Author Topic: Apple to Intel (Read 2939 times)

jefnvk · « **on:** June 06, 2005, 03:03:27 PM »

Well, Apple is going to Intel. I myself never had muich use for Apple hardware or software, but I know a lot of people here do. What are your thoughts?

It'll be interesting to see if it si ported to x86, or if Intel comes up with the tooling to keep producing PowerPC. My guess is that there would be no reason to go to Intel unless you were going to x86, but that is just speculation.

Also, if OSX goes to the PC platform, what affect will that have on the Linux platform? Many, many people use Linux simply because it is not Windows. If they have another viable option, other than Windows and Linux, I don't think that it is going to be good for Linux. Sure, there will be many hardcore Linux users that stick with it, but I think the majority of the users would consider OSX.

So, your thoughts? Especially the people that used Mac for the PowerPC processor?

Preacherman · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:16:40 PM »

It's a very interesting development. If OS/X is ported to the complete Intel chip set, rather than just the Intel central processor, then OS/X will suddenly become a major competitor to Microsoft's Windows, as it will be able to run on any Intel chipset PC. Personally, I'd welcome this. It will also mean that much more software will become available for OS/X, as software written for an Intel environment will simply be re-compiled for OS/X. However, if Apple retains a proprietary chipset which just happens to use Intel's X86 central processor, this will be much more difficult.

If I were Apple's CEO, I'd push for as much Intel chipset compatibility as possible, so that my OS could rival Microsoft. However, given Apple's history of proprietary hardware and software, I suspect they'll try to retain some distinguishing elements that will prevent their software from running on generic Intel hardware. I hope I'm wrong...

Also, of course, all the viruses written for Windows may now be "portable" to OS/X on an Intel platform - which means harder times for OS/X users.

Sean Smith · « **Reply #2 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:42:09 PM »

Here is what I don't get: everyone who has been paying attention the last 6-12 months has noticed that Intel is losing the performance race to AMD very badly. Pentium 4 processors @ 3.8 GHz are overheating like mad, guzzling half again more power, and delivering less computing power than AMD processors @ 2.4-2.6 GHz. And the Athlon 64 x2 is beating Intel's sad attempts at dual-core CPUs across the board... even in apps that Intel traditionally dominates. It may be a year before Intel even releases anything that can compete all-around with the x2 4800+. And Intel's early adoption of DDR2 has been a joke; Extreme Edition Pentium 4s with DDR2-667 are losing memory performance tests to ordinary Athlon 64s using DDR400, for cryin' out loud.

Apple should have gone with AMD, which would have helped AMD grow even faster, and possibly kill Intel and Microsoft in one move. Apple has the better OS, even Windows XP owners like me admit that. With AMD having the better hardware than Intel now and for the forseeable future, put the two together and you'd have a MONSTER. Hell, Mac would possibly become the best GAMING platform in that scenario, too, since AMD beats Intel in gaming performance across the board. Just make the x86 Mac use PCI-Express. OS-X with a dual-core 64 bit AMD CPU and a x850 XT-PE would rule the world.

But Apple aligned themselves with the overpriced, under-performing PC processor maker instead.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #3 on:** June 06, 2005, 04:08:59 PM »

Quote

...Apple aligned themselves with the overpriced, under-performing PC processor maker instead.

Apple has been grossly overpriced, sluggish, unreliable, and ugly for quite some time now. If I could go back to OS 8, I'd do it in half a heart beat. My current Macintosh, two and a half years old, included a defective I.B.M. hard drive, which it took my local Apple authorized disservice center two weeks to replace, and a defective Pioneer D.V.D.

Sean Smith · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2005, 06:28:36 PM »

For the curious, here is a review of Intel and AMD's latest... Intel got creamed, badly. For about 1/2 the price of their latest Intel Extreme Edition 840, the AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200+ frequently beats it, and the 4800+ is basically untouchable by any desktop CPU. The FX-55 (another AMD CPU) can keep up with in in games, but that's it. Factor in power consumption and heat, and Intel is doing pretty badly.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=16

jefnvk · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2005, 06:43:29 PM »

Quote

If I were Apple's CEO, I'd push for as much Intel chipset compatibility as possible, so that my OS could rival Microsoft. However, given Apple's history of proprietary hardware and software, I suspect they'll try to retain some distinguishing elements that will prevent their software from running on generic Intel hardware. I hope I'm wrong...

That seems to be the big question right now. Knowing Apple's history of propriatory hardware, I'd guess they won't comply. Another option seems to be that they would run a standard PC platform, with an Apple bios.

And if they do go to a complete PC platform, how long before an AMD version is available? Not too long, methinks.

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2005, 07:14:46 PM »

the report i heard today was that the switch is due to laptop processors and battery life

the intel chips have much better power management than IBM/Motorola

Preacherman · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2005, 07:15:33 PM »

Steve, I think Apple's reasoning is that AMD chips can run anything written for the X86 Intel code, but not vice versa. They can always license extensions for AMD CPU's, or have added features in their next OS that will remain dormant on X86 processors, but take advantage of AMD enhancements if they're present.

Another big question, of course, is the future of current architectures. 64-bit computing is a buzz-word at the moment, but anyone in mainframes will tell you that working up to 1,024-bit functionality is not that far away. Speaking as a former mainframe systems engineer, I don't see any way that current operating systems can be "jiggered" to run on higher than 64-bit processors: even 64 bits is a heck of a stretch for something that started out on 8-bit processors! I rather think that a major leap forward in software system architecture is going to be needed, and I would think that Apple has a better shot at it than Microsoft, in terms of their current technology. It'll be interesting...

Fatcat · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2005, 08:17:52 PM »

Just because Intel is getting creamed now doesn't say anything about where they'll be in 2 years. They were, at one time as least, an innovative company; I can't imagine them trailing forever. Even now the Pentium M beats anything AMD has for a mobile platform. IBM couldn't supply a G5 that worked in the Powerbook, so Apple switched.

Anyone catch the announcement? OSX has been running on Intel for the last 5 years. It'd be really interesting if they set OSX out as a direct competitor to Windows on the x86 platform.. but I doubt that is gonna happen.

jefnvk · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2005, 08:32:18 PM »

Quote

Just because Intel is getting creamed now doesn't say anything about where they'll be in 2 years. They were, at one time as least, an innovative company; I can't imagine them trailing forever. Even now the Pentium M beats anything AMD has for a mobile platform

At one time, AMD was nearly out of business. After getting their butts kicked for a few years, methinks Intel will get their act together.

Telperion · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2005, 09:09:55 PM »

Apple tried this over 10 years ago. It was called Project Star Trek (boldly going where no Mac had gone before Wink

). The project was quickly killed because of the loud objections of the hardware unit of Apple. Apple was, and still is, a hardware company. That's what I don't understand; Apple's hardware can't compete against Dell workstations, so where's the cash? There's only so many iPods Apple can sell.

On the other hand, I think I'll enjoy having a Windows/MacOS dual boot.

Werewolf · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:21:31 AM »

Quote

However, given Apple's history of proprietary hardware and software, I suspect they'll try to retain some distinguishing elements that will prevent their software from running on generic Intel hardware.

That attitude and Steve Jobs are the reason that Apple currently has ~10% of the PC Market. For the short time that stupid SOB Jobs was gone and Apple actually licensed it's hardware to 3rd party manufacturers their market share jumped up to ~16% ([Gomer Pyle voice] surprise - surprise). Jobs comes back, lets the licensing agreements expire without renewing them and - ooops! Loses Market share again. Apple will never learn - they're doomed to supply a niche market when it comes to PC's as long as they keep their hardware system proprietary.

Quote

I hope I'm wrong...

Unfortunately - you're not!

Why unfortunately? Because IMO (and many others it seems) The Apple OS (and IMO the hardware too) is superior to that of the intel based machines and windows. But just like the superior Beta tech of Sony lost out to VHS because of lousy marketing and business decisions Apple has lost out to the intel and windows systems.

Preacherman · « **Reply #12 on:** June 07, 2005, 07:37:18 AM »

There's an interesting news report on the BBC about this. See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4617139.stm

A snippet to whet your appetite:

Quote

The first Apple computers with Intel chips will be on the market next year.

That is likely to be the Mac Mini, with the entire product line switching by the end of 2007.

Applications will continue to work on both types of chip-sets for some years.

But Graham Barlow, editor of MacFormat magazine, said some people may not buy a new Apple machine knowing that a new processor was coming out next year.

"That must be the worry for Apple retailers. I think it's highly likely there will be some price drops to tempt people to buy the final stocks of PowerPC equipped Macs," he told the BBC News website.

...

Gary Barnett, research director at technology analysts Ovum, said he was puzzled by the move and had been watching the reaction on internet newsgroup discussion forums.

"One poster was debating whether to upgrade his Powerbook or to go on holiday - there was no point in him buying a Powerbook if it was going to be obsolete in 18 months' time," he told the BBC News website.

Apple may have lost the war for the office environment to Windows, but it wants to win the next war - the battle for control of your digital entertainment

"Apple has sent a strong signal that it would be sensible to wait a year if you want to buy a new Powerbook."

Dave Markowitz · « **Reply #13 on:** June 07, 2005, 08:12:33 AM »

I wouldn't expect OS-X to be available for use on any old PC. Just because Apple is switching the CPU line doesn't mean that they are doing a wholesale migration to PC architecture.

That said, switching the CPU to Intel may make it easier for developers to port WINE over to Mac OS-X, which could greatly increase the number of available applications that'll run on a Mac. The downside of this happening is the potential for Windows malware to be able to infect Macs.

Zundfolge · « **Reply #14 on:** June 07, 2005, 07:21:35 PM »

Quote from: jefnvk

Also, if OSX goes to the PC platform, what affect will that have on the Linux platform? Many, many people use Linux simply because it is not Windows. If they have another viable option, other than Windows and Linux, I don't think that it is going to be good for Linux. Sure, there will be many hardcore Linux users that stick with it, but I think the majority of the users would consider OSX.

No, most Linux users us it because it is FREE (and not just in that it costs no money, but also in that there is no restrictive EULA that forbids you from looking under the hood, tinkering with it, or developing software based on the core components ... as long as you release it under the GNU license).

Quote from: Dave Markowitz

The downside of this happening is the potential for Windows malware to be able to infect Macs.

Windows malware infects Windows machines because of Windows, not because of Intel.

Macs are going to be just as vulnerable to malware as Unix and Linux are (which is not very much) because Mac OS X IS BSD Unix. Unix and Linux are just more secure (for one thing because you have to manually enter a password to futz with the inner workings of the OS).

Of course if you buy a new Mac and dual boot with Windows, there's nothing protecting your Windows partition :p

Ultimately what we're seeing here is the beginning of an age where software is not hardware dependent.

jefnvk · « **Reply #15 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:04:06 PM »

Zundfolge, I think if Linux or Mac had ninety-some percent of the market share, you'd see many more vulnerabilities and viruses running around for them.

As for Linux, yeah, ther eis a good portion that use it for what it is. And then there is a good portion that use it because it will run on their computer, and it isn't Windows. If Mac comes to a full PC platform, I think the Linux PC market is going to see a drop. Maybe only a little, maybe a lot. But it will be noticable.

But I don't think it will be a full PC platform. If they were smart, they would. But I don't think so.

Dave Markowitz · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2005, 08:19:33 AM »

Quote from: Zundfolge

Quote from: Dave Markowitz

The downside of this happening is the potential for Windows malware to be able to infect Macs.

Windows malware infects Windows machines because of Windows, not because of Intel.

I guess I was unclear. I was referring to the possibility that Windows malware could infect Macs if they had a good running version of WINE, which is a reversed engineered implementation of Windows APIs currently available for Linux, and IIRC, BSD.

Nathaniel Firethorn · « **Reply #17 on:** June 08, 2005, 11:18:42 AM »

Quote

64-bit computing is a buzz-word at the moment, but anyone in mainframes will tell you that working up to 1,024-bit functionality is not that far away.

Actually 4096-bit functionality in production machines was achieved decades ago...

If you're talking about instruction word length, then you're in the realm of VLIW.

Address space length? You don't need 1024 bits of address space unless you're managing Bill Gates's assets. Cheesy

- NF

jefnvk · « **Reply #18 on:** June 08, 2005, 01:33:00 PM »

Quote

64-bit computing is a buzz-word at the moment

If it is all the buzz right now, why is my foot on this (probably close to) 10 year old 64 bit computer?

RadioFreeSeaLab · « **Reply #19 on:** June 08, 2005, 02:26:06 PM »

Quote

If I were Apple's CEO, I'd push for as much Intel chipset compatibility as possible, so that my OS could rival Microsoft. However, given Apple's history of proprietary hardware and software, I suspect they'll try to retain some distinguishing elements that will prevent their software from running on generic Intel hardware. I hope I'm wrong...

I believe Phil Schiller, second in command at Apple, was quoted as saying no, you will not be able to run OS X on anything other than Apple hardware. Can't find the link right now, but I know I read it somewhere. You may, however, be able to run Windows on Apple hardware. Why you'd want to, I haven't the foggiest, but whatever.

News:

Author Topic: Apple to Intel (Read 2939 times)