but it will be very doable.
Originally posted by Programmer
That's funny, I pretty clearly said ...
You pretty clearly said a lot of things - the general gist of which is plain uncomplimentary to x86. Then this rumour comes up and all of a sudden the x86 cores are considered "sophisticated". Ahem. Is that egg all over...
Originally posted by Programmer
So what's this, are you agreeing with me?
You raised the possibility of Intel sticking a PPC decoder in an x86. I was quoting a /. comment which mentioned Intel fabbing a PPC for Apple. That's different. And its more plausible.
Look, I am just enjoying the sight of you lot squirming. Even if the switch does not come to pass, which is likely, reading people's rationalizations, backpedalling, disbelief, etc has been hugely entertaining. The creative attempts at explaining away the Switch have been hilarious.
Just let this be a lesson. In future, before badtalking your competition, consider the fact that you may end up in bed with them. You know, like switching
Mac x86 wouldn't happen because of all the work done on Altivec. Everything Apple has done to speed up their apps for Altivec (and that's a lot of stuff) would just be thrown away, along with the problems with emulating older apps, etc. It would kill the Mac and all its software. Not to mention, why would anyone see a premium on Macs with Intel procs in them when Dell sells PC's with Intel's in for sigificantly less? Big marketing hurdle there. At least now they can say PPC blows away Intel (whether it's true or not).
Intel making PPC I can't see being a reality simply because we haven't heard anything about it. Everything we've heard is Apple to x86. Not one person outside of rumor forums has suggested Intel making PPC chips. If they were working on it, you'd think there would at least be something leaked. Apple would have had to keep their own mouths shut about it, and keep Intel's shut as well. I can't see something as big as this happening without anyone hearing a word about it (we've at least had wind of a lot of rumors before they were announced recently, this is bigger than almost any of them. You think it wouldn't slip out?).
Does this mean that future Apple computers will have DRM in their chips?
and if this is correct ( apple moving to intel ) its this company thats gonna be front in center on this matter.
Originally posted by UnixPoet
You pretty clearly said a lot of things - the general gist of which is plain uncomplimentary to x86. Then this rumour comes up and all of a sudden the x86 cores are considered "sophisticated". Ahem. Is that egg all over...
Yes, I hate the x86 ISA and think it sucks. As you pointed out, however, there is a difference between the architecture and the chip. Intel and AMD have built very sophisticated cores in order to make x86 perform well. In my opinion sticking a decent ISA on them will make them perform even better (and will save a lot of pain for Apple and its developers). I don't see anything inconsistent about my position. I do see that you're trying your best to interpret what I say so that it looks inconsistent.
You raised the possibility of Intel sticking a PPC decoder in an x86. I was quoting a /. comment which mentioned Intel fabbing a PPC for Apple. That's different. And its more plausible.
Okay, which PPC are they going to fab? The one IBM owns, or the one Motorola owns? Neither of which get top marks for performance, and neither of which has much of a future if the original designers don't pursue it. If it is just a fab arrangement, why wait until late 2006? I don't know a lot about the fab process, but I was under the impression that fabs aren't fully "compatible" due to process differences so its not just a simple matter of sending the design to Intel to be fabbed -- it would have to be re-cast on Intel's process and would become essentially a new chip. Might even be more work that just replacing the instruction decoder (which is a relatively small %age of the chip in the latest designs).
Look, I am just enjoying the sight of you lot squirming. Even if the switch does not come to pass, which is likely, reading people's rationalizations, backpedalling, disbelief, etc has been hugely entertaining. The creative attempts at explaining away the Switch have been hilarious.
No squirming going on here -- just trying to make sense of a very old rumor that seems to have some weight behind it this time. I haven't rationalized or backpedalled, but I do look upon the simple "X on x86" with disbelief because it doesn't seem the sensible thing for Apple to do.
Just let this be a lesson. In future, before badtalking your competition, consider the fact that you may end up in bed with them. You know, like switching
Tell Apple that. If the "X on x86" is the real path Steve has chosen, he is going to have some fancy footwork to do.
Originally posted by melgross
Even Linux isn't truly portable-and that's on the SAME platform.
Check it out here on how many platforms Linux runs currently, and then make such statements.
Scobelizer
Already I see skepticism from my readers behind Apple's move to Intel.
Make no mistake. This is a real story and I've gotten confirmation from people who know. I can't say more, though, cause I don't want Apple to sue me to find out my sources.
Either Scobel's dead on, or he's gonna be laughed out of the blogosphere. I can't see him getting laughed out of the blogosphere. My old news instincts seem to suggest that, as wacky as it sounds, we could see Mac OS X on x86.
Also, according to Ars Technica, Apple has offered a Czech programmer a job, saying they were "Seeking ACPI & BIOS person."
Things are heating up. Monday I'll look back at this post and wince.
The Appleinsider news page now says that this report has now been confirmed by The Wall Street Journal. Still no word as to whether it will be Intel x86 or a new Intel PPC.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
or they sure will look stupid
"website shows how crappy intel processor are"
x86 doesn't make much sense. I can see an alliance with Intel on something else, maybe a chipset or something? Could Intel fab an Apple designed chip, essentially like what IBM is doing for a lot of people now?
My sources at IBM have said nothing of Apple dumping IBM. I do know that Apple has 970MPs in their posession and the run at 3GHZ at least with 1MB of L2 per core. Apple had been unhappy with supplies earlier, but are fairly happy now - especially with multi-core G5s on the way.
Could this be an intentional bad leak? Is this Intel's people saying this, thus why Thinksecret has nothing, because Apple isn't doing anything with Intel? Is it a cover up for a 970MP unveiling, especially if those MPs are too hit sooner rather than later?
Originally posted by syno
well if it does happen its probbly best they take down this webpage
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
or they sure will look stupid
"website shows how crappy intel processor are"
It actually doesn't say anything about Intel it says Pentium. I'd say the chances are high that future Macs will not be running a Pentium chip as we know it... but rather a brand new Intel PPC chip designed specifically for Apple.
Would the Wall Street Journal really go out on a limb and confirm this report if they were not confident they had a reputable source?
Originally posted by Sam Damon
Okay, kids, things are getting very interesting indeed:
Scobelizer
Either Scobel's dead on, or he's gonna be laughed out of the blogosphere. I can't see him getting laughed out of the blogosphere. My old news instincts seem to suggest that, as wacky as it sounds, we could see Mac OS X on x86.
Also, according to Ars Technica, Apple has offered a Czech programmer a job, saying they were "Seeking ACPI & BIOS person."
Things are heating up. Monday I'll look back at this post and wince.
Why would he have to be "laughed out of the blogosphere"? 95% of the "news" reported this day and age IS bunk news. Nothing is clear and concise anymre and no one backs anything up either. Most news today, whether it's world news, or technological news, is based on rumor and speculation. If Scobel is wrong, which I'm sure he probably is, he'll be laughed at breifly and fade away back to doing his yellow reporting like all the other news reporters and news agencies out there. The only person I've ever heard of actually getting punished for doing bunk news is Dan Rather and his cronies. Heck, most of the reporting done on ZDNet is laughed at even by the M$ crowd so I never take any of these rumors and speculations seriously. Most people here can use some simple logic and deduce that Apple moving all the way over to x86 would destroy the company and all the software companies that write OSX software. Of course it's plausible but it's not economically or politically probable whatsoever. Not to mention is Jobs was wanting to do this to expand the user base then we can all kiss our virus-free mac OS's goodbye. 50% MS and 50% OSX = 50% virus development for MS 50% virus development for OSX. Also, just because another newspaper "confirms" what another paper has reported doesn't make all that more true. It probably just means they have the same "source" or even worse are just jumping on the rumormill bandwagon.
Originally posted by brent1a
Why would he have to be "laughed out of the blogosphere"? 95% of the "news" reported this day and age IS bunk news. Nothing is clear and concise anymre and no one backs anything up either. Most news today, whether it's world news, or technological news, is based on rumor and speculation. If Scobel is wrong, which I'm sure he probably is, he'll be laughed at breifly and fade away back to doing his yellow reporting like all the other news reporters and news agencies out there. The only person I've ever heard of actually getting punished for doing bunk news is Dan Rather and his cronies. Heck, most of the reporting done on ZDNet is laughed at even by the M$ crowd so I never take any of these rumors and speculations seriously. Most people here can use some simple logic and deduce that Apple moving all the way over to x86 would destroy the company and all the software companies that write OSX software. Of course it's plausible but it's not economically or politically probable whatsoever. Not to mention is Jobs was wanting to do this to expand the user base then we can all kiss our virus-free mac OS's goodbye. 50% MS and 50% OSX = 50% virus development for MS 50% virus development for OSX. Also, just because another newspaper "confirms" what another paper has reported doesn't make all that more true. It probably just means they have the same "source" or even worse are just jumping on the rumormill bandwagon.
This is from the Appleinsider new page:
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Saturday confirmed CNET's report, stating that an industry executive "familiar with the matter" verified the schedule outlined in the story.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Saturday confirmed CNET's report, stating that an industry executive "familiar with the matter" verified the schedule outlined in the story. [/B]
The term "with the matter" tells me a lot because using the term "with the matter" doesn't say "with the matter of the switch from PPC to x86". It tells me that it could mean a million things or nothing at all and this "industry exec" could be anyone in the industry AHEM and how big is the PC industry?
Not to mention who is to say that this is or isn't the same "industry exec" that CNET got a hold of? (like I stated before).