Giga where used as a resource for this NewsFactor article and some of the masses of us pissed off people did some research and it turns out than Giga are on the payroll of none other than Microsoft.
Need I say any more???
Need I say any more???
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
From MacCentral Report: Apple will go Intel next year
- Thread starter FelixDerKater
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
say no more.
besides the whole speed argument is boring. that is not reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!
i_b_joshua
oh and melbourne IS the place to be
Originally posted by i_b_joshua
we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!
i_b_joshua
oh and melbourne IS the place to be
come crying to people like rower_cpu, mischief, bttm, or me...people who fix and/or sell computers
ve vill take jour monies!!!
broken computers keep techies/computer sales people employed, macs and pcs alike, but i have to admit...at the rate that pcs still break down at, there is more money per computer in fixing the pc side of the fence
Didn't apple just release the a new version of the darwin base code for the x86? Even though moving to x86 would be a pain in the butt...it could be done. But seriously, I wouldn't want them to do it. I like my iBook just the way it is thank you very much.
A more likely scenario:
Q2 2003: Apple Revs into 1st generation Moto 7457's @ 1.2-1.6Ghz
Q3 2003: Apple Revs 7457's to all machines, towers go to 1.8 at the high end.
Q4 2003: PPC970 is introduced @ 1.8 Ghz in the xServes, which sell in smaller quantities allowing for IBM ramping production.
Q1 2004: Towers get PPC 970's. All machines above 1 Ghz.
Q2 2004: TiBooks gain DDR.
Q3 2004: TiBooks gain PPC970m's. Apple introduces X.2.5 and X.2 x86
Q2 2003: Apple Revs into 1st generation Moto 7457's @ 1.2-1.6Ghz
Q3 2003: Apple Revs 7457's to all machines, towers go to 1.8 at the high end.
Q4 2003: PPC970 is introduced @ 1.8 Ghz in the xServes, which sell in smaller quantities allowing for IBM ramping production.
Q1 2004: Towers get PPC 970's. All machines above 1 Ghz.
Q2 2004: TiBooks gain DDR.
Q3 2004: TiBooks gain PPC970m's. Apple introduces X.2.5 and X.2 x86
IF Apple turns Intel, it is because they already have the OS AND hardware working with Intel. EOF.
I love my Mac, but I am not really sure if I care if it is Intel, Moto or IBM, as long as there are still cool Macintosh computers to buy!
I love my Mac, but I am not really sure if I care if it is Intel, Moto or IBM, as long as there are still cool Macintosh computers to buy!
Even when the nicer one costs hundreds more? The public at large is not buying Apple's nice machines now. They wouldn't buy Apple's nice machines if they had Intel inside either.
OS X is an easy sell over XP? I don't think so. Only for geeks and Mac lovers. OS X doesn't run Windows software, therefore, it's no contest. Public perception of Microsoft outside the geek world is very positive.
You're mostly wrong, except in the case of programs which have hardware-specific optimizations. All Windows apps would still have to be ported over to an OS X-native API.
Actually it would mean fewer differences between Macs and PCs, leading to less ability for consumers to differentiate the two, leading them to buy even FEWER Macs, requiring Macs to come down in price by a huge amount just to stay competitive, obliterating Apple's margins and eventually driving them out of business. Intel can suck it as far as I'm concerned. The day Apple switches to Intel will the be the day I switch to the Amiga.
Why is it every time someone says they want Macs to be faster, they are Crybabies? We like the OS, the iApps, the Design. etc. Why is it so wrong to want faster processors? Like it or not, PCs are the competition. OS X is great, but when you can build a PC for less than the cheapest Mac, that's faster at a lot of things than the fastest Mac, there is a problem. For those of us who do things that need as much speed as possible, and are on a budget, most of the current Apple offerings are good enough.
That being said, if by the time I'm ready to buy my new Mac (and I will be getting a new Mac, I like OS X enough to want one. And video-editing may be slower, but it's a pain in the *** on the PC), if it's close enough feature, performance, and price wise to a comparitive WinTel, I'll be happy. Most of the current offerings are enough for most users, but some of us need as much speed as we can get.
I just hope they don't have to go Intel to do it.
But if they did, can you imagine running OS X on a home built PC. Good bye the nightmare that is Windows 2000. I think most people are like I am. Hate M$, love Apple software. Tolerate Intel/AMD hardware, hate Motorola. Give us some real IBM compatibles.
Despite my current objections, I still have hope.
Hard habit to break.
Personally, as long as OS X runs on it and Final Cut Pro renders my video fast, I could care less what CPU is in the box.
While I mostly agree - Motorolla and Apple have been together for a looonnnggg time. (1984?) On the other hand, it sometimes feels like Motorolla has been the one that has dumped Apple like a rock.Originally posted by scem0
IBM or Intel, I care not, as long as it isn't moto
Personally, as long as OS X runs on it and Final Cut Pro renders my video fast, I could care less what CPU is in the box.
Mac with Intel Chip?
While I understand why we all want faster Macs, including those who actually need the additional speed (and the rest of us who just think it would be nice to not have to listen to Windows PC owners telling us about their latest CPU's clock speed), I don't really understand why turning to Intel's CPUs is the solution. Yes, Intel knows how to crank out fast processors, but those processors will NOT run Mac software natively.
I believe Apple does keep current a version of MacOS X that runs on X86 processors, but what about all the Mac commercial application software we now use? NONE of it would run on an Intel Mac. It would all have to be rewritten to run in MacOS X on Intel processors, which means we would have to repurchase ALL the software we're currently using. Why would a vendor who currently has an Intel Windows version of their program go to that expense for 5% of the market? Also, how many frustrated Mac users faced with that prospect would incur that repurchase expense?
I also believe Apple currently makes most of its profit by selling a tightly hardware/OS-integrated product. It's able to do that because it controls the hardware AND the OS. This permits them to sell an exceptionally high quality product, with outstanding industrial design. If it switches to Intel's technology, it loses that edge. Then, people would just see a pretty Mac box, with MacOS X inside running on Intel parts. Most non-Mac people truly believe Windows XP is just as good as MacOS X. So, where's the edge that justifies the premium Apple charges to come from? Are switchers really just converting because of Windows, or does the hardware itself play a part in the overall user experience? If the insides are the same, and XP is just as good (NOT MY opinion, by the way), just how much extra is the pretty case worth? Enough to repurchase all my Windows software to run on an Intel Mac?
IBM has produced a path out of this performance mess. Note I say performance, NOT clock speed. I don't think anyone is professing that IBM's 970-series processors will ever out-clock Intel. As Ars Technica noted in their excellent article on the 970 this week, the new processor follows an entirely different philosophy from Intel's. IBM is more focused on total throughput performance, Intel is more focused on highest speed (for its obvious marketing advantage). While we don't yet know just how well this first generation PPC64 will perform vis-a-vis the latest P4, Itanium, or Hammer CPU, we do know that IBM has the expertise, resources, and incentive to tweak the design of this processor to strengthen its weaknesses. (Motorola lost interest in producing desktop computer CPUs years ago, and is now apparently focusing on low voltage, embedded processors.) That means we'll be able to move forward without Apple's entire developer infrastructure and customers being financially harmed.
We should also keep in mind that Apple has been buying up high-end media software companies over the past couple of years, even though it didn't have the hardware to take full advantage of it. The new IBM 970-series processors built on POWER4 technology offer an answer to this standing question.
No, I don't believe Apple has ANY intention of switching to Intel. The x86 MacOS X exercise is just a demonstration project, likely a last-ditch bargaining chip to keep the company alive if all else fails.
Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest. In 18 years of using Macs, I've had to replace a couple of keyboards, a monitor, and a power supply. Otherwise, they never had a hardware issue. I know that's not everyone's experience, but I believe it applies to most Apple users even today. Apple was the first to introduce the use of the 3 1/4" floppy in a commercial personal computer, and the first to discontinue it, the first to incorporate actual sound (vice a beep), the first to use a graphical interface. And even though Intel's USB was built-into PCs before Macs, it was Apple's initiative with the iMac that pressed it into ubiquitous use. It's been Apple's innovation, its R&D, its risk taking that's driven the personal computer experience. Virtually everyone else follows Apple's lead. And, I believe, we're now seeing Apple's next move down this road.
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.) It's also continuing down the integrated digital user experience road with the iApps, the iPod, the i???. To do this, it needs the flexibility to select the best technology around, and then design its own hardware to accommodate it. Switching to Intel would not facilitate that option, and it would alienate its developers and customer base.
While I understand why we all want faster Macs, including those who actually need the additional speed (and the rest of us who just think it would be nice to not have to listen to Windows PC owners telling us about their latest CPU's clock speed), I don't really understand why turning to Intel's CPUs is the solution. Yes, Intel knows how to crank out fast processors, but those processors will NOT run Mac software natively.
I believe Apple does keep current a version of MacOS X that runs on X86 processors, but what about all the Mac commercial application software we now use? NONE of it would run on an Intel Mac. It would all have to be rewritten to run in MacOS X on Intel processors, which means we would have to repurchase ALL the software we're currently using. Why would a vendor who currently has an Intel Windows version of their program go to that expense for 5% of the market? Also, how many frustrated Mac users faced with that prospect would incur that repurchase expense?
I also believe Apple currently makes most of its profit by selling a tightly hardware/OS-integrated product. It's able to do that because it controls the hardware AND the OS. This permits them to sell an exceptionally high quality product, with outstanding industrial design. If it switches to Intel's technology, it loses that edge. Then, people would just see a pretty Mac box, with MacOS X inside running on Intel parts. Most non-Mac people truly believe Windows XP is just as good as MacOS X. So, where's the edge that justifies the premium Apple charges to come from? Are switchers really just converting because of Windows, or does the hardware itself play a part in the overall user experience? If the insides are the same, and XP is just as good (NOT MY opinion, by the way), just how much extra is the pretty case worth? Enough to repurchase all my Windows software to run on an Intel Mac?
IBM has produced a path out of this performance mess. Note I say performance, NOT clock speed. I don't think anyone is professing that IBM's 970-series processors will ever out-clock Intel. As Ars Technica noted in their excellent article on the 970 this week, the new processor follows an entirely different philosophy from Intel's. IBM is more focused on total throughput performance, Intel is more focused on highest speed (for its obvious marketing advantage). While we don't yet know just how well this first generation PPC64 will perform vis-a-vis the latest P4, Itanium, or Hammer CPU, we do know that IBM has the expertise, resources, and incentive to tweak the design of this processor to strengthen its weaknesses. (Motorola lost interest in producing desktop computer CPUs years ago, and is now apparently focusing on low voltage, embedded processors.) That means we'll be able to move forward without Apple's entire developer infrastructure and customers being financially harmed.
We should also keep in mind that Apple has been buying up high-end media software companies over the past couple of years, even though it didn't have the hardware to take full advantage of it. The new IBM 970-series processors built on POWER4 technology offer an answer to this standing question.
No, I don't believe Apple has ANY intention of switching to Intel. The x86 MacOS X exercise is just a demonstration project, likely a last-ditch bargaining chip to keep the company alive if all else fails.
Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest. In 18 years of using Macs, I've had to replace a couple of keyboards, a monitor, and a power supply. Otherwise, they never had a hardware issue. I know that's not everyone's experience, but I believe it applies to most Apple users even today. Apple was the first to introduce the use of the 3 1/4" floppy in a commercial personal computer, and the first to discontinue it, the first to incorporate actual sound (vice a beep), the first to use a graphical interface. And even though Intel's USB was built-into PCs before Macs, it was Apple's initiative with the iMac that pressed it into ubiquitous use. It's been Apple's innovation, its R&D, its risk taking that's driven the personal computer experience. Virtually everyone else follows Apple's lead. And, I believe, we're now seeing Apple's next move down this road.
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.) It's also continuing down the integrated digital user experience road with the iApps, the iPod, the i???. To do this, it needs the flexibility to select the best technology around, and then design its own hardware to accommodate it. Switching to Intel would not facilitate that option, and it would alienate its developers and customer base.
Re: Mac with Intel Chip?
Not just his renderfarms, but his Workstations as well! Its really hard to model and animate with a computer that struggles to even display a simple character. PC's are WAY beyond Apple in this regard.
Im not talking about mHz or gHz--Im just talking about performance period. PC's get the job done for half the price.
Its sad--Im dying to get back into Apple and OSX, but theres really no reason to in my industry.
Not just his renderfarms, but his Workstations as well! Its really hard to model and animate with a computer that struggles to even display a simple character. PC's are WAY beyond Apple in this regard.
Im not talking about mHz or gHz--Im just talking about performance period. PC's get the job done for half the price.
Its sad--Im dying to get back into Apple and OSX, but theres really no reason to in my industry.
And the 4.4 Ghz Pentium IV is not vaporware? The 970 was announced at the Microprocessor forum....I've heard no news that a 4.4 Ghz Pentium IV has been announced. And I'm turning off email notification, so if you want to contact me, you'll have to hit the email below.
dave marsh,
great argument against going with intel!
while it would be nice to stay with motorola and ibm, apple inc should at least make it an option to go intel if they needed to
there should be a plan b also
great argument against going with intel!
while it would be nice to stay with motorola and ibm, apple inc should at least make it an option to go intel if they needed to
there should be a plan b also
Re: Please think before posting.
Don't they already have Jaguar running on x86 buckshot? Stop being a dick.
Originally posted by mischief
Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.
Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.
You're basically saying that if Pigs could fly we could all have fried pork wings and wouldn't that just be peachy.
Don't they already have Jaguar running on x86 buckshot? Stop being a dick.
Re: Re: Please think before posting.
ok folks, i hear about jaguar running on x86 over and over again...but is this true?
links?
and could i get one for my pc?
if so, in the future, i would definitely take out windows 98 in favor of having os x on my compaq pc
ok folks, i hear about jaguar running on x86 over and over again...but is this true?
links?
and could i get one for my pc?
if so, in the future, i would definitely take out windows 98 in favor of having os x on my compaq pc
I'm an Apple fan all the way..but sometimes I think you guys are dreaming things up to make yourselves feel better. You buy a computer "for what it can do." Part of what it can do involves how fast it can do it. Sure I can do xyz on my mac, but in most cases, xyz is much much faster on x86 hardware. Albeit some things exist solely on the mac thru OS X and that experience. However, you just cannot deny that part of buying a computer for something involves how fast you can do that something. With some tasks speed is irrevelant, however some it's definitely not.
Re: Mac on Intel: Marklar
if that's true, then what the heck is apple inc waiting for?
while some cannot afford the expensive apple hardware, they can certainly afford jaguar for the pc
we don't want macs to only be for the ones who "can afford it"
i would definitely put jaguar on my pcs
if that's true, then what the heck is apple inc waiting for?
while some cannot afford the expensive apple hardware, they can certainly afford jaguar for the pc
we don't want macs to only be for the ones who "can afford it"
i would definitely put jaguar on my pcs
Mac on Intel
I believe I've read Apple makes the bulk of its income selling hardware. MacOS X is the software that makes that possible. If Apple permitted standard PCs to run MacOS X, several things would probably happen:
1. Apple hardware sales would initially plummet, killing Apple's revenue stream.
2. The user experience using MacOS X on Intel would be terrible as Apple would then have to deal with the plethora of hardware incompatibilities in the Wintel world.
3. Apple would be seen as a direct competitor to Microsoft, creating the expected Microsoft reaction, and subsequent marketing campaign pointing out those problems and how they work better currently using Windows XP, so why change?
4. The world would then realize that the reason that Apple's products have been so good is that Apple controls both the hardware and the OS, and stop buying the Intel version of MacOS X.
So, would Apple's $4.3B last long enough for this trauma to work its wait out and permit Apple to return to its closed hardware/OS solution?
It's an interesting thought, that of Apple Macs and Intel Macs in the marketplace. Would Microsoft stand by and permit this? Microsoft has never failed to use its monopoly clout to squash/influence competitors in the past, and I don't doubt they would have private talks with software developers would might think about developing software for this new platform. I think we could forget about Office for Mactel, or Office for Mac, for that matter.
A more realistic, if still far out alternative, is that Apple is simply covering its bases by preserving the ability to switch processors, while retaining control of the box. This means replace the PPC with an Intel chip, maintain a Mac ROM, continue to sell an integrated package that's better than a Wintel solution. That probably wouldn't be as compelling a solution as today's PPC-integrated box, but it would allow Apple to continue selling hardware.
I don't think we'll ever see Apple offering the MacOS to the generic Intel world.
I believe I've read Apple makes the bulk of its income selling hardware. MacOS X is the software that makes that possible. If Apple permitted standard PCs to run MacOS X, several things would probably happen:
1. Apple hardware sales would initially plummet, killing Apple's revenue stream.
2. The user experience using MacOS X on Intel would be terrible as Apple would then have to deal with the plethora of hardware incompatibilities in the Wintel world.
3. Apple would be seen as a direct competitor to Microsoft, creating the expected Microsoft reaction, and subsequent marketing campaign pointing out those problems and how they work better currently using Windows XP, so why change?
4. The world would then realize that the reason that Apple's products have been so good is that Apple controls both the hardware and the OS, and stop buying the Intel version of MacOS X.
So, would Apple's $4.3B last long enough for this trauma to work its wait out and permit Apple to return to its closed hardware/OS solution?
It's an interesting thought, that of Apple Macs and Intel Macs in the marketplace. Would Microsoft stand by and permit this? Microsoft has never failed to use its monopoly clout to squash/influence competitors in the past, and I don't doubt they would have private talks with software developers would might think about developing software for this new platform. I think we could forget about Office for Mactel, or Office for Mac, for that matter.
A more realistic, if still far out alternative, is that Apple is simply covering its bases by preserving the ability to switch processors, while retaining control of the box. This means replace the PPC with an Intel chip, maintain a Mac ROM, continue to sell an integrated package that's better than a Wintel solution. That probably wouldn't be as compelling a solution as today's PPC-integrated box, but it would allow Apple to continue selling hardware.
I don't think we'll ever see Apple offering the MacOS to the generic Intel world.
This may or may not be true.
This is a screenie of a PDF of their 3rd Quarter earnings for 02:
Notice how it splits up software and hardware.
But how is it split exactly?
If you were to take this exactly like it sez now, they make about 8% of their income off of software, but which software?
Software sold seperately (copied of jag, FCP, etc) or does that include software pre-installed on all the machines?
Personally, I think it's only for seperately sold software.The numbers just look too small to include all the pre-installed stuff.
If that's true then they make more money selling software than you woul think.
Re: Mac on Intel
this is probably the smartest thing said on this thread.
i'm willing to bet apple has intel-based prototypes, on custom motherboards, that they constantly test on. and if those machines were actually 2-3x as fast as the PPCs (as the MHz ratio leads some people on this site to believe), why wouldn't they switch?
given what dave marsh said, it wouldn't matter if it's Intel, or AMD, or Bob's Chip Consortium, 'cuz Apple would treat is as just another piece in their h/w offering.
let's separate the ideas of "using Intel" and "windows compatible."
THAT said, let's not forget how painful of a process it would be, waiting for all the app vendors to port their code. apple would make it easier for them by offering something like Carbon, but hey, haven't we suffered enough waiting for vendors to move to OSX?
this is probably the smartest thing said on this thread.
i'm willing to bet apple has intel-based prototypes, on custom motherboards, that they constantly test on. and if those machines were actually 2-3x as fast as the PPCs (as the MHz ratio leads some people on this site to believe), why wouldn't they switch?
given what dave marsh said, it wouldn't matter if it's Intel, or AMD, or Bob's Chip Consortium, 'cuz Apple would treat is as just another piece in their h/w offering.
let's separate the ideas of "using Intel" and "windows compatible."
THAT said, let's not forget how painful of a process it would be, waiting for all the app vendors to port their code. apple would make it easier for them by offering something like Carbon, but hey, haven't we suffered enough waiting for vendors to move to OSX?
Darwin is for X86, not Aqua
I just installed Darwin 6.0.2 on a P3 running @ 733 Mhz, and also the same build on a dual 533 MHz G4. The actual installation took twice as much time on the Pentium.
Both OS's had XFree running as the only gui, so I think the real question would be:
WILL AQUA EVER COME TO THE X86?
The Aqua gui is what we all really love, with all the i-Apps.
(I sure hope not!)('')
You can get the installers here:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html
I just installed Darwin 6.0.2 on a P3 running @ 733 Mhz, and also the same build on a dual 533 MHz G4. The actual installation took twice as much time on the Pentium.
Both OS's had XFree running as the only gui, so I think the real question would be:
WILL AQUA EVER COME TO THE X86?
The Aqua gui is what we all really love, with all the i-Apps.
(I sure hope not!)('
')You can get the installers here:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html
Re: Mac on Intel
I see this all the time, and it just makes no sense. Any hard drive I could put in my PC I can put in my mac (besides SATA).
Any CD drive that I could put in a PC I could put in a Mac. True not ALL of them are totally compatible, but in the Windows world, not all cd drives are compatible with all burning programs, etc.
Pretty much all RAM works both with PC and Mac.
Ever heard of monitors not working with a Mac?
3rd party devices are essentially that...3rd PARTY. My Keyspan Digital Media Remote...Apple doesn't make that compatible..Keyspan does. So basically this makes no sense to me...what hardware are you referring to? If the device is a third party device, then it's that company's problem to make it compatible...if it wasn't compatible..then they wouldn't make it for that computer.
This concern is just crap...think about it really. Sure...you might buy a CD drive or some sort and it might not work with Toast, etc....but that's not Apple's fault...and the same infrequent incompatibilities occur on the Window's side of the field as well. Don't tell me that switching to x86 will cause apple more problems then they have now in terms of making devices compatible. Ever see a list of compatible cd drives with iTunes, etc.? Ever see how that list seems to grow with OS updates? It means they are already doing what you say they'd never be able to do. I hope someone understands me.
I see this all the time, and it just makes no sense. Any hard drive I could put in my PC I can put in my mac (besides SATA).
Any CD drive that I could put in a PC I could put in a Mac. True not ALL of them are totally compatible, but in the Windows world, not all cd drives are compatible with all burning programs, etc.
Pretty much all RAM works both with PC and Mac.
Ever heard of monitors not working with a Mac?
3rd party devices are essentially that...3rd PARTY. My Keyspan Digital Media Remote...Apple doesn't make that compatible..Keyspan does. So basically this makes no sense to me...what hardware are you referring to? If the device is a third party device, then it's that company's problem to make it compatible...if it wasn't compatible..then they wouldn't make it for that computer.
This concern is just crap...think about it really. Sure...you might buy a CD drive or some sort and it might not work with Toast, etc....but that's not Apple's fault...and the same infrequent incompatibilities occur on the Window's side of the field as well. Don't tell me that switching to x86 will cause apple more problems then they have now in terms of making devices compatible. Ever see a list of compatible cd drives with iTunes, etc.? Ever see how that list seems to grow with OS updates? It means they are already doing what you say they'd never be able to do. I hope someone understands me.