Macs with Intel inside?

Originally posted by changomarcelo
But, worse of all.... Macs running Windows????? Are we crazy man????? :confused:
Click to expand...

First, it isn't going to happen. Second, if it did it doesn't mean they'll run windows because they use an Intel chip.
 
"Ain't gonna happen"

This is the typical ignorance of the Apple iDiot.

This is my opinion based on real world facts: Motorola sucks. The AIM aliance, responsible for delivering the G4 chip, is another one of those stupid blunders in Apple's history of blunders.

Porting Mac over to x86 is not a new idea. Spindler toyed with the idea for a long time, especially when Apple was looking for a new operating system. It couldn't be done, however, so the idea was trashed.

Now, since OSX is based on Unix, porting Darwin to x86 is easy as pie. Something Macintosh users may not be aware of yet (I was not aware until I became PC-savvy) is that the current G4 chip is holding back performance of Apple software. Hasn't anyone noticed that Apple isn't releasing any "Burn Intel Burn" commericals lately? This is becuase AMD and Intel have already broken the 2GHZ barrier. By the time Mac (L)Users get up to speed with the G5 (which probably won't be realeased any time soon unless Motorola can get it's act together). Another consideration is DDR ram, which is faster than SDRAM, and doesn't require the use of a Level 3 Cache, which also slows performance. Although DDR isn't a huge boost in performance speeds right now (an added 10% or so) it will evolve over time like everything else.

Another problem with the G4 chip and the AIM aliance--there's no direct competition and the market isn't that huge. AMD and Intel go head-to-head, so it's hard to get lost in hyperboyle--they just deliver results which equals faster chips to the end user. This was the main reason I decided to get off the Mac platform. As much as I can appreciate G4 technology, it's not making my computers any faster.

Apple (L)Users have to stop this technoloyalty--having an Intel or AMD chip in your case will be no different than having a G4 or G5 in your case. The only difference will be benefits to you, the user, as the costs of Apple products would decrease signifigantly.

I can only imagine that Apple is once again seriously considering this switch. It would be the only way Apple could go head to head with Microsoft. I think the only thing Apple would worry about is it's proprietary control--the truth about Apple right now is that they're NOT in direct competition with Windows. I know this may be hard to understand, but the Mac (L)User base is established. Apple needs only to try and keep new customers coming in (the Switch campaign) and provide "new toys" for it's already existing customer base. Going head-to-head with Microsoft will require a great deal of business-redesign, as Apple would be seen more for what it really is: A very slick case modification with a nice GUI.
 
YOu are the ignorant one.
The aint gonna happen comment is directed towards the fact that this has been discussed NOUMEROUS times, even before the public beta when this site was made 2 years ago. Most people are sick of hearing rumors when such a move aint gonna happen, at least anytime soon. So please stop yer ignorant personal attacks, and stop calling people idiots and loosers.
 
the reason it aint gonna happen is that carbon apps (and a lot, if not _most_ os x apps are carbon) cannot be ported to intel, at least not easily, and emulation really isn't what we want. so rather than intel, Apple will probably switch from motorola to full-time IBM with their new desktop Power4 chip.
 
Believe me, the Carbon API _can_ be ported to the X86 platform. QuickTime itself contains - and this from Apple sources - a large part of the Macintosh Toolbox.
 
pezagent, I loved the word technoloyalty :cool:
I think you are right in what you say. Steve Jobs admited that it was possible to make the switch, but the link was in spanish, so I didn't posted it.
 
Originally posted by xaqintosh
in that case, what exactly *is* stopping us from moving to intel?
Click to expand...

1.) Marketing. Apple can't just switch to Intel and admit they were wrong (although I don't believe they were).

2.) Marketing. Mac users, but more importantly, developers seem to have a hard time switching from OS 9 to OS X (not you and I, maybe, but many of us), can't just expect another 'transition'.

3.) Marketing, of course. But also hardware. Apple's machines are an example of what PCs should be like, considering how well all the parts of the motherboard work with the processor and the other parts of a system. It'd take time to switch - both in hardware and software.
 
Originally posted by xaqintosh
the reason it aint gonna happen is that carbon apps (and a lot, if not _most_ os x apps are carbon) cannot be ported to intel, at least not easily, and emulation really isn't what we want. so rather than intel, Apple will probably switch from motorola to full-time IBM with their new desktop Power4 chip.
Click to expand...

Apple already uses x86 machines to test Darwin. They must have OS X running on an x86. They're not dumb.

Here's the apple tech note to check for yourself:

****** x86 used for testing Darwin ******

As far as Apple switching to the Power4 chip, this is way way way down the line, and you'll probably see me post some questions because I need some more info about it.
 
Originally posted by fryke


1.) Marketing. Apple can't just switch to Intel and admit they were wrong (although I don't believe they were).

2.) Marketing. Mac users, but more importantly, developers seem to have a hard time switching from OS 9 to OS X (not you and I, maybe, but many of us), can't just expect another 'transition'.

3.) Marketing, of course. But also hardware. Apple's machines are an example of what PCs should be like, considering how well all the parts of the motherboard work with the processor and the other parts of a system. It'd take time to switch - both in hardware and software.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's probably 1 part marketing and 2 parts control of the value chain. Since Apple has complete control over the chip, motherboard, and box OSX goes into, it retains as much quality and profit-control as possible. I've mentioned before that the port would put Apple in direct competion with XP, since now both GUIs would be compared for just features and Apple would no longer be able to *market* their differenciation in terms of hardware.

About comment #3--I think Apple's marketing team has struck again... I remember long ago in corporate America an IT dude came down and replaced the motherboard in one of our machina. I remember at the time I thought "if these were macs they wouldn't be replacing that motherboard"... now I know that's not true, in fact, Apple motherboards have to be replaced just as much, it's just that they're not neccessarily suspected as being faulty off the bat.

I don't think the Apple vs. PC hardware argument is valid anymore... they're both the same... that's where the 1 part marketing comes in... it's like a diamond. Diamond's aren't really worth anything--they're just rocks. But they're worth thousands, even millions, all becuase of *marketing*.

When will the human condition stop giving in to the hype?
 
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
YOu are the ignorant one.
The aint gonna happen comment is directed towards the fact that this has been discussed NOUMEROUS times, even before the public beta when this site was made 2 years ago. Most people are sick of hearing rumors when such a move aint gonna happen, at least anytime soon. So please stop yer ignorant personal attacks, and stop calling people idiots and loosers.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. It was talked about 2 years ago, when people were still using OS 8.6? (?)

"ain't gonna happen" is hardly a convincing argument.

You've got two choices in a capitalistic society: win or lose.

I didn't make this up, and there's nothing I can do right now to change it. And I can't change the way the game is played until I do win. That's how it works. You don't stay on the losing side and hope that an act of God is going to make it happen. You don't sit idley around and hope that somehow everyone will see your point of view. That's Apple. That's the way they've always been, and until Steve Jobs gets lost, that's the way they'll always be, because that's the way he is. So don't tell me about "ain't gonna happen". Apple is still a publicly traded company. At the very least, they're trying to run it like a real business, and that means that the holy war has to end, dig?

So when I talk about Mac iDiots and Mac(L)users I'm talking about anyone who just sits back and lets Apple run their life. If I recall, there was a 1984 ad a long time ago about breaking free from big brother... sometimes I wonder if Apple IS big brother...

*and so sayith the OS, amen*
 
Intel in a mac box wouldnt be too bad. Just like someone said on this thread, x86 technolgy is more advanced than what apple currently offers.

If it's going to improve the performance and reduce the cost, why complain? we all have to look at the big picture and be open minded :D .
But I personally hope that G5 is going to be something superb.

pezagent >
You're from New Zealand? coolness, me too. It's quite random finding a kiwi on this forum lol
:D

Torz
 
said by the pez
Diamond's aren't really worth anything--they're just rocks. But they're worth thousands, even millions, all becuase of *marketing*.
Click to expand...

it is not all marketing that gives diamonds value. they have an intrinsic beauty that makes them sought after and appreciated. because they are not in abundance, they are more expensive than other 'rocks'. the beauty is there to start with, not invented by a marketing scheme.

and i feel the same way about my mac. it pleases me. i have never used a pc that does that. the whole design of windows repels me. partially because i know it is a blatant copy of the apple gui. and partially because it only has the appearance of being intuitive. It is only intuitive for those who have learned it. but maybe that is why the mac feels right to me. it's what i learned long before a pc could run anything but dos.

so the value isn't really created by the marketing. the marketing is just a pointer or reminder of the value that is there. and frankly, maybe there are lots of people using macs now who would be better off using a pc so they can beat their chests and say "i win, my computer is the fastest". just as there are probably lots of pc users who should have macs so they can smile and say - i like my computer. it's easy to use and it works.

i also have nothing against intel. in fact i kinda like them because one of their execs regularly donates big money to purchase open space preserves in the area around my house. so the more money intel makes, the less development i will see near my home. thst's a political cause i can support. unlike ibm who i still don't trust after all the sh*t they were involved in during the past. but as long as apple continues to make computers that feel right to me, then i'll be happy. sorry i'm not a nuts and numbers kind of person. i'm touchy feely. :)
 
I am posting this because a friend of mine was insulted and I really can't sit by and see that happen

by pezagent
This is the typical ignorance of the Apple iDiot.
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that you just call a moderator an idiot, Admiral has more experience with more operating systems then you have seen. These operating systems run on a broad range of processor types. You are far from any position to call Admiral (or most anyone here) and idiot.

This is my opinion based on real world facts: Motorola sucks. The AIM aliance, responsible for delivering the G4 chip, is another one of those stupid blunders in Apple's history of blunders.

Porting Mac over to x86 is not a new idea. Spindler toyed with the idea for a long time, especially when Apple was looking for a new operating system. It couldn't be done, however, so the idea was trashed.
Click to expand...

It is like you read Jim Carlton's book and now you think you can pass as a (former) Mac user. Sorry, I don't think so. You have no experience with Apple other than knowing that it is a different platform than what you use (no, I don't believe you use, have used or are ever going to use a Mac).

Points about the Star Trek project, the OS ran on an Intel system while connected to a secondary system has a hardware debugger. It was pull before it could stand on it's own. (this is very much like version of Copland which could not run without a secondary system to help keep it up).

Now, since OSX is based on Unix, porting Darwin to x86 is easy as pie. Something Macintosh users may not be aware of yet (I was not aware until I became PC-savvy) is that the current G4 chip is holding back performance of Apple software.
Click to expand...

Darwin was always designed for both PowerPC and x86 systems (it is based on a port of the Mach kernel that Next made back in 1992). That was never the problem, the problem is Carbon/Classic application environments. These are not going to port easily (sorry flyke, but porting part of the toolbox to run as a runtime environment in Windows is still quite different from making things like the Finder work in x86 on top of Darwin). I would point out that Apple was still using emulation in the Mac OS for 680x0 code all the way up to (and beyond) Mac OS 8.5 (remember that System 7.1.2 was the first System to run on PowerPC processors). Also it would not be a trivial port or makers of Carbon apps.

I would note here that Apple had an OS of Intel ready to ship (Rhapsody) and it was developers (like Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia) that said they would not rewrite their apps for the new OS that helped kill it.

By the way Pez, have you ever seen an Apple OS running on an x86 system? I know Admiral has a version of Rhapsody for Intel based systems. I have have two PCs running Rhapsody right now (and a third Rhapsody system on a PowerPC processor). I would think that means you have NO experience in this area and Admiral does. Who's the idiot in this situation? Aren't you actually speaking on a topic which you know very little about?

Lets continue to see just how little you know, shall we.

Another consideration is DDR ram, which is faster than SDRAM, and doesn't require the use of a Level 3 Cache, which also slows performance. Although DDR isn't a huge boost in performance speeds right now (an added 10% or so) it will evolve over time like everything else.
Click to expand...

Wow, that has got to be the most erroneous statement I have read from you in the last... 30 seconds.

Lets look at what RAM and cache really are. RAM is formatted by an operating system to store active data of running processes. This formatting is unique from OS to OS, as each manages memory in different ways. Cache is designed to store information for the processor that it may need quick access to. The quicker the access and the larger the memory (to a point, the processor needs to manage it’s own memory also, and each processor does that differently) the faster it can do work on common instructions. The G4 has both an on chip L2 cache and in some cases an off chip (with dedicated bus) L3 that can have a maximum of 4 MB of memory. IBM's POWER4 processor can handle up to 32 MB of cache (which is part of the reason that even at 1 GHz, it is far faster than anything Intel or AMD are working on).

So, DDR RAM is not a replacement for a processor cache system, and it can not effect performance nearly as much as cache because the information stored in it is still subject to the constraints of the OS.

This was the main reason I decided to get off the Mac platform. As much as I can appreciate G4 technology, it's not making my computers any faster.
Click to expand...

Again, you have never been or are you ever going to be (I hope) a Mac user. You don't know enough about the G4 to appreciate it, so stop with the troll tactics.

Apple (L)Users have to stop this technoloyalty--having an Intel or AMD chip in your case will be no different than having a G4 or G5 in your case. The only difference will be benefits to you, the user, as the costs of Apple products would decrease signifigantly.
Click to expand...

Why? The end user is going to have to replace most (if not all) their apps. Is that a benefit? And where did you get the idea that PowerPC processors are any more or less expensive than those from Intel or AMD? It is a conversion, which is never easy (which is why Microsoft had to finally force people to move to the NT line of operating systems).

by pezagent from another thread
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.
Click to expand...

And the misinformation just doesn't stop! Where in the world did you get the idea that Lord of the Rings was made on a Windows system? Lets look at the list of systems used for the films so far: 150 SGI Octane Workstations, 80 SGI 330 & 230 workstations, 2 SGI Origin 2000 servers, and a renderfarm that used 192 SGI 1200 & 1100 servers. Wow, that looks like the operating systems being used are IRIX and Linux... no Windows there. Get the information right before posting it.

This one has really got me stumped (re: Apple's move to Intel). I'm trying to think of a company that I could draw some CBR from, but I'm coming up blank.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help. NeXT ported NEXTSTEP to Intel systems, within two years NeXT hardware sales were dead. Be ported the BeOS to Intel systems, Be is now out of business other than a suit against Microsoft. Sun ported it's Solaris OS to Intel systems, they announced that they were not going to release any more Intel versions after Solaris 8 (Solaris 9 has been out for a while now for SPARC only). Apple maked both Mac and Intel versions of it's Rhapsody OS, developers write mainly for the Mac version and Apple kills the Intel version completely because of the Applications barrier (the Mac version becomes Mac OS X Server 1.0).

And considering that Steve Jobs has already watch one of his companies die after a move to x86, why do you think he would do it again?

And so comments direct to me...

You're kidding me, right? (re: OS/2 Warp) Why don't we just bring back the Commodore 64 while we're at it.
Click to expand...

So, I guess you have no experience with other operating systems... this is not surprising from your other posts. IBM still makes OS/2 Warp (I believe the latest version is 4.0) as an Enterprise solution. And if OS/2 is so behind the times, then you must not think highly of the Windows NT line of operating systems (including Windows XP) which is based on the OS/2 kernel that IBM and Microsoft co-developed.

I think Microsoft has more control over the computer world than Office. Bill Gates isn't rich because of Office... (followed by profanity, and rambling)
Click to expand...

Microsoft's current primary control tactic is their document formats. The main reason Apple is still going strong is that there is a version of Office for it. Like it or not, as long as the formats for Office documents are limited to Microsoft products, Microsoft can block almost any other OS.

I don't expect you to know about such things (and from what you have said so far, you really don't know about this type of stuff), but document formats are as big a barrier as applications for operating systems. Microsoft's current push for MS-HTML is designed to force other systems that can't run IE (or the latest versions) into a second class status. The internet was created on NeXT computers, NSCA Mosaic was made for Unix and Macs before there was a Windows version (and then Microsoft bought it to make IE), but now Microsoft is working to make the internet a Windows only domain. That is the sickest thing of all the things that are happening today. Proprietary formats on the internet to limit access and force people to use MS products.

It has been nice visiting, but someone should really show this troll the door. It isn't funny when they become abusive (or really don't know what they are talking about). This guy is just Manic all over again.

Bye all. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top