It's offical, apple moving to x86 Intel chips by June 6th 2006

[CodeWaste]

did you read what you just quoted?




I will say that Apple has always had a better asthetic design than MS, but Windows XP was a BIG improvement in that area, and I have a feeling Longhorn with the Aeroglass desktop (or whatever) is going to bring it well up to par. STILL, would you trade raw performance for a slightly nicer looking OS?

the new GUI for Longhorn is supposed to be Hardware accellerated. So hopufully this shouldn't put any more strain on the cpu than XP does.

Obviously then when you launch a game that uses directx (or whatever the new API is called...i forgot...Fake edit: i think its avalon, but dont quote me on that) The windows GUI will exit, and you will have full use of your graphics card for your game. So ideally, there will not be much of a performance hit from all these 'new' technologies in longhorn.

 

[dan johnson]

STILL, would you trade raw performance for a slightly nicer looking OS?

You're saying OS X is just another pretty face with nothing else to offer.

I disagree.

 

[h3llphyre]

Mostly because a bios is stored on a flash and there fore can read and reverse engineered. It is alot harder to reverse engineer a custom chip as well as a lot hard to integrate into a non-mac mother board. The end results means it would be a lot hard to make OSX work on non-mac hardware.

Yes, sure, its possible. Anything is possible. The point is, it won't be EASY. Your average Joe isn't going to try this. Not only will your average Joe not do this, but it is also illegal in the United States to do such a thing. DMCA sucks, and this is where it will suck. As I said, the simplest way to do it, is with a custom BIOS, which I assume Apple will do anyway. Why add complexity, when the law makes it so you don't have to. You just have to try and keep the honest people honest (as the saying goes).

 

[h3llphyre]

You're saying OS X is just another pretty face with nothing else to offer.

I disagree.

I agree with you. Now... Put the OSX UI ontop of a Linux engine and we can start talking about a MS killer. Simple to use, horsepower to back it up.

I really hope Apple goes all out, if they design their own hardware, and eaks performance where the "normal" x86 PC builders have not. It wouldn't be difficult and could justify a cost difference, from simple/cheap additions.

 

[CodeWaste]

Yes, sure, its possible. Anything is possible. The point is, it won't be EASY. Your average Joe isn't going to try this. Not only will your average Joe not do this, but it is also illegal in the United States to do such a thing. DMCA sucks, and this is where it will suck. As I said, the simplest way to do it, is with a custom BIOS, which I assume Apple will do anyway. Why add complexity, when the law makes it so you don't have to. You just have to try and keep the honest people honest (as the saying goes).

yeah cause macs are only sold in the USA

 

[h3llphyre]

yeah cause macs are only sold in the USA

Just like the XBox chips USED to be legal in Australia. They held up real well. Honestly, any big market for Apple, is going to be in a country with similiar laws against such actions.

 

[CodeWaste]

Just like the XBox chips USED to be legal in Australia. They held up real well. Honestly, any big market for Apple, is going to be in a country with similiar laws against such actions.

Like Germany for example?

 

[Mushroom Prince]

If it's using a standard Intel x86 chip, and has been for years according to jobs, it's a PC. The only question is really just what motherboard it's using. And since this as been under wraps for many years it would'nt suprise me if it were an off the shelf ATX intel board.

Even if it wasn't using a standard atx motherboard it wouldn't be too much work to get it to run on standard atx motherboards. The most difficult part has already been worked on for the past 5 years.

 

[Nasty_Savage]

the pentium m is not hype. it is quite a chip.

The chip itself is great, but I was talking about Centrino, which in my mind is more marketing then anything. I actually installed Dark Forces 2 on it and the hardware detection came up as over 3 Ghz. Admittedly my own experience with it is with my new 9300, but to go from 2 Ghz to 800 Mhz on battery to extend the life is a large reduction, and I do not see a general improvement in battery life from My Powerbook to the 9300 (it will get about 1 DVD of play time even though the Mac is processor "slewing" as well). But I do think the chip itself is good, just Intel embracing the Apple "Megahertz myth"

 

[Dew]

The chip itself is great, but I was talking about Centrino, which in my mind is more marketing then anything. I actually installed Dark Forces 2 on it and the hardware detection came up as over 3 Ghz. Admittedly my own experience with it is with my new 9300, but to go from 2 Ghz to 800 Mhz on battery to extend the life is a large reduction, and I do not see a general improvement in battery life from My Powerbook to the 9300 (it will get about 1 DVD of play time even though the Mac is processor "slewing" as well). But I do think the chip itself is good, just Intel embracing the Apple "Megahertz myth"

Centrino is just a branding of the Intel chipset, Pentium M, and wireless chipset. You'll see Pentium M notebooks that aren't labeled Centrino just because they don't use the Intel wireless.

The PM is a great performer, on par with and even exceeding the A64 in some cases MHz for MHz. You mist have gotten the small battery with the 9300 too. My friends 9300 that I configured for him lasts about seven hours on batteries(1.73GHz, dual batteries) doing general work. Still waiting to hear on DVDs.

 

[BossNoodleKaboodle]

I woke up in the twilight zone and Apple anounced today that starting in June of next year Apple will be using Intel processors and all Macs will use intel by June of 2007.

I have yet to fully digest all the implications of this announcement, but I have to admit that I in no way saw this coming, and to be honest my confidence is shaken with Apple at this point. Apple may be in for some tough times, but who knows, today could be the turning point where Apple becomes the market leader in personal computers. This change will not be easy but I hope that it will not be as rough as the 9/X migration. I think that tomorrow Chevy will announce that their engines suck and will start using hemis.

A few concerns that I have are:
1. What percieved performance benefit will Apple hold over Wintel? With the same processors in each, it will be the software company (Microsoft, Apple) that will be head to head instead of hardware and software packages. And Microsoft is a giant.

2.Apple will also no doubt lag behind in new technologies as it always has since it has to create its own proprietary hardware. Newer technologies will always be avaliable for PC users first and it will suck to be waiting for Apple to assimilate and incorporate them into new Macs.

3. Pentiums cannot be run in dual processor mode. If this is wanted then Apple will have to put Xeons in there and they are REDICULOUSLY expensive.

4. Were we lied to about 64-bit? Only Xeons support X86-64. Sure, in a year there may be some 64-bit Pentiums, but it will not be in laptop Centrinos by then which is a reason Steve cited for their decision to switch. (No G5 PowerBooks)

5. The PowerPC architecture is FAR AND AWAY a better architecture. I know we werent lied to for 20 years. Its superscalar capabilities are fantastic and can be multithreaded.

6. Apple will have to lock OS X to Apple hardware, because if any schmo can build a POS $200 PC and run OS X he will. Especially if Apple doesnt by some miracle invent the only unbreakable activation process in existance to prevent piracy. (in which case Apple will not last a year)

7. IBM spent $3 billion to build the Fishkill plant to make G5's for Apple and recently added some serious power to their semiconductor team. Sure IBM didnt meet their 3GHz mark by a year (still havent) and havent been able to produce mobile G5's, but i REALLY hope that that this will scare the bejezus out of IBM into gettting their act together and making superior processors again so that Apple will not have to go through with this blasphemy.

1. It won't have any other than their minimalistic styling and goofy appliance-like approach to computing that it's used with Volkswagen-Beetlizing computers since the mid 90's. People who buy Mac's seem not to know what POWER architecture is usually or even how their computer is assembled for the most part.

3. 64bit Xeons can be had for less than PowerPC G5's. Dual core Pentiums are out now, some with HT for 4 logical cores on one CPU.

4. Hello, 64bit Pentiums have been available for a while now...

5. No duh but the people who appreciate that typically don't buy a Mac because they can't stand the fact that their hardware options are so limited and that their OS isn't compatible with anything thats not 20% overpriced compared to Windows compatible applications.

6. Why would you want to build a cheap computer that has no software compatibility with teh rest of the world. Someone looking to build an non-windows box would likely use Linux...

7. IBM still makes the best processors. Look at the POWER 5 16 logical cores, 36MB of cache and more GFLOPS than a room full of Xeons all on one piece of wire-laced ceramic...

 

[h3llphyre]

Centrino is just a branding of the Intel chipset, Pentium M, and wireless chipset. You'll see Pentium M notebooks that aren't labeled Centrino just because they don't use the Intel wireless.

The PM is a great performer, on par with and even exceeding the A64 in some cases MHz for MHz. You mist have gotten the small battery with the 9300 too. My friends 9300 that I configured for him lasts about seven hours on batteries(1.73GHz, dual batteries) doing general work. Still waiting to hear on DVDs.

Yes, the active clocking on the Pentium-M laptops is awesome. Its almost impossible to tell the processor is changing its clockspeed constantly. The Pentium-M makes a lot more sense in most regards, then the P4. P3 with Netburst. Its the route they should have taken in the first place.

 

[BossNoodleKaboodle]

Yes, the active clocking on the Pentium-M laptops is awesome. Its almost impossible to tell the processor is changing its clockspeed constantly. The Pentium-M makes a lot more sense in most regards, then the P4. P3 with Netburst. Its the route they should have taken in the first place.

definitely. if they weren't in it to gouge consumers they probably would have.

 

[woolly]

Haahaa it WAS TRUE, the rumoir that Apple has had this whole time a intel compiled OS X !
W000h00 these are the happy days for evil PC pirates...finally we can run apples candy OS natively I would be pissed if had bought overprized mac hardware these couple years just to use OS X ;D

Even after the switch to x86, you still won't be able to run OS X on a regular PC. You will still only be able to run it on Apple hardware. If you want OS X, just go out and buy a mac. Its not worth waiting for finding a possible way to get it to work on a PC.

 

[Oldwolf]

Thank God! Now Apple can join the rest of humanity.

It'll be interesting to see Apples RISC O/S taking advantage of the abilities in the new P-4 CPU's coming out.

Now ta wait and see, if Apple will give consumers a choice, after switching to Intel, if they will also suddenly announce that you now have a choice, Intel, or AMD.

Boy will that (hopeful) announcement cause a ruckus in the market!

---
First Apple - Apple IIGS @ 1.8mhz
First Mac - Mac IIsi
First Pc - 486DX 120

 

[senorpyro]

i was actually rather unimpressed with that anandtech article... the thing that bothered me the most, was that the message i was left with was that the processor is great, but it's OS X's fault that the performance is sub-par....

but they didn't bother testing the g5 with a different OS to verify their statement. i wouldn't be surprised in the least if they were correct, but they did absolutely no testing to back it up. i mean really, how hard would it have been to install one of the PPC linux variants on the G5 and compare then?

Apple OS X is 100% garbage. Won't even stand up to linux much less windows. (and anyone who read Anand's Doom3: linux vs windows found out that things are much faster in windows).

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

Anandtech pitted OS X against linux with benchmarks and guess what he found:



I don't know about you but that is pitiful.

Moving to x86 is a bad bad mistake for Apple. Now that the two OSs are going to be running on the EXACT same hardware, you can bet money that review sites are going to start doing head to head comparisons between OS X and Windows XP (or longhorn if it's out), and when that happens Apple's gonna get wtfpwnd faster than a noob in Quake III. Not only that, but do you think MS is going to shit around once they realize that their OS monopoly is gonna be challenged? Not a chance. Bye bye Apple *wave*.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

1. It won't have any other than their minimalistic styling and goofy appliance-like approach to computing that it's used with Volkswagen-Beetlizing computers since the mid 90's. People who buy Mac's seem not to know what POWER architecture is usually or even how their computer is assembled for the most part.

How wonderfully judgemental of you. There is an Apple forum here on [H], in case you haven't noticed. I doubt people who know nothing of computers visit this forum.

5. No duh but the people who appreciate that typically don't buy a Mac because they can't stand the fact that their hardware options are so limited and that their OS isn't compatible with anything thats not 20% overpriced compared to Windows compatible applications.

And you base this on what?

6. Why would you want to build a cheap computer that has no software compatibility with teh rest of the world. Someone looking to build an non-windows box would likely use Linux...

Why the hell would anyone ever run Linux for a non-server when you can run OS X natively on it, especially if you want software compatibility? There are less applications for Linux than for OS X. The potential market for OS X on generic x86 boxes is huge, but probably not large enough to make Apple want to stop being the only supplier of hardware.

7. IBM still makes the best processors. Look at the POWER 5 16 logical cores, 36MB of cache and more GFLOPS than a room full of Xeons all on one piece of wire-laced ceramic...

It also draws like 400 watts and costs more than a full-featured PowerMac...

but they didn't bother testing the g5 with a different OS to verify their statement. i wouldn't be surprised in the least if they were correct, but they did absolutely no testing to back it up. i mean really, how hard would it have been to install one of the PPC linux variants on the G5 and compare then?

QFT. It can't be that hard to install YellowDog and try it.

 

[Archer75]

Even after the switch to x86, you still won't be able to run OS X on a regular PC. You will still only be able to run it on Apple hardware. If you want OS X, just go out and buy a mac. Its not worth waiting for finding a possible way to get it to work on a PC.

Care to make a wager? It's compiled for x86. They have already said that they expect people to run windows on the new apple macs and that they won't do anything to stop them. So it must almost be a PC with only a minor difference that OSX looks for to run on it.

Someone will very easily crack the OS and we will be running it on any PC. Mark my words, it will happen.

 

[Thud]

Thank God! Now Apple can join the rest of humanity.

It'll be interesting to see Apples RISC O/S taking advantage of the abilities in the new P-4 CPU's coming out.

There's no such thing as a "RISC O/S!!"

Holy cow, this announcement by Apple is causing people to say all sorts of bizarre things!

 

[Yassarian]

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

"The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it’s in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines — shredding the PC’s reputation in the process."



hahahahahahahahahahahaha

cheers,

yass

 

[Nasty_Savage]

Centrino is just a branding of the Intel chipset, Pentium M, and wireless chipset. You'll see Pentium M notebooks that aren't labeled Centrino just because they don't use the Intel wireless.

The PM is a great performer, on par with and even exceeding the A64 in some cases MHz for MHz. You mist have gotten the small battery with the 9300 too. My friends 9300 that I configured for him lasts about seven hours on batteries(1.73GHz, dual batteries) doing general work. Still waiting to hear on DVDs.

Nope, I got the bigger battery (9cell) but also the 2Ghz chip and the go6800 256 mb, so i guess that may be a factor. I don't see what all the fuss is about "centrino" but i guess it works since a lot of people ask me about it who know nothing about computers. I'm willing to say the performance of the Chip is outstanding to the battery life but I don't see the marketing centrino to offer much more in the way of battery life as opposed to say, the powerbook has now. I can tweak the processor speed even lower I guess to get it on par with the default Intel version, but I'll say this....it doesn't get NEARLY as hot as the powerbook

 

[Parastie]

Care to make a wager? It's compiled for x86. They have already said that they expect people to run windows on the new apple macs and that they won't do anything to stop them. So it must almost be a PC with only a minor difference that OSX looks for to run on it.

Someone will very easily crack the OS and we will be running it on any PC. Mark my words, it will happen.

I wonder what it will take to make the OS run on a standard PC. If they only use a specificc Bios, then we can copy that and put it on another Bios. Since we've already been told that the hardware will run windows, then it's safe to say that the motherboard will be a standard Intel motherboard. A Bios lock is too simple and I'll put money on either an Apple specific CPU or an extra chip on the board. Actually, it could just have a special code in the north or south bridge. This would allow users to upgrade easier.

I wonder how long it'll take for the Dev version of OSX x86 to hit the net. It's going to be released to developers in less then a month. If we get our hands on that, it'll give us a year head start on the real version.

 

[Archer75]

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

"The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it’s in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines — shredding the PC’s reputation in the process."



hahahahahahahahahahahaha

cheers,

yass

They just love to compare dual processor systems to single processor systems. Sure it's a fair test. They must have realized that and that's why they're switching

 

[Brett13]

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

"The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it’s in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines — shredding the PC’s reputation in the process."



hahahahahahahahahahahaha

cheers,

yass

Quit citing this. Apple has said that what they have now is better but the future G5's dont look as good compared to future Intel chips, so they are changing to prevent that.

 

[Archer75]

I wonder what it will take to make the OS run on a standard PC. If they only use a specificc Bios, then we can copy that and put it on another Bios. Since we've already been told that the hardware will run windows, then it's safe to say that the motherboard will be a standard Intel motherboard. A Bios lock is too simple and I'll put money on either an Apple specific CPU or an extra chip on the board. Actually, it could just have a special code in the north or south bridge. This would allow users to upgrade easier.

I wonder how long it'll take for the Dev version of OSX x86 to hit the net. It's going to be released to developers in less then a month. If we get our hands on that, it'll give us a year head start on the real version.

My guess is a special chip on the motherboard that the OS looks for before booting up. It would be quite easy to disable that in OSX.

And the Dev copies should pop up any day now. At least we know those are running on a standard PC.

 

[Nasty_Savage]

Quit citing this. Apple has said that what they have now is better but the future G5's dont look as good compared to future Intel chips, so they are changing to prevent that.

This man speaks the truth.

 

[Parastie]

My guess is a special chip on the motherboard that the OS looks for before booting up. It would be quite easy to disable that in OSX.

And the Dev copies should pop up any day now. At least we know those are running on a standard PC.

I agree, but where in the OS would it be located? I doubt they'd put it directly in the kernel. Since it's based entirely on Darwin, we could quickly replace that. Maybe it'll actually be on the CD itself to keep from installing on another system and not actually in the full OS at all. Kind of like Dell/Gateway/HP's OS CDs work. If you pull the hard drive and throw it into a different tower, it doesn't know.

 

[Archer75]

I agree, but where in the OS would it be located? I doubt they'd put it directly in the kernel. Since it's based entirely on Darwin, we could quickly replace that. Maybe it'll actually be on the CD itself to keep from installing on another system and not actually in the full OS at all. Kind of like Dell/Gateway/HP's OS CDs work. If you pull the hard drive and throw it into a different tower, it doesn't know.

Putting it on the CD is certainly possible. Probably even more likely. Prevent install all together.
But I think it may also be easier to get around as well.

Personally I think it's a dumb move by apple. They should just release the OS for all PC's and then just make quality good looking PC's themselves. They are anyways. I'm just tired of them being such control freaks.
You know if Microsoft did that no one would stand for it. But they accept it from apple. Makes no sense to me.

 

[CodeWaste]

They should just release the OS for all PC's and then just make quality good looking PC's themselves. They are anyways. I'm just tired of them being such control freaks.
You know if Microsoft did that no one would stand for it. But they accept it from apple. Makes no sense to me.

QFMFT

 

[Brett13]

hellphyre, Methodical, and Dew,
You were correct in that I am not privy to future X86 developments, but:
Keyword: performance, I know OS X is better. I just have a hard time believing that with a hand full of SE's in 5 years, Apple has been able to optimize X for X86 the way MS has been able to over the past 2 decades especially while using "universal binaries". Sounds alot like Java to me and we all know how that performs. Apple will no longer be able to hide behind "architectural differences" if performance somehow lags. This will severely hurt Apple.
Apple does lag behind when it comes to new technologies. How long did it take for Apple to adopt DDR? 3years? USB2? Granted, that was mostly Motorola's fault but the intel world is on DDR2 1066 (edit:667) while G5's run DDR 400. Apple has done well in that it uses blazing fast HyperTransport and Firewire and 64bit and the like, but with 6 month turnarounds on new product, it will not be easy for them to compete with Dell and others who have dozens of contintually updated lines because they just have to glue stuff together and ship it.
Dont get me wrong, Apple is a very innovative and fantastic company with products to match and I am playing devils advocate here, but I am just questioning this significant decision. They may also, as it seems, not had a choice in the decision to switch as we do not know the behind-the-scenes happenings between Apple and IBM concerning future processor development. And Steve has a history of being a Pirate: 'loyal to none'.
I do however see how this will help profits and save R&D dollars. Apple essentially had to design this processor (G5) or at least had significant input into its design. This will not be the case with Intel. While they may be able to customize some by losing performance robbing legacy X86 supporton the pocs the wont have to custom make system controllers anymore. Apple may also use the X86 market the way it did the PPC market and play back and fourth between Intel and AMD to hold something over thier heads.

 

[senorpyro]

it doesn't really matter what they do, it's a *nix based OS, and as such there's a 99.9% propability that somebody will figure out how to get around whatever apple institutes by either modifying or replacing the core *nix files with standard ones...

it's really just a matter of time before it happens. somebody earlier in the thread i think made a comment that i agree with wholeheartedly - they have to know it'll eventually be hacked, but it really probably won't have much of an effect on apple - they'll be exempt from people complaining about support problems, so what do they care? they can use the poplularity of those people doing it anyways so they can gauge interest in the ever so slight chance of their eventually releasing X for off the shelf x86 systems

I agree, but where in the OS would it be located? I doubt they'd put it directly in the kernel. Since it's based entirely on Darwin, we could quickly replace that. Maybe it'll actually be on the CD itself to keep from installing on another system and not actually in the full OS at all. Kind of like Dell/Gateway/HP's OS CDs work. If you pull the hard drive and throw it into a different tower, it doesn't know.

 

[Parastie]

Putting it on the CD is certainly possible. Probably even more likely. Prevent install all together.
But I think it may also be easier to get around as well.

Personally I think it's a dumb move by apple. They should just release the OS for all PC's and then just make quality good looking PC's themselves. They are anyways. I'm just tired of them being such control freaks.
You know if Microsoft did that no one would stand for it. But they accept it from apple. Makes no sense to me.

The reason why they won't is because they'll lose stability. While microsoft will run on just about anything, no one is going to guarentee you how well it will run. Apple can guarentee you'll get X amount of performance on our hardware. If they allow other to install it on other systems, you'll start to hear how terrible it runs on their home built system. It keeps Apple from having to do things like Microsoft's WHQL program, they can steer away from the Plug-and-Play issues of Windows 95 and they won't have people calling in saying, (bubba accent) "I plugged this card thingy from Wal-Mart into my computer and it no work now..."

If you control it, you have fewer issues. It saves them money. While they could release it and let anyone install it with "no support" they're going to lose face to the basic consumers who won't understand the difference between the $200 E-Machines computer and Voodoo PC's $3000 computer.

 

[Nasty_Savage]

I'm sure that "Leapord" the next OS will be released more native to the Intel architecture. I think the whole idea of simultaneous development was to reduce the time necessary in the event they did decide the time was right for Intel. What you are looking at now in Tiger running on a P4 is probably more for developmental use then a releaseable system. The universal binaries is probably just a way to stave off development costs in supporting the architecture until the phase out is complete. It may take a preformance "hit" for 4 years or so while the old G4/G5 machines fade as the architecture will be dually supported, but I would suspect that at some point the axe will fall on PPC and go x86 exclusive for a future release and the cord will be cut like it was for OS 9.

 

[senorpyro]

How long did it take for Apple to adopt DDR? 3years? Granted, that was partially Motorola's fault but the intel world is on DDR2 1066 while G5's run DDR 400.

first and foremost, intel is not using DDR2 1066... the extreme edition 3.47 and 3.73 use a 1066 bus, but memory speeds are at ddr2-533 and ddr2-667

yes, it took apple way too long to adopt DDR, and even when they did there was little to be gained from the G4 implementations that they first came out with, and continue to use on the emacs....

but don't criticize the g5's for using DDR400; AMD has proven that currently there's no good reason for switching to DDR. DDR2 in theory performs better, but in practice suffers too much from latency penalties to make it worthwhile. once ddr2 hits 800 or so, the payoffs might become worthwhile, but until then who cares? AMD's got the better and faster hand in the x86 and x86-64 world right now, and they're still using DDR-400.

there are times where intel's overzealousness towards new technologies is a bad thing... take RDRAM, NETBURST, and DDR2 as prime examples. all three eventually produced worthwhile products, but there were so many crappy ones that the few worthwhile are hard to justify... had they thought things out better they could have skipped the crappy products based on those, and just introduced the good ones, as all 3 are potentially great technologies, they just weren't ready when intel decided to start pushing them.

 

[h3llphyre]

hellphyre, Methodical, and Dew,
You were correct in that I am not privy to future X86 developments, but:
Keyword: performance, I know OS X is better. I just have a hard time believing that with a hand full of SE's in 5 years, Apple has been able to optimize X for X86 the way MS has been able to over the past 2 decades especially while using "universal binaries". Sounds alot like Java to me and we all know how that performs. Apple will no longer be able to hide behind "architectural differences" if performance somehow lags. This will severely hurt Apple.
Apple does lag behind when it comes to new technologies. How long did it take for Apple to adopt DDR? 3years? Granted, that was partially Motorola's fault but the intel world is on DDR2 1066 while G5's run DDR 400. Apple has done well in that it uses blazing fast HyperTransport and Firewire and 64bit and the like, but with 6 month turnarounds on new product, it will not be easy for them to compete with Dell and others who have dozens of contintually updated lines because they just have to glue stuff together and ship it.
Dont get me wrong, Apple is a very innovative and fantastic company with products to match and I am playing devils advocate here, but I am just questioning this significant decision. They may also, as it seems, not had a choice in the decision to switch as we do not know the behind-the-scenes happenings between Apple and IBM concerning future processor development. And Steve has a history of being a Pirate: 'loyal to none'.
I do however see how this will help profits and save R&D dollars. Apple essentially had to design this processor (G5) or at least had significant input into its design. This will not be the case with Intel. While they may be able to customize some by losing performance robbing legacy X86 supporton the pocs the wont have to custom make system controllers anymore. Apple may also use the X86 market the way it did the PPC market and play back and fourth between Intel and AMD to hold something over thier heads.

Eh, I think Apple can keep up fine, with technology in the x86 land. Chipsets don't change too often. Maybe once a year at most, for anything worth a damn, and most of the time, its every 2nd or 3rd year. Processors get faster and faster and these upgrades would be easy for Apple to do. Memory, is dependant on the chipset (Intel CPU only), so again... You won't be changing that very often.

In terms of performance on a hardware level... the P4 is more powerful then the G5. No way around that. From personal experience, OS aside, the P4 is capable of processing more data. End of story. In terms of OSes, I think that this is a tough call. You can't take OSX and compare it to enterprise level OSes. It's a personal OS and should be compared as such. I think the biggest win for OSX, is its ease of use. This will ring loudly with the average joe.

Again, if Apple can get winapps to run natively in OSX, MS has a serious issue. Or they could just break compatibility, like they did with OS2 (IBM)

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

No, its just making "Mac" people talk, which by default, is BS.

Just what do you mean by that?

Personally I think it's a dumb move by apple. They should just release the OS for all PC's and then just make quality good looking PC's themselves. They are anyways. I'm just tired of them being such control freaks.

There is the problem of hardware diversity. OS X wouldn't be nearly as stable on some piece of shit PC some mom-and-pop computer store built as it would be on a Mac. They'd have to spend a fortune on getting drivers for this and that mother board. And there is also the possibility that OS X will actually use the firmware (or BIOS, or whatever) for something...

Sounds alot like Java to me and we all know how that performs.

It is nothing like Java. A universal binary will contain one binaries for!x86 and one for PPC, not one binary for both. A lot like fat binaries in Tiger (containing both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an applications), IIRC. Thusly there will be no performance hit.

I just have a hard time believing that with a hand full of SE's in 5 years, Apple has been able to optimize X for X86 the way MS has been able to over the past 2 decades

NextStep ran on x86. If they've been making x86 versions all along, it shouldn't really be that hard.

 

[Brett13]

It is nothing like Java. A universal binary will contain one binaries for!x86 and one for PPC, not one binary for both. A lot like fat binaries in Tiger (containing both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an applications), IIRC. Thusly there will be no performance hit.

NextStep ran on x86. If they've been making x86 versions all along, it shouldn't really be that hard.

Relevant points. Apple has a time ahead of them. The more I think about this the better I feel. I hope that this will at least partially put behind us the problem of incompatible hardware upgrades like video cards, and make it easier to port games.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

Exactly what I meant... Mac owners have been trying to convince everyone (even themselves) that their hardware was far superior to anyone elses. Only recently, has ANYTHING on the Mac side, convinced me that it is potentially better, and that is OSX. And I only consider this for the normal "stupid consumer" market. Overall, Mac owners tend to be a lil more clueless when it comes to computers and how they work. Generalized statement. There are exceptions, but like with every exception, they are rare.

That is a very judgemental attitude you've got going there. Most computer-knowledgeable people I know (in real life) have switched to iBooks and PowerBooks. Your mileage obviously varies, and I really doubt you know enough Mac users well enough in order to make a proper estimate. I would appreciate it if you stopped indirectly insulting me, and the dozen of Mac users on these boards.

 

[Archer75]

There is the problem of hardware diversity. OS X wouldn't be nearly as stable on some piece of shit PC some mom-and-pop computer store built as it would be on a Mac. They'd have to spend a fortune on getting drivers for this and that mother board. And there is also the possibility that OS X will actually use the firmware (or BIOS, or whatever) for something...

It would be fine. The hardware manufacturers make the drivers. I have motherboard drivers from Intel, Video Card drivers from Nvidia, drivers from HP for the printer, drivers from Epson for the scanner, etc.

OSX already works on x86. It works with Nvidia and ATI. It works with any optical drive and hard drive. What more do they need to support?

 

[h3llphyre]

That is a very judgemental attitude you've got going there. Most computer-knowledgeable people I know (in real life) have switched to iBooks and PowerBooks. Your mileage obviously varies, and I really doubt you know enough Mac users well enough in order to make a proper estimate. I would appreciate it if you stopped indirectly insulting me, and the dozen of Mac users on these boards.

I don't consider the laptops to be computers really. They are simple tools, just used for simplified actions, like word processing, email, etc etc etc. Who cares what hardware/OS runs on it, as long as it is capable of doing these things.

I have known quite a few Mac users. Most of them, had very limited knowledge of computers. Then again, nowadays, most COMPUTER users have limited knowledge of computers. Gotta love how they've become commodities.