# The stupid Intel rumors are back (make it stop part II)



## Kazrog (Aug 5, 2002)

So some bigshot analyst (and noted Intel investor) says Apple will go to Intel CPUs in the next 2-4 years. All this because of Jobs saying he likes having "options." The story's up on MacNN.com if you want to see it.

Most of you here are intelligent enough to realize that for Apple to transition from PowerPC to Intel architecture would mean going from a billion dollar hardware+software company to a million dollar software company. They would be left to compete with Microsoft on their home turf. Apple doesn't have the resources to play at that level, at least not yet. They'd be just another weirdo OS maker like Red Hat. And never mind the engineering cost of redoing the entire architecture of the OS... and having every software company recompile all the apps...

I believe Apple will go to IBM for CPUs in the next YEAR. And they will be PowerPC based (duh.) I also believe that the long-rumored quad-processor machines will surface then as well.

The PowerPC is still a superior chip to anything Intel makes. It may be slightly slower right now, but it runs at less than half the power and temperature, and uses more efficient RISC processing. With the new manufacturing processes that IBM has been working on, the PowerPC will once again upstage the Intel chips in terms of raw horsepower in the near future. Motorola doesn't seem to care anymore, but IBM does, and their independent tests have been impressive (manufacturing the G3 so efficiently that it rivals the G4, etc.)

I care about this because I need raw horsepower to do audio and video work every day. I've upgraded my Sawtooth to a dual G4/500, and it is badass, but I could still use some more speed. I'm holding out on a  new PowerMac until we see a major step forward in speed/architecture. I think Apple's done an incredible job this last year of pushing the technology forward in spite of a bad economy, Motorola turning careless and indifferent, and Microsoft releasing their hacked up parody of Mac OS X to stir market confusion. Eagerly awaiting my 20 gig iPod in the mail, and Jaguar after that.


----------



## fryke (Aug 5, 2002)

It's ALL opinions, Kazrog, even yours. 

For example, you are wrong in some aspects.

First, moving to Intel would _not_ mean to give up hardware, just to give up PowerPC. Apple could still (or again) include a ROM chip needed to run Mac OS on a machine.

Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.

Third, the PowerPC is still superior although slower right now. Intel's processors in 2 to 4 years... We just don't know them yet, right? The analyst sees (and I think he's right _here_) that Mot is falling behind. Further and further. It's just _analyzing_ what has happened.

But then again, you're absolutely right about Apple doing a great job in a hard time. Apple _has_ been innovating where others have not. But wasn't that also the case in the _good_ times of the market? Isn't it what actually makes Apple a different computer maker in the eyes of the non-Macintosh-addicts? It's VITAL for them to stay innovative. If they're not one step ahead, they're dead in the non-Mac-people's eyes, which means: Bad press, bad share prices, buyout rumours. Which means stress at the company and no time to innovate.

It's really a few years away, but I personally believe there _will_ be options when Apple has finished the transition to Mac OS X.


----------



## MisterMe (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *It's ALL opinions, Kazrog, even yours.
> 
> For example, you are wrong in some aspects.
> ...



What is it with you people? Apple abandoned the Toolbox ROM for very important reasons. Those reasons are only more important now.

1. The Toolbox ROM allowed Apple to offer a complete GUI-based OS that could boot off a floppy and 128K RAM. We live in a very different world today.

2. The Toolbox ROM had to be updated for every revision in hardware.

3. The Toolbox ROM required every OS update to include patches to every version of the Toolbox.

This is a very expensive proposition. Apple has to remain profitable to survive. There are two ways to increase profits. One way is to raise prices, which will decrease unit sales and market share. That is a no-go. The other is to decrease costs. Returning to a ROM-based OS will increase costs, not lower them. 



> *Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.*



But RedHat is a *much* smaller company than Apple. Is this what you want Apple to become?


----------



## azosx (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> Third, the PowerPC is still superior although slower right now. Intel's processors in 2 to 4 years... We just don't know them yet, right? The analyst sees (and I think he's right _here_) that Mot is falling behind. Further and further. It's just _analyzing_ what has happened.
> 
> *



How is the G4 superior to Intel and AMD's current CPU offerings?


----------



## deagle five o (Aug 5, 2002)

its about f*ing time, that they leave Motorola


----------



## edX (Aug 5, 2002)

> Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.



  give me a break fryke. nobody outside of the geek world has ever heard of redhat. few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors. 

i think kazrog's point here is well taken. he might be overstating it a bit as i think the apple os would appeal to many people, but the move would certainly be a big step backwards.


----------



## fryke (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> 
> How is the G4 superior to Intel and AMD's current CPU offerings? *



Would you please READ my posts and other people's? I was AGAINST the statement that G4 is superior to Intel's CPUs and we were NOT talking about AMD. I was already quoting the first post.

Ed: You're right... But RedHat is one of the few big shots in the Linux business, and Linux *has* made some splashes in the SMB area as a great alternative file-/print-/mail-/webserver among the Windows crowd. And RedHat is a fine alternative there.

My point was that a switch to Intel processors in 2-4 years would

a) _not_ mean necessarily that every Wintel PC would be able to run Mac OS X.

b) _not_ mean we'd be using P4s, as they probably are gone by then, anyway, and replaced by something newer, better.

And I think the original post on this thread was wrong to assume those things here.

One big advantage of an Apple Macintosh computer with an Intel compatible CPU (with other Wintel PCs NOT running Mac OS X natively because of whatever Apple does in order to achieve this) would be that those computers would still run other X86 based operating systems in a dual-boot configuration very well.

Now _this_ would bring more switchers. Still, the analyst was talking 2-4 years, and I guess this tends to be forgotten in the usual X86 threads. I don't think it's an option _right_ now. But I think Apple should do *everything* to be free to decide what to base their computers on in two to four years, as Mot _really_ seems to be unable (and doesn't seem to want) to compete much longer in this market with Intel & AMD.

Choosing OpenStep to base Mac OS X on was definitely a good move, because it's a highly portable operating environment. And Apple shouldn't let itself get into too many one-way streets. Like Steve said: Then we'll have options, and we want options. Doesn't yet mean they're choosing a different one. If IBM comes up with really cool next generation PowerPC processors for desktop and notebook machines in about 1 or 1.5 years, I'd of course be all for PowerPC again. Just doesn't look like it nowadays.


----------



## azosx (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> 
> Would you please READ my posts and other people's? I was AGAINST the statement that G4 is superior to Intel's CPUs and we were NOT talking about AMD. I was already quoting the first post.
> *



AMD is x86, x86 is Intel.

In anycase, what is the G4 superior to then?

**edit**

Oh I see.  You spliced his sentences and took them out of context.  Very confusing.  Maybe you should just stick to quoting in the future.


----------



## azosx (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> 
> give me a break fryke. nobody outside of the geek world has ever heard of redhat. few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors.
> ...



This is pretty ignorant.  Before VA Linux, Red Hat had the biggest IPO in history.  I'm sure more than just geeks have ever heard of this _obscure_ little company.  Perhaps you've heard of IBM, Oracle and Dell to name a few?  Red Hat has many big name partners in the computer industry and many people, not just "geeks", rely on Red Hat and their many services.  Many of which are not the Linux OS.

People may not know the ins and outs of Linux but they know it's an OS and that it challenges Windows.  In the United States, Red Hat is synonymous with Linux, just like in Europe, SuSE is.


----------



## Kazrog (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> 
> This is pretty ignorant.  Before VA Linux, Red Hat had the biggest IPO in history.  I'm sure more than just geeks have ever heard of this 'obscure' little company.  Perhaps you've heard of IBM, Oracle and Dell to name a few?  Red Hat has many big name partners in the computer industry and many people, not just geeks, rely on Red Hat. *




I know this. But look at the large scale. In many ways, Apple has more in common with SONY than they do with Red Hat. There SHOULD be different platforms and different choices. I wish there was ANOTHER one besides Apple and Intel platforms. Like in the 80s when we had Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM, etc... I miss that level of competition. As long as we have open file format standards, there's NO REASON not to have diverse hardware.


----------



## gibbs (Aug 5, 2002)

Who cares about Red Hat?

The bottom line is that Apple should do whatever it takes to lower costs on their hardware [increasing margins if you will], while providing a competetive platform speed/performance wise.

Whether they do that by switching to an atari chip, or an intel chip, or a ti-82 calculator, I really  dont care. 

Who cares if they switch to a non motorola platform? The whole risc vs. cisc debate is dated and almost irrelevant. What matters most is cost and performance. So long as Apple systems stay "different" enough from your generic PC clone, who cares what is inside the box?

I don't.


----------



## edX (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> 
> This is pretty ignorant.  Before VA Linux, Red Hat had the biggest IPO in history.  I'm sure more than just geeks have ever heard of this obscure little company.  Perhaps you've heard of IBM, Oracle and Dell to name a few?  Red Hat has many big name partners in the computer industry and many people, not just "geeks", rely on Red Hat and their many services.  Many of which are not the Linux OS.
> ...



i simply don't believe this azosx. i don't think the huge majority of people know that more than one kind of linux exists. many may rely upon it, but much fewer realize that they do. people have all heard of linux, but that's about as far as it goes. and given the recent ibm commercials, i would imagine that some people think it is strictly a big business thing. among the general populus, there are no synonyms for linux. and a big ipo means little other than that it got some business press. so maybe geeks and some investors know about it. it's not exactly bringing windows to its knees now, is it?


----------



## azosx (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kazrog _
> *
> 
> 
> I know this. But look at the large scale. In many ways, Apple has more in common with SONY than they do with Red Hat. There SHOULD be different platforms and different choices. I wish there was ANOTHER one besides Apple and Intel platforms. Like in the 80s when we had Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM, etc... I miss that level of competition. As long as we have open file format standards, there's NO REASON not to have diverse hardware. *



There are many platform choices today with many different OSs.

You have Sun Microsystems 

SGI 

HP 

Compaq 

IBM

Cray 

There's a lot of different platforms available today.  The ones above are just a few.  Some are more affordable than others but you shouldn't feel there is a lack of options.


----------



## azosx (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> 
> i simply don't believe this azosx. i don't think the huge majority of people know that more than one kind of linux exists. many may rely upon it, but much fewer realize that they do. people have all heard of linux, but that's about as far as it goes. and given the recent ibm commercials, i would imagine that some people think it is strictly a big business thing. among the general populus, there are no synonyms for linux. and a big ipo means little other than that it got some business press. so maybe geeks and some investors know about it. it's not exactly bringing windows to its knees now, is it? *



Read this article and maybe you'll begin to understand why Linux is on everyone's mind.

Like I said, they don't know the ins and outs of Linux but they do know it exsits.  It's similiar to the fact that many people don't realize there's a difference between Windows 98 and 2000.

Red Hat is synonymous with Linux.  I assume you work, bring it up in conversation and see what people have to say.

A ground breaking IPO means a lot.  This world turns on the heels of businessmen and it certainly gave Red Hat and Linux a lasting notoriety.

Business men and women account for a lot larger percent than little geeky home computer users as well.

I don't know.  Unless people have been living in a cave for the past several years, I don't know how they could not know what Linux is.


----------



## edX (Aug 5, 2002)

azosx - if you didn't live in arizona, i would wonder if there was a language difference. i think i pretty clearly stated that people know what linux is. they just don't know about all the different varieties. and i am talking average computer users. the ones who use the computer at work, not the ones who set them up and fix them. the average joe computer user still doesn't know that much about the mac os, much less linux. yes they know they exist. but the myths they have in their minds about them are more common then the truths about them. 

i'm guessing a poll of aol users would net about 5% who knew anything more about linux other than that it is an alternate operating system.


----------



## themacko (Aug 5, 2002)

I'd never heard of Red Hat until now.  I just thought Linux was Linux, Windows was Windows and Mac OS was Mac OS.  Granted, I know nothing more about computers than what I learn on these boards, but still...

Actually, let me retract that.  I was watching the news a while ago and remember seeing something about Lindows which was a version of Linux that mimicked Windows.  Besides that, I don't know much about Linux nor do I really care.


----------



## azosx (Aug 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *azosx - if you didn't live in arizona, i would wonder if there was a language difference. i think i pretty clearly stated that people know what linux is. they just don't know about all the different varieties. and i am talking average computer users. the ones who use the computer at work, not the ones who set them up and fix them. the average joe computer user still doesn't know that much about the mac os, much less linux. yes they know they exist. but the myths they have in their minds about them are more common then the truths about them.
> 
> i'm guessing a poll of aol users would net about 5% who knew anything more about linux other than that it is an alternate operating system. *



Your argument has shifted.  It was originally that "_*few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors*_" and now it's that "_*i think i pretty clearly stated that people know what linux is.*_"

Like I said, I don't know Ed.  I can't discuss a point when the point keeps changing.  You're right, we obviously do speak different languages, or at least different _flavors_ of English.


----------



## edX (Aug 5, 2002)

azosx - note the difference between the 2 sentences - one includes the word _really_. by that i mean they don't know anything beyond the fact that it is an alternative os, or that it 'does something'. They don't have a clue about terminals and command lines and open sourcew and..... my arguement never shifted. you just continue to read things as you please in order to have a reason to argue. at least that's how it seems to me.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 5, 2002)

...mainstream use and maybe NEVER will be! Some think or even BELIEVE that one day Linux (any distro) will prevail as the end all be all OS and replace Windows... Yes, sir you right! Maybe in an alternate reality  

SGI, HP, IBM, CRAY, SUN and ANY other company out there can eat Wintel's dust until they drop dead!  

Most of the above companies the day they will decide to drop Windows support, it will be the day that they want to become even smaller companies or just to exit their markets... Most of them rely on having Windows at their side as an OS product or as a platform to run their apps so there: Linux, et al can eat some M$ dust...  

Linux and ANY other OS can be the best server OS out there, the best in security areas, etc but as long as an OS will not have the Photoshops, Corels, MS Offices, etc. of this world they simply DO NOT stand a chance to become mainstream. While most people have heard about Linux or even tried it, in the long run they AVOID it as they avoid AIDS... Hell, they avoid Mac OS X for crying loud (remember Photoshop, Office, etc?)

G4 processors are technically superior to x86 platform simply because:
-They have less power needs
-Run cooler
-MHz/performance ratio is a LOT better (G4 at 1GHz beats ANY Intel/Amd 1 GHz processors out there just for the fun of it, in ANY given test)

Just because G4 runs slower (in GHz) than PentiumIV and/or Athlon XP doesn't mean that it isn't a better CPU technically (Intel's Itanium2 anyone?)

As, for the whole thing which goes: Apple will go to the x86 platform... BS! G4 will:
-Up its speed just about any time
-Use faster I/O components/busses/etc which will allow the CPU to perform a lot better (its another thing than NO ONE mentions when they compare Apple's products with Wintel products) even with the current speeds
-Run in Quad configurations (yikes!)
-Replaced by G5 

Any Linux can run Servers, hell NASA and spacestations maybe, but that WON'T make it a viable solution to the average joe out there... And we all know how MANY millions of them are out there...

Also, Mac OS X is better than Linux in every area, just because... 

PS. Check this great fun out:
http://www.amdzone.com/#9
Even on the x86 platform they argue about the so-called professional opinions of what Apple will do in the next couple of years! Fun, fun, fun...


----------



## gibbs (Aug 5, 2002)

Im getting tired of the arguements about what platform is magically superior. Just because the G4 is a more efficient processor at any given mhz rating, that doesnt make it a better choice for a platform.

If the motorola chips continue the current pace of slowing behind the "other" alternatives, its pretty clear which platform will be obsolete.

Sometimes I think people who use apple and like the motorola chips just because they "arent intel or amd". If the chips inside your mac were a slower version of AMD, you would surely be upset that its trailing behind the other machines. But because its OS X and running on G4's/G3's etc, suddenly its okay because the "architecture is technically superior".

Im sorry, but that just doesnt mean anything until Motorola chips catch back up.


----------



## theed (Aug 5, 2002)

I really like the PPC, but I'm not confused about its power.  The power of a computer is its ability to get work done for me, as I request it to.  In this regard, Mac OS X vs Mac OS 9 is more important than a doubling of CPU power. 

I like the G3 best of all.  Cheap, fast, cool, stable.  I just wish I could run 4 of them SMP style.  I have a dual G4 450.  I don't want a machine that runs hotter than that.

That said ...

the PPC lives in RISC, which is sweet.

Also true is that x86 chips now live in RISC as well, they just happen to run different instructions than the programs are written in. AMD and Intel chips have been interpreting into micro-ops and running really RISC like since ~200MHz.

This is interesting in that the language for the internals of a chip can be optimized for speed, for that chip, without regard to needs from the compiler, or consistency with the language used in the previous chips.  It's a runtime hardware interpreted language.  (Just think if Intel really went at Java.  ;-)

So this allows x86 CPU's to probably outperform PPC's in raw number crunching, but you have to spend more time designing them.  Intel has man hours to spare regarding chip design.  AMD's guys are apparently just good.

However, this realtime language converter is as complex as the CPU itself, so x86 CPU's will never run as cool as a true RISC implementation.  They're effectively 2 CPU's to do the work of one in a different language.  PPC's win in energy and design efficiency.

With simple dependency and integer operations like those in AI algorithms or in lots of games, AMD chips will perform roughly the same per clock cycle as PPC's.  With this type of code, there is almost no performance difference between the 603, 604, G3 or G4.  This code is common.  But I don't want or need that type of speed.  I want a responsive OS.  That is software engineering and systems engineering.  CPU's don't solve ALL problems.  So I see the PPC as not superior in performance, but more appropriately matched to the task at hand.  Run stable and long in any environment, fast enough that the user doesn't have to wait.

I'll probably buy an iBook shortly.

As to "will Apple switch CPU's?"  Probably. But not to x86, and probably not to IA64 either.  Power maybe.  Maybe clockless CPU's?


----------



## mindbend (Aug 5, 2002)

CPUs:
I don't give a crap who makes the CPUs that go inside my Mac any more than I care who makes the fan. I don't care if it's RISC/CISC or FLISC (I just made that up). I don't care if Motorola, AMD, Intel, IBM or Mircosoft makes it. 

What I do care about is that it's fast and runs OS X. Actually, let me rearrange that statement...that it runs OS X and that it's fast. OS X I actually see on the screen and intereact with. The CPU is just a little thing I never see in side of a box. As far as I know, my Mac may actually have an Intel in it. Just give me faster Macs that keep running X better and better.

I have no evidence for this, by my personal opinion is that Apple is constantly readying an 086 compatible version of OS X as the last ditch backup plan, just in case PPC really gets too far behind. I don't care what kind of Altivec processing you want to come up with, at some point you ain't cathing up to a processor that is three times faster in pure MHZ. Apple knows that better than any of us and I trust they are on top of it. 

It's really kind of a miracle that Apple can deliver a quality machine and quality OS given their dire market share and the fact that they are using non-086 chips from a slumping company whose real profits don't even come from computer chip sales anyway. I really can't believe Apple keeps delivering such quality. Imagine that we would have if they could get a serious CPU supplier.

Linux:
Anyone who thinks the average person has any clue as to the details of Linux is nuts. I'll bet you $100 if you poll 100 people [off the street, and maybe a block or two down from your tech office. Poll doesn't count if conducted in Silicon Valley] about what Red Hat is, you won't get five that even relate it to Linux, let alone be able to explain more from there. Hell, I don't even really know (what is it, a variant, a company, both?). I use this OS, maybe you've heard of it, it's called OS X. It actually has professional grade applications and stuff. You know, to get work done.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by gibbs _
> *Im getting tired of the arguements about what platform is magically superior. Just because the G4 is a more efficient processor at any given mhz rating, that doesnt make it a better choice for a platform.
> 
> If the motorola chips continue the current pace of slowing behind the "other" alternatives, its pretty clear which platform will be obsolete.
> ...



Have you ever used an Athlon XP 2100? PentiumIV 2,53? Dual G4/1000? I've used every single one of them in PhotoShop, Corel 10, DVD mastering, basic OS apps (Win2k & XP for PC, OS X for G4) and you know what? You DO NOT understand the f..king difference  

On the contrary ANYONE who sees the dual g4 in action gets his pants wet! Why? Because it can have Win2k server running under Virtual PC uploading content to the internet, play mp3, burn CD, have a load of apps loaded and continues to perform that PhotoShop/Corel action while having Classic apps downloading content from the Internet... Even on Pentium IV 2,53 running 2k/XP such a similar thing becomes a nightmare! Apps DON'T respond like in G4 and most of the time they seem like going to crash... Most of the people base the speed of the processors with benchmarks and how fast Windows compared to Mac OS X draw windows on the screen. BS. And anyone who saw a dual g4 in action and any of the above x86 rigs in action knows what I'm talking about... and right about now smiles, BIG time...  

Oh, did I mention that the x86 rigs run with DDR/266/333 memory, FASTER Geforce cards, ATA-133 hard disks, etc? Wait till Apple gives us such things... Even without faster Gx processors we will see MORE speed coming from a G3/G4 box because you know what? The OS is another speed factor and Mac OS X with more speed is just around the corner


----------



## rfraley (Aug 6, 2002)

IA-64 would not be that bad of a platform for the Mac to go to...trust me when I say that the Mac will NEVER run on x86...for the reasons just said...it's a fast chip, but it's not very efficient.  It's one of the reasons that Windows is so instable.  PPC is actually ahead.

Don't be surprised if IBM and Apple came up with a better option.  Moto just fscked up so badly with the production and the advancement of G4 that I see no way that Motorola will be able to be the leaders in G5 development.  If IBM can't do better than the Hammer...Apple will go with the Hammer...but Steve cannot go with a x86 chip.  It will be a dead architecture in two years.

P4 is the final chapter in the x86 architecture.


----------



## Sighter (Aug 10, 2002)

Personally, and no offence to any of you who posted in this thread,
I beleive your discution turned into something way too technical
and not enough about passion and experience...

The PowerPC is serving us well and has make a lot of things possible.
We evolved a long way since the Performa 5200.

Now look around, I am quite certain that Apple has a ton of really good
worker in the shop with fantastic experience and love of the architechture
of our mac we use now. And their ideas are based on what they know

The question, I think is not about whats the best Processor
But what is the Best processor WE are good at.

And beleive me.. THAT is in Steve's head
more than x86 or PowerPC

Please excuse my non-technical approach

(Dont remember if my history book is up to date so...)

-Sighter


----------



## fryke (Aug 10, 2002)

While you're absolutely right, Sighter, it's also absolutely true that Steve Jobs will do EVERYthing to keep Apple a profitable company. Now he sure knows more than any one of us about whether Motorolas G5 will ever see the light of a PowerMacintosh's Cinema Display or whether that new reduced Power4 processor of IBM will be a viable solution for the Mac, but if Motorola turns out to 'just' produce G4s for some more years with a _bit_ of Mhz increments (in turn for more pipeline stages, like it's doing right now) and IBM 'only' produces a Power4 that is too hot and too heavy (in price) for a desktop workstation like the PowerMac (sub 5'000$), then Apple actually _will_ need more options some time next year.

He WANTS to be different, but not at the cost of the company. Apple as a full subsidiary of, say, Disney, isn't the company Steve Jobs wants to be the head of. Unless he can also take a good seat at Disney itself, that is. (Like he's done with the 'NeXT buyout of Apple'.)


----------



## nimrod (Sep 4, 2002)

Great arguments all over and no disrespect to anyone, BUT

OS X is nothing more than a replacement for X-Windows.  The world (outside of Redmond) has been trying desperately to find a good GUI for the more stable *NIX OS for quite sometime.  Linux has not caught on outside of the techie world, because next to Windows it sucks!  How many of you would like to own a car that you could easily (2-3 hours) tear your transmission (put any car part in here)  out and replace it, if for no other reason to do it?  Well that is how most non-computer related people feel, it is not worth it.  Pay more for an "inferior" product, than less for something they can tinker with for fun.

OS X is a great platform, built on UNIX.  It brings the ease of a GUI to the stability and security of a *NIX OS.  That is what 2000/XP is supposed to be, as well.  M$ re-engineered the OS to be more like UNIX, less flat file.  That and with .NET and the CLR, they will port .NET to Linux and FreeBSD soon.  This is simply copying the Java/JVM model.  

I think Apple should open their OS to other platforms, or they will never be anything more than ~10% market share.  Their servers are nice, but not cost effective against Linux.

Give the server market to Linux, let anyone build the hardware, and port the OS (or at least the GUI layer) to smaller devices.  

Just a suggestion


----------



## TellarHK (Sep 5, 2002)

Who keeps starting these threads when there're already others on the front page?  

At least this one seems to be a little more technical and less dogmatic.  The G4 is definitely a much more efficient and well-designed chip than an x86 processor at the same clock rate.  Unfortunately, with the x86 line having gained more than twice the clock rate, the fact it's better isn't going to help the G4.  

And to whoever thought the idea of Apple using a special BIOS to prevent OS X from being on other non-Apple hardware would be in order to load the OS from it... well, that's not what it'd take.  It'd take something similar to what the Xbox has.  Of course, the XBox was cracked.

OS X would never amount to anything on x86 as direct competition to Windows.  I'm sorry, it just wouldn't.  BeOS tried, and failed.  Microsoft is so deeply embedded that only Linux has a chance, and that'll take years to materialize as even a possibility.   People would not buy OS X for one simple reason:  They never see software for it.  All the Mac shelves in game stores, in Circuit City, they're all gone.  It would be foolish to do anything like compete with Windows head on without a distribution network deeply entrenched.  And I don't mean Apple stores.  I mean places people go to get PC's. 

Granted, Linux is not ready for the desktop.  I think it may be, but it will take a radical shift in the community's goal to pull it off.  They'll need t odevote as much effort as Apple has into making the whole experience seamless.


----------



## Excalibur (Sep 5, 2002)

There is a market for each OS in respect. The reason for each OS is each holds a  strength in a certain area. There is no one OS that is perfect for 100% of the market and there never will be. You can read the threads in here alone to see that.

Apple is a hardware company you forget. By porting out there OS they are flirting with death like they did when they cloned last time. If they DO go that way, they will need to change their business model to a software only company to stay profitable. This will be a big transition, considering we are in a transitional period now moving to OSX from OS9. I see at least 1-2 years for that to be complete. Once that is complete then these options will be worth looking into more seriously. Trying to transition OSes AND hardware at the same time is a bit risky there in a niche where there is little room for error.

The big deal with OSX being UNIX based is they can sell systems that can integrate with other variants of *NIX very easily and even Windows much easier now. That will make adoption much easier in mixed environments. So they do have grow potential now as a workstation.

Linux is great for servers because it is cheap and can scale. With Windows you must worry about client and server licenses which can cost you into the hundred thosands, we all forget. Linux will give you unlimited client and server licenses as well as the flexability for whatever modifications need to be made. Linux will always be a player in this market, more-so that our economy is in the toilet right now, with all the downsizing.


----------



## vanguard (Sep 5, 2002)

Regarding Red Hat:  I'd take that $100 bet in a heartbeat.  Red Hat was a big stock, people have heard of it outside the geek community.  I can say the same about my company, Cisco.  The guy who owns my local gas station asks me when it's going back up.  So did my doctor.  People know companies because their stock makes the news.

Regarding x86:  I like the quote about not caring about who make the CPU or the fan.  My only concern would be binary compatability.  If we switch CPUs we'll have to recompile everything when we install like we do on linux.  (Or, we'll have to know which file to d/l).  For that reason, power4 would be nice.

Regarding this thread: I always smile when somebody starts a new thread asking people to stop talking about their topic.

Vanguard


----------



## 96.9 (Sep 5, 2002)

What we are seeing is the soap opera that has plagued computing for many years now and made a mess of the tech stock market .

Really rich men who have rock star like status making lamo decisions .

So many wanna bees in the 90's talking about computers and they have no idea what they are going on about .

Maybee Apple can merge with transmeta .

LOL


----------



## fryke (Sep 6, 2002)

Back on topic...

I guess, the 'Mac OS X on X86' rumors will stop when

a) Steve Jobs comes out and says: "We're proud to present Mac OS X for PC Compatibles."

or

b) Steve Jobs comes out and says: "We will never release Mac OS X for PC Compatibles."

Although b) might even make those rumours bigger. Denial often is misinterpreted as proof by some people.

Still, Apple _does_ have an X86 port. Only we can't have it.


----------



## 96.9 (Sep 6, 2002)

I hear Steve Jobs is dating Shania Twain , this after Bill Gates left hate mail with Hillary Clinton over her cheating with is wife ?

Confused , you wont be on the next issue of 

SOAP


----------

