Another thought, as pointed out the stories never state the type of processor. However they do state that it will appear in low end Macs first. These processors are supplied by Freescale, not IBM, so the problem might not be with the 970 aka G5, but with the G4. If Freescale is stopping development at 1.67 Ghz for the G4, and the 970 still won't work in a low-price/power configuration that is demanded by the PowerBook, iBook and Mini then Apple's hand is forced and they will have to move to a different solution. If Apple was able to use their influence and get Intel the rights to fab a PPC chip, then it is just a warning to IBM that they may loose a customer for their high end chips if they don't step up in solving the production problems, and it brings back some competition in their suppliers like back in the 601-604e days. Imagine <dreammode> that IBM has entered into another AIM type alliance with Apple and Intel to push PPC development and manufacturing. The reason they entered into this agreement is that they fear they will not be able to keep up with fabing and developing enough chips to fit the market needs that have developed in the last 12 months.</dreammode>
You're laboring under the illusion that hearing the same story from multiple sources in any way, shape or form represents corroboration of that story.
They're all just repeating the CNET story and taking CNET's word for it. Do you imagine that there's some sort of investigative process going on here where each news service independently verifies a story before repeating it? Hah!
If that's what you're thinking, you terribly underestimate the laziness of modern media, the pack mentality of modern media, and how much "fast" is valued over "accurate".
Do you think Apple would let this story spread throughout the world if it were not true? Are you kidding me? They would sue - we should know that.
The only people that are living in a fantasy world are those that believe that this is just a "cover story".
You're laboring under the illusion that hearing the same story from multiple sources in any way, shape or form represents corroboration of that story.
They're all just repeating the CNET story and taking CNET's word for it. Do you imagine that there's some sort of investigative process going on here where each news service independently verifies a story before repeating it? Hah!
As you'll note in the WSJ and Inquirer stories, they each reference independent corroboration of the story. A paper like WSJ does not just quote what another news source says, they go and verify it for themselves.
Don't underestimate the magnitude of this story - It's big for Intel, and depending on how Steve does it, it could be big for Microsoft - if Steve decides to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware.
Given the kind of time they'll need to give developers to convert their apps (about a year for the big ones to go through full testing), announcing it now is right in line with the mid-2006 mark - release the new machines, the OS and have Photoshop et al ready at the same time.
To quote MS or Thurrott as unbiased analysis is just retarded. I'm not going to even argue that one.
Paul Thurrott is no worse than your average Mac fanboy. He does however have connections inside the tech world, esp. the Wintel world. And I never said they were unbiased, I said that added with the other sources the preponderance of evidence is leaning towards the story being true as Cnet is reporting.
You're laboring under the illusion that hearing the same story from multiple sources in any way, shape or form represents corroboration of that story.
They're all just repeating the CNET story and taking CNET's word for it. Do you imagine that there's some sort of investigative process going on here where each news service independently verifies a story before repeating it? Hah!
If that's what you're thinking, you terribly underestimate the laziness of modern media, the pack mentality of modern media, and how much "fast" is valued over "accurate".
Absofreakinlutely.
Modern journos these days give out "anonymity" waaaay too easily. In the first place, those in the industry know who's doing the leaking, based on what they know, and when they know it. It's only worth being anonymous if you can really be anonymous.
In the second place, witness how MSM outlets have been burned badly in the past couple years. Repeat after me, "Jayson Blair." Thanks.
Here's the bottom line. If we don't see Mac OS X on x86 tommorrow, some folks at the WSJ and CNet will have h**l to pay. That's the way they've been playing it -- no wiggle room here. If I was editing their piece, I would d**n sure insist on who the source is, 'cos I wouldn't want to get fired over stupid stuff like this.
It wasn't all that long ago that Paul Otellini got to see consumer's reaction to
Tiger first hand at FOSE in Washington D.C.
There are countless favorable reports about Tiger from many
previous Windows hardliners.
Perhaps all this means that Intel wants their best hardware to run on the best operating system available and all fingers are pointing to OSX
" Pressed about security by (a reporter), Mr Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
Businesses buy computers that run the applications they need. They don't care about who makes it but it just so happens that Microsoft has many of the applications they need and said applications run on Intel or AMD hardware.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SAID.
But the truth is they never looked at other platforms, never thought they might need something that was easy to use or actually works.
I have heard this so many times and when I checked to see if the so called only on Winwods apps were available on the Mac THEY WERE !!!
But NOW businesses MUST SWITCH if they can because viruses and span are so bad.
The mentality above will be confused by Mac on Intel, if it runs Windows apps. They won't sure what to do, because the old standards won't apply ANY MORE they will no longer be placated with simple thought !
All of the problems associated with Windows and the uncertainty in the computer market will make there businesses ripe to be beaten by the competition. The reasons that they people could think this way, ITS PRETENDING ITS NOT THINKING AT ALL, is because they were in businesses with a great deal of protection, huge barriers to competition.
Now those nuts will be broken and new players in the market will take over, but they will probably come from Japan and Hong Kong, but at least they will be using Macs.
If you think business buys Intel because it's Intel then you are quite deluded. Business buys Intel because Windows runs on it. Windows will not run on Intel based Macs. There will be no business win from this.
If you think business buys Intel because it's Intel then you are quite deluded. Business buys Intel because Windows runs on it. Windows will not run on Intel based Macs. There will be no business win from this.
Living in dilutions of grandure, a cartoon world where spam and viruses do not exist, only BIG BAD MICROSOFT !!!
If you think business buys Intel because it's Intel then you are quite deluded. Business buys Intel because Windows runs on it. Windows will not run on Intel based Macs. There will be no business win from this.
This guys makes a very interesting point, WHY NOT BUILD THESE MACchines TO BE WINDOWsucks COMPATIBLE !??!?!?!
Why NOT make them Windows compatible ???
WINDOWsucks and what better way to find out than to be able to duel boot Mac and WINDOWsucks and let them run side by side.
After a few months of viruses, spyware, and random bindings to plug things up and slow things down it will be cleaning time -- WHO WOULD DO IT !!!
Just SWITCH what's the point in going on in WINDOWsusks ???
Living in dilutions of grandure, a cartoon world where spam and viruses do not exist, only BIG BAD MICROSOFT !!!
It's reality. Business pays MessageLabs and Sophos to keep them safe, they pay per seat license fees to keep software up to date, they pay consultants $750 a day to build bespoke VB apps to do custom database jobs on SQL Server, they pay MSCE engineers to support it all.
It's a billion dollar IT ecosystem. Intel based Macs mean nothing in it.
It's reality. Business pays MessageLabs and Sophos to keep them safe, they pay per seat license fees to keep software up to date, they pay consultants $750 a day to build bespoke VB apps to do custom database jobs on SQL Server, they pay MSCE engineers to support it all.
It's a billion dollar IT ecosystem. Intel based Macs mean nothing in it.
Yep your are right it all costs a LOT OF MONEY.
Like I said, that nut has been cracked, businesses in Hong Kong and Japan, and maybe a few companies in the American west, will be replacing these guys with Macs.
Comments
The general reacton from current Mac users and those now considering Apple products is " Eeeeek!"
Meanwhile it seems that those really interested in this are those hoping or wishing that they could use, or at least try OSX on their existing P/C
without having to replace their hardware.
This in fact seems to be driving this media blitz more than anything else.
If a company like Intel were to suddenly endorse OSX, this would be HUGE!
This would obviously send a clear no confidence vote to Microsoft and wash away years of misconceptions about Apple's inferiority in the market place.
I'm sure there are also many who enjoy the idea of Steve Jobs crawling to
Intel for help, but to me at least it seems the other way around.
The general public is sick of Windows security issues and this alliance could
in fact change the future of the computer industry.
Well I guess we will know soon enough.
Originally posted by shetline
You're laboring under the illusion that hearing the same story from multiple sources in any way, shape or form represents corroboration of that story.
They're all just repeating the CNET story and taking CNET's word for it. Do you imagine that there's some sort of investigative process going on here where each news service independently verifies a story before repeating it? Hah!
If that's what you're thinking, you terribly underestimate the laziness of modern media, the pack mentality of modern media, and how much "fast" is valued over "accurate".
Do you think Apple would let this story spread throughout the world if it were not true? Are you kidding me? They would sue - we should know that.
The only people that are living in a fantasy world are those that believe that this is just a "cover story".
Originally posted by shetline
You're laboring under the illusion that hearing the same story from multiple sources in any way, shape or form represents corroboration of that story.
They're all just repeating the CNET story and taking CNET's word for it. Do you imagine that there's some sort of investigative process going on here where each news service independently verifies a story before repeating it? Hah!
As you'll note in the WSJ and Inquirer stories, they each reference independent corroboration of the story. A paper like WSJ does not just quote what another news source says, they go and verify it for themselves.
Don't underestimate the magnitude of this story - It's big for Intel, and depending on how Steve does it, it could be big for Microsoft - if Steve decides to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware.
Given the kind of time they'll need to give developers to convert their apps (about a year for the big ones to go through full testing), announcing it now is right in line with the mid-2006 mark - release the new machines, the OS and have Photoshop et al ready at the same time.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
To quote MS or Thurrott as unbiased analysis is just retarded. I'm not going to even argue that one.
Paul Thurrott is no worse than your average Mac fanboy. He does however have connections inside the tech world, esp. the Wintel world. And I never said they were unbiased, I said that added with the other sources the preponderance of evidence is leaning towards the story being true as Cnet is reporting.
Originally posted by anand
Do you think Apple would let this story spread throughout the world if it were not true? Are you kidding me? They would sue - we should know that.
The only people that are living in a fantasy world are those that believe that this is just a "cover story".
Sue for what exactly? And why waste the money? Tomorrow SJ gets to confirm/deny on stage, live, for free.
stood there on stage with SJ and announced.
"Look folks, Intel wants you to enjoy using your computer again.
Starting in mid 2006, we're supporting OSX!"
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I wonder what kind of reaction there would be if Intel's CEO
stood there on stage with SJ and announced.
"Look folks, Intel wants you to enjoy using your computer again.
Starting in mid 2006, we're supporting OSX!"
That's exactly what I expect to see tomorrow - maybe not be those words, but I'll bet Intel's CEO is there.
Originally posted by shetline
You're laboring under the illusion that hearing the same story from multiple sources in any way, shape or form represents corroboration of that story.
They're all just repeating the CNET story and taking CNET's word for it. Do you imagine that there's some sort of investigative process going on here where each news service independently verifies a story before repeating it? Hah!
If that's what you're thinking, you terribly underestimate the laziness of modern media, the pack mentality of modern media, and how much "fast" is valued over "accurate".
Absofreakinlutely.
Modern journos these days give out "anonymity" waaaay too easily. In the first place, those in the industry know who's doing the leaking, based on what they know, and when they know it. It's only worth being anonymous if you can really be anonymous.
In the second place, witness how MSM outlets have been burned badly in the past couple years. Repeat after me, "Jayson Blair." Thanks.
Here's the bottom line. If we don't see Mac OS X on x86 tommorrow, some folks at the WSJ and CNet will have h**l to pay. That's the way they've been playing it -- no wiggle room here. If I was editing their piece, I would d**n sure insist on who the source is, 'cos I wouldn't want to get fired over stupid stuff like this.
Tiger first hand at FOSE in Washington D.C.
There are countless favorable reports about Tiger from many
previous Windows hardliners.
Perhaps all this means that Intel wants their best hardware to run on the best operating system available and all fingers are pointing to OSX
" Pressed about security by (a reporter), Mr Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
Originally posted by hmurchison
Businesses buy computers that run the applications they need. They don't care about who makes it but it just so happens that Microsoft has many of the applications they need and said applications run on Intel or AMD hardware.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SAID.
But the truth is they never looked at other platforms, never thought they might need something that was easy to use or actually works.
I have heard this so many times and when I checked to see if the so called only on Winwods apps were available on the Mac THEY WERE !!!
But NOW businesses MUST SWITCH if they can because viruses and span are so bad.
The mentality above will be confused by Mac on Intel, if it runs Windows apps. They won't sure what to do, because the old standards won't apply ANY MORE they will no longer be placated with simple thought !
All of the problems associated with Windows and the uncertainty in the computer market will make there businesses ripe to be beaten by the competition. The reasons that they people could think this way, ITS PRETENDING ITS NOT THINKING AT ALL, is because they were in businesses with a great deal of protection, huge barriers to competition.
Now those nuts will be broken and new players in the market will take over, but they will probably come from Japan and Hong Kong, but at least they will be using Macs.
Originally posted by Blackcat
If you think business buys Intel because it's Intel then you are quite deluded. Business buys Intel because Windows runs on it. Windows will not run on Intel based Macs. There will be no business win from this.
Living in dilutions of grandure, a cartoon world where spam and viruses do not exist, only BIG BAD MICROSOFT !!!
Originally posted by Blackcat
If you think business buys Intel because it's Intel then you are quite deluded. Business buys Intel because Windows runs on it. Windows will not run on Intel based Macs. There will be no business win from this.
This guys makes a very interesting point, WHY NOT BUILD THESE MACchines TO BE WINDOWsucks COMPATIBLE !??!?!?!
Why NOT make them Windows compatible ???
WINDOWsucks and what better way to find out than to be able to duel boot Mac and WINDOWsucks and let them run side by side.
After a few months of viruses, spyware, and random bindings to plug things up and slow things down it will be cleaning time -- WHO WOULD DO IT !!!
Just SWITCH what's the point in going on in WINDOWsusks ???
If SJ actually had this plan, they would have sent me free invation to WWDC.
They did NOT do that so it just can't be !!!
And they will build these MACchines to be winWows compatible !!!
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU !!!
Why NOT make them Windows compatible ???
Originally posted by MACchine
Living in dilutions of grandure, a cartoon world where spam and viruses do not exist, only BIG BAD MICROSOFT !!!
It's reality. Business pays MessageLabs and Sophos to keep them safe, they pay per seat license fees to keep software up to date, they pay consultants $750 a day to build bespoke VB apps to do custom database jobs on SQL Server, they pay MSCE engineers to support it all.
It's a billion dollar IT ecosystem. Intel based Macs mean nothing in it.
Originally posted by Blackcat
It's reality. Business pays MessageLabs and Sophos to keep them safe, they pay per seat license fees to keep software up to date, they pay consultants $750 a day to build bespoke VB apps to do custom database jobs on SQL Server, they pay MSCE engineers to support it all.
It's a billion dollar IT ecosystem. Intel based Macs mean nothing in it.
Yep your are right it all costs a LOT OF MONEY.
Like I said, that nut has been cracked, businesses in Hong Kong and Japan, and maybe a few companies in the American west, will be replacing these guys with Macs.
Originally posted by MACchine
Why NOT make them winWows compatible ???
Because Redmond would cut off Apples air supply.