Future of Apple With x86

**pezagent** · August 12th, 2002, 08:30 AM

I thought I'd bump this subject up here again because it's somthing that needs to be discussed over and over again in great detail. There seems to be a lot of yip yap about why Apple should or shouldn't get involved with x86, etc. etc, and a lot of great comments have been made.

You should know by now I'm not happy with Apple's business design. One of the reasons I'm bitchin' and moanin' a lot about Apple right now is because they've painted themselves into another corner. The ad campaigns that Apple is launching right now have more to do with keeping Mac fanatics loyal than attracting new buyers. They're doing this to distract the loyal users from switching to PC... which right now is way ahead of Mac in terms of performance and speed. That's just a fact, and we can debate opinion in here forever, but I'm here in New Zealand, and let me tell you something: Lord of the Rings wasn't "made with a Mac." That should tell you somethin' right there--the industries that are still using Windows platforms aren't about to switch over because of a few clever ad campaigns. They need a reliable, dedicated, and FAST system in place, and Mac still isn't ready to deliver. Why? Becuase the damn chips are too slow.

It's not Motorola's fault entirely. The market for RISC processors is really small. IBM is having a great difficulty finding buyers for it.
AMD and Intel have dominated the market. With Motorola's difficulties, IBM is going to be stuck with the burden of delivering this chip to Apple.

Apple is in no position to be waiting around for chips. That's why I've mentioned that there's no doubt in my mind they've already ported OSX to x86 (duh) and are just trying to figure out the strategy of releasing it to the public, breaking up the AIM alliance, and all that jazz. (I mentioned in another post about how Spindler was considering porting the old OS to x86--the more I think back to my Apple history I think they actually achieved it, but Spindler had already lost interest--see Inside Apple)

Here's the deal... if you've been reading anything I've ever posted, you'd know that I'm a Mac(L)User that's been using Apple products for 20 years. I cut my teeth on the Apple IIe. That's my story. I've been very dedicated to the platform and had been waiting forever for OSX to finally get here. Now that OSX is finally here, the damn hardware is too slow. So, that's the only reason I'm really fed up. Ed mentioned I sounded like a born-again Christian comin' in here because I had to be convinced that what I was doing is the "right thing", which in itself is rather creepy... but folks, if Apple doesn't port to x86, where the hell can it go?

Previous posts mention that Risc processing is better, doesn't run as hot, etc, etc. That's fine. LPG is better for the environment, costs less, is more efficient, but people still pump gas into thier cars. Why? It's big business. If you think for one moment that the folks at AMD or Intel are going to stop making faster processors, then please, go to your local community college and sign up for a class in Business 101. The race is over, people. x86 won. Apple will never again be able to compare it's processing power to that of Intel or AMD. They're too far ahead. The fact that rumors have already started within THESE forums should be enough to let you know that the deal-makers are way ahead of us.

The problem that I forsee for Apple, and why I say it's painted itself into another corner, is this: what would happen if Apple was to port it's OS onto x86?

Well, first of all, anybody would be able to put together a machine from scratch, just like the PC world. In other words, you could buy a motherboard, the power supply, the processor, the RAM, the case, and everything else, sit down one evening and viola! Custom-tailored Mac. Just put a copy of OSX on it and away you go.

Now, what would this mean for Apple? Well, now more people would understand that there's no real "disney magic" behind Apple, and sales would probably plummet. Since large corps are already in bed with Microsoft, entering any arena where copy protection is enforced would prohibit Apple from realistically trying out the licensing option again. But then again, they'd have to, becuase people would be pirating the heck out of OSX.

This one has really got me stumped. I'm trying to think of a company that I could draw some CBR from, but I'm coming up blank. Steve really took on a lot when he went back to Apple, and maybe he was the only showman who could bring the Mac back into the limelight, but once again it seems like Apple really hasn't thought too far ahead--the telltale signs for me were the Switch campaigns...Apple is really trying to buy some time...

I imagine that Apple will continue to trickle out products like other manufacturers... upgrades of software will keep the loyalists happy... but I can not see any way that the RISC processor has any future on this planet at all. It's not wise to underestimate Intel... or AMD for that matter.

If you love Apple products, consider the x86 alternative for now, it might be the only way the company has a chance. (I'll tell you what... I'd go back to Apple if I could get dual AMD XP 2100s with it).

Sorry to repeat the topic so soon, but I think it needs to be bumped often. Who knows...

**vanguard** · August 12th, 2002, 09:49 AM

I agree with just about everything you've said. Apple hardware is slow but their software is top notch.

One point on contention: I don't agree that moving to x86 means allowing anybody to build hardware. It seems like it would be easy to add some required piece of hardware to the apple motherboard that OSX would require to run properly.

If Apple didn't do this, they would soon learn that people are not willing to pay extra money for a pretty case when presented with a cheap but ugly option.

Anyway, I suspect that Apple will move to the IBM Power4 not x86. However, I don't care. I just want a faster machine and the chip inside makes little difference to me.

**uoba** · August 12th, 2002, 10:01 AM

Yep, Power4 seems to be the baby!

**pezagent** · August 12th, 2002, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by vanguard
One point on contention: I don't agree that moving to x86 means allowing anybody to build hardware. It seems like it would be easy to add some required piece of hardware to the apple motherboard that OSX would require to run properly.

That's an interesting point. However, I'm sure there would be an easy way around any type of motherboard alteration. I was also thinking about the fact that there are dozens of motherboard manufacturers for x86 for both AMD and Intel, who supply the chipsets.

I think the scary point I'm trying to make might be that I know that Apple has an OSXx86 running somewhere in their headquarters--that's a given. They don't manufacture the chipsets so they have no say what their software gets put onto. If this were to happen, for example, there's no way Apple would commit suicide by limiting which boards you could put their software on. The REALLY scary thing is the more and more I talk about this whole thing I wonder why Apple is still calling itself a hardware manufacturer when it doesn't really make computers at all, if you get my drift.

Anyway, I suspect that Apple will move to the IBM Power4 not x86. However, I don't care. I just want a faster machine and the chip inside makes little difference to me.

This is another interesting topic, the Power4 chips. I would like to speculate that Apple is trying desperately to push this option as well but it seems unlikely that even IBM can come up with a viable production schedule that would fit into Apple's business design. Plus we're talking about a whole new bit architechture, which means educating even the early adopters, and I haven't heard enough buzz from this baby to substantiate a business prop (research and business need to be seperated like church and state at all times) any time soon, but I'm sure everybody's workin' on it. AMD and Intel are busy at work on their versions as well, and strategically speaking, I'm sure Wintels already solidified it's position with more than enough businesses to make sure IBM stays out of the picture. (No doubtfire why IBM likes Linux so much...)

thanks for makin' me think...

me...

**xaqintosh** · August 12th, 2002, 02:10 PM

thios new Power4-type processor from IBM with the Altivec-variant seems to be the best bet at the moment.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/...09122153.shtml
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/...11060547.shtml

**sjb2016** · August 16th, 2002, 08:15 AM

Apple's software is certainly amazing, and there is a reason for that, control over the hardware. The Apple OS and software work so well with the hardware because Apple knows exactly what is going into each machine and thus can know exactly how new software will interact with the hardware. This doesn't mean that there are never problems, but it's nice to know that because I have a Mac 95% of the time a new OS or iApp comes out, I'll simply be able to install and be on my way (as long as my system meets the minimum requirements for the program). I may sacrifice a little speed and pay a bit more, but I think for most Mac users it's well worth it.

**uoba** · August 16th, 2002, 09:16 AM

I suggest people read the links in Xaq's post above, a lot o' people talking about IBM's Power4, looks like a promising time ahead... (fingers crossed, and legs)

**drash** · August 16th, 2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by pezagent
Well, first of all, anybody would be able to put together a machine from scratch, just like the PC world. In other words, you could buy a motherboard, the power supply, the processor, the RAM, the case, and everything else, sit down one evening and viola! Custom-tailored Mac. Just put a copy of OSX on it and away you go.

Now, what would this mean for Apple? Well, now more people would understand that there's no real "disney magic" behind Apple, and sales would probably plummet. Since large corps are already in bed with Microsoft, entering any arena where copy protection is enforced would prohibit Apple from realistically trying out the licensing option again. But then again, they'd have to, becuase people would be pirating the heck out of OSX.

And the difference between Apple and Be would be........

Nothing, they'd both be out of business. Read my lips - Microsoft WILL NOT let Apple sell OS X on Intel/AMD machines. Why because Microsoft owns all the distribution points and they own the marketing machine for Intel/AMD computer. There's nothing there ... just like Be it's a desert for anything other than Windows software. Also, get ready for the big blow. Microsoft will start producing their own computers and nobody will be able to build for Microsoft either. They want people like me out of business.