• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Apple Goes Intel!

D

Donnie27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
5,616
Apple News

So there you go, got your answers! I posted on the other thread that Deerfield was meant to be Itanium Lite with its sites set on Apple, but IBM beat them out.

Donnie27
 
Does thie mean us PC guys will be able to get OSX? That would be tits!!!
 
I have to agree that if I could run the Mac OS on my PC without any problems or performance lose I would probally do it in a heart beat. It would be like getting a whole new OS that could compete with the stuff that Microsoft has besides linux.
 
I suspect that they will use custom chipsets or such, so you can't run it on a cheap homebrew computer. But offcourse I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some sort of hack to circumvent it.
 
so apple, which is going to go to x86? a 20+ year old technology, when they were on powerpc which is from 1994.. still old, but not as old? i figured originally that it just meant they would have intel design some new type of chip for them..

i don't know enough about this stuff though.. time will tell what happens
 
While the details remain to be seen (like how this will affect users like us), I'm sure that this is a good business move on Apple's part. While they may stand to take a hit in their already small market percentage in the next year, they also stand to gain so much more. Think about this from the view of the average Dell purchasing consumer. They already love their iPods. So a competitively priced Apple product will sell wonderfully to that market.
 
so apple, which is going to go to x86? a 20+ year old technology, when they were on powerpc which is from 1994.. still old, but not as old?
Click to expand...

And?

Internal Combustion technology moves a car faster than hybrid gas/electric technology.

Just because technology was introduced a long time ago doesn't mean it hasn't been refined.
 
Intel only? AMD would probably be a better bet right now unless they use the Pentium M. Besides, Intel doesn't have any good 64 bit chips right now. The Mac OS was built for 64bit from the ground up. Oh well, if it's X86 it'll probably instal on an AMD too. I hope they keep the 64bit enhancements. :-/
 
I am curious to Apple's motivation with this.

Intel and AMD are already stepping away from the mhz ratings on chips, going w/ dual core and such. So it's not like the speed ratings are going to mean much in the future.

They aren't going to sell hardware for the masses and allow windows to be sold on it, and they aren't going to allow thier OS to be used on generic hardware.
 
front243 said:
I suspect that they will use custom chipsets or such, so you can't run it on a cheap homebrew computer. But offcourse I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some sort of hack to circumvent it.
Click to expand...

mobiux said:
I am curious to Apple's motivation with this.

They aren't going to sell hardware for the masses and allow windows to be sold on it, and they aren't going to allow thier OS to be used on generic hardware.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that?

HELLO, look at Microsoft!!!! There's a much bigger margin to made on software than hardware. So if they can sell OS's to the millions of people with PC's if would spread out the R&D development costs.... b/c OS are expensive projects...

This could be a HUGE MARKET for Apple. Look at how many PC's are out there.... look at how many people are pissed off with spyware, viruses, etc.. on their PC's. If Apple came up with the right marketing campaign, price point, etc... THEY COULD MAKE A KILLING!!

You all need to realize how small Apple's market share is.... They're more x86's PC's sold in a few days.... (intel and will probably work on AMD PC's tpp) than Apple in a whole year. Besides the HUGE install base.
 
mobiux said:
I am curious to Apple's motivation with this.

Intel and AMD are already stepping away from the mhz ratings on chips, going w/ dual core and such. So it's not like the speed ratings are going to mean much in the future.

They aren't going to sell hardware for the masses and allow windows to be sold on it, and they aren't going to allow thier OS to be used on generic hardware.
Click to expand...

Its progressing.

G5 has moved 200 mhz in the past year and a half. Dual Core is still a ways off. Its not getting cooler to permit a laptop (and they seriously need to drop the G4 there) Its the perfect time to do it before things get too intergrated.
 
You know its only a matter of time until someone gets OSX to run on their home build AMD system. You know it is :)
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Intel only? AMD would probably be a better bet right now unless they use the Pentium M. Besides, Intel doesn't have any good 64 bit chips right now. The Mac OS was built for 64bit from the ground up. Oh well, if it's X86 it'll probably instal on an AMD too. I hope they keep the 64bit enhancements. :-/
Click to expand...

Exactly.

More performance per watt??? Err... no. 100W+ Prescotts are more efficient than the G4/G5???
 
i wouldn't get mac os x, why, microsoft is older now, longhorn looks a lot better than mac os x in my opinion. honest!
 
It'd be fun just to Finally be able to install Mac OS onto say, VMWare, or Dual/Tri boot with Linux/Windows.

It'd be real nice if it does work on PC computers.
 
chrisf6969 said:
Why would they do that?

HELLO, look at Microsoft!!!! There's a much bigger margin to made on software than hardware. So if they can sell OS's to the millions of people with PC's if would spread out the R&D development costs.... b/c OS are expensive projects...

This could be a HUGE MARKET for Apple. Look at how many PC's are out there.... look at how many people are pissed off with spyware, viruses, etc.. on their PC's. If Apple came up with the right marketing campaign, price point, etc... THEY COULD MAKE A KILLING!!

You all need to realize how small Apple's market share is.... They're more x86's PC's sold in a few days.... (intel and will probably work on AMD PC's tpp) than Apple in a whole year. Besides the HUGE install base.
Click to expand...

"Much bigger margin to made" :confused:

anyways, it says that they are going to move to the Intel CPU... says nothing about actually making it so it can run all PC's...

BTW, once an apple OS actually becomes more widespread there will be tons of spywear and adware getting on the new Apple OS's, even more so because there is no real protection set up yet, while windows has been dealing with web garbage for a long time.

Ohh yeah as well theres still the one small problem that alot of stuff still doesnt work with the apple OS... games etc. ALOT of people still want that.
 
andré2005 said:
i wouldn't get mac os x, why, microsoft is older now, longhorn looks a lot better than mac os x in my opinion. honest!
Click to expand...


How do you know what longhorn looks like?
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Intel only? AMD would probably be a better bet right now unless they use the Pentium M. Besides, Intel doesn't have any good 64 bit chips right now. The Mac OS was built for 64bit from the ground up. Oh well, if it's X86 it'll probably instal on an AMD too. I hope they keep the 64bit enhancements. :-/
Click to expand...
Maybe the number of fabs each company owns has something to do with it.. :confused:
 
Yeah, I just read an article that stated the Apple couldn't depend on AMD because AMD didn't have to capability to produce chips in large enough quantities. We'll see what happens when AMD gets more factories going. So, i guess it'll have to just be quantity over quality right now. :/
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Yeah, I just read an article that stated the Apple couldn't depend on AMD because AMD didn't have to capability to produce chips in large enough quantities.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to that article? I need a good laugh.

I think it's pretty obvious why Apple chose Intel over AMD: Intel provides a complete solution for the transition to x86: CPUs, chipsets, motherboard manufacturing if necessary, compilers and other programming tools, etc. AMD has CPUs and an expensive server chipset, but the server chipset doesn't work with commodity CPUs or memory, and lacks features (but it is a great server chipset).

I'm sure the last thing Apple wants in an already difficult transition is to deal with finger pointing which would happen when chipset vendor X blames motherboard vendor Y, and CPU manufacturer A blames compiler maker G. :p
 
pxc said:
Do you have a link to that article? I need a good laugh.

I think it's pretty obvious why Apple chose Intel over AMD: Intel provides a complete solution for the transition to x86: CPUs, chipsets, motherboard manufacturing if necessary, compilers and other programming tools, etc. AMD has CPUs and an expensive server chipset, but the server chipset doesn't work with commodity CPUs or memory, and lacks features (but it is a great server chipset).

I'm sure the last thing Apple wants in an already difficult transition is to deal with finger pointing which would happen when chipset vendor X blames motherboard vendor Y, and CPU manufacturer A blames compiler maker G. :p
Click to expand...


Here you go, it was on the HardOCP Front page.

AMD Disappointed By Apple – Intel?
While it hasn’t even been confirmed yet, CoolTechZone talks about how AMD seems to be down on its luck. Are things all that bad for AMD?

In addition to the Apple news, AMD continues to strike out many of the world’s largest PC OEMs, such as Dell. If the Apple news is true, this would come as a yet another financial hit to AMD and its strategies. Unfortunately for AMD, it is trapped in a vicious circle of supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Link
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
 
abudhu said:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
Click to expand...
Typical lame Gundeep Hora "article." It's not even funny... it's just sad. Apple isn't going to be using P4s. The timeframe and especially the "performance per watt" slide points towards the P-M or derivatives, probably Yonah. There should be no negatives for Yonah (dual core): it's cool, cheap to manufacture and very, very fast.

AMD could have easily produced the CPUs for Apple, but that's not the only requirement. See above for what AMD can't provide.
 
pxc said:
Typical lame Gundeep Hora "article." It's not even funny... it's just sad. Apple isn't going to be using P4s. The timeframe and especially the "performance per watt" slide points towards the P-M or derivatives, probably Yonah. There should be no negatives for Yonah (dual core): it's cool, cheap to manufacture and very, very fast.

AMD could have easily produced the CPUs for Apple, but that's not the only requirement. See above for what AMD can't provide.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its gotta be yonah.
 
Please keep in mind, I'm just a messenger :) Hehe.

Seriously, AMD just got the shaft is all. But hell we all love them anyways. *Hugs AMD 64 Chip*
 
pxc said:
AMD could have easily produced the CPUs for Apple, but that's not the only requirement. See above for what AMD can't provide.
Click to expand...

you dont have much of a clue do you? AMD can barely supply enough CPUs for themselves. they dont have the money to build enough fabs to even supply themselves - though theyre trying to work on that.
 
perplex said:
you dont have much of a clue do you? AMD can barely supply enough CPUs for themselves. they dont have the money to build enough fabs to even supply themselves - though theyre trying to work on that.
Click to expand...
LOL, was I talking to you?

AMD has had shortages of particular models, but they hardly sell out everything they produce. Do you happen to know the manufacturing capacity of fab 30? I didn't think so. It's 22,000 wafer starts per month, a capacity of almost 30 million CPUs per year (@ a low yield estimate of ~115 usable CPUs per wafer). How many CPUs does AMD sell per year now? A lot less than 30 million. AMD has another fab (36) that is starting up this year for tests and is supposed to be fully operational by 2007.

Clueless indeed. :rolleyes:

AMD wasn't in the running not because of capacity, but because they can't support a full transition like Intel can.
 
pxc said:
LOL, was I talking to you?

AMD has had shortages of particular models, but they hardly sell out everything they produce. Do you happen to know the manufacturing capacity of fab 30? I didn't think so. It's 22,000 wafer starts per month, a capacity of almost 30 million CPUs per year (@ a low yield estimate of ~115 usable CPUs per wafer). How many CPUs does AMD sell per year now? A lot less than 30 million. AMD has another fab (36) that is starting up this year for tests and is supposed to be fully operational by 2007.

Clueless indeed. :rolleyes:

AMD wasn't in the running not because of capacity, but because they can't support a full transition like Intel can.
Click to expand...

Well I was about to post and read what you and Chris said, you guys nailed it! The estimates for computer processors is 200 million for 2005, ( alittle over 175 million last year) Intel still makes most or 81.7 of those. The nice thing about even numbers are even ding-bats get a bette picture. They can just say Intel expects to build about 163.4 million Processors, AMD about 33 million and the rest and so on. Sure Apple only had 1.8% but that's down from 2.3%:)

As I told someone on another forum, than goodness Intel didn't go the low yield Hammer Route, we wouldn't be able to afford them if they had. Apple surely must be looking at Conroe or Memrom whatever the heck they're called. Dothan and Yonah will leave their marks when all is said and done. Their weakness though are Streaming apps. Since Apple love to push streaming that seems to Contradict picking Pentium M. The newer follow on PMs must correct this.

My comment about Deerfield was meant as it competed against the IBM 970 to power the G5. There were comments that Apple worked on x86 versions of OSX right from the start. If Intel can add Yamhill, then X86-64 to Netburst, the Apple's SIMD's can be added as well! Apple and Intel has to know something we don't!

AMD could easily supply the 4.5 to 6 million Processors Apple would need by the way. The problem is, could they do it for lower price? They were down last year because IBM had similar problems to AMD's.

Donnie27
 
andré2005 said:
click here
Click to expand...


No thanks.

Thats not what longhorn is going to look like. Longhorn is a LONG ways off, no pun intended.

That link will either be a version of XP skinned, or a pic of Longhorn in its premature Alpha stages, neither is even close enough to draw conclusions on what the release will look like. :rolleyes:
 
Big Worm said:
No thanks.

Thats not what longhorn is going to look like. Longhorn is a LONG ways off, no pun intended.

That link will either be a version of XP skinned, or a pic of Longhorn in its premature Alpha stages, neither is even close enough to draw conclusions on what the release will look like. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well there are longhorn alpha releases you can find. They do look like that, I installed it on VMWARE to play around. You are correct in the alphaness, but he is also correct in knowing what it looks like, if you were to accept that he was talking about Longhorn Alpha that is. :-P

However, granted...my version of Longhorn on VMWare doesn't quite look like that...
 
abudhu said:
Well there are longhorn alpha releases you can find. They do look like that, I installed it on VMWARE to play around. You are correct in the alphaness, but he is also correct in knowing what it looks like, if you were to accept that he was talking about Longhorn Alpha that is. :-P

However, granted...my version of Longhorn on VMWare doesn't quite look like that...
Click to expand...

Please explain that one more time.

Are you arguing the fact that the Longhorn realease will look like what he posted... Or are you arguing that I specifically said that the Alpha does not look like that. OR are you posting for the sake of your post count.

Please... I am eagerly waiting your response.
 
Big Worm said:
Please explain that one more time.

Are you arguing the fact that the Longhorn realease will look like what he posted... Or are you arguing that I specifically said that the Alpha does not look like that. OR are you posting for the sake of your post count.

Please... I am eagerly waiting your response.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the un-needed sarcasam. I merely put forth the point that HE does in fact know what Longhorn looks like. Granted, he knows only want the ALPHA looks like. You can find out for yourself, but finding a Longhorn Alpha Release to download.

However, it could be very well argued that Longhorn will look remarkably similar to what the Alpha Releases look like. I remember seeing screens out Win XP's *Gross* Startup menu and praying that wouldn't be it. Loe-and-Behold, thats what it turned out to be. I'm talking about the wider version, as opposed to the classic startup menu display.
 
scottatwittenberg said:
so apple, which is going to go to x86? a 20+ year old technology....
Click to expand...
While I grant that the basic architecture is 20+ years old, that's not what "kills" the x86 architecture on the PC. What makes the PC look "crappier" than a Mac is that it also has BIOS architecture and old/antiquated backwards-compatibility issues. Does anyone see PS/2 ports or RS-232 on a Mac. No, sir!

I'm fully certain that Apple will work with Intel and design the architecture so that the machines operate pretty much as they do today with their being no real BIOS per-se. And, of course, Intel will be able to throw off the yoke of supporting the older architectures.

So, I think that x86 Macs will be wonderful, though I don't think we'll be seeing MacOS on a standard off-the-shelf PC (unless you count Darwin).
 
I hate how people say Windows sucks balls... look at it like this.

If MacOS was as widely used, or even Linux for that matter, do you really think they would be as stable as they are now? Fuck no. Pretty much EVERYTHING is made to effect Windows users, which is why Max and Linux people arent effected by much of anything.For what Windows is, it is pretty damn stable, you just have to take precautions.
 
Apple's do have a bios. but it is not like what PC's ahve. On top of the bios, they have a firmware running called macs bugs. it's tough to get to, i think you need a special cd to get there. i have only done it once, i killed the computer (by accident, stupid mac os 7.6) and when the machine rebooted it went straight to macs bugs. My comp sci teacher (in HS) looked like she took a shit in her pants (which was entirely possible cause she was always shitting in her old lady diapers all day) .


But yes apple's do ahve a bios that is controlled throught the macs bugs firmware.
 
abudhu said:
Thanks for the un-needed sarcasam. I merely put forth the point that HE does in fact know what Longhorn looks like. Granted, he knows only want the ALPHA looks like. You can find out for yourself, but finding a Longhorn Alpha Release to download.

However, it could be very well argued that Longhorn will look remarkably similar to what the Alpha Releases look like. I remember seeing screens out Win XP's *Gross* Startup menu and praying that wouldn't be it. Loe-and-Behold, thats what it turned out to be. I'm talking about the wider version, as opposed to the classic startup menu display.
Click to expand...

The sarcasm is there because there is really no point to your previous post.

I already know what the Alpha release looks like, you think I have never looked at the alpha screenshots?

And he said in a nutshell that IS going to look like Longhorn. That is NOT what Longhorn will look like in the end. You remember the *final* beta versions of winXP as the *early* alpha versions did not look like that.

So lets sum up this whole situation your arguing with me.

- He says he knows what Longhorn will look like.
- I ask him how will he know what it will look like..
- He posts pics of early alpha screenshots = hardly what it will look like in the end as its only an XP GUI they have on hand.
- I let him know that.
- You chime in with "duuuurrrr Hes right that what Longhorn looks like, thats what the ALPHA will look like!!!11"
- I toss in some sarcasm and in a nut shell tell you "no shit quincy, thanks for the enlightenment"

So next time feel free to alert me on things that I had obviously posted just before you, acting like I have no clue what the stupid alpha release will look like.

And once more to clarify: That is the alpha, not even the beta release for god sakes, thinking that will be what the final version will look like is just plain stupid. Just because the ending beta releases of XP were remotely similar to the nearing final release DOES NOT mean that the early *alpha* realeases of Longhorn will resemble the distant final release of Longhorn.

To the OP, sorry for the derailment.
 
Big Worm said:
The sarcasm is there because there is really no point to your previous post.

I already know what the Alpha release looks like, you think I have never looked at the alpha screenshots?

And he said in a nutshell that IS going to look like Longhorn. That is NOT what Longhorn will look like in the end. You remember the *final* beta versions of winXP as the *early* alpha versions did not look like that.

So lets sum up this whole situation your arguing with me.

- He says he knows what Longhorn will look like.
- I ask him how will he know what it will look like..
- He posts pics of early alpha screenshots = hardly what it will look like in the end as its only an XP GUI they have on hand.
- I let him know that.
- You chime in with "duuuurrrr Hes right that what Longhorn looks like, thats what the ALPHA will look like!!!11"
- I toss in some sarcasm and in a nut shell tell you "no shit quincy, thanks for the enlightenment"

So next time feel free to alert me on things that I had obviously posted just before you, acting like I have no clue what the stupid alpha release will look like.

And once more to clarify: That is the alpha, not even the beta release for god sakes, thinking that will be what the final version will look like is just plain stupid. Just because the ending beta releases of XP were remotely similar to the nearing final release DOES NOT mean that the early *alpha* realeases of Longhorn will resemble the distant final release of Longhorn.

To the OP, sorry for the derailment.
Click to expand...

Yup! Many things will changed between Alpha and Beta, RC and etc...... Adding Longhorn to this is not a thread crap though. It will be important as folks choose to run Longhorn or MAC OS on their none Mac Intel systems.

Donnie27
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top