# Why couldn't Apple go With AMD?



## Sirtovin (Jun 6, 2005)

I watched the news today and to my dismay Apple has gone with Intel.  The pros are there finally... for Apple... but so are the cons...

Pros...

1. Apple prices will go down hopefully with the shift to Intel.
2. Apple will become backward compatible more friendly with Windoze... M$.
3. Apple will give Longhorn a real run for it's money.
4. Places like Best Buy, Circuit City, will now feel more obligated to buy Apple for their customers to choose from.

Cons...

1. Intel has yet to make a decent 64-bit processor as AMD has already been testing the waters for almost 2 years now.
2. The next Apple OS release will probably be backward compatible to Windows and run some major Window applications thus eliminating the need for M$ Virtual PC.

My big concern is why Apple did not go to AMD instead of Intel?  AMD has a clear advantage when it comes to 64-bit.  Does this mean perhaps that Intel will be stepping up it's 64-bit line for next year when they have been so far reluctant to go that route and stay with their 32-bit Pentium IV?


----------



## Qion (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't think you will be able to run Windows on a Mac still... at least I damn well hope so. Can someone shed some light on this?


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

wine can't do a good job in that area, so i doubt you'd be able to run _most_ widows programs on the mac either.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 6, 2005)

Ok. tell me how the hell switching to a completely different CPU type is going to give you backwards compatibility!?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 6, 2005)

Windows applications will not run under Mac OS X with Intel processors.  It will also not be possible to install the Intel-version of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers, meaning you can't just go buy any cheap-o Intel box and install Mac OS X on it.  You'll still have to purchase an Apple-branded Intel machine.  Think about it: Windows applications are programmed to run under Windows (with Windows-specific API calls, etc.) -- not under a certain processor.  Can you run an x86 Linux application under Windows or vice-versa?  Same for Mac.

Older, PPC-only applications will run atop an emulation layer on Mac OS X with Intel processors, without a significant performance hit (though there will be a performance hit, just not as bad as trying to run VirtualPC).

AMD is small-fries compared to Intel.  Just because they were first to 64-bit doesn't mean they're the best choice for 64-bit processors.  Intel hasn't entered the 64-bit market wholly probably because they're not ready to.  AMD has been "testing the 64-bit waters" for quite some time now, but that doesn't mean their 64-bit implementation is the way to go nor does it mean that it's the best 64-bit implementation.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 6, 2005)

There's virtually no way you'll be able to run Windows apps natively. However, there might be some Virtual PC-like solution that will let you run Windows within the Mac environment. It wouldn't really be "emulation" (since Windows would be running on its native hardware), but it wouldn't really be native either.

I highly doubt Apple's prices will go down much. Macs are not more expensive because the PPC costs more; they're more expensive because Apple likes to make profits. They have the highest margins in the industry, and I don't think they'll throw that away just because they're switching chips.

Backward compatible? Meaning what? Do you expect the Intel Macs to have PS/2 ports and PC printer ports? I doubt it. Apple's not big on legacy technology. Just because other machines with the same chip use these technologies doesn't mean Apple will abandon their current design philosophy.

Right now, we still don't have a lot of info. Will OS X run on non-Apple PCs? Will Windows run on Apple PCs? Will they be using the same motherboards used in other PCs? What about Carbon? (He only mentioned Cocoa in the keynote; the Carbon apps were run in emulation.) And really, how good can this emulation possibly be? He showed Photoshop running, but really, wouldn't you have to be eight kinds of Crazy to run a pro-level app in emulation? Even if it's as good as the 68k emulation on PPCs (which I doubt), that's still a big performance hit.

I'm shocked. I was all ready to laugh my ass off when Steve said "those news and rumor sites were all on crack".

I honestly don't think there's any advantage here, except (I guess) that IBM just can't deliver the goods. There's no reason Apple should _want_ to make this switch; they must be doing it because they have no choice.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a very bad piece of news. That said, I expect Apple to pull it off reasonably gracefully.

Now if you'll excuse me, I believe I promised to eat a feast of hats, crow and my own words. I'd better get feastin'.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

It seems like a good idea for Apple to go with the big dog (Intel) on beginning this big switch.  The bigger point is that _after_ this switch takes place they _will_ be able to think about going AMD, or even going AMD for one line and Intel for another.  Who knows -- maybe Apple will eventually choose AMD for desktops and Intel for laptops.

This is awesome news and HUGE news for running Windows apps.  Running on x86 hardware means that a VirtualPC-like program will be MUCH easier to make and will run MUCH faster.  Apple could (and perhaps already has) create their own and could even bundle it for free.  Then you could finally sell people on getting a Mac because their PC-exclusive apps could potentially run for free and probably faster than they're currently running on their old PC.  Nice.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 6, 2005)

Sirtovin said:
			
		

> I watched the news today and to my dismay Apple has gone with Intel.  The pros are there finally... for Apple... but so are the cons...
> 
> Pros...
> 
> 1. Apple prices will go down hopefully with the shift to Intel.


The switch to Intel won't make for cheaper computers because Intel chips are more expensive, not cheaper, than comparable PPC chips.



			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> 2. Apple will become backward compatible more friendly with Windoze... M$.


Huh? I don' t quite understand what you are trying to say. It is clear that Intel-based Macs _will_ run Windows.


			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> 3. Apple will give Longhorn a real run for it's money.


Apple says that you will not be able to run MacOS X 10.5 on non-Apple computers. However, it seems that the only thing stopping you is the EULA. Quite frankly, I believe that this has a lot more to do with the switch than any mythical performance deficit in PPC performance two years out.


			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> 4. Places like Best Buy, Circuit City, will now feel more obligated to buy Apple for their customers to choose from.


This comment makes absolutely no sense at all.



			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> Cons...
> 
> 1. Intel has yet to make a decent 64-bit processor as AMD has already been testing the waters for almost 2 years now.


Whatever AMD's advantages, it is clone architecture. x86-32 and x86-64 are what Intel says they are. With this transition, Apple assumes a leadership position among Intel-based computer manufacturers. Choosing AMD would make Apple a follower.


			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> 2. The next Apple OS release will probably be backward compatible to Windows and run some major Window applications thus eliminating the need for M$ Virtual PC.


It won't be backward compatible, it will be _compatible_ [at the hardware level]. Virtual PC will still be required to run Windows and Leopard simultaneously. 


			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> My big concern is why Apple did not go to AMD instead of Intel?  AMD has a clear advantage when it comes to 64-bit.  Does this mean perhaps that Intel will be stepping up it's 64-bit line for next year when they have been so far reluctant to go that route and stay with their 32-bit Pentium IV?


The first part is simple: leaders don't place their bets on clones. This is a high risk move by Apple that is being made less so with Intel's support. AMD brings nothing to the party.

That said, I have lots of issues with this move vis-a-vis 64-bit and a host of other issues. Intel essentially admitted that the x86 architecture had reached its limits when it partnered with HP to develop the misbegotten IA-64 architecture. We now see that x86 has pretty much reached a wall despite the $1 billions that Intel has poured into it. OTOH, the PPC seems to have a lot of upside left. Like a lot of Mac customers, I want to know WTF is going on here.


----------



## kainjow (Jun 6, 2005)

Why does everyone keep saying that the PPC has a ways to go, and how there is still a lot of development in it?

If this was the case, then Apple would be 100% all over it for X years down the road. Obviously IBM can't keep up, and can't even create a decent mobile processor. The G5 is great for desktops, but that's it. Apple has no PPC to put in its mobile line (don't even think G4 anymore).

The switch to Intel, as I see it, was mandatory. I'm glad they're doing it. Now we can look forward to some great machines coming out of Apple and Intel.

M$ = bye bye


----------



## scruffy (Jun 6, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> ...  It will also not be possible to install the Intel-version of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers, meaning you can't just go buy any cheap-o Intel box and install Mac OS X on it.  You'll still have to purchase an Apple-branded Intel machine.



I doubt that will really be the case.  You can run Darwin on an ordinary PC right now - not "any cheap-o Intel box", as the device driver support is rather limited, but the Darwin kernel will boot from a bog-standard PC, with a bog-standard PC BIOS.

And, the point of a kernel being to provide hardware abstraction, a cleanly written OS should not bother much with what's below it - so, with a Darwin from opendarwin.org, and an OS X x86 install disk, you might well be good to go.

I guess it's possible that they'll somehow tie the higher layers of the OS to open firmware (breaking the "cleanly written" thing, but whatever).  Then you wouldn't be able to run OS X on PC BIOS boxes.  

- Open firmware is, as the name suggests, an open standard, so there's nothing stopping anyone from making open firmware based Intel boards.
- even if nobody makes an open firmware Intel board but Apple, the restrictions will likely be bypassable.

Now, your copy of OS X will probably not be _licensed_ to run on non-Apple hardware, but that's very different from it not being _possible_...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 6, 2005)

Possible, yes.  I agree.  I'm sure we'll see an "XPostFacto" application designed to help Mac OS X run on non-Apple-branded hardware.

I am highly skeptical of being able to grab an Intel-based version of Mac OS X and slap it in any old PC and get it to boot.  I'm sure Apple will build in some sort of protective measures (either into Mac OS X itself, or into their own Intel-branded machines) that will limit what computers you can install the software onto.

If Apple allows their retail copy of Intel-based Mac OS X to be installed on any old Intel-based computer, I'll eat my shoes.  Guaranteed.  I highly doubt that a simple license agreement will be the only thing holding people back from installing Mac OS X on their non-Apple Intel-based machines.  That would absolutely cannibalize sales of Apple-branded computers, IMO.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 6, 2005)

From a CNet article:





> However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.


As expected, really. Also, Schiller said that you _will_ be able to run Windows on Apple's machines; they won't support it, but they won't prevent it. Which, come to think of it, is kind of strange, because it makes switching from Mac to Windows a lot easier than switching from Windows to Mac.


----------



## joneSi (Jun 6, 2005)

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about it right now....but I accept the future of Mac computing, so long as I can stay with OS X.  I made the switch when I bought my iBook back in February.  

I guess I am kinda disappointed, however, I realize that apple will not leave us in the dark with brand spankin' new hardware.

All that said, I _almost_ sold my iBook on eBay last week in favor of a PowerBook.  I did not end up selling it, but I'll be one of the first when I hear about the new pb's to get one ordered up the second they are announced!

j.o.n.e.s.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 6, 2005)

Here's how I see all of this.  A bit of history, if you will....

After Jobs was ousted from Apple, he decided to start his own computer company called NeXT.  These machines were very slick and used a UNIX operating system called NeXTSTEP geared to everyday users without ever having to touch a command shell.  The first machine, the NeXT Cube, had no floppy drive.  Various other incarnations of NeXT machines did include it.  Unfortuntately, this wonderful system and OS was way ahead of its time, and the company eventually had to drop the hardware and become a software company, changing the name of NeXTSTEP to OPENSTEP and porting it over to x86 hardware from 68K. (Even while just being hired back at Apple, Jobs was running NeXTSTEP on his IBM Thinkpad.)

Meanwhile, Apple started licensing its OS to computer companies that wanted to make clones of the Mac hardware.  From what I've read, Sony..while hesitant...wanted in badly but once Jobs came back into Apple's offices and killed the clones, that was it for Sony's chance at the Mac OS.

Personally, I have seen history repeat itself now, but with Apple being the company.  We've had the G4 Cube and Macs without floppies (all ideas from NeXT) and now we have a UNIX OS that is easy to use without having to touch the command shell.  Remember that Mac OS X is a descendent of NeXTSTEP, which means he might have had this plan in place for a while now (which he personally confirmed in the keynote with his 5 year testing).  After Steve came back, Apple dropped Be's BeOS for NeXTSTEP, which became Rhapsody, which became Mac OS X.  Rhapsody and Mac OS X 1.0 were available for x86 as well as PPC, so who was to say that this would be the end of the road for x86 on Macs?

Beyond this, I look back at that mention of Sony wanting to make clones and ponder about this deal that Apple made with Sony on sharing technologies in January.  Personally, I had a feling there was something more to this.  This might be a wild shot, but I have a feeling that once the PPC-to-x86 transition is complete, Apple WILL license once again and this time exclusively to Sony.  Sony has always acknowledged that the Mac OS is superior to Windows, but didn't see the need to risk its business on non-x86 hardware platforms.  Now with Macs and Mac OS X on Intel CPUs, this might be a lucrative business for a company that might have the desire to become a software company just as NeXT did.

Anyways, that's my speculation on it from my experiences following Apple through the 80s as a kid until the present day.  Take it with a grain of salt...I know I have.


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 6, 2005)

I must say. I am PISSED with apple using intel . THANKFULLY they wont have intel processors in them until 2006; which means that hopefully when I get my iMac this year, it _BETTER_ have a PPC in it. They couldv'e gone with AMD or the Cell processor with a little tweaking.


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 6, 2005)

I must say. I am PISSED with apple using intel . THANKFULLY they wont have intel processors in them until 2006; which means that hopefully when I get my iMac this year, it _BETTER_ have a PPC in it. They couldv'e gone with AMD or the Cell processor with a little tweaking. I certainly hope apple knows about this site and sees my nice message ::evil::.

Edit: Sorry for double post; server timed out.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 6, 2005)

You know what else is ironic about all of this??

Release date for Intel based Macs: 06/06/06

Need I say more?? LOL!!


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 6, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> You know what else is ironic about all of this??
> 
> Release date for Intel based Macs: 06/06/06
> 
> Need I say more?? LOL!!



now thats ironic. maybe that means intel will die


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 6, 2005)

Seems more like they've turned to the "dark side." ::evil::  ::evil::  ::evil::


----------



## JetwingX (Jun 6, 2005)

i'm thinking along the lines of "a match made in hell"


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 6, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Seems more like they've turned to the "dark side." ::evil::  ::evil::  ::evil::



they sure have.  i for some reason feel that apple may not be around much longer


----------



## DevilRocks (Jun 7, 2005)

I do think apple should have gone with amd, i do agree with you there. I also think you will be able to run windows apps on mac, *but you will still need an emulator lol* I hope this doesnt screw things up for apple.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 7, 2005)

No, an emulator is precisely what you won't need - an emulator imitates different hardware.  What you will need is something like Wine: a library and system call compatibility layer.

Anyway, I don't see what's so improbable about Apple bringing back the clones - it's not beem hurting Microsoft much.


----------



## Shookster (Jun 7, 2005)

Someone said further back that AMD was a "follower" and Intel was leading the market. That was true a couple of years ago, but AMD chips have been consistently outperforming Intel equivalents in recent times, to the extent that Intel has had to make some drastic changes like scrapping one of its upcoming cores a while ago and adopting a different naming convention for its chips. I'd say at the moment that Intel is following AMD, not the other way around.


----------



## Carlo (Jun 7, 2005)

Intel are a stronger company in the server / high end market. The only company that sells AMD cpus in their servers is Sun Micro and for them it was probably because it was cheaper.. (look at their share price)

Intel might be lagging on 64bit, but I know my Intel Xeon servers have always been very quick..


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 7, 2005)

I think THIS is the reason why the Intel thing was to happen. (No, I DO hate the idea of the DRM chips on any computer I'll ever use. Even if it'll be going back to Linux..)


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2005)

A couple of reasons for possibly going with Intel.

1) Intel have very good laptop processors. Centrino laptops are cool. Literally. They don't run hot like the P4 or any AMD offerings, they consume very little energy thus boosting battery life, and they perform very very well. If the switch was made for performance reasons, this would be it.

2) Intel has the fabrication capability. Even though AMD has better performing, cheaper and available chips, Intel still ships more. Don't need to guess why. Intel produces far more chips than AMD can shake a stick at.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

Shipping numbers of a product doesn't affect the way it is. AMD still is better and cheaper than Intel. We all know that. AMD will also supply similar processors comparable to Centrino over time. At least I suspect that very much.


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2005)

Supply matters very very much. Despite having superior processors, AMD still can't dethrone Intel and can't ship as many processors. The big question, is why? Manufacturers like Dell would ditch Intel for AMD if they could get a guarantee from AMD that they could meet the demand. Better performance, cheaper processors =  higher margins and more profits. As it stands, AMD can't.

Apple moving to AMD would be like suicide.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

But Apple moving to AMD would have meant more potential buyers. I for my part will not buy an Intel-based machine or Intel-based Mac.


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2005)

It doesn't matter how many potential buyers there are. AMD just can't produce enough chips. The don't have the same production capacity as Intel. They can't just plonk down cash and get a new fabrication facility overnight.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

aftr watching the keynote, i can say now that i can see that it's a good idea.

G4 was fantastic - it was weapons grade! and it genuinely DID kill pentiums at the time. G5 has never lived up to this. consistent real benchmarks have proved that G5's are, at best, comparable with x86.  

yes, for now, AMD is leading.  they do have 64bit processors, but they are no where near as natively compliant with 64bit architecture as G5. they sort-of do 64 bit, quite well.  this is because they've got it out early, to look strong, to look like a real player. but AMD have always been in intels shadow.  they are a company that clone intel chips.  Jobs said, consistently, that they were looking at the next 10 years, not at now. intel have some major development up their sleeve. Apple is not going to go with the shiny pretty company, they're going for the best company.


----------



## chornbe (Jun 7, 2005)

Qion said:
			
		

> I don't think you will be able to run Windows on a Mac still... at least I damn well hope so. Can someone shed some light on this?



Meet my two friends: Para and noid. 

No, at its heart, OSX is still a Unix based OS and no matter what you do, you can't run native Windows stuff on *nix without a thunking or emulation layer.

Look at it this way... Linux has run on Intel for years and years and years... I don't see many people confusing it with Windows.


----------



## larryrrw (Jun 7, 2005)

+ a lttle story => 
imagine a factory has a client A. A orders 2 million units. suddenly client B shows up and he orders 20 million untits, and ask to be served first. If not, he will  go eleswhere to buy. What do you do ? 
a) tell client A go away.
b) tell client B to wait.  
c) tell client A you have techn. problems and you will deliver as quick as possible ?

Think Different !

hey, 
cool it. Apple is avantgarde in PC consumer world.
since they made parallel development since 5 years, we may imagine,
that they observed the roeadmaps of IBM, INTEL, AMD very closely.
when they decide to change to Intel, Intel will be then the best.
You´ll see. The developement to 64 bit is not new, but to bring it into the consumerworld in form of dualcore 90 nm(and smaller) chips is a major step.
the chips are not compareable to what they have been before.
Apple once was right in the time to choose the PPC. so we had the advantage of better performence then- until they others spteped over the 2.gighz line.
from there, the only adventage for Apple users was to have not a permanet heat and extreme noise problem, as the most PC users.

Now, remember three years ago, Apple moved to Nivida since ATI became lazzy with the development for better G-Cards for Apple. Sudenly, they made an effort and one Year later ATI cards where top again on Mac.

If Intel will brings out a very fast&cool 3gigHz dualcore chip (To start of with), that use less energy - and Applle puts two of them in the Mac - Oh boy, we will have fun !

what are the AMD 64bit owners do with theit 64 bit ? do they have a consumer 64 bit OS ? NO ! Are they able to use a 64bit optimized hardware-software as you may on an Apple since two years ? NO.
so what are they worth for ?
When finaly  Longhorn comes out OS X will be in its 4th generation ! 

a nice day to all of you !


----------



## chornbe (Jun 7, 2005)

Two Words:

Market. Share.

Intel has the facilities to meet any demand. They have across the board brand recognition and they have the quality. If you're going to argue that AMD is a better chip - and that's a marginally viable argument *only* for the amd 64 chip - then you'll be limiting yourself. Intel is at the top of their game  and is well poised to continue owning the market. 



			
				Sirtovin said:
			
		

> I watched the news today and to my dismay Apple has gone with Intel.



Why? Intel simply is NOT windows, if that's your concern let's remember Windows runs just ducky on AMD chips, too. And on PPC chips (Windows/Alpha)

Personally I welcome a better convergence of technologies, and let's remember, an Intel-powered Mac is still a Mac. That means different BIOS, different firmware, different... pretty much everything.



> The pros are there finally... for Apple... but so are the cons...
> 
> Pros...
> 
> ...



Apple's OSX will not be Windows. If that's your concern, I again point out that Linux runs just fine on Intel and AMD systems and is *not* Windows.


----------



## Sirtovin (Jun 7, 2005)

I am just curious will Apple Intel processors be the same as X86 processors in code?  If this is the case than eventually AMD will follow suit and release X86 processoes in code for Apple... So in a way it could really give Window's a run for thier money finally...

Longhorn is not everything that Billy wants it to be...
OS X-Tiger is way superior to Longhorn...


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

> I am just curious will Apple Intel processors be the same as X86 processors in code? If this is the case than eventually AMD will follow suit and release X86 processoes in code for Apple
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shookster (Jun 7, 2005)

Could it also be due to the fact that less experienced buyers may look at a 2 GHz Mac and then a 3.4 GHz PC and buy the PC because it sounds faster? Presumably the Mac chips would run at similar clockspeeds to their PC equivalents.


----------



## Sirtovin (Jun 7, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> > I am just curious will Apple Intel processors be the same as X86 processors in code? If this is the case than eventually AMD will follow suit and release X86 processoes in code for Apple
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

Apple has been eyeing the Pentium D and future Intel processors.  The keynote was running on a current P4 processor Mac.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

As for AMD in Apple's picture, I'm not so sure unless something changes.  MS has "cheated" on Intel by pledging full support initially for AMD64 with WIndows XP x64, with Intel's 64-bit chips being a second thought.  The Wintel hegemony is falling apart.  Intel saw that and is now cozying up with Apple, and Apple saw an opportunity to cash in on Intel's marketing as well as its own.


----------



## ngcomputing (Jun 7, 2005)

All the IBM ThinkPads have Intel processors in them, how ironic.


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

I certainly hope Apple doesn't have an EXCLUSIVE agreement with intel, so they can make use of AMDs chips in the future, too. But we'll see. The most important thing is that Apple _does_ have the options.


----------



## ngcomputing (Jun 7, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> Apple says that you will not be able to run MacOS X 10.5 on non-Apple computers. However, it seems that the only thing stopping you is the EULA.



Microsoft was really been pushing for DRM at the bios/hardware level for a while now.  I'm thinking that Apple will probably consider the same route. Of course if they are both running an x86 instruction set, some clever assembly coder is going to come up with a crack. 

Honestly, Apple would be better off allowing OS/X to run on non-Apple computers.  If Windows and OS/X can run on the same hardware, then it is the user who is going to decide which OS they want. It's a simple fact that more people use Windows because Microsoft doesn't sell computers they sell operating systems.  

Apple Computer is taking on Microsoft from the OS perspective and taking on every computer manufacturer as well. Apple needs to release the grip around hardware manufacturers throats and focus on what truly makes them different, a superior operating system. Requiring users to buy "their" specific hardware for their exclusive operating system is like Ford saying you can't drive Ford automobiles unless they have Ford tires on them.


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

All car comparisons are inherently wrong. And Apple makes a _lot_ of money from their hardware. They won't release OS X/intel for _any_ PC unless they're sure they don't need their hardware money any longer. And _that_ would be a sad day for me, because I happen to _like_ Apple's hardware.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

i find it faintly ammusing how almst an entire forum can flip their views from slagging off the amazingly inferior pentiums, to bigging up the new era of super-powerful intel based macs. (i'm not innocent here)

many hats are being eaten.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

From what everything says, there will be no change to the processor, apple is running on a standard x86 processor.


----------



## Ted Witcher (Jun 8, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> Shipping numbers of a product doesn't affect the way it is. AMD still is... cheaper than Intel. We all know that.



Economies of scale give Intel a price advantage.  The more units you make, the lower each unit can cost.


----------



## Ted Witcher (Jun 8, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> But Apple moving to AMD would have meant more potential buyers. I for my part will not buy an Intel-based machine or Intel-based Mac.



Yes, you will.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

AMD make CPUs, and maybe chipsets. Intel make pretty much anything you ask them to make. their CPUs are slightly less "efficient" than AMDs, they were initally going the wrong way to develop the P4 (ramping up clock speed as opposed to worrying about actual performance).. 

at the end of the day we will all buy a new mac with an Intel CPU in it soon enough.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

the intels that get into ours will be far superior to the AMD offerings at the time. intel have been hit hard in the last 4 years, and they don't want to sink. that would point to tons of R&D, and i mean loads. something bloody spectacualr should come out of this, (probably their 64 bit chips) and i'd happy to be impressed by it.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> AMD make CPUs, and maybe chipsets. Intel make pretty much anything you ask them to make. their CPUs are slightly less "efficient" than AMDs, they were initally going the wrong way to develop the P4 (ramping up clock speed as opposed to worrying about actual performance)..
> 
> at the end of the day we will all buy a new mac with an Intel CPU in it soon enough.



What about Mainboards?


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

What about them? Apple will probably use a custom mainboard by some maker that puts their specialised chips on it (and you'll need those in order to run Mac OS X). Could be intel themselves. But we'll see. Nobody knows. Well, Steve probably does. But doesn't tell.


----------



## Sirtovin (Jun 8, 2005)

Fryke,

You understand my concerns... Best... This is what I was talking about.

1. Will Intel use their own new main boards?
2. Will Intel use a 64 bit chip? (They should since OS-X Tiger is 64/32 bit Operating System)
3. Will AMD sue Intel for not being able to have a fair share in the Computer Market? Intel and AMD are the 2 top Windows seller PC makers...  (If AMD, won't be able to produce their own version for Apple than I do see a lawsuit of some kind in play.)


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

I'd guess apple will probably use an intel manufactured board, to their specs. it won't be like anything else, cus Steve-O wouldn't accept going back to a BIOS, so it would have to have OpenFirmware. no legacy (parallel, serial, ps2)

but as i said (in a different thread i think) i think this will also lead to stuff that intel currently pushes in it's high end chips/chipsets (i think they stopped selling their own line of desktop mobos): ddr2, sata2 (with raid ), 10gbEth, etc..

if steve jobs is as egomanical as everyone claims, he won't leave us in the lurch with a product going backwards... (keep in mind that PPC seems to have the legs of a 12-week old midget recently)


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

how can AMD sue intel? Apple would have been the ones to approach Intel. If AMD want in, they have to convice apple. but i don't see it happening. i imagine steve will want to stick with ONE manufacturer to avoid further confusion (especially with that whole mhz myth thing again)


----------



## Sirtovin (Jun 8, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> how can AMD sue intel? Apple would have been the ones to approach Intel. If AMD want in, they have to convice apple. but i don't see it happening. i imagine steve will want to stick with ONE manufacturer to avoid further confusion (especially with that whole mhz myth thing again)



AMD is going to sue someone... probably Apple instead of Intel.  They would probably sue because they won't have a share in an X86 processor... Isn't this what Intel is going to give Apple?  an X86 processor?


----------



## pjeski (Jun 8, 2005)

Sirtovin said:
			
		

> AMD is going to sue someone... probably Apple instead of Intel.  They would probably sue because they won't have a share in an X86 processor... Isn't this what Intel is going to give Apple?  an X86 processor?



What the hell are you talking about? AMD can't sue somebody just for not buying their product.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 8, 2005)

Only Microsoft can be sued for such a silly thing as monopoly.


----------



## Sirtovin (Jun 8, 2005)

pjeski said:
			
		

> What the hell are you talking about? AMD can't sue somebody just for not buying their product.



actually AMD could sue Apple if Apple decides not to go with any AMD products in the future... due to Intel who will have a monopoly now on the PC/APPLE computer market.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 8, 2005)

Oh hahaha.. AMD cannot sue Apple for decide not to use AMD.. You are farout!


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 8, 2005)

Watching the keynote again I noticed there's no mention of any specific Intel CPU.  
A P4 was in his demo box, and in development systems, and will certainly make it on some systems, but I wonder if the PowerMac will use Xeons or Pentium Ds first.
I'm just wondering what "great PPC products are yet to come" as he said.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 8, 2005)

Sirtovin said:
			
		

> actually AMD could sue Apple if Apple decides not to go with any AMD products in the future... due to Intel who will have a monopoly now on the PC/APPLE computer market.



Wow, you are actually serious! Unbelievable! Not even in America would a supplier be able to sue a customer for not purchasing their products. Apple does not control the chip market, and AMD can still market their processors to others and to apple, whether they buy them or not.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 9, 2005)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> Watching the keynote again I noticed there's no mention of any specific Intel CPU.
> A P4 was in his demo box, and in development systems, and will certainly make it on some systems, but I wonder if the PowerMac will use Xeons or Pentium Ds first.
> I'm just wondering what "great PPC products are yet to come" as he said.


 

i noticed this: he only said Pentium only when he had to - it was always intel chips when he was trying to sell it.  i reckon the only thing to replace the PowerMacs dual G5s are it's closest rivals - the dual xeons


----------



## Sirtovin (Jun 9, 2005)

I didn't mean to make a big brew-haha, but AMD does make X86 so does Intel so I was just wondering what AMD, is going to do.  Intel probably will go with xeons... or a new Intel chip made for Mac only etc.


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 9, 2005)

Linux this and linux that, linux linux linux -blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!

If i am ever stuck in room with a bunch of linux fanboys with no way of escaping thier diatribe, i will surely have to shoot myself in the head!!!    


Linux sucks smurf out a dead smurfs smurf!


----------



## Krevinek (Jun 9, 2005)

Sirtovin said:
			
		

> 1. Will Intel use their own new main boards?
> 2. Will Intel use a 64 bit chip? (They should since OS-X Tiger is 64/32 bit Operating System)
> 3. Will AMD sue Intel for not being able to have a fair share in the Computer Market? Intel and AMD are the 2 top Windows seller PC makers...  (If AMD, won't be able to produce their own version for Apple than I do see a lawsuit of some kind in play.)



1) Probably not. While the dev kits are pretty standard Mini-ATX boards in a G5 case, the final product won't be. Just take a look at the XBox 360... it runs on a Dual G5 system for the dev kit, but hardly the final hardware.
2) This has yet to be seen. Apple doesn't have OS X running on x86-64 /yet/. However, with 2 years or so before the high-end switches over, they could do just that. The Donthans or Xeons are pretty good for this.
3) That is like Walmart suing Safeway because a family decided to strike a deal with Safeway (club card) for the deals. This just isn't how things work. AMD couldn't sue Apple either, since that is like Walmart suing Safeway customers stating that they didn't buy pickles at Walmart. There is just no legal ground, as this behavior happens all the time. The /customer/ is supposed to be able to pick the product, the company should not have a right to force a customer to pick theirs. (MPAA and RIAA would like to think otherwise, but look at their reputation lately)


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 9, 2005)

1) No. Apple will design new motherboard and using Intel chip processor only. 
2) Low End Mac will use 32 bits address and some 64 bits. High End will use full 64 bits address.
3) Can we sue M$ for not using PowerPC? (hahaha) Or can we sue McDonld for not using RedBull. (HAHAH!) No. AMD cannot sue IBM for this reason.


----------



## powermac (Jun 10, 2005)

I have been reading that some people are not interested in buying a new Mac until the Intel switch is figured out. I am still buying a new PB soley because I think MAC OSX rocks, and like Apple Hardware. Even after the first Macs hit the market with Intel inside, it will be awhile before any one knows the consequent. Like everyone I was shocked when I heard the news. Apple must feel the switch is necessary to remain competitive, and perhaps this switch is for the best. Intel does have the best road map for the future, even if the PPC process is better.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 10, 2005)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Linux this and linux that, linux linux linux -blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!
> 
> If i am ever stuck in room with a bunch of linux fanboys with no way of escaping thier diatribe, i will surely have to shoot myself in the head!!!
> 
> ...



Remember that Linux comes from Unix - and Mac OS X is Unix-based.

Regarding you sig -- 
if you don't like Linux and you wanna wipe the system, you must do as root
_rm -rf *_
on the root directory of the drive.


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 10, 2005)

Actually......no - linux does NOT come from Unix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux





			
				HomunQlus said:
			
		

> Remember that Linux comes from Unix - and Mac OS X is Unix-based.
> 
> Regarding you sig --
> if you don't like Linux and you wanna wipe the system, you must do as root
> ...


----------



## TimK (Jun 10, 2005)

(Why the hell can't I delete this post? Where's the damn delete button or link?  )


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Yes, but the intel Macs won't have Open Firmware. They're using an intel chipset, according to several sources (including Apple's developer notes on universal binaries).


----------



## TimK (Jun 10, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Yes, but the intel Macs won't have Open Firmware. They're using an intel chipset, according to several sources (including Apple's developer notes on universal binaries).



If you say so (and I got rid of my comment because I realized I'd posted without reading the entire thread). I'm sure you know more about this than I do .

An Intel chipset means they can't use Open Firmware?

Best,
Tim


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

No, it means it makes not much sense... The goal for Apple should be to use intel's integrated platforms (cheap, available). There's a BIOS that basically is there for what Open Firmware is for on the traditional PPC Macs.


----------



## TimK (Jun 10, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> No, it means it makes not much sense... The goal for Apple should be to use intel's integrated platforms (cheap, available). There's a BIOS that basically is there for what Open Firmware is for on the traditional PPC Macs.



So the versions of Mac OS for the Intel Macs will likely use that BIOS. Interesting. Hmm. Thanks for the info.

Best,
Tim


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 10, 2005)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Actually......no - linux does NOT come from Unix.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux



Linux originates from Minix which is a Unix.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 10, 2005)

um. as i understand it Linux is a "unix-like" OS. that's the whole point. to have the same features etc, but without licensing the code.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 10, 2005)

HomunQlus:
    You are right. Linus has used Unix and didnt like how Unix designed. so He redesigned new os that become new Linux. Fact that Unix is way stronger and be there for long time than Linux.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 10, 2005)

Torvalds himself says his inspiration for Linux came from using SunOS.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 10, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> No, it means it makes not much sense... The goal for Apple should be to use intel's integrated platforms (cheap, available). There's a BIOS that basically is there for what Open Firmware is for on the traditional PPC Macs.


Oh god! I hope not. The integrated hardware is the basis for all the eMachines bargain basement crap.


----------

