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

Porting apps will be easier.


Games are a completely different story, however.

The big deal with games will be that, without openfirmware and with an ACPI BIOS, PC graphics cards with me mac-x86 compatible! YIPPIE!!!

the bad news is almost all games are written for DirectX. Might as well be greek. MS controls directx, and its their strangehold. They won't make it easy to get away from it.
 
starbuck8968 said:
That's what the Pentium M is and the follow ups follow the same pattern, Dothan, Yonah, etc...
Click to expand...

Well, as was already stated, we already knew OSX was being compiled for x86.

Now, here are some more interesting tidbits to take into account. Computex, just a week or so ago. Intel PAID AOpen to build a Mac Mini clone, using the PentiumM processor. Coincidence? I think not.

Now, from what Jobs said, about performance per watt. I think everyone just assumes that the IntelMac will be using the P4. Think about the timeline here for the conversion. 2006. What is slated on Intel's roadmap for 2006? Dualcore, 64bit, SSE3 supported, PentiumM, at much higher clockspeeds.

I tend to think that the push will go towards this shorter pipelined processor. I saw this coming from miles away. After hearing about AOpen's clone, I was pretty sure it was a done deal, after hearing the rumors of the switch, I was 100% sure it was going to happen. Not a huge surprise.

Now, on a sidenote. I am also pretty sure, at least in the beginning, that Apple will only have OSX running on their proprietary hardware. This is the perfect opportunity for Apple to put together the "perfect" package, or lower cost hardware, with far superior software, much like the iPod line. Now, if/when Apple figures out how to get WinApps to run natively in OSX, I may consider making the switch, just for a clean, stable machine. Who knows, it could happen.

Or, as everyone always says... Apple is going to fail. I don't think this is the case.

And, in ending... I was REALLY hoping that Apple would determine a way to use the Cell processor. It would have made the machine a truly audio/visual powerhouse, versus anything else. Screw Altivec, screw SSE(1,2,3), have true vector units surrounding a PPC core. Ah well. Pipedreaming is always fun.

My $0.02
 
Methodical said:
the bad news is almost all games are written for DirectX. Might as well be greek. MS controls directx, and its their strangehold. They won't make it easy to get away from it.
Click to expand...

Back to OpenGL we go...
 
I don't really follow these kind of aspects of computers that much but it seems like the only move for apple. For those complaining about apple selling out or what-not a g5 notebook line was no where in the near future, and the g5 was pretty much topped out, do you want to wait a year for a boost to 2.9ghz?
I was thinking yesterday about saving up this summer to get a powerbook, but now I might just wait, or maybe now I'll be able to pick up a cheap used g4 pb.

does this mean gaming will be worth-while on a mac now?
 
starbuck8968 said:
Breaking news, Apple is licensing DirectX!
And Duke Nukem Forever will be a launch title!
Click to expand...

No no no... It's

The Red Sox will win the world series...

and

We will find out who Deep Throat is.
 
I wonder if Microsoft has been secretly porting every version of Windows to PowerPC.

You know, just in case.
 
dan johnson said:
I wonder if Microsoft has been secretly porting every version of Windows to PowerPC.

You know, just in case.
Click to expand...


They already had Windows NT4 for the PowerPC (along with the DEC Alpha chips) but dropped PowerPC support for Windows 2000.
 
There's one fact that keeps popping up and needs to be addressed. Using an intel chip doesn't mean it's fully compatible with the PC architecture. It's very simple to modify other parts of the hardware and make it a proprietary system. Sure, it's possible that there won't be any hardware differences between the x86 macs and an off-the-shelf PC, but throughout Apple's history they've preferred having as much control over their hardware as possible.

Also, the "CISC is better than RISC" comment is cute, but I'd hope that everyone realizes that CISC processors are dead. Today's CPUs are RISC processors that can decode a CISC instruction set.
 
Thud said:
They already had Windows NT4 for the PowerPC (along with the DEC Alpha chips) but dropped PowerPC support for Windows 2000.
Click to expand...

I have a copy of Win2K for Alpha, which was never released. It was fun working for Compaq, right after they bought DEC
 
Sandman said:
There's one fact that keeps popping up and needs to be addressed. Using an intel chip doesn't mean it's fully compatible with the PC architecture. It's very simple to modify other parts of the hardware and make it a proprietary system. Sure, it's possible that there won't be any hardware differences between the x86 macs and an off-the-shelf PC, but throughout Apple's history they've preferred having as much control over their hardware as possible.

Also, the "CISC is better than RISC" comment is cute, but I'd hope that everyone realizes that CISC processors are dead. Today's CPUs are RISC processors that can decode a CISC instruction set.
Click to expand...

Yeah, change the BIOS, done. Proprietary. They could add a LOT of useful features to the BIOS as well, and gain even more customers. I know Intel is pushing added features, but let's admit it. Apple has the clout/balls to do it. IT professionals could be rejoicing everywhere, with remote access to a PC through the BIOS (as long as it is secure).
 
Today in hell, a fridgid -100C, in other news the Red Sox won the World Series, Deep Throat has been revealed, Microsoft switches to PowerPC for its gaming platform, and Apple switches to x86 for its computer platform.

Later this year, Duke Nukem Forever will be released, along with a game using the Doom3 engine that is actually playable online!
 
h3llphyre said:
Yeah, change the BIOS, done. Proprietary. They could add a LOT of useful features to the BIOS as well, and gain even more customers. I know Intel is pushing added features, but let's admit it. Apple has the clout/balls to do it. IT professionals could be rejoicing everywhere, with remote access to a PC through the BIOS (as long as it is secure).
Click to expand...


What does Intel have to do with BIOS? PC motherboard manufacturers can do whatever they want with their BIOS. Apple can do whatever they want, as long as 1) it still works with the x86 instruction set, and 2) it still works with their OS.
 
Dew said:
Today in hell, a fridgid -100C, in other news the Red Sox won the World Series, Deep Throat has been revealed, Microsoft switches to PowerPC for its gaming platform, and Apple switches to x86 for its computer platform.

Later this year, Duke Nukem Forever will be released, along with a game using the Doom3 engine that is actually playable online!
Click to expand...

Welcome to 6 posts ago.
 
Thud said:
What does Intel have to do with BIOS? PC motherboard manufacturers can do whatever they want with their BIOS. Apple can do whatever they want, as long as 1) it still works with the x86 instruction set, and 2) it still works with their OS.
Click to expand...

If you don't know, it doesn't matter. The CPU makes a difference with a BIOS... Guess I am just biased, as I have been dealing with "specialty" BIOS vendors at work, that are doing some VERY interesting stuff.
 
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.
 
Brett13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A far superior operating system, that can actually compete with Windows. Linux hasn't done this, because your average putertard can't use it. OSX isn't like this. Bravo.

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.
Click to expand...

Why, Apple can still use motherboards from large names, like Asus, Abit, Gigabyte, etc. A simple custom BIOS can lock down the hardware.

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.
Click to expand...

um, dualcore P4's.

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)
Click to expand...

Scope out Intel's roadmap. 64bit PentiumMs in early 2006. Now refer to Jobs' timeline.

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.
Click to expand...

End of the day, the current crop of x86 CPUs outperformed the PPC CPUs.

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)
Click to expand...

Again, a simple custom BIOS will fix that problem. Sure, someone *may* be able to hack it to get it to work, but your average Joe won't be doing this. It is illegal, much like downloading MP3's, ripping DVDs, and will be dealt with hopefully better.

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.
Click to expand...

IBM's new baby is the Cell processor. I was hoping Apple would take this route, albeit, MUCH more difficult.


Overall, I laugh at the lack of knowledge of computers, by MOST of the Mac users.
 
Brett13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, it'll be a tough one for apple. Apple has the advantage of a superb OS and closed platform.. Microsoft has marketshare and size.

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.
Click to expand...

I dont see this one. Apple is typically on the forefront of new tech, except now it'll be even easier on a bigger platform. Apple puts extra money in that other manufacturers...I have a feeling apple will always be first on "for sure" technology. I think the odds of apple using OEM x86 motherboards are ZILCH. Apple will continue to build their own mobos in their own formfactors.


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.
Click to expand...

the x86-based macs won't use current P4 cores. They will use next-generation dual and quad-cores based on the Pentium M.

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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except that IBM didn't spend the 3 billion for apple. PPC is a much better archetecture, and that is reflected in the size of the G5 core. 66mm. Thats tiny. equivalent performance for that size core is difficult in the x86 world, but the money saved by a small core is negated by the very small number of cores produced. The fishkill plant is maxed out, and has been for a while. it's got a bright future with Cell and xbox2 processor being made there.
 
Brett13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

None. Apple will sell on the points they always have. The user interface and the total solution.

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.
Click to expand...

Considering that apple will be using standard PC parts for the most part, this is doubtful. More than likely the only component that will make a Mac a Mac in the future will be the motherboard.

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.
Click to expand...

Pentium D is available TODAY and it is dual core.

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)
Click to expand...

Pentium 6xx series is all 64bit. Pentium D series is 64bit. Pentium M will be transitioning to 64bit in the future.

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.
Click to expand...

From a developers point(assembly language), yes it is. From a desktop end user stand point there is little to no difference.

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)
Click to expand...

I'm sure Apple has no doubt someone will hack OSX to run on other hardware. Their primary market is the people willing to actually buy. Most of those who hack it will either have never bought anyways or will enjoy it so much that they end up buying it.

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.
Click to expand...

Apple accounts for 1.8% of Fishkill. I seriously doubt IBM cares, especially since they will be doing all three next gen consoles.


I am personally excited as this will eventually mean(Thanks to projects like Cedega/WINE) that I can have MacOS and all my games. :)
 
Methodical said:
Yep, it'll be a tough one for apple. Apple has the advantage of a superb OS and closed platform.. Microsoft has marketshare and size.
Click to expand...

I think they can definately take on MS with OSX. I'd switch over... If I could put it on my homebuilt system.



I dont see this one. Apple is typically on the forefront of new tech, except now it'll be even easier on a bigger platform. Apple puts extra money in that other manufacturers...I have a feeling apple will always be first on "for sure" technology.
Click to expand...

I disagree. graphics card wise, they seem to be behind. Memory performance as well...




the x86-based macs won't use current P4 cores. They will use next-generation dual and quad-cores based on the Pentium M.
Click to expand...

Yet to be seen, but that would be my guess as well. Dual-core, 64bit, PentiumM's



Agreed, except that IBM didn't spend the 3 billion for apple. PPC is a much better archetecture, and that is reflected in the size of the G5 core. 66mm. Thats tiny. equivalent performance for that size core is difficult in the x86 world, but the money saved by a small core is negated by the very small number of cores produced. The fishkill plant is maxed out, and has been for a while. it's got a bright future with Cell and xbox2 processor being made there.
Click to expand...

Yessir, exactly. I don't think IBM will be crying about this. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM told Apple to go screw.
 
wow, people said the same thing I did, 3 times. That's awesome. I guess I just type too damn fast.
 
h3llphyre said:
wow, people said the same thing I did, 3 times. That's awesome. I guess I just type too damn fast.
Click to expand...

You do. Cut off the caffeine. :)

we differ on the level of customization apple will employ with macx86.
 
Well, moving to Intel processors i would think is more a question of scalability. The G5 is a good chip, but it hit the roof more or less at launch and went nowhere. Certain sites already said that Apple had to more or less strip out the efficiency of the G5 chips, overclock 'em and throw in water cooling to at least attempt to get to 3Ghz. IBM obviously did not feel that Apple was big enough a customer to warrant further development on it. So the only real move for Apple next was to go with a company that's constantly pushing the envelope because of competition, and obviously Jobs main concern is the Powerbook line and price point.

While I think AMD is a superior chip, Intel was probably chosen for delivery and manufacturing process and the Centrino technology (which I believe is more hype then it is practical, but the average customer doesn't). Its too bad it took 3 months from the paper launch for the Turion chip to make it into notebooks, even though it does not quite make it a Centrino solution...
 
Nasty_Savage said:
Well, moving to Intel processors i would think is more a question of scalability. The G5 is a good chip, but it hit the roof more or less at launch and went nowhere. Certain sites already said that Apple had to more or less strip out the efficiency of the G5 chips, overclock 'em and throw in water cooling to at least attempt to get to 3Ghz. IBM obviously did not feel that Apple was big enough a customer to warrant further development on it. So the only real move for Apple next was to go with a company that's constantly pushing the envelope because of competition, and obviously Jobs main concern is the Powerbook line and price point.

While I think AMD is a superior chip, Intel was probably chosen for delivery and manufacturing process and the Centrino technology (which I believe is more hype then it is practical, but the average customer doesn't). Its too bad it took 3 months from the paper launch for the Turion chip to make it into notebooks, even though it does not quite make it a Centrino solution...
Click to expand...
the pentium m is not hype. it is quite a chip.
 
Methodical said:
You do. Cut off the caffeine. :)

we differ on the level of customization apple will employ with macx86.
Click to expand...

Honestly, any "customization" is quite simple to do, and doesn't require massive engineering hours.
 
Nasty_Savage said:
Well, moving to Intel processors i would think is more a question of scalability. The G5 is a good chip, but it hit the roof more or less at launch and went nowhere. Certain sites already said that Apple had to more or less strip out the efficiency of the G5 chips, overclock 'em and throw in water cooling to at least attempt to get to 3Ghz. IBM obviously did not feel that Apple was big enough a customer to warrant further development on it. So the only real move for Apple next was to go with a company that's constantly pushing the envelope because of competition, and obviously Jobs main concern is the Powerbook line and price point.

While I think AMD is a superior chip, Intel was probably chosen for delivery and manufacturing process and the Centrino technology (which I believe is more hype then it is practical, but the average customer doesn't). Its too bad it took 3 months from the paper launch for the Turion chip to make it into notebooks, even though it does not quite make it a Centrino solution...
Click to expand...

They should have been more creative and gone with the Cell... Apple cheaped out and took the path MORE travelled by.
 
The problem with the Cell is that it sucks for general purpose computing. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if even an iBook G4 would outperform the Cell when it comes to branchy integer code. The Cell is great for code that is vectorizable and threadable, but on code that isn't, it's just a waste of transistors and watts.
 
Lets make this clear.
Apple software will not be installable on homebuilt systems. I'm betting they're going to do more then just a bios lock. They'll probably do something similar to embedded OS's, a specific chip on the motherboard and every piece of code checks for it. Will someone get around this? Probably, but it will take some time.

Also, the Senior President of Apple said Windows will be installable on these computers, but why would you want to? I'm thinking Wine will be a much more viable solution. Considering that Apple will be able to lock down the hardware, they can produce their own version of Wine or Transgaming's Cedega. You won't need windows!

That's heavy compition there. I mean, just think about it. You won't need windows. It just makes me grin.
 
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:

Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads
Click to expand...

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*.
 
Parastie said:
Lets make this clear.
Apple software will not be installable on homebuilt systems. I'm betting they're going to do more then just a bios lock. They'll probably do something similar to embedded OS's, a specific chip on the motherboard and every piece of code checks for it. Will someone get around this? Probably, but it will take some time.
Click to expand...

Why use a special chip, when the BIOS is more then capable of such things...
 
h3llphyre said:
Why use a special chip, when the BIOS is more then capable of such things...
Click to expand...


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.
 
jon_k said:
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*.
Click to expand...

From that same article,
So, be warned; this is not an all-round review. It is definitely the worst buyer’s guide that you can imagine. This article cares about speed, performance, and nothing else! No comments on how well designed the internals are, no elaborate discussions about user friendliness, out-of-the-box experience and other subjective subjects.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

It's also very clear that MySQL and other server apps are not developed with OS X in mind first. Hell, for years it was recommended that you compile MySQL with linuxthreads on FreeBSD for better performance.
 
did you read what you just quoted?

This article cares about speed, performance, and nothing else!
Click to expand...


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?
 
I think people that reference the XBox and say how easy it is to hack are missing the fact that it was hacked to put an OS on it that doesn't care what x86 CPU it is so long as it is an x86 CPU (i.e. Linux compiled for the x86).

Apple has a huge advantage in that they don't have to make the system legacy x86 compatible. Intel can change the CPUID string on their processors (fairly easy for them and impossible for anyone else to change later) and Mac OS X can check to see if an acceptable CPUID shows up - i.e. only load on Apple x86 hardware, not other x86 CPUs.

That would be far harder to circumvent unless someone could disable Mac OS X's ability to check for the right CPUID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top