[Appleman]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

If a switch to x86 is in the offing, one incredible positive from my perspective is that Joe Shmoe can go buy a x86 Mac because he loves gaming but wants the security of an OS X system. Possibly Joe Schmoe has already been burned by spyware/virii. Joe didn't want a Mac before because there isn't enough games. An x86 Mac with the ability to run Windows at native speeds brings all those games to the Mac table.

The flip side is, will it kill porting games to OS X? Possibly, but we all know that many games underperform on OS X *ahem* Doom 3 *cough*. In Apple's perspective, who cares? Buy an x86 Mac to run Windows games, and also have your iLife to boot and leave the spyware to the crazies.

Dare I say, Apple then pulls the plug on Windows iTunes? At least future development. Sure a lot of people might be PO'd, that's why I think Apple would do it.

Why o why do you think that it will become a x86 processor?
Why o why do you think that even IF they move to x86, you can run Windose on an Apple computer?
I really don't see this to happen.
Just because there is a x86 chip inside doesn't make it a Windose installable object.
Try to install Windose on your first Airport Basestation: that had a 80486 insde!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

If a switch to x86 is in the offing, one incredible positive from my perspective is that Joe Shmoe can go buy a x86 Mac because he loves gaming but wants the security of an OS X system. Possibly Joe Schmoe has already been burned by spyware/virii. Joe didn't want a Mac before because there isn't enough games. An x86 Mac with the ability to run Windows at native speeds brings all those games to the Mac table.

The flip side is, will it kill porting games to OS X? Possibly, but we all know that many games underperform on OS X *ahem* Doom 3 *cough*. In Apple's perspective, who cares? Buy an x86 Mac to run Windows games, and also have your iLife to boot and leave the spyware to the crazies.

Dare I say, Apple then pulls the plug on Windows iTunes? At least future development. Sure a lot of people might be PO'd, that's why I think Apple would do it.

Hypothetically, if Apple were to build its own Intel boxes, it wouldn't let OS X Intel run on other Wintel machines. And Apple's hardware would most likely not run Windows. And why in the world would Apple ever kill iTunes for Windows, its leading consumer software product?

[meelk]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714
more x86 independent confirmation, and INQ is usually very on the money. Youll notice he pinpoints precise chips here, even.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by Appleman

Why o why do you think that even IF they move to x86, you can run Windose on an Apple computer?

Why o why couldn't you? Someone mentioned WINE above which would allow exactly that.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Both the switch from 68k to PPC and from classic Mac OS to OS X allowed you to continue to use your existing software. You can still run 68k software on Mac OS X now. Windows also had its platform switch from Win95 to NT.

There was no platform switch from Win95 to WinNT. WinNT actually came out a long time before Win95. WinNT3.5.1 was released in 1994. Almost the Win3.11 binaries ran on WinNT3.5.1. In fact most of the 16 bit Win3.11 binaries ran on Win95 as well. And the same was and is true for most Win95 applications as well. Almost all 32 bit Win95 apps ran perfectly well under WinNT (I know because I switched at a company I was working at at the time). I still have a version of Painter for windows, verison 6 that runs equally well under Win98 and WinXP.

The switch on the Mac platform was radically different. It involved a hardware platform change. The emulation was very good in some areas and it was downright horrible in others. Right up until OS9 there was still a fair amount of 68k code in the OS, such as Applescript, or string handling, that slowed the OS down horribly.

The Switch from OS9 to OSX involved a complete OS change. Even with Carbon, many applications would not run properly under the Classic environment and some, such as all those which had not been ported to Carbon, would not run at all.

I'll give you an excellent example of all this. When I was doing my multimedia job back in the mid 90's, I was using Macromedia Director version 5 on Win95. We switched to WinNT 4 which had been released in 1996 and continued to use Director 5 for a couple of years with no problems until version 6 and even version 7 came out, both of which ran fine on Win98 as well as WinNT 4.

A friend of mine uses Photoshop 5.5 on Win2000, and it has no problems. I have used Photoshop versions 6 and 7 and on all versions of Windows from Win98 to WinXP.

Photoshop 5.5 had bad problems in the Mac Classic environment on OSX. The menus didn't work properly. Version 6 at least ran ok in Classic, but it was slow and had some other bugs as well. It wasn't until Photoshop 7 and Illustrator 10 that Adobes applications ran natively under OSX, and both of those were considerably slower under OSX than they were under Windows.

The performance issues have only been fixed with the Adobe CS suite.

The same is true with Macromedia's applications. It was only with the recent release of the Flash 7.2 updater that Flash finally runs fast under OSX.

Meanwhile, under Windows, despite all of Windows' various problems and bugs, people have been able to work productively without major hiccups and plpatform worries.

If Apple switches to yet another architecture, I will not go through all that mess again. Windows may be a huge pain in the butt, but at least the platform remains fairly stable and offers a good degree of backwards compatibility (which is ironically also one of its problems, but you can't win 'em all).

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

Why o why couldn't you? Someone mentioned WINE above which would allow exactly that.

Apple would never allow it.

[Big Mac]

Nonethless, theolein, your relatively compatibility comparison between Windows 95 and NT versus OS 9 and OS X isn't very fair to Apple. Windows 95/98 and NT/2000/XP all use Win32. A better comparison would be Win 3.1 and 95 or NT versus OS 9 and OS X. Your general point is valid, however. This alleged transition would not be painless by any stretch of the imagination, even if you believe the wildly optimistic marketing of Transitive. Often enough Apple can't even deliver pain free incremental updates for its own hardware. If Apple does indeed go this route (I continue to remain high skeptical), I'll be hitching the Linux train.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by meelk

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714
more x86 independent confirmation, and INQ is usually very on the money. Youll notice he pinpoints precise chips here, even.

If Apple does this, it will be because there is no future in PPC for mobiles, but it would rock the platform to its knees. Can you imagine Adobe/Macromedia and all the legions of other ISVs wanting to go through yet another platform change? For all the standard Cocoa apps it would not be that problematic, but it would be a desaster for all the altivec apps, both Cocoa and Carbon.

And any upgraded apps will most assuredly not be free. Do you think people are going to want to go through the whole money machine once again, and that just when the platform is finally settling down.

Apple, or more to the point, Steve Jobs, is going to be off his head if he does this. IF he is doing this, it would be because of frustration with IBM, but it comes at absolutely the worst time possible, since PPC is the source of all 3 new gaming consoles, which means that PPC development would advance with more market pressure than would be the case with only Apple using them. It also comes just around the time that IBM is open sourcing the full spec of the Cell processor as used in the Sony PS3. The Cell would be the way for Apple to finally get major improvements in laptops and even the 3 core PPC in the XBox 360 is something that Apple could use in Powermacs unless Microsoft has an exclsuive agreement with IBM on their use.

In fact, it could be exactly that exclusive agreement between Microsoft and IBM that has made SJ angry enough to switch architectures.

All in all though, it will severly damage the Mac platform and I think almost everyone agrees on this. The current 3 to 5% marketshare would once again drop to maybe even less than 1%.

If you ask me, there is much more going on behind the scenes than we know. It could be that Microsoft has said it will ot make any more OSX versions of Office, and so Jobs has finally decided to bring OSX to x86 to try and raid Microsoft's own territory.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Nonethless, theolein, your relatively compatibility comparison between Windows 95 and NT versus OS 9 and OS X isn't very fair to Apple. Windows 95/98 and NT/2000/XP all use Win32. A better comparison would be Win 3.1 and 95 or NT versus OS 9 and OS X. Your general point is valid, however. This alleged transition would not be painless by any stretch of the imagination, even if you believe the wildly optimistic marketing of Transitive. Often enough Apple can't even deliver pain free incremental updates for its own hardware. If Apple does indeed go this route (I continue to remain high skeptical), I'll be hitching the Linux train.

I will too. I'll be doing my commercial app work (Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash) in Windows and all else in Linux.

Perhaps I should have done this a long time ago. I'm really a bit fed up with Apple's politics.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

This is nothing but hyperbole. You know damn well what he meant. If you don't, then you are in no position to be calling people idiots.

No. You known damn well that there are Steve worshippers here. Some people here do literally mean that they will ignore all evidence until the words come out of Steve's mouth

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Originally Posted by klinux

What makes this a sensible analysis? Why is an article two week old article more convincing than an up-to-date report with schedule, confirmation of meeting etc?

Because it makes valid points. There are huge technical hurdles in doing something like this.

Because the article rehashes widely know facts but have little analysis.

Heck, this whole thread is misleading. News.com reports that Apple is switching to Intel and WSJ provides a general schedule of when that it be done. News.com says nothing about switching to x86 architecture beside making the point that OS X can run on x86. People here are running around like headless chickens like it is a fact "OMFG I can't believe this means Apple is going to go with x86 when it switches" when the article clearly and purposly omits that part. (And no, I do not believe the Inquirer.)

[klinux]

Originally Posted by Spliff

F*ck! I just bought an iMac G5. And now Apple is going to instantly devalue it.(

This is an example of the fanaticism that I do not get.

Let's look at this critically. The #1 factor that your devalues your iMac G5 devalues is the fact that it is bought. This is the same reason why a car is devalued when you drove it off the lot - you won't be able to resell it for more than what you got it for.

The #2 factor is time. According to the WSJ schdule, it appears that at the earliest (and you know there will be delays) a mid-end Mac will switch to an Intel would be end of 2006. In 1.5 years, your iMac would have already lost 30%, if not more, of its value.

Lastly, it is not as if the reasons for which you are buying the iMac today are suddenly gone when the chip's name switch to Intel. Apple will likely release another verson OS X during that time frame which I am absolutely certain will work on the IBM PowerPCs that currently power the Mac line.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Appleman

Apple would never allow it.

It's too late. A port to OS X called Darwine is already in progress. They were going to pair it against a x86 emulator, but a move to x86 would solve this problem.

I will be at WWDC and the keynote, so depending on whether or not WWDC is under NDA this year I could probably answer questions here, unless this is much ado about nothing or the keynote is online by the time I get back to the hotel.

Anyway, I got to get ready for a trip to the airport...

[chrisutley]

It's not a rumor, it's fact. The net impact on Apple's market share over the next 5-years will be a positive one with this switch. Macs will be able to emulate Windows as well as products like Vmware, making the Mac transition easier than ever. These are exciting times in Macland.

Originally Posted by theolein

And this, ladies and gents, is the reason Apple had better do something about this rumour very, very quickly. Most ordinary lay people do not think about or even want to think about, the details of their computer. To them it's a PC or it's a Mac. Rumours of Apple switching to Intel will simply make most normal people think that Apple is going to switch to x86 and that buying any Apple hardware between now and then is a waste of money.

For Apple's own sake, they better stop this rumour by tomrrow or else they are going to lose one hell of a lot of customers.

As for me, if Apple actually does do another architecture/platform switch, like they've done twice now, I will finally drop Apple for good. There is no way that I'm going to reinvest new software for a new platform. If I have to do that I'll switch back to Windows.

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by goMac

Anyway, I got to get ready for a trip to the airport...

Bon voyage!

[Boondoggle]

Originally Posted by klinux

It could mean that. In fact, if a sensible person said it that is what I would have assumed. However, there are idiots here that do literally mean that even if Otellini shows an invoice of Apple's order, the idiots will still say that I won't believe it until Steve says so.

For example, here is one:



What makes this a sensible analysis? Why is an article two week old article more convincing than an up-to-date report with schedule, confirmation of meeting etc?

You know what a real fanatic is? Anyone that would use Linux as a general (ie not development) desktop OS by choice. Even windows is better and I've used 90% of the distros on 3 platforms.

This rumor is filled with uncertainty so suspending belief until the CEO says something or some major announcement is made is hardly fanatical.


The Forbes article was analysis, which is not news, and therefor not time sensitive. So you attacked it as old, and then claim it has general information that is widely known?

You have an anomaly in your parsing of logical data my friend.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by chrisutley

It's not a rumor, it's fact. The net impact on Apple's market share over the next 5-years will be a positive one with this switch. Macs will be able to emulate Windows as well as products like Vmware, making the Mac transition easier than ever. These are exciting times in Macland.

If Apple will be able to emulate Windows, then I'll just buy Windows software. That way I don't have to be a victim of Apple's product politics and I don't have to emulate anything. While I'm at it, I might as well just get a PC, since they'll be cheaper than Apple's hardware.

Look, I have no idea what all of this means, whether Apple will be moving to some Intel architecture like Itanium, or whether Apple will be switching to x86 or whether it'll be a mix of both and Apple will only be using Pentium M's in future Tablets and Powerbooks, but no matter what it is, I'm kind of tired of it. Apple's hardware and software are fantastic but the politics of the Mac platform are positively suffocating.

For all I know, Jobs is simply pissed off because the XBox 360 has a three core PPC running at 3.2GHz and yet IBM has not yet been able to make a dual core G5 at 3GHz for Apple. Maybe Microsoft just screwed Apple over by making an exclusive and expensive deal with IBM for those chips.

I have no idea. But, to be honest, I'm at the point where I no longer really care.

[Buckaroo]

What time is Steve's speech? I'll have to get away from work to see it.

[osxisfun]

>You know what a real fanatic is? Anyone that would use Linux as a general (ie not development) desktop OS by choice. Even windows is better and I've used 90% of the distros on 3 platforms.


I agree. Linux on the desktop? Wheres the photoshop (gimp!= photoshop), itunes, ipod tons of fantastic shareware , seemless office interfacing... final cut, iapps, a DECENT interface.

I guess the phrase "to each his own" applies here i guess....

I always think of linux as the guy down the street you always see working on his car. Tricking it out. Giving it overhaul #2234 etc... you see him doing everything to it but driving it. Its for tweakers. (or the server where it is a fine solution)

I like taking my performance car out everyday and using it.

[osxisfun]

26 more hours.

[zizban]

The Intel chips are almost assuredly going to start with a mobile part, probably Yonah, then on to Merom. Both use the same FSB technology, but Merom is faster so the switch will be a fairly painless one. The markets pointed out by CNet back up the idea that Yonah will start it all off, then Conroe and Woodcrest will take over. These sure are interesting times. µ

Is Intel on a New Testament naming kick now?

[osxisfun]

I may be wrong but that line of chips was developed by a division of intel based in isreal and just like intels portland(?) division started naming all their chips after rivers in the oregon area(? or mountains) they probably followed the naming scheme... I think yonah is a lake for a river.

anyone?


Edit: apoliges if its been posted but this is a pretty good story on Transitive tech:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,64914,00.html

[euphras]

Originally posted by Theolein:
For all I know, Jobs is simply pissed off because the XBox 360 has a three core PPC running at 3.2GHz and yet IBM has not yet been able to make a dual core G5 at 3GHz for Apple. Maybe Microsoft just screwed Apple over by making an exclusive and expensive deal with IBM for those chips.

Why would MS be interested in killing Apple, since Apple is the main research division in terms of GUI and other stuff (also exploited by MS)

IF Apple moves to x86 parts, who's to say that they are even going to be faster than what PPC they're shipping at the time? And, would Apple risk the public outcry if they released boxes much more powerful seemingly overnight? I'm talking about the Joe Schmo out there that didn't have a clue about any of these happenings taking place finding out their 3.0GHz G5 iMac they just bought was just replaced with a 6.0GHz x86 iMac.

I think if they do go x86, they're not going to introduce models that are any faster than their G5 counterparts. At least, at first.

And in the end, does it even flippin' matter? If I was a speed-nut, I wouldn't be runnning a Mac. I run it for OSX and the stability it offers me. Hell, the thing could run with Cyrix chips and I'd still be happy. That being said, I would hate to hear the fan noise a Powermac with Intel processors in it would spit out!

[Hash]

I guess we will see demo of OS X on Mac with Intel processor inside. It may be mini or PowerMac, or a notebook or a completely new one, like PDA on Monday.

[osxisfun]

Daring fireball chimes in (he poopoo the rumors from last month but now sees its not a x86 thing its a powerpc thing)

http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel

logic used is along the lines i posted one page back.

24 hours 40 minutes to go?

Jack Bauer is about to enter the building...

[vinster]

Originally Posted by klinux

<snip>

For example, here is one:

... Reference to my post about the forbes article making a sensible assumption of Apple's situation ...

What makes this a sensible analysis? Why is an article two week old article more convincing than an up-to-date report with schedule, confirmation of meeting etc?

OK Colonel Klink,

It's because the forbes article doesn't make wide-raging assumptions with huge consequences for Apple's user base and developers. It makes a reasoned analysis of why Apple isn't happy with the processor bottleneck, which is a well-known problem, but can't really do anything about it.

I don't care what Steve has to say, and I don't think he's going to say anything about this topic. However, I've learned over the years not to speculate on unsubstantiated press prior to an Apple announcement. Just because c|net and the WSJ wrote an article with no named sources, many posters (including me) are getting their knickers in a bunch trying to refute or support this idea.

I'm waiting until Monday before commenting further (don't know why I got involved in this pointless banter anyways).

Peace, out!

[sideus]

Originally Posted by vinster

(don't know why I got involved in this pointless banter anyways).

Hi! And welcome to the 'NN™.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

If a switch to x86 is in the offing, one incredible positive from my perspective is that Joe Shmoe can go buy a x86 Mac because he loves gaming but wants the security of an OS X system. Possibly Joe Schmoe has already been burned by spyware/virii. Joe didn't want a Mac before because there isn't enough games. An x86 Mac with the ability to run Windows at native speeds brings all those games to the Mac table.

The flip side is, will it kill porting games to OS X? Possibly, but we all know that many games underperform on OS X *ahem* Doom 3 *cough*. In Apple's perspective, who cares? Buy an x86 Mac to run Windows games, and also have your iLife to boot and leave the spyware to the crazies.

If you can run Windows software on OS X, that includes viruses and spyware.

Originally Posted by klinux

No. You known damn well that there are Steve worshippers here. Some people here do literally mean that they will ignore all evidence until the words come out of Steve's mouth

Uh huh. I've never met anyone who wouldn't believe an announcement if it were on the front page of apple.com.

Look, I'm getting tired of playing Stater of the Obvious with you. Let's get back on topic, okay?

[vinster]

Originally Posted by sideus

Hi! And welcome to the 'NN™.

Thanks, welcome to you, too.

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by vinster

don't know why I got involved in this pointless banter anyways

It's like a virus

[sideus]

lol

[osxisfun]

WTF? Does everyone work from home now? eweek has like 6 articles up this weekend on this matter.

here's their latest;

Apple Should Open Up and Unbundle

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1821886,00.asp

[vinster]

Originally Posted by Appleman

It's like a virus

Yea, especially if you forget to turn off the instant e-mail notification option.

[crazeazn]

so how about them apples.

[osxisfun]

FLAME WAR!

http://scoblecomments2.scripting.com....html%23a10320

man-o-man john c welch is ripping scoble.

22 hrs+ till we find out who was right.

[ironknee]

but will apple advertise the hardware with that annoying intel inside jingle?

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by ironknee

but will apple advertise the hardware with that annoying intel inside jingle?

Maybe, (not) but intel does provide computer manufactures with kickbacks everytime that chime goes off... might help offset the price of the new macs...


Just found:

Brian: I've heard it from several different executive-level sources inside Apple.] Hope that helps.
Robert Scoble • 6/5/05; 9:47:01 AM

[Buckaroo]

hmmm

[Buckaroo]

ok, I take it that means 10 am Pacfic time.

[BrunoBruin]

Originally Posted by ironknee

but will apple advertise the hardware with that annoying intel inside jingle?

They'd have to actually START advertising hardware first.

[Randman]

Why couldn't Apple use Intel and IBM? Use Intel for new laptops or iTablets or something.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BrunoBruin

They'd have to actually START advertising hardware first.

[osxisfun]

Is this man our new hero?



Find out why:

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/

[jcadam]

F!CK x86 --- F!CK IT IN THE GOAT-A$$!!!!

NOOOO!!! Listen to me, Apple, Intel, and AMD: Let the chump-a$$ x86 die already!!!!!!!

WTF? Switching the mac from PPC to a long in the tooth dead end architecture like x86 is wronger than 2 naked boys in a bathtub. Really, after my recent purchase of a shiny powermac G5 I'll feel more used than a $2 street-ho if SJ pulls this crazy sh!t.

I'll say it again, even Intel wants to bury x86. Their plan to migrate everyone to IA64 was foiled by:
1.) The x86 emulation mode in the original Itanium sucking
2.) The original Itanium, in general, sucking.
3.) AMD and the x86-x64.

AMD deserves to be gangraped by a pack of syphilltic llamas for deciding to, yet again, extend, and keep alive, the ancient x86 architecture. Intel planned on the x86 ending with 32-bit era. Why do you think the Opteron caught them by surprise??

Argh, and the Itanium2 was/is actually a good chip, too bad Intel f!ed themselves with the original Itanium.

Those f!ing arses at AMD saw a way to make a few $$ at the expense of dragging the computing world through another iteration of the antiquated, broke-a$$, first-gen CPU tech x86. I swear, I want to hurt somebody.

BTW, I'm drunk as hell.

[zoetrope]

osxisfun has found it! Leander Kahney is the smart detective who has pieced the whole illogical scenario together. And Alasdair Rawsthorne is the man responsible for allowing Steve Jobs to make what is seemingly the most illogical yet inevitable announcement tomorrow.

People, read the http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/ that osxisfun has just posted. I'll admit that I was kicking and screaming this whole weekend as well, until I read that article. It shut me up instantly! It makes sense and if you don't think Hollywood (specifically Pixar) has any influence or power over technology, then you don't know sheeeite!

This is for the people who wanted a video iPod. And you thought Sony was the only company suffering from the content/distribution conundrum?

[klinux]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Uh huh. I've never met anyone who wouldn't believe an announcement if it were on the front page of apple.com.

Look, I'm getting tired of playing Stater of the Obvious with you. Let's get back on topic, okay?

I have covered this with you again too. Sure, you would believe Enron and Worldcom committed fruad if Lay and Ebbers themselves said so but that does not mean you'd ignore evidence from WSJ would you? Some people here would.


Yeah, I to am getting tired of playing Stater of the Obvious with you too.

[osxisfun]

All I have to say is if this pans out I am naming my firstborn "Rawsthorne" the (os)X.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by vinster

OK Colonel Klink,

It's because the forbes article doesn't make wide-raging assumptions with huge consequences for Apple's user base and developers. It makes a reasoned analysis <snip>

Sure Shyster. (Why are Mac uses so fascinated with coming up with these names?)

Arik's piece has little analysis in there beside a few quote from an analyst (Krewell) - in the same article that mentions how another analyst (Neff) got it wrong - basically one analyst vs another. Morover, the article hinges on that Apple will not embrace Intel because of x86 when we do not even know if a move to Intel means move to x86. The report from CNET or WSJ certainly did not mention that. It is the wide conjecture of some here (like a drunken CS major) that Apple is definitely going to x86 that caused the ensuing argument.

[osxisfun]

Where the frack is Eug?

Wrong weekend to take that vacation Eug!

[sideus]

If I was a developer after gone through the OS 9 to OS X transistion and having to do it again for an Intel based system, I'd be extremely pissed.