 |
 |
According to CNET: Apple switching to Intel x86 (Page 7)
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Michigan, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Don Pickett
If the rumors of the Transitive Tech connection are true, this opens an amazing possibility: Apple can sell the ultimate computing Holy Grail – one box which can run all of the major operating systems in use. Imagine buying a Powermac in two years and being able to run OS X, Windows and your favorite Linux distro, plus legacy OS X apps. Imagine the corporate sales. . .
If I understand the Transitive technology right, it's not about running entire operating systems with fast emulation. It's about running application binaries on a multitude of platforms at close to native speeds.
Something I picked up from another forum, one of the board members of Transitive was president and COO of NeXT. That tells me this technology is not just hype.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
From the .mac home page:
.Mac will be undergoing scheduled maintenance from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM PST on Monday, June 6th. During this time iDisk will be intermittently unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Last Updated: 6/03/2005
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think the most likely result is the Intel manufactures PowerPC chips through some type of transfer of Apple's licenses for the chips. This would allow Apple to work with more than one supplier on the chips, and work with a company that makes all of its money only from chips. Switching to x86 architecture does not really seem to buy them that much either financially or performance-wise. But having Intel help them with chip production does make sense.
|
|
Read my MacWebb column and other great Mac articles at Lowendmac.com
Owner of a MacBook Pro and various other Macs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Michigan, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by osxisfun
From the .mac home page:
.Mac will be undergoing scheduled maintenance from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM PST on Monday, June 6th. During this time iDisk will be intermittently unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Last Updated: 6/03/2005
OMG OMG OMG they are switching teh PPC servers to x86 servers!!! OMG
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by nforcer
The "I won't pay for all of my apps again" argument is a poor one. Apple going to x86 would not force you to upgrade or pay anything. You can continue to use what you have paid for. Furthermore the statement implies existing updates for apps are free and that's far from the case. Don't we go through this "why should I have to pay" debate with every OS X update (sans 10.1 because that was free)?
No, we don't, because no previous update has required us to repurchase every single app we own just to use them on a new machine. We're talking $100 vs. $20,000. It's not quite the same.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Where will we be able to get a stream of Jobs' keynote?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
No, we don't, because no previous update has required us to repurchase every single app we own just to use them on a new machine. We're talking $100 vs. $20,000. It's not quite the same.
Remember when Apple did a switch from 68k to PPC? Switching the Intel chips is not going to cost you more for software. Say you license Final Cut Pro 4.0 for PPC. You want to upgrade to Final Cut Pro. 5.0. The upgrade is $100 for either the PPC version or Intel version.
|
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Michigan, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Probably not a live webcast. They will most likely post the webcast later in the day like they did last year.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn
If I understand the Transitive technology right, it's not about running entire operating systems with fast emulation. It's about running application binaries on a multitude of platforms at close to native speeds.
Ah. Didn't know that.
Something I picked up from another forum, one of the board members of Transitive was president and COO of NeXT. That tells me this technology is not just hype.
That I knew. Got my tinfoil hat ready!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by nforcer
The "I won't pay for all of my apps again" argument is a poor one. Apple going to x86 would not force you to upgrade or pay anything. You can continue to use what you have paid for. Furthermore the statement implies existing updates for apps are free and that's far from the case. Don't we go through this "why should I have to pay" debate with every OS X update (sans 10.1 because that was free)?
When I upgraded to 10.1 , Office v. X still worked fine.
When I upgraded to 10.2 , Office v. X still worked fine.
When I upgraded to 10.3 , Office v. X still worked fine.
When I upgraded to 10.4 , Office v. X would have still worked fine if I hadn't finally bit the bullet and ordered Office 2004. Which still worked fine.
Photoshop 7 and CS1 still work fine under 10.4.
Finale 2004 still works fine under 10.4.
Hell, even OS 9 apps work fine under 10.4, because of the Classic environment!
Get the point? Yeah, updates cost money, but you don't have to buy them! You can just pay for the updates that provide features you actually need. If you have to buy all new apps just to have them work on a new system, that costs a lot of money. And unless you are a rich teenager with a daddy who's a millionaire, that is a Bad Thing.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
Remember when Apple did a switch from 68k to PPC? Switching the Intel chips is not going to cost you more for software. Say you license Final Cut Pro 4.0 for PPC. You want to upgrade to Final Cut Pro. 5.0. The upgrade is $100 for either the PPC version or Intel version.
Or, you could keep version 4.0 if it's working well enough and save $100.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
Agreed. Still read it though.
He's saying he knew about it 2 years ago and is confirming it.
The "middleware" he talks of confuses the frack out of me. Does he mean Transitive?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Someone post it here so I don't give him a page hit.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
just click it once. i want someone else's thoughts on that middleware comment.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Good question...
Status:
Offline
|
|
The middleware comment confused me too. Not sure what he meant by that...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gururafiki
The middleware comment confused me too. Not sure what he meant by that...
Probably the Transactive software. He says he's going to comment on the "mean comments" left in the forum by Mac users. Hope he's wrong so we can leave more "mean" comments.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
I wonder if this deal will give apple some access to intel compilers? I wonder if this plays into this. Correct me if i am wrong but gcc is good but the intel stuff (since its so optimized for x86) is better?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Jobs: "We have partnered with Intel to provide chipsets for the new Airport Base Station."
That would be so funny.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status:
Offline
|
|
:hungover:
I'm assuming he means middleware as in an emulation layer to run PPC-code-on x86. I don't see how it would work. It worked in the case of 68k->PPC because the PPC was actually much faster.
Also, perhaps SJ wants to be able to run Windows apps alongside OS X-native apps under the same OS(remember OS/2, "a better Windows than Windows"). Of course, that's also what killed OS/2; why develop OS/2-native apps when users can run the windows version just fine?
Perhaps the mac isn't moving to x86. Perhaps Apple is aslo releasing a version of OSX to run on standard x86 boxen and CNET just misinterpreted the information. Perhaps Bill is nervous about Apple's newfound popularity and has decided to pull MS-Office (expect to see a spreadsheet app added to iWork), and this is SJ's retaliation.
Or, it could all be true. Apple is currently a successful company. Why take such a huge risk? SJ must be counting on his core user base - the folks that have stuck with Apple since the beginning - to stay loyal. I think he'd be wrong this time. Not to mention the transition would need to happen fast, as I don't foresee any new PPC Powermacs being sold in the meantime. Or more importantly, I don't foresee any new mac (PPC) software being developed after the announcement.
(
Last edited by jcadam; Jun 6, 2005 at 12:35 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interresting... guess we will know in t minus 12:45
That clock from "24" would be a super cool emoticon about now....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
No one will know anything till tomorrow.
Good luck with the longgg wait.
Imagine the server load at 10am during Jobs speech.
Will the new Apple run Windows?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by sideus
nice... 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
When I upgraded to 10.1 , Office v. X still worked fine.
When I upgraded to 10.2 , Office v. X still worked fine.
When I upgraded to 10.3 , Office v. X still worked fine.
When I upgraded to 10.4 , Office v. X would have still worked fine if I hadn't finally bit the bullet and ordered Office 2004. Which still worked fine.
Photoshop 7 and CS1 still work fine under 10.4.
...
And when you upgrade to an x86 Mac:
Office and Photoshop will start running slowly because of processor and Altivec emulation. They'll freeze up, crash, and cause kernel panics because I expect the PPC emulation to be about as well tested and bug-free as Tiger was.
I honestly don't expect any company to have the expertise to run real-time PPC code through an OS designed for the PPC and Altivec on an x86 processor. Not without 5+ years testing and seeding to developers. The only software available that can currently do PPC emulation runs at about one-twentieth native speed. I'm afraid even Steve Jobs and Transitive are subject to the laws of mathematics.
If there really are x86 Mac laptops coming out, I expect it to be one of those weird things Apple tried and failed at, like the Newton and the Pippin. In 2008, we'll be like, "remember when Apple made those wonky Intel-based laptops that emulated a real Mac? Those were weird, glad I never got one."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
From a mrketing and purely business stand point:
If Apple does start switching over to the x86 platform, it could be very good for marketshare and pushing more machines. Market share goes up, profits go up..prices will be comparable to Dells/HPs, etc. Good for Apple, plus Consumers will have a more viable choice of operating systems on their PC.
From a mac-faithful point:
If Apple dos announce it....ill be ordering my DP 2.7GHz G5 or iMac G5 right now...i love the PowerPCs, because all what apple has preached about it ...is true, it is the more elegant, efficient and powerful processor of all on the market right now. And personally it would seem to me like Apple would be heading to be a software only company (That is developing software, and maybe designing the outer shell of hardware.(which is kinda superfcial...but Apple design is still great compared to wintel).
I Hope:
that Whta apple will announce is a partnership with AMD, to manage manufacturing process for the G5,ets....cause intel and AMD are pretty damn good at the manufacturing process, while in my opinion no one and oust IBM+Motorola when it comes to designing the chips themselves.
The PowerPC in a home computing environment is the better one, especially given the 'ditigial lifestyle' to throw that away because of manufacturing limitations would be a great waste and disservice to the public...imo.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southaven, MS
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maybe they'll have an x86 co-processor. Like how the Pentiums had a math co-processor on the board next to it...
Just a thought.
|
|
iMac 17" 2GHz Core2Duo | 1GB RAM | 160GB hdd | Superdrive | Tiger and XP Pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hope these new 'Intel' chips come with ruffles. I do enjoy ruffles.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Or, you could keep version 4.0 if it's working well enough and save $100.
And let's not forget that not all software (*cough*Quark*cough*) has any particularly reasonable upgrade pricing, and for that reason you will routinely see people using 8-year-old versions.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Even if they do use x86. There is always a ROM.
Dude... I don't think you fully understand the topic of OS design, so I'd advise you to stop talking now. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn
The positives in switching:
• Ability to run Windows apps without emulation
• Java will run much much faster
• Economies of scale = cheaper processors
• Centrino -- a good laptop processor, yes?
• Porting apps between Windows/OS X much easier (?)
Negatives…
• Will Mac developers go along with this and recompile their apps? How much work involved?
• x86 architecture sucks ass, inefficient
• What else?
I don't know if the point has already been raised, but I think Apple would probably emulate the old PPC apps under the x86 (think of the new emulating technologies that have hit Slashdot news in the last years. It would probably ressemble a vastly improved Classic Environment) I know this would be a smooth, good transition. After all, I'm sure they gained great knowledge about masive system transition with the switch to OSX.
Hey, if we think about it, it's almost the same level of transition.... Apps will have to be recompiled, remodified, but probably to a lesser degree (seeing as Cocoa/Majority of frameworks, etc. could easily be ported to Intel, but also that Java could be probably faster.)
Are you ready
Can't wait for the Keynote!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
From a poster on the AI boards:
Humm, read the last part of this lawyers resume...
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3340942_1?&channel=CCC
"Transitive Technologies: Represented Transitive Technologies in a co-development and licensing agreement with Apple Computer"
its the very last accomplishment, so it must have happened recently...
Moowahhhhh.......
confirm?!!/...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by osxisfun
From a poster on the AI boards:
Humm, read the last part of this lawyers resume...
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3340942_1?&channel=CCC
"Transitive Technologies: Represented Transitive Technologies in a co-development and licensing agreement with Apple Computer"
its the very last accomplishment, so it must have happened recently...
Moowahhhhh.......
confirm?!!/...
Hehe.. and the plot thickens!
Good find.
|
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status:
Offline
|
|
My name is Jobs Bauer and this is going to be the longest day in my life... tick tock. tick tock....tick tock....
11 more hours....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pit Slab #35
Status:
Offline
|
|
you all need to get some sleep.
|
|
I tried to sig-spam the forums.
ADVANTAGE Motorsports Marketing, Inc. • speedXdesign, Inc.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Minnesota - Twins Territory
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dillerX
you all need to get some sleep.
tell me about it
|
"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniel's."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's not midnight yet.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm scared 
|
iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
“Apple is a design win that we’ve coveted for 20 years and we continue to covet them as a design win. We will never give up on Apple.”
That's either very good news after all the missed targets with Motorola and now IBM or they'll change their minds after Steve throws a Xeon at them.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
You know, everyone's reporting it as happening. Like it's already been announced. It's really happening isn't it?
Phased transition over 2 years? That's really not going to happen. No-one with any sense would buy a PowerPC unless they were really desperate or the machines were heavily discounted.
Mmmmm, cheap G5s... *Looks for the drool smiley...*
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status:
Offline
|
|
*drool* a $599 Dual 2.7 PowerMac 
|
iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
*drool* a $599 Dual 2.7 PowerMac
Steve: "Of course, they're slower than our new 2.6Ghz Intel Pentium Powermac G6, but what do you expect from ancient technology?"
Do you think they're going to ditch the G5 thing? G6 seems wrong Powermac P4?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
Those that say larger outfits like adobe, etc will be pissed about a change to intel have it backwards. You have to think long term. I think they will actually be in favor of it. In the long run it will mean a simplified code base.
You will only have to optimize your code for one processor - the same optimizations will work for both platforms. For something like photoshop it might actually mean taking code out.
No, for the big shops that support both platforms this is good news. (doesn't mean they won't complain though)
The timeframe of any switch will be the next 4 or 5 years and should really be no more chaotic than the last few years - during which the mac gained, not lost, developers and applications.
Being on x86 will level the playing field. PCs and macs will share the same pricing and availability issues for the chips.
As to the question of 'why would anyone make a mac app if it will run their windows app under emulation'? Although you could use WINE to run windows apps, your mac will not ship with it, relatively few people will install it. The situation will be no different than it currently is with Virtual PC.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Gavin
The timeframe of any switch will be the next 4 or 5 years and should really be no more chaotic than the last few years - during which the mac gained, not lost, developers and applications.
"Starting in 2006 with the Mac Mini and the Powermac in 2007." Your math is off. 
I was planning on buying a G5 around September time. Now, I'm not so sure. I may buy the low end to tide me over, then a Mini x86 in the New Year.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Another insightful post from the Daring Fireball site.
I really don't know what to think. All of the reports are delivered with such certainty, I'm inclined to believe that the switch will happen.
On the other hand, my instinct + logic tells me that quite a few "reputable" news agencies will have a lot of egg on their faces later today.
|
|
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top