Jump to content
LCVG

Apple Switches to Intel Chips


MrJames

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will be glued to the 'net on Monday to see if this pans out. I'm not sure how well Apple could pull this off. It definitely weakens their footing at least in the short-term. So much software would need to be rewritten. But I suppose companies like Adobe and MS that maintain cross-platform codebases would be happy.

 

AFAIK, Apple still makes the bulk of their money on hardware (not even including the iPod for the moment), so they'd have to change their business model. Of course in the least few years there's been speculation that Apple will try to become primarily a software company, they have certainly built a good reputation for their media applications, both for professionals (Final Cut, DVD Studio, Motion) and for consumers (iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto). Not to mention OS X. This move, once they ported the Mac-only software like Final Cut to X86, would make becoming a software-based company easier. They would be able to trim down their hardware engineering staff significantly, I would imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what to make of this.

 

Initially I was kinda pissed off ? but if OS X can run on an Intel machine, I can essentially buy a faster computer a hell of a lot cheaper with an OS that I'm used to. And Apple can sell OS X to PC users and possibly make up for the money they'd lose on hardware. And it may make running Windows programs a lot easier (I assume - I may be wrong).

 

Maybe Apple's doing the right thing. I don't know. I'll see in two years. In the meantime I'll milk my current machine for all it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what to make of this.

 

Initially I was kinda pissed off ? but if OS X can run on an Intel machine' date=' I can essentially buy a faster computer a hell of a lot cheaper with an OS that I'm used to. And Apple can sell OS X to PC users and possibly make up for the money they'd lose on hardware.[/quote']

 

Of course, the big question this potential move raises is would Apple license OSX? I assume they would not, and that they would continue to make their own machines. One advantage I think Apple would be smart to maintain is tight control over the hardware.

 

A big loss in such a move would be the demise of AltiVec (or "Velocity Engine" as Apple calls it), which Apple has leveraged very well in OSX itself and in just about all of their own applications. By all accounts, SSE2 can't compete with AltiVec.

 

And it may make running Windows programs a lot easier (I assume - I may be wrong).

 

I think that's right. They could write a windows compatibility environment (like WINE for Linux) much more easily on the same hardware than on a different architecture. Whether it would work satisfactorily is another matter, but it would be easier.

 

Maybe Apple's doing the right thing. I don't know. I'll see in two years. In the meantime I'll milk my current machine for all it's worth.

 

A platform transition is always difficult, but Apple has proven they can do it well when they moved to the PPC in the first place. There were hiccups here and there, but it was remarkably smooth for such a major change. I certainly don't relish doing that again, but it does make life more exciting I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Job's keynote is at 1pm PST today.

 

I'm really on the fence about this from a believability standpoint. There are plenty of reasons, mostly economic, for why this would be a good move. But from the standpoint of most end-users, and many developers this, if true, is a fairly drastic and bad move. I have to wonder what is so bad about IBM and the G5 that would make Apple move to Intel.

 

Yes, IBM totally missed the "3Ghz in 12 months" window that they claimed , but the G5 holds it's own even now against the competition (like Opteron and Itanium), in integer performance it falls behind, but for FP it's right there and for SIMD stuff it's ahead.

 

Possibly the best reason I can think of is that IBM warned Apple that a G5 suitable for PowerBooks just isn't going to happen. Apple makes significant money on PowerBooks (and iBooks), even more than PowerMacs for the last few years, IIRC. It's a vital product for Apple that, if threatened, may require a drastic move to save.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Dan thanks for posting this. I got the time wrong, obviously the 1pm time I saw was for the East US, not west!

 

EDIT: There's also a live update happening at MacCentral

 

Since there is no live video or audio stream of his keynote' date=' you can watch a live Java update here at Macrumours.com. You just leave it and it will refresh every 60 seconds.

 

He's not long been on stage. Announce new ibooks DAMN YOU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward."

 

"I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you," said Jobs. "But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap," said Jobs.

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're liveblogging at engadget.com, too.

 

An interesting note from Steve:

 

10:32am PDT - Satellite shot with crosshairs shows building where a team has been working on the ?Just in Case?? scenario. Every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for Intel for the past 5 years. Here comes the demo!

 

10:33am PDT - ?As a matter of fact, this system I?ve been using here?? the keynote?s been running on a P4 3.6GHz all morning?

 

10:34am PDT - Steve?s hopping through every app. Performance is snappy. He?s playing an H264 movie trailer for something wtih Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. ?Ok, enough of that? he says after a few seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there have been rumors for years that OS X has been kept up to date on Intel CPUs. It makes sense, in part because NextStep (what OS X was derived from) ran on Intel. OS X is the most platform independent OS that Apple has ever had, which makes this transition pretty easy for OS X.

 

Oh boy, the next few years will be interesting for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean they will use PC architecture? If so, I'd love to run Mac OS X :D

 

That's really the big question. I'd say that the odds are somewhere near zero. IMO, Apple will and should keep tight controls over the hardware configuration. I expect that you will still need to buy a Mac to run OS X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really the big question. I'd say that the odds are somewhere near zero. IMO, Apple will and should keep tight controls over the hardware configuration. I expect that you will still need to buy a Mac to run OS X.

 

Initially, but I doubt that lasts long. Why in the world would someone spend 3k for a PC based on intel motherboards with intel CPU's to run OS X? Is OS X really worth the premium price now since that is going to be the only difference?

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see apple out of the hardware biz in 5 years or so.

 

If they survive though because now they are a direct competitor of microsoft windows and you can bet ms won't be playing nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering about now is how does Apple expect to sell any machines for the remainder of this year? Who would buy a Mac right now knowing that next year it will be wholly incompatible with the new line-up? At least now I know I won't be tempted by a new computer until next year, even then I will wait for all of my needed apps to transition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering about now, is how does Apple expect to sell any machines for the remainder of this year?

 

It's called the 'Osbourne Effect' because of a computer company in the early 80s who announced a new hardware configuration that was going to be released a year or so later. In the meantime, people just stopped buying the existing hardware because of this better, faster, cheaper machine that was coming real soon now. The company went bankrupt before they could finish designing the new hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Initially' date=' but I doubt that lasts long. Why in the world would someone spend 3k for a PC based on intel motherboards with intel CPU's to run OS X? Is OS X really worth the premium price now since that is going to be the only difference?

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see apple out of the hardware biz in 5 years or so.

 

If they survive though because now they are a direct competitor of microsoft windows and you can bet ms won't be playing nice.[/quote']

 

??

 

If all that made a difference in hardware was the stuff inside, Windows Users would all be using eMachines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...