[zerostar]

Here is one: http://www.macrumorslive.com/web/

[Gamoe]

I think some of us may be parting ways if this turns out to be real. Anyway here's my take on it .

[krove]

Originally Posted by turtle777

That could potentially ruin Apple's reputation more than it would help.
Just imagine all those crappy PCs with cheap components and all sorts of issues.
For the majority of the users, it will be Apple's (OS X's) fault if there are problems and incompatibilities. What has Apple gained ? It would be on its best way to become M$. Without the tight control on hardware, Apple will not be able to deliver reliable perfomring OSes, as much as M$ is not able to do that.

-t

Macs, for the most part, use the same components used in PCs (memory, PCI controllers, hard disk controllers, etc.) so Apple's continued selection of quality parts that undergo quality testing will certainly never go away.

Also, I seriously doubt that Apple would allow OS X to be run on just "any" PC...they'd use OpenFirmware to limit the booting of OS X onto their machines only. Of course, there will still be geeks attempting to load the venerable OS onto their Dell PCs or whatever, but most mainstream users would never attempt such feats. So the hardware compatibilty argument falls by the wayside...

Of couse, as you say yourself, the onous is on Apple.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I don't know how well the Cell would handle a full blown OS. Remember, XBox 360/PS3 etc. are all stripped down OSs designed for one basic purpose. It doesn't mean that they are designed for a full blown OS.

IBM demoed a prototype Cell based Blade server running a full version port of Linux.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by turtle777

-t

Read the titles to the songs. He is relating them to this topic...

"Changes" -Ozzy

"The Reason" -Hoobastank

"Can't Stop Messin' " -Aeorsmith

"Erase-Rewind" -The Cardigans

"An Honest Mistake?" -The Bravery


---------

"Ctrl-Alt-Del" -Bill Gates

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by krove

As for all the FUD around here, keep an open mind: many times in the past, Apple has taken its user base on wild rides including...

• Wholesale switch to PowerPC from Motorola 68xxx
• Abandonment of ADB/Serial ports for USB
• Abandonment of Floppies
• Wholesale switch to UNIX-based OS X, replacing OS 9

These are probably the biggest that come to mind, but in every case the switch was better for the platform, bumpy at times (perhaps), but overall smooth and well-planned by Apple. Also, I think it is safe to say that in every case above, there were naysayers that bemoaned Apple's all or none approach to assimilating new technologies. Yet here we are with no floppies, no Moto 68xxx, no ADB or Serial ports, and OS 9 falling farther and farther behind in the dust that OS X leaves in its wake.

In all of the switches you mention, however, Apple has moved to a superior technology. There are a few others you didn't mention, in fact: NuBus to PCI, LocalTalk to Ethernet, and so forth.

Intel is not superior to PPC. It is cheaper, but you are getting what you pay for; the architecture is utter junk. This would be only the second time in the Mac's history where Apple went for what is cheap over what is good -the other one being the switch from SCSI to IDE- and we suffered there too.

I am strongly considering moving to Linux if Apple goes X86. The single biggest advantage of Macs is the superior hardware: everything else flows forth from this. Without it, there is no real advantage anymore, and so I may as well go for the cheaper OS. Microsoft would remain worse, but little else would.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by krove

[*]Wholesale switch to PowerPC from Motorola 68xxx

Except that the PPC had a hardware 68K translation layer which made the transition painless. Apple would have to physically sitck in two different CPUs for a transition from PPC to x86.

[olePigeon]

My pennies are on Intel manufacturing Cells. (I really hope.)

[Sarc]

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before (I read ~ page 4), but the industry seems to be going towards PPC, particularly with POWER, Cell, and whatever is inside the XBox now.
Looking back, you can tell that the architecture that gets the money is the one that evolves falst. Back in hte day everyone was sure that RISC was superior than CISC, but the latter got the cash, got developed and now ... well, here we are.
IMHO, PPC will have a lot of attention now, so I don't see the switch as a good thing -in this particular moment-.

Then again, as someone said, Jobs has quite the track record for -not- being an idiot.


My $ .02

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I am strongly considering moving to Linux if Apple goes X86. The single biggest advantage of Macs is the superior hardware: everything else flows forth from this. Without it, there is no real advantage anymore, and so I may as well go for the cheaper OS. Microsoft would remain worse, but little else would.

My thinking exactly, Millennium. Hope it won't really come to that, though. 1/2 an hour till we know...

[krove]

As I said: Apple had a plan in each instance, like the hardware translation of 68k to PPC.

My point was simply to mention that Apple has endured numerous transitions (both large and small) to various new technologies (superior in most cases) and that when such transitions did occur, Apple was keen to get the user base on board with their plan. In most of the examples, the transitions were virtually seemless (68K -> PPC, ADB/Serial -> USB, LocalTalk -> Ethernet, etc). Thanks for pointing out those few other transitions, millennium. FUD aside, any transition would be possible, especially with Apple at the helm, as history has shown.

I, for one, would lament any abandonment of the PowerPC architecture, as many of us in these forums know it to be the better processor in terms of power requirements, efficiency per clock cycle, etc. The PowerPC still has much leg room to work with with IBM touting its Power5 and Power6 in coming years, whose technologies certainly would filter down into a processor used by Apple.

Not many have even mentioned AltiVec (aka, the velocity engine). What happens to all the software code optimizations put in place by companies like Adobe and even Apple? It would stand to reason that these will either be lost or any new processor used by Apple should (and most would argue, MUST) have AltiVec in the silicon.

As for my personal ideas on the rumors, I second Gruber's overall take: WTF, Apple?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Intel is not superior to PPC. It is cheaper, but you are getting what you pay for; the architecture is utter junk. This would be only the second time in the Mac's history where Apple went for what is cheap over what is good -the other one being the switch from SCSI to IDE- and we suffered there too.

Not me. I hated SCSI. I hated all the different connectors we had, the hideously expensive pricetags on the drives themselves, and the whole termination crap. The switch to IDE might not have been better technologically, but it helped my wallet, my patience, and I was able to swap drives between PCs and Macs.

And in the last 5 years, 3 SCSI hard drives died on me at work, 1 SCSI drive on an old Mac, and ZERO IDE drives.

Mike

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by krove

... The PowerPC still has much leg room to work with with IBM touting its Power5 and Power6 in coming years, whose technologies certainly would filter down into a processor used by Apple....

Yes, but, just as we don't know what Apple is thinking, we don't know what IBM is thinking. For example, IBM is going through some changes as its stockholders want it to go back to the powerhouse of a stock it once was. To do so they've been getting rid of non-cash-cows. For all we know they don't see a bright future in the partnership with Apple.

[DarwinX]

The National Weather Service just issued an RDF warning for San Francisco, CA effective from 10 A.M. until 11:30 A.M PST.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Sarc

....the industry seems to be going towards PPC, particularly with POWER, Cell, and whatever is inside the XBox now....[snip]....IMHO, PPC will have a lot of attention now, so I don't see the switch as a good thing -in this particular moment

This is exactly what I was thinking too-- how ironic would it be if Apple switched from the PPC to Intel when the PPC is now being publicized and showing its stuff on the latest game consoles... even M$ switching over... that would be crazy, in my opinion, and wouldn't seem very good for Apple's image (not to mention the more important technical problems, etc.).

[starman]

I started an iChat room: MacNN

[BasketofPuppies]

Millenium apparently hasn't used an Intel-based system since the days of the 80386.

Is the PowerPC architecture superior to that of the x86's? Yes. But unless IBM or Freescale starts making superior processors with that superior architecture again, it's a moot point.

As for SCSI vs IDE, IDE has improved to the point that SCSI only matters to those with the greatest needs. (And FireWire and USB 2.0 cover external devices well enough for most people.)

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by starman

Not me. I hated SCSI. I hated all the different connectors we had, the hideously expensive pricetags on the drives themselves, and the whole termination crap. The switch to IDE might not have been better technologically, but it helped my wallet, my patience, and I was able to swap drives between PCs and Macs.

And in the last 5 years, 3 SCSI hard drives died on me at work, 1 SCSI drive on an old Mac, and ZERO IDE drives.

Mike

SCSI was the worst idea in the history of the world. Those big honking plugs, thick cables, terminators and no hot plugging? I was soo sooooo happy when firewire and IDE came out.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This would be only the second time in the Mac's history where Apple went for what is cheap over what is good -the other one being the switch from SCSI to IDE- and we suffered there too.

That switch was smart.

Let's face it: for the price of one SCSI drive, I can get TWO IDE with each double the capacity. With the built-in support of RAIDs in OS X, where is the problem ?

-t

[Cody Dawg]

I'm hearing rumors that Apple may move to AMD, actually.

[budster101]

AMD, is that in Texas?

[DarwinX]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm hearing rumors that Apple may move to AMD, actually.

Confirmed? All you need is one more source!

:sarcasm is not meant to be against you personaly, just caught up in the moment:

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, wouldn't YOU be laughing if they DID switch over to AMD!

[klinux]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Yes, because it's part of the software agreement you sign off on. Apple requires their OS to run on their hardware (you do read the agreements you accept when you install upgrades don't you ).

For current OS X versions yes but you do not know about the future versions that are on Intel CPU. Morover, just because it is in EULA does not necessarily make it enforceable (just like the parking stub you get that says by parking here you release the garage from any liability, etc - complete unenforceable in a court of law).

[Cody Dawg]

Now my day is all screwed up. I was on my way out the door until I remembered - via this thread - that the all-mighty Jobs is making announcements today.

[DarwinX]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yeah, wouldn't YOU be laughing if they DID switch over to AMD!

I would because of this post, but in the grand scheme of things...I've always recommended AMD over Intel Time to eat my own words?

[Sarc]

Originally Posted by DarwinX

The National Weather Service just issued an RDF warning for San Francisco, CA effective from 10 A.M. until 11:30 A.M PST.

Conspiracy

[budster101]

1:00pm Your time Cody Dawg.

[osxisfun]

What if its both?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Now my day is all screwed up. I was on my way out the door until I remembered - via this thread - that the all-mighty Jobs is making announcements today.

Why the heck does it screw your day that the announcment is NOW ?
Or is this the first time that you hear about that whole story ?
Well, I guess it just now hit local newspapers in Florida

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

IBM demoed a prototype Cell based Blade server running a full version port of Linux.

Demo, yes... and Linux would be the OS to be ported. Linux can port to almost anything...

[budster101]

How about my toaster?

[osxisfun]

Found this link on the AI boards:

ENTERPRISE POWER PLAY?!?

http://www.andwest.com/blojsom/blog/...tel_Chips.html

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by klinux

For current OS X versions yes but you do not know about the future versions that are on Intel CPU. Morover, just because it is in EULA does not necessarily make it enforceable (just like the parking stub you get that says by parking here you release the garage from any liability, etc - complete unenforceable in a court of law).

The EULA is enforceable. NO manufacturer would touch OS X without the Apple lawyers salivating. Sure hackers would, but I'm sure Apple would engineer the motherboard/firmware to only work with their hardware. Perhaps there are things hackers could do, but if OS X is running on a few thousand computers that require constant hacks to keep going, I'm willing to let them try.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Intel is not superior to PPC. It is cheaper, but you are getting what you pay for; the architecture is utter junk.

I am strongly considering moving to Linux if Apple goes X86.

Intel is a company. PowerPC is a chip architecture. What you just said is like saying Toyota is not superior to a V6. Please try to make a coherent argument.

So, I assume you mean x86? So the many PhD man-hours and the billions in dollars being spent today is for naught due to some insights you have that all x86 manufacturers (Intel, AMD, VIA, etc) somehow do not have? I do not see how you can dismiss a whole architecture outright with any supporting arguments.

And if you are switching to Linux, go. No need to announce to the would that you are considering to switch. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by krove

The PowerPC still has much leg room to work with with IBM touting its Power5 and Power6 in coming years, whose technologies certainly would filter down into a processor used by Apple

Yawn. Of course x86 has no room to grow, like the Pentium-M, which clockspeed for clockspeed is faster and cooler than P4, or dual core from either AMD or Intel, or VIA C7-M in an amazingly small nanoBGA2 package?

I realize we are all Mac fans here but making such general sweeping statements make Mac users look like idiots. It is like saying Toyota is junk compared to Honda or west coast is better than the east cost and salmon is better than halibut. Sure, great for flamebaiting to get a thread going but what then?

Oh yeah, forgot we are on Macnn.

[crazeazn]

so whats ur URL to the webcast????

[Cody Dawg]

The first move in the complex industry realignment now taking place was made more than a year ago when Microsoft broke with Intel and said that it would use an I.B.M. processor chip, similar to the one used by Apple for its Macintoshes, in the second version of its Xbox video game machine.

From the New York Times.

Unbelievable. Microsoft goes to I.B.M chips and Apple goes to Intel?



What is the world coming to?

[addiecool]

This is all sad. Tonight I will not sleep well since I will be saying goodbye to all my macs now. I cant stand getting nothing for them once intelimacs start to show up, and I cant keep hardware that has no future.

Time to go to linux or Windows....

[ironknee]

watch cnbc NOW

[addiecool]

Jobs, you got it all wrong. It is not only about your software, it is the whole package that counts. Now we will have people making $300 PC's and running OSX on it.

Seems you made a big mistake.

[vinster]

Well, need to admit I was completely off base on this one <shrink...>

Thought it was just too big of a change to posibly be true.

Lets just hope Apple can pull it off.

[MindFad]

This is gonna be such a great week.

[asdasd]

Could we all calm down? It seems no matter how often it is explained the thing cannot be understood. There will be no $300 macs sold anywhere by third parties. The OS is not being licenced. Get that into your heads. It is an easy concept.

Nor is your hardware obsolete. The applications built in the year 2010 will be multiple binarys ( as Steve calls them). There will be one codebase. All it takes is a recompile.

the only thing likely to harm Apple in this easy transition is Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, and that seems to be generated from the Mac community,

[DarwinX]

"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."

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. "

Link: http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the...56.html?tag=nl

[Mediaman_12]

Well it looks like the resale value of my G5 during my next upgrade cycle (just got a dual G5, cycle between 3/4 years) just went through the floor.

Multiple binaries where a PIA during the 68k to PPC transition, now apps are so much larger it will be so much worse. (was there ever a 'fat binary' version of Photoshop? I thought you had a choice between 68k an PPC version)

[powertrippin]

http://chicane.myftp.org/Videos/empire.mp4

[sideus]

10+ years of telling us how the PPC is superior to x86, now this.

[driven]

I would rather have seen AMD. Oh well ... so long as OSX stays a viable solution and Apple continues to build high-quality hardware then all is not lost. :-)

[Stradlater]

This shall now be referred to as the "foot-in-mouth" thread.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Hold on a sec; you've actually just reminded me of something.

Long ago, around the time of the first PowerPC machines, Apple produced a short-lived run of "DOS Compatible" Macs. These were ordinary Macs for the most part, but they came with a 386 processor on a PDS card. This card was used in conjunction with a special app to run Windows inside the Mac OS without any emulation.

No, they didn't "run Windows inside the Mac OS". The card was a whole separate PC, sharing only storage, display, and keyboard/mouse/audio. You pressed command-enter to switch the screen between Mac and PC.

Essentially, it worked like a Mac and a PC inside a case with a KVM.

Some small software hooks allowed cut-and-paste between the two systems.

But I think it's very important to make the distinction that those systems didn't run Windows inside Mac OS -- they ran Windows absolutely natively, on a complete (and essentially independent) PC motherboard.

tooki