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

stevewm said:
Apple is using a x86 processor. Not the x86 ISA. The term x86 ISA encompasses all of the standards that the platform conforms to. This means standard ports, hardware to software interfaces, boot processes, partitioning schemes, etc....

Just because you are using a x86 processor does not mean you have to use the x86 ISA! I'll bet Apple's x86 processor machines are still using OpenFirmware and are probably still compatible with all Mac PCI/AGP cards.

Microsoft done something very similar with the XBox. It uses a x86 processor, but everything else is completely different.

You probably will eventually be able to run OS X x86 on standard PCs, but only under a virtual machine that emulates OpenFirmware and any other HW differences. Though it should run close to native speed since the processor is the same :D
Click to expand...

You do realize that ISA stands for Instruction Set Architecture, which is directly related to the processor. Yes, Apple will make the PC their own, like the firmware. But other things are OS related, like partitions...
 
Steve Jobs, 2004: "PowerPC is superior to Intel architecture."

Steve Jobs, 2005: "We're switching to Intel architecture."

Hope you like that plate of crow, Steve-O.

Don't let this get you down, everyone. What this means is that Apple will be able to produce a lower-cost system while still making a profit. Intel can fabricate at a way lower bottom line than IBM ever could, and this just means nothing but good things for us consumers.

Besides, a Pentium M PowerBook will totally be "TEH WINNAR" in terms of function as well as form, even moreso than it already is. Imagine that at a price point that kicks the shit out of any other comparable laptops out there, and all I can say is that I'm excited (in the "mahogany" sense).
 
I at least hope that Intel will shorten their pipelines so it's not just the processor raising gigahertz and getting hotter with no substancial increase. The heat to performance quote is stupid, that he says in his keynote, as the fan cooled G5s barely run and the processor never hits its 64º C limit, which most P4s run at.
 
illgiveumorality said:
I at least hope that Intel will shorten their pipelines so it's not just the processor raising gigahertz and getting hotter with no substancial increase. The heat to performance quote is stupid, that he says in his keynote, as the fan cooled G5s barely run and the processor never hits its 64º C limit, which most P4s run at.
Click to expand...

That's what the Pentium M is and the follow ups follow the same pattern, Dothan, Yonah, etc...
 
Im kinda scared whats going to happen to macs when they make the transition to intels. Wasent it just a couple of years ago when the G5's first came out that apple was saying how much faster the g5 was than the intel processors? remember those graphs that they had on their site Check this page out . Now apple, which is it, is the P4 faster, or is the PPC970 (G5) faster? If its the P4, does that mean all the marketing done from 2 years ago to now was a complete lie? or is apple going to start making computers that are slower than their current line?

this has got to be a hard pill for apple fan***'s to swalllow, i really feel bad for them
 
Didn't Jobs just kill any Apple 'underdoggedness' that existed?

At least partnering with AMD would have had some of that feel. Chipzilla gets no sympathy.
 
well... as you all know... the switch is because their fall through with motorola... I dont think they really have a choice.
 
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top

"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

So the new Intel Macs are just standard PC's capable of running Windows.

"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

So then the new Intel Macs must have a chip of some sort that OSX will search for on bootup to verify it's an Apple/Intel Mac. But standard enough for Windows to run on it.
I'm sure we'll be seeing a patch to allow OSX to run on any PC even before it's release next June.
 
Just some thoughts:

Apple will keep making hardware, the OS will be tied to it. You won't see a boxed version of OS X for any old x86 PC, legally anyways :p

I think this will be a good move, Apple has announced it early enough for developers to come around.

From a marketing stand point, the Ghz issue won't be a problem anymore. Most average joe n00bs buy PC's on Ghz ratings IMO. I can't count how many times I've heard that "Mac's are slow, look at the clock speed".

Choosing Intel was a decent move. You have solid desktop and mobile chps to choose from.

One negative I see: I hope this doesn't kill there hardware sales up to the switch point with people thinking it's not worth buying a G4/G5 Mac when the Intel Mac's are right around the corner.

Do you guys think we'll see those "Intel Inside" logo's on future Mac's? :D
 
Archer75 said:
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top

"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

So the new Intel Macs are just standard PC's capable of running Windows.

"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

So then the new Intel Macs must have a chip of some sort that OSX will search for on bootup to verify it's an Apple/Intel Mac. But standard enough for Windows to run on it.
I'm sure we'll be seeing a patch to allow OSX to run on any PC even before it's release next June.
Click to expand...


Imagine the dual boot possibility's. Or Apple having some way to run XP or Windows or whatever on top of OS X!
 
I think this is one of 2 things. It is either the best thing apple have ever done, or the worst. It all depends on how apple does it. I think it is a great idea if apple allows it to still run on off the shelf PC hardware. It doesn't matter what he was running it on today, that can change by next year. I say this because there are many people like me who would go out and buy OSX and have a dual boot system. Sure they can still make their own systems and people will buy them. The average apple user will like the idea of buying an apple computer since they know it will be optimized for OSX. Just don't shut out everyone else.

It is the worst idea if apple locks down the hardware. They could simply make the OS look for certain hardware or a certain BIOS that is only on apple systems. This would further become a bad idea if they plan to make most of their money off of the hardware sales and not the OS. Closing the hardware will just act as a challenge for people to crack. Xbox comes to mind. They locked down the hdd, BIOS, and only let it run signed code. That only worked for so long and then the mod chips came. It would be only time before cracked versions of the OS, or some other hardware mod comes along that allows you to run OSX on whatever you want anyway.

I personally can't wait until they release this. I am glad that Steve Jobs finally realized that IBM is not their friend and that yes the x86 platform is better than PPC. I have never like PPC, and the first thing that made me see that the PPC platform was in real trouble was when I saw they were forced to liquid cool some of the G5s. The only question is how well will it run on my Athlon64 system?
 
ramuman said:
The interesting thing will be seeing how Mac zealots who bashed Intel/AMD/x86 and how they'll take to it.
Click to expand...


Those zealots are going to have to start brushing up on their "CISC is better than RISC" arguments now.
:p
 
guys, this does NOT mean you can run the newer Mac OS's on older PC hardware...they are still going to use a great deal of propritary components...just because the CPU will be intel doesn't mean you can start installing OSX on old hardware...
 
GreNME said:
Don't let this get you down, everyone. What this means is that Apple will be able to produce a lower-cost system while still making a profit. Intel can fabricate at a way lower bottom line than IBM ever could, and this just means nothing but good things for us consumers.
Click to expand...


Anybody think that prices will actually be lower for us? Apple has always been good at charging high prices for commodity hardware (just look at how much they charge for a standard 1GB DIMM for a mac mini!)

The main thing I'm looking forward to is a Pentium-M powered mac mini.
 
I was just thinking about what this will do for gaming, correct me if im wrong but hasnt the largest problem with porting games to mac been the PPC. If the chips are x86, wouldnt developers just need to throw in an OS X installer (and since OS X is so close to BSD and *nix, mayb a *nix installer aswell, but thats just being hopefull). This could work out well for apple, now they have the average joe ghz marketing, and possibly gaming aswell.
 
zerogt86 said:
I was just thinking about what this will do for gaming, correct me if im wrong but hasnt the largest problem with porting games to mac been the PPC. If the chips are x86, wouldnt developers just need to throw in an OS X installer (and since OS X is so close to BSD and *nix, mayb a *nix installer aswell, but thats just being hopefull). This could work out well for apple, now they have the average joe ghz marketing, and possibly gaming aswell.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. This has HUGE implications for gamers. Since an Apple game will be BeOS and x86, it'll easily run on *nix.

Personally, i'm looking forward to a Pentium M based Powerbook. That will rule. :D
 
mrweasel said:
I'll just keep the 20" widescreen part
Click to expand...
Go 2405FPW my friend.

Anyways, I am marching down to the apple store a little later, because there was this guy there that was telling me why G5s are so much better than Intel, and his salesman mumbojumbo did get me trapped...well now ive got ammo, and its kick ass. :)

I fucking hate apple. :)
 
Alright, skipping the intel apple fanperson rhetoric about taking it up the ass because apple’s moving to intel… let’s look at this reasonably.

If its the P4, does that mean all the marketing done from 2 years ago to now was a complete lie?
Click to expand...

the first P4’s had higher clocks but were, for all intents and purposes, slower then the P3’s they directly replaced, did this indicate intel was lying? No, it’s marketing jargon.

One negative I see: I hope this doesn't kill there hardware sales up to the switch point with people thinking it's not worth buying a G4/G5 Mac when the Intel Mac's are right around the corner.
Click to expand...

sadly it will, as an apple authorized distributor I can honestly tell you all my big customers stopped all purchasing the moment the g5 was announced, and I had a stagnant inventory of G4s for months.

The only question is how well will it run on my Athlon64 system?
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but are we seeing ANY indication we’ll be able to just purchase OSX and install it on any x86 machine? Erm no.

Alright, and the move for intel over amd, seems to make sense as they’ll never need to worry about any problems with yields and the like and why not just join forces with the industry leader if you’re going to attempt to take on the likes of dell and Microsoft (which is what apple is firmly squaring itself up for). Also… maybe intel will find a market for it’s dualcore and forthcoming quadcore chips as apple fanpeeps like myself are well accustomed to paying through the nose… for G5s… the marketing spin is going to be pretty interesting as mentioned by a bunch of you… but I’ve got one major fear..

Benchmarks.

Apple has no excuses If their OS isn’t as ‘fast’ as XP in terms of productivity apps when they’re running on the same CPU (realistically that is). On the flip side, if OSX is, as we’ve always seemed to belive, a much better OS in terms of actual code and feel then hell, it could be faster then XP and prettier and that would just be great for all those faux real world benchmark types.

-esr
 
Maybe this will make Dell mad at Intel and they will start selling AMD's.
 
hey how come everybody says that Apple ditches IBM, maybe its vice versa since IBM has a lot of other chips to produce and supply-demand situation is not favoring Apple from IBM's perspective. IBM might rather produce chips for Xbox 360 and Sony PS3 than for Apple's since they are likely to make more money on these. Overall only 1.8% of the market is Apple's and the volume of processors is not a lot.
 
Me thinks everything might be a variation of the Pentium M platform...isn't that where Intel was heading anyway?
 
IMO it's a great thing if:
1.) They are able to ship a retail X86 version of "Leopard" at launch.
2.) Hardware makers (or more probable Apple) have OS X drivers ready for a wide variety of "off the shelf" PC hardware.
3.) This move increases Dev and Consumer market share.

Now most of that steems from my desire to build my own Mac but using dual cored Opterons with SLI. :D
 
Thud said:
Anybody think that prices will actually be lower for us? Apple has always been good at charging high prices for commodity hardware (just look at how much they charge for a standard 1GB DIMM for a mac mini!)

The main thing I'm looking forward to is a Pentium-M powered mac mini.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think this will allow Apple to lower their price point. Will this mean that they'll take that initiative? They'd better at least think about it, because the numbers from the Mac Mini alone should be a damn good indicator that people will buy it in droves if the price is right.

Thud said:
Those zealots are going to have to start brushing up on their "CISC is better than RISC" arguments now.
:p
Click to expand...
Actually, the whole CISC/RISC difference is so nominal now that even current x86 offerings have RISC underpinings. It would be a non-starter argument to begin with. The only major difference is the Altivec.
 
This might actually lead our school to purchase more Macs in the future. We've always had to purchase enough PCs and Macs to fill 1 classroom each. But if we could legally get Windows working on Apple's new computers, it would afford us way more flexibility.

We'd just need to figure out what keyboard we'd use. Maybe someone will come out with a cross-platform keyboard with the correct labeling so we won't have to paint the keys ourselves :)
 
Archer75 said:
So the new Intel Macs are just standard PC's capable of running Windows.

"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
Click to expand...
Well from what I remember the current X86 ports are running on standard off the shelf PCs (probably Intel boards) or atleasts that what I remember hearing. I take the comments to mean that you won't see another OEM (like Dell) selling "Apple Macs" or "Dell Macs."
 
If i can get a 2 button mouse and a system thats not 5k and more like 900...then maybe...i will try a mac...then again...it all depends on the mouse :D
 
Thud said:
Those zealots are going to have to start brushing up on their "CISC is better than RISC" arguments now.
:p
Click to expand...

Not really, since both sides have already adopted a lot of each others traits. (Intel and AMD chips are generally considered to be internally RISC-based.) The G5 supports out of order execution, something that is mainly found on CISC machines. ;)

This totally sucks that AMD was completely cut out of the loop!
 
I like to poke fun of Apple as much as the next guy, not to be mean spirited, but I do give them a hard time to get a laugh now and again when I am doing the news.

Having said that, I think IBM screwed Apple one too many times. Steve Jobs announced the 3GHz PPC over 24 months ago. IBM has yet to hit the mark, and I am sure...even though it wasn't said publicly...that had to chap Apple's ass.

I think this is a good move all the way around for Apple, I am sure there will be naysayers but I think this will be good for Apple.
 
Josh_B said:
Not really, since both sides have already adopted a lot of each others traits. (Intel and AMD chips are generally considered to be internally RISC-based.) The G5 supports out of order execution, something that is mainly found on CISC machines. ;)

This totally sucks that AMD was completely cut out of the loop!
Click to expand...

Apple probably likes Intel chips for their DRM crap, and I think more importantly, Intel's got PM.

Notice how long it has been since a MAJOR upgrade in the Powerbook line? Would it be a big surprise if Apple were to introduce a dual-core Yonah(sic) Powerbook next year??

<drool>

At any rate, from a pure power/wattage ratio perspective, CURRENTLY AMD is better, who knows what's gonna happen in a year or 2? Granted chances are AMD will still have a slight lead, but probably not sufficient enough for Apple to ditch the overall industry leader by a wide margin.

Personally I think going forward Apple has a better chance by being a PURE OS company than trying so hard to differentiate themselves from a hardware perspective, cuz essentially, they REALLY aren't any different now. lol On the other hand, look at their OS: Apple users are fanatic about OSX, and I'd say a big majority of Windows users either like osx, facinated by it, or secretly in love with it even though they detest Apple's marketing ploys and hardwares. One thing for sure: people do NOT like Windows! haha

I've used both and I have to say that if Apple were to offer OSX for any Intel system, I'd definitely give it a try! I'm sure so would a LOT of other people! More alternatives to Windows is always welcome, especially in such a slick package.

It will definitely get interesting...

cheers,

yass
 
GreNME said:
Actually, the whole CISC/RISC difference is so nominal now that even current x86 offerings have RISC underpinings. It would be a non-starter argument to begin with. The only major difference is the Altivec.
Click to expand...


Try to convince Apple Marketing of that.. prior to today, anyway.
 
Get your parka right here folks. We got a blizzard coming that will strip all thoughts of global warming from your mind. Satan already bought his. ;-)
 
I am so glad I didnt waste my money on a Dual G5 system. HAHA they are already dated. Despite all the "Compatability" talk. w00t. So I will keep my iBook G4 until Mac updates their line with intel CPUs then i can throw this one away.
 
If i can get a 2 button mouse and a system thats not 5k and more like 900...then maybe...i will try a mac...then again...it all depends on the mouse
Click to expand...

hrm... $900... like a mini with a gig of ram and a mx1000? lmao. done.

I am so glad I didnt waste my money on a Dual G5 system. HAHA they are already dated.
Click to expand...

damn straight! The transition won't be done for two full years, a lifetime in the computer world, i definately feel like my dual g5 powermac is soo dated and damn if it's soo very slow compared to the p4 3.2 i use at work... wait... no... it's a hell of a lot faster and wait... two full years... yeah... paper releases definately = dated O-o.

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