[Fox5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/...re/wall_street

Hmm, certainly interesting, so can Mac advocates still claim their hardware is more powerful based on an unknown advantage?
Does this mean we'll be able to run the Mac OS on any PC?
Why would Apple ditch IBM? And why for Intel and not say AMD?(cause at least Apple advocates could still put an argument for the hardware being more powerful, and could even falsely claim AMD's hardware is similar to what apple used to use, but Intel is what they were always staunchly against!)
So I'm guessing since the hardware is the same now that the Mac platform should get more games support....well maybe not actually, I don't think anyone actually codes to the hardware so it shouldn't make it any harder or easier, but maybe Macs will get more support.

Well, it could always be Itanium based.

[suryad]

Well I dont know how much credibility there is in all these rumors flying around. I for one wont be surprised if Apple does release it for the Intel...well theoretically it would work well with AMD as well...wont it? I mean if dual 2.5 ghz procs are just as fast as a top of the line FX I would think something is wrong...at least that is the impression I have been getting regarding their hardware. And also if Apple wants to cater to serious gamers as well because it is a huge market then they would go to an x86 platform where technologies like SLI and MVP are available. Also the x86 is a bigger platform, and IBM has been having trouble with clocking upwards of 3 ghz. Basically their hardware is boring IMO.

Now I wont be surprised if Apple does NOT go the x86 route and stick with the PPC route because it looks like every next gen game console is running a derivative of the PPC architecture. And also porting to x86 could be a monumental task. Writing drivers for all the supported hardware would be a big hassle...rewriting applications to work on x86 would be a problem...though I think a recompile should do the trick for almost every piece of software on the mac. They did use GCC 4 after all.

I would definitely welcome the OS X platform to come on to an x86 machine cause frankly a breath of fresh air is required. I am not going to leave x86 thats a given because I love the work AMD has done but this is indeed good news for people looking for a polished alternative in terms of an OS. Nothing against Linux but....2.6 kernels are slower than 2.4 kernels and I dont call that progress.

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by suryad

Well I dont know how much credibility there is in all these rumors flying around. I for one wont be surprised if Apple does release it for the Intel...well theoretically it would work well with AMD as well...wont it? I mean if dual 2.5 ghz procs are just as fast as a top of the line FX I would think something is wrong...at least that is the impression I have been getting regarding their hardware. And also if Apple wants to cater to serious gamers as well because it is a huge market then they would go to an x86 platform where technologies like SLI and MVP are available. Also the x86 is a bigger platform, and IBM has been having trouble with clocking upwards of 3 ghz. Basically their hardware is boring IMO.

Now I wont be surprised if Apple does NOT go the x86 route and stick with the PPC route because it looks like every next gen game console is running a derivative of the PPC architecture. And also porting to x86 could be a monumental task. Writing drivers for all the supported hardware would be a big hassle...rewriting applications to work on x86 would be a problem...though I think a recompile should do the trick for almost every piece of software on the mac. They did use GCC 4 after all.

I would definitely welcome the OS X platform to come on to an x86 machine cause frankly a breath of fresh air is required. I am not going to leave x86 thats a given because I love the work AMD has done but this is indeed good news for people looking for a polished alternative in terms of an OS. Nothing against Linux but....2.6 kernels are slower than 2.4 kernels and I dont call that progress.

I would if the 2.6 kernals are more stable and have more functionality. Windows XP is slower than 98, and OS X is said to be slower than XP, it requires more resources to do more or to do the same better or safer.

[Guden Oden]

Originally Posted by Fox5

Windows XP is slower than 98

Not really a fair comparison, and indeed a flawed claim to begin with. 98 was shite from the start, crappy house built on a crappy foundation. XP does things a lot more 'properly', and indeed, many things are much faster too. GUI stuff is faster and smarter in XP, networking is simply SO much better, caching, paging etc is faster and better etc.

It does require more resources (primarily memory), but hey, that's life. RAM is cheap so no reason to skimp.

[Gubbi]

It could be a ploy by Apple to apply pressure on IBM. The 970s have been underperformers when compared to their PC counterparts.

For mobile computing Intel and AMD are head and shoulders above G4. G5/970 appear to be too power hungry to fit in a laptops (and even if power could be lowered, they would still underperform).

Cheers
Gubbi

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by Gubbi

It could be a ploy by Apple to apply pressure on IBM. The 970s have been underperformers when compared to their PC counterparts.

For mobile computing Intel and AMD are head and shoulders above G4. G5/970 appear to be too power hungry to fit in a laptops (and even if power could be lowered, they would still underperform).

Cheers
Gubbi

Well, I'm sure G4s were good for the low power segment until centrino.(are there even 90nm G4s yet? and G4s are a motorola product, aren't they?)

As for the G5, well I thought it would have make excellent competition for Northwood and Athlon XP if AMD and Intel had continued pushing those two architectures, but the integrated memory controller of AMD and the extra couple hundred mhz of prescott just gave a bit more push than IBM could match.

[hoom]

Heh, I was thinking there would be a possibility of a Windoze for PowerPC CPUs now with xbox2 using a PPC based CPU...
But instead we get a Mac OS on Intel

[linthat22]

Hell, I'm just looking forward to running a Mac OS on PC hardware. I think that'd help Apple out tremendously and possibly weaken M$

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by linthat22

Hell, I'm just looking forward to running a Mac OS on PC hardware. I think that'd help Apple out tremendously and possibly weaken M$

What are the chances that Apple might contract Intel to make a new, non-x86 cpu. Perhaps they could even license IBM's PPC instruction set.

[suryad]

No way is Intel going to let go of x86...hell they are still selling Prescotts and anyone knows that is a disaster of a chip.

And I agree with Guden that XP is for its features and stability faster than 98. But OS X is slower than XP. I think Apple did that on purpose...and with each release they are upping the speed a bit. Thats why Apple owners are all whoo look our releases are getting so much faster.

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by suryad

No way is Intel going to let go of x86...hell they are still selling Prescotts and anyone knows that is a disaster of a chip.

And I agree with Guden that XP is for its features and stability faster than 98. But OS X is slower than XP. I think Apple did that on purpose...and with each release they are upping the speed a bit. Thats why Apple owners are all whoo look our releases are getting so much faster.

Intel can't produce x86 chips in addition to others? They have Itanium, they have xScale. Also, their current cpus only have an x86 frontend, so if apple wanted to maintain backwards compatibility, could they put on a PPC frontend?

[Geeforcer]

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+I...?tag=nefd.lede

More fuel to the fire.

Looks like Apple will go Intel after all. I wonder how its horrible Mac VS PC perfromace charts will look now.

[lopri]

If this happens, it'll probably be the most shocking stroy for me on PC history in the past decade. I'm just speechless.

Originally Posted by linthat22

Hell, I'm just looking forward to running a Mac OS on PC hardware. I think that'd help Apple out tremendously and possibly weaken M$

I'm 99% positive saying "IT WON'T HAPPEN". Apple is a hardware company in the end - In other words, they make money off the hardware, not the software. In that sense,

1) They can't compete with Dell et al. with their current strategy (where their money comes from selling pretty hardware equipped with pretty software). If they let OS X run on generic x86 hardware, everyone except the true f****** would go ahead and buy cheap machines/components and would just install OS X from a bootleg CD.

2) As much as I respect OS X's beuaty (technically & esthetically), it should be remembered it's within the boundary of extremely limited numbers of hardware. Umm.. Do you really think Apple can handle the near-unlimited numbers of hardware/software combination that exist outside?

Think it this way. Even M$ (20 yrs of accumulated experience/knowledge and plethora of resources) is busy covering their OS' bugs/compatibility on a daily basis. They even introduced the WHQL system to fight the ever-increasing numbers of hardware, and we're still dealing with the "Fixes," "Patches," "Service Packs," etc. Software frontier isn't any better. Everybody writes codes for Windows, and nothing is perfect. Wasn't OS X's one of the major ad point the lack of virus/mal-ware on a Mac? They would have to take all the words back to their mouths.

Also, it is a well known fact that OS X is SLOW. (Beauty comes at price ) And buggy (or inefficient). That's why every release of OS X gets "faster." IMO, Apple would not be able to overcome this hurdle. Similar/hypothetic analogy would be a case where Dell trying to equip their machines with a brand new Dell OS. It's just impossible.

Don't get me wrong. I would be the first person in line to install OS X in my x86 box, but I can't see it happening.

lop

[marco]

Hahaha we just have to wait and see. It is an amazing development. Saw on Anand that most people are disucssing Intel over AMD. Maybe these rumors from Apple is only there to put pressure on IBM.
Wait a minute, if they have problems with the supply from IBM (that must have something to do with Sony and Toshiba and Cell cpu, I guess ). Hint hint: Apple why just not make the jump to cell cpu's??

[Guden Oden]

I'm sorry but I can't see this as being true. It would mean dumping the entire software catalog for macos down the drain as no current x86 chip could emulate a PPC chip at anything approaching useable speed.

And a computer with zero application support is dead from the get-go. Who would buy such a thing? Not even a mac user would!

I'm not saying macos on x86 won't ever happen, because apple has done some pretty freakin crazy stuff before, I'm just saying it would be nuts, and I can't see any sane company going such a route.

[ndoogoo]

I don't like the idea of the entire computer desktop market only having one ISA. I like the idea of a bit of variety. Imagine if every car in the world was the same except for the colour and shape.

[Diplo]

Originally Posted by linthat22

Hell, I'm just looking forward to running a Mac OS on PC hardware. I think that'd help Apple out tremendously and possibly weaken M$

But you'd have a situation where not only would you not be able to run any existing PC software but you wouldn't be able to run any Mac software, either. An OS, no matter how good, without any software support would be a dead duck.

[lopri]

I just read an interesting theory about all this from Ars Technica.

Aricmorgan2 wrote:

If this story has any merit I think you folks are looking at it backwards.

Its not about the benefit to apple, its about the benefit to Intel.

I don’t think its the 2-3% market share they want, its that they want freedom from Microsoft. Over the years MS has screwed MANY plans/ideas of Intel, just by saying "we wont support that" (I saw a lot of great ideas killed that way). Now MS is getting cozy with AMD (64bit windows is AMDs version) with IBM (XBOX 360), all the big hype talk is about PPE/SPE which Intel isn’t involved in. I know that Intel has courted Linux for some time (for this reason of getting away from MS), venture money etc, why not dump a ton of cash into OSX on x86?

From working at Intel in the past I know that they will design motherboards, cases, and whole solutions if that’s what it takes to make the sale. Apple designates the hardware specs, Intel designs and builds it.

Not saying its true or not true (I have no idea) just that I look at it much differently than why apple would want it.

[Fox5]

I'm 99% positive saying "IT WON'T HAPPEN". Apple is a hardware company in the end - In other words, they make money off the hardware, not the software. In that sense,

1) They can't compete with Dell et al. with their current strategy (where their money comes from selling pretty hardware equipped with pretty software). If they let OS X run on generic x86 hardware, everyone except the true f****** would go ahead and buy cheap machines/components and would just install OS X from a bootleg CD.

2) As much as I respect OS X's beuaty (technically & esthetically), it should be remembered it's within the boundary of extremely limited numbers of hardware. Umm.. Do you really think Apple can handle the near-unlimited numbers of hardware/software combination that exist outside?

Eh, maybe the reasons apple's computers are so overpriced is because they include a ton of software that you wouldn't get when buying a Dell.
And Apple isn't quite a hardware company in the ways other are..Apple sells visions of what things are, and tries to keep the prices stable. They don't go into pricing wars with other companies, look at the iPods.

Also, OSX could handle a nearly unlimited number of hardware if designed right, Linux does quite well, but it's also constantly updated, but when installing the lastest version of a Linux distro on a PC, I've generally never had hardware incompatibility problems.

Also, it is a well known fact that OS X is SLOW. (Beauty comes at price Wink ) And buggy (or inefficient). That's why every release of OS X gets "faster." IMO, Apple would not be able to overcome this hurdle. Similar/hypothetic analogy would be a case where Dell trying to equip their machines with a brand new Dell OS. It's just impossible.

Hmm, I thought OSX was slow because it was more stable than windows.
Plus, Athlons and Pentiums are a hell of a lot more capable than the G4 cpus that most computers running OSX have, and you'll probably find more PCs with DX9 capable graphics cards then mac, so they're ready for tiger.

It would mean dumping the entire software catalog for macos down the drain as no current x86 chip could emulate a PPC chip at anything approaching useable speed.

Recompile all the software...it's what's required when going from x86 to x86-64 anyhow, so Macs and PCs can make the software switch at the same time.
Also, maybe a dual core x86 chip could emulate a G3 or G4 well enough...remember, an emulator apple makes wouldn't be like independent people developing an emulator, it has the potential to be much faster than what anyone could make alone.

I don’t think its the 2-3% market share they want, its that they want freedom from Microsoft. Over the years MS has screwed MANY plans/ideas of Intel, just by saying "we wont support that" (I saw a lot of great ideas killed that way). Now MS is getting cozy with AMD (64bit windows is AMDs version) with IBM (XBOX 360), all the big hype talk is about PPE/SPE which Intel isn’t involved in. I know that Intel has courted Linux for some time (for this reason of getting away from MS), venture money etc, why not dump a ton of cash into OSX on x86?

MS said no Itanium, if intel had an x86-64 then they would have used it. At least microsoft related to release it until Intel had x86-64 capable chips. Anyhow, what company wouldn't want to expand their markets, especially as the new consoles(including xbox 360) could effectively kill a large part of the PC market if marketted right.

[karlotta]

Fox5, Tiger doesnt run DX, its a OGL platform. How does Tiger/apple even think they can compete with Windows. It will be a nich group who use dual boot.. If this works out to be true, What does this say about the road map at IBM for powerPCs? I guess all the IBM fabs are full with Cell and Xbox360s. Apple needs a new supply. Or are they going to make both, a Apple X86 and a Apple PowerPC?

[Fox5]

Originally Posted by karlotta

Fox5, Tiger doesnt run DX, its a OGL platform. How does Tiger/apple even think they can compete with Windows. It will be a nich group who use dual boot.. If this works out to be true, What does this say about the road map at IBM for powerPCs? I guess all the IBM fabs are full with Cell and Xbox360s. Apple needs a new supply. Or are they going to make both, a Apple X86 and a Apple PowerPC?

Same way Apple always competed with Windows and PCs? People will still feel apple software is superior.

And don't the requirements for a 3d accelerated desktop on Tiger roughly correspond with what Longhorn requires?

[Pete]

On the one hand, you'd think AMD would be a perfect fit for Apple's image. OTOH, it wouldn't be too out of character for Apple to go for an all-Pentium-M lineup, especially if Intel is headed in that direction. And Intel probably has more manufacturing capability than AMD.

But, man, the Athlon 64 is just kicking the P4's ass all over the place. It'd be a pity for AMD to have lost out over the platform.

[Sworkhard]

Everyone is thinking Pentium when Intel is mentioned but I wonder if this could be an iteration of Itanium on the desktop. Its worth considering. I don't know if the Itanium processer would require less work to port to than x86 but....

[Saem]

Intel has x86, x86-64, XScale, Itanium and Alpha.

My take is that the news agencies got their facts wrongs and this is for embedded devices.

[nutball]

It's in The Inq so it must be true!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714