Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

iKevin · Jun 3, 2005, 09:00 PM

I was shocked to see this:

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+I...1398&subj=news

Agasthya · Jun 3, 2005, 09:08 PM

I'll believe it when Steve says it. Until then, nope.

AKcrab · Jun 3, 2005, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Agasthya

I'll believe it when Steve says it. Until then, nope.

I'm not sure I'll believe it even if Steve says it.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 3, 2005, 09:20 PM

All apps would break and they would have to re-write most of the OS.

pat++ · Jun 3, 2005, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

All apps would break and they would have to re-write most of the OS.

The OS already runs on Intel. There would be some work for Carbon apps, but Cocoa apps should just require a recompilation.

vinster · Jun 3, 2005, 09:35 PM

Like I said here this is a complete load of poo!

Looks like c|net needs some page views to boost advertising prices or something, maybe they should hire Dvorak to write a few articles about Apple, too.

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 09:38 PM

why poo?

I don't know if i buy the story yet but cnet will not post stories they know to be false just for page views.

who's the first person that is going to make a steve WWDC dashboard countdown clock

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 3, 2005, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by pat++

The OS already runs on Intel. There would be some work for Carbon apps, but Cocoa apps should just require a recompilation.

Where have you seen TIGER running on Intel?

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 09:42 PM

its the long rumor that apple always keep a version of OSX running on intel (i am sure not in the same state of the ppc version ) as an emergency measure.

edit: Marklar. yes. thanks jason

jasonsRX7 · Jun 3, 2005, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Where have you seen TIGER running on Intel?

Doesn't Apple supposedly maintain a build of OS X called Marklar for x86?

vinster · Jun 3, 2005, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by osxisfun

why poo?

I don't know if i buy the story yet but cnet will not post stories they know to be false just for page views.

who's the first person that is going to make a steve WWDC dashboard countdown clock

um, ... where did I say know to be false

c|net's in bed with microsoft and intel, big time, and they print rumor stories all the time to generate traffic, as do many technology news sites.

I don't see this happening, sorry.

CharlesS · Jun 3, 2005, 09:45 PM

Something tells me that Apple isn't going to force all its customers to buy all new software again so soon after the OS X transition.

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 09:46 PM

point taken.

guess we will know monday.

"I just don't see this happening" is not enough for me to be convinced though

the story gives long lead times for the switch.

just as along as my mac is quiet I don't give a DAMN!!

jasonsRX7 · Jun 3, 2005, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Something tells me that Apple isn't going to force all its customers to buy all new software again so soon after the OS X transition.

In my short experience with Apple (around 3 years) that's the exact sort of thing I get the impression they would do.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 3, 2005, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

Doesn't Apple supposedly maintain a build of OS X called Marklar for x86?

Yes. The umpa lumpa's put out the builds.

d0ubled0wn · Jun 3, 2005, 09:55 PM

The article is worded like it is a fact, not a rumour. I wonder who their source is. CNet stands to lose much credibility if they are wrong. One interesting point is, CNet is owned by Intel, if I remember correctly.

vinster · Jun 3, 2005, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

In my short experience with Apple (around 3 years) that's the exact sort of thing I get the impression they would do.

Apple does take bold moves for the betterment of the platform (i.e. switch from CISC to RISC and OS X) but moving to Intel won't guarantee them more market share.

People don't use Windows necessarily because it runs on intel hardware, they use it because it's the dominant OS and is integrated with their business, personal investment in software, comfort level with the UI, etc.

Apple would gain the economies of scale benefit by moving to intel but would take many, many steps backwards, too.

Also, if this has any validity why isn't anyone besides c|net reporting it?

Zimphire · Jun 3, 2005, 09:57 PM

I wonder if Intel could be making Apple custom chips?

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I wonder if Intel could be making Apple custom chips?

That would make sense in that apple would get to still keep fat HW profits. Depends on what kind of company they want to be in the future.

E's Lil Theorem · Jun 3, 2005, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Where have you seen TIGER running on Intel?

Darwin runs fine on x86. Tiger is just what you see on the surface as a user.

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

...One interesting point is, CNet is owned by Intel, if I remember correctly.

Eh? C|net is publicly traded and Intel doesn't own any major portion of it, if any portion at all. See this.

Zimphire · Jun 3, 2005, 10:03 PM

Even if they do use x86. There is always a ROM.

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Even if they do use x86. There is always a ROM.

Acuatlly, i am not thinking ROM, I am thinking that since intel just announced DRM on a chip, it would be something like that maybe?

zizban · Jun 3, 2005, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Even if they do use x86. There is always a ROM.

A rom with high encryption would do it. Still, it would be a HUGE gamble.

d0ubled0wn · Jun 3, 2005, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by E's Lil Theorem

Eh? C|net is publicly traded and Intel doesn't own any major portion of it, if any portion at all. See this.

Thanks for the link. I remember in the past that anytime C|net mentioned Intel in any article there was a blurb at the bottom stating Intel was an investor. I suppose they could have since sold their stake in C|net.

ironknee · Jun 3, 2005, 10:21 PM

nope...heard this before...but i could see it now Apple gives you choice.

CharlesS · Jun 3, 2005, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

In my short experience with Apple (around 3 years) that's the exact sort of thing I get the impression they would do.

Nah, how many times have they created a situation where users had to buy all new apps?

The OS X transition - yeah. Technically in 2001, but the real deal was Jaguar's release in 2002. But, they still provided the Classic environment, so you could run old apps if you wanted, although without any of the new features that OS X provides.

The previous time users had to upgrade their apps was the PowerPC transition, way back in 1994, nearly 8 years before the release of Jaguar. But the 680x0 emulator let you run all your old apps at nearly the same speed as the actual 68040 chips ran them, and with the second generation of PowerPC machines, the emulator actually ran faster than the real thing. And the emulator worked so seamlessly that non-technical users would have been highly unlikely to even be able to tell the difference. There were even freeware utilities written to check an app to see if it was PPC native or not. Certainly, no one was forced to buy new apps at all. They only had to upgrade if they wanted their apps to run faster, as opposed to about the same speed that the apps used to run.

If Apple were to switch to x86, it would be completely impossible to run your old apps unless you wanted to run at PearPC speeds. It would be glacially slow. Sure, Cocoa and Carbon apps that didn't make assumptions about endianness or other hardware features would maybe work with not much more than a recompile, maybe, but the fact is that many older apps wouldn't get recompiled, and even more apps would force you to pay for the upgrade...

I really do think that if Apple were to do this, it could kill them (well, other than the iPod division). Because of this, I highly doubt that they would do it. Now, if they were to somehow talk Intel into working on a new PPC-compatible chip, that would be another thing, but I don't find that terribly likely either.

d0ubled0wn · 10:31 PM

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?

CharlesS · Jun 3, 2005, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

• What else?

• Customers would be PO'ed at having to pay through the nose to upgrade Office and all the rest of their apps yet again.

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 10:30 PM

at macrumors they remind us of this:

Also of interest are recent Page 2 rumors which pointed to the use of Transitive Technologies' dynamic translators to ease such a transition. Although no confirmation has been made of these rumors, if no such emulator technology is made available, all Mac applications will have to be recompiled before their use on a non-PowerPC Mac platform.

and wasn't the rumor that apple owned part of the company or a stake in it...

and can the HW guys chime in here about procs that basically can reporgramm themselves to work with different OSs? I remember reading more than one story on this a while back as one direction procs where moving towards.

nforcer · Jun 3, 2005, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

• Customers would be PO'ed at having to pay through the nose to upgrade Office and all the rest of their apps yet again.

Paying for upgrades to apps is no different than it is now. If they like what they have now they can continue to use it - they are not forced to upgrade their hardware or software (at least until MS decides to do a major change in the requirements and the file format). One could argue Mac users are paying (and have been paying) through the nose for existing Apple hardware.

Eriamjh · Jun 3, 2005, 10:39 PM

I could see Apple selling a high end PC that runs Tiger. Or a server. But not a Mac.

AKcrab · Jun 3, 2005, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I could see Apple selling a high end PC that runs Tiger. Or a server. But not a Mac.

What?

zizban · Jun 3, 2005, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by osxisfun

at macrumors they remind us of this:

Also of interest are recent Page 2 rumors which pointed to the use of Transitive Technologies' dynamic translators to ease such a transition. Although no confirmation has been made of these rumors, if no such emulator technology is made available, all Mac applications will have to be recompiled before their use on a non-PowerPC Mac platform.

and wasn't the rumor that apple owned part of the company or a stake in it...

and can the HW guys chime in here about procs that basically can reporgramm themselves to work with different OSs? I remember reading more than one story on this a while back as one direction procs where moving towards.

SGI is now using Transitive Technologies' technology in the new Prizm to run older Irix binaries.

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 10:43 PM

x86 = crap.

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 10:46 PM

Going to be a lot of pissed off Mac users come Monday.

NeXTLoop · Jun 3, 2005, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

The positives in switching:
• Ability to run Windows apps without emulation

Actually I'm not so sure that's a positive. If Macs can run Windows apps natively, with no emulation, what's to prevent software companies from just writing a Windows version? Why waste time writing two different versions, if a Mac can run a Windows version just fine?

Person Man · Jun 3, 2005, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by NeXTLoop

Actually I'm not so sure that's a positive. If Macs can run Windows apps natively, with no emulation, what's to prevent software companies from just writing a Windows version? Why waste time writing two different versions, if a Mac can run a Windows version just fine?

Exactly. The Macintosh as a separate platform will be dead.

Zimphire · Jun 3, 2005, 10:49 PM

I think people are knee-jerking and jumping the gun a tad (I know redundant)

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 10:50 PM

I'd rather see an AMD based Power Mac.

d0ubled0wn · Jun 3, 2005, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by NeXTLoop

Actually I'm not so sure that's a positive. If Macs can run Windows apps natively, with no emulation, what's to prevent software companies from just writing a Windows version? Why waste time writing two different versions, if a Mac can run a Windows version just fine?

With that logic, why do Mac developers exist at all? Why does Bare Bones Software write BBEdit for Mac only, Ambrosia Software write (mostly) Mac-only games? Because they love the Mac. Obviously there are times when users need to run Windows apps. The positive here is we will be able to do this without emulation, and still be running OS X.

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 10:54 PM

Sure, I bet Intel and Apple will announce something Monday. But it will probably have to do with wireless networking, not CPUs.

Person Man · Jun 3, 2005, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

With that logic, why do Mac developers exist at all? Why does Bare Bones Software write BBEdit for Mac only, Ambrosia Software write (mostly) Mac-only games? Because they love the Mac. Obviously there are times when users need to run Windows apps. The positive here is we will be able to do this without emulation, and still be running OS X.

Bare Bones and Ambrosia are very small developers. If big-time players like Adobe, Microsoft, etc stop writing their software for Macs-- "why do go to all that separate effort if our customers can just run the Windows versions perfectly on the new machines?" The platform would be COMPLETELY DEAD!

Let's wait to see what Steve has to say on Monday.

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Let's wait to see what Steve has to say on Monday.

But this is the MacNN forums! We can't wait! We must speculate.

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 11:03 PM

The 68000 will eat the 8088 for lunch.

d0ubled0wn · Jun 3, 2005, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Bare Bones and Ambrosia are very small developers. If big-time players like Adobe, Microsoft, etc stop writing their software for Macs-- "why do go to all that separate effort if our customers can just run the Windows versions perfectly on the new machines?" The platform would be COMPLETELY DEAD!

Let's wait to see what Steve has to say on Monday.

A VirtualPC will still be needed to run Windows and Windows apps, it will just do so without emulation. It would be very unprofessional for Adobe to say "Mac users: please purchase VirtualPC and our Windows version of Photoshop".

osxisfun · Jun 3, 2005, 11:24 PM

Red Box?

meelk · Jun 3, 2005, 11:38 PM

Let me be the first to say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

sideus · Jun 3, 2005, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by meelk

Let me be the first to say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AssassyN · Jun 3, 2005, 11:39 PM

Everyone should get off their high horse and understand this is purely positive in ANYTHING other than the extremely short-term future.

This will help tremendously and will surely drive prices down and speed up. I hope it's true.

Kerrigan · Jun 3, 2005, 11:42 PM

To arms! To arms!

Mac users, it is time to UNITE, this time our survival depends on it! A switch to Intel will kill off the Mac platform for good. Apple will end up selling PCs and iPods, and that will be the end of it. Mac users, we must protest any move by Apple to switch to Intel!!