Mac to use Intel Chips!

If anything this should close the gap consumers feel when comparing Macs to PCs. If they both run off of Pentiums hopefully consumers will look at Macs as a little less foreign. Maybe developers will be able to bring their code over a little easier to. I dunno.

It sounds like Xcode is the only way developers are going to be able to successfully write apps for both systems. If developers have been using Xcode already, the transition is supposed to be seamless. If not, it's said to be a nightmare.

I want to see the demo of Tiger on Intel and am curious of the performance.
 
lnoelstorr said:
Intel denies their chips will have DRM:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23708


Although, I don't see what rights it would take away anyway, your right to pirate software?


If the chips do have DRM - it could be the very thing that stops people running OSX on non-Apple machines.
Click to expand...

That's good at least. DRM isn't all about pirating you know, even though that's what the *IAA wants you to think. Imagine DRM'd CDs you can't copy because of the CPU. Record TV on your computer, and you can't move it to another one. Stuff like that is possible, but it's good to see that this chip won't have it.
 
Those of you who like being in an exclusive Mac club should try living in West LA. Everyone has Macs. The little kids have their own G5s and iPod photos. It's not so exclusive and cool. It's just what people have. When I bought my iBook, my enjoyment did not diminish because the next door-neighbor's 6 year old also has an iBook.

More to the point, Hummer is a terrible analogy. Hummers are a played-out fad that is nothing like Apple. You want to make an analogy? Think Mercedes. You can now buy a C230 for under $30,000. That's like the Mac Mini.

Does this mean that your SL600 isn't a hot car anymore? And should the owner of a Maybach 62 class at $375,000 groan about diminished value?

The high-end Mac products will always be high-end Mac products. Just because more people with less money will have a better computing experience does not mean that your computing experience will be any less enjoyable.
 
What will Apple's focus be now? It was dual 64-bit processors, something Intel is not interested at all on it's consumer roadmap. Will Apple now tout single chip dual core 32-bit processors as the future? Or maybe they'll be idiots like with IBM and use processors designed for highend servers and wonder why they don't scale as well as processors designed for consumer desktops.
 
I think this from MacWorld sums it up best :

It doesn’t mean that Macs will all run Windows instead of OS X. It doesn’t mean that current Macs will be obsolete next year.

I'm thinking Intel will be making the next PowerPC's (still named PowerPC as to not confuse everyone) and it will not be based on x86, but on the itanuim2 or their 64-bit chip.
 
Jesus.

After a quick trip around the worlds forums, I am shocked (and a little worried) about how negative everyone is being, assumming the worst before anything has actually happened.

Mind you, thats the way things are these days, the majority of news stories just seems be based on someones opinion of what might happen rather than what has happened. People are so petrified of what might happen, anything different causes havoc!

The vast majority of computer users won't give a stuff what processor their computer uses, as long as it works. I certainly didn't hear anyone buying a Mac Mini because it was PPC?

In fact, with peoples obsession with numbers these days, at least Apple will finally be able to get over the whole 'why has my PC got 3.7 giga thingies when a Mac only has 2?
 
The hummer thing was just a metaphor for the (admittedly irrational) way I'd feel to see OS X running on a crappy PC. I never said it was a good metaphor for REALITY. <g>

Apple would like nothing better than for OS X to be as commonplace as windows, and for OS X to be a much-less excluisive club. I suppose my point was: one of the things I like about OS X is one of the very things Apple is working hardest to eradicate. This part is just generic grousing.

One other note: yes of course computers always become obsolete eventually. It's still pretty wrenching to know exactly when - sorta like knowing when you're gonna die...

All new macs with intel by 2007? My G5 is unsupportable rubbish by 2009 or so. Now when I look at my G5, it's like looking at a dear friend with a terminal , incurable disease...
 
RGrphc2 said:
I think this from MacWorld sums it up best :

It doesn’t mean that Macs will all run Windows instead of OS X. It doesn’t mean that current Macs will be obsolete next year.

I'm thinking Intel will be making the next PowerPC's (still named PowerPC as to not confuse everyone) and it will not be based on x86, but on the itanuim2 or their 64-bit chip.
Click to expand...

Then why the heck are they demoing Tiger on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4? Second, the Itanium has been one of Intel's biggest failures to date. They're now playing catchup with AMD in the 64-bit market trying to create and market a 64-bit Pentium.

The Itanium 2 is as compatible to the Pentium 4 as the G5. There is no way Apple would take that direction.
 
What possible benefit is there to moving to Intel? I'm seriously at a loss. There have been numerous reasons on the Internet suggesting various reasons for the move. However, none of them really make any sense.

x86 isn't visibly cheaper. One of the arguments for releasing OS X for x86 was so that people with existing hardware could run OS X and as such they would be able to avoid the Apple hardware tax, which in some people's eyes is excessive. With this announcement that Mac OS X for x86 will not run on any bog standard computer, this point becomes moot.

The Pentium 4 hits 3.6 GHz. But take a look at benchmarks on the web. It isn't a great performer. Certainly not better enough compared to a G5 to warrant dropping it. The G4s are fine for laptops. Throw in dual core G4 and an on board memory controller (such as that found on the e600). Performance is a really bad reason to move to x86.

So seriously, why the move?
 
Where will the G5 be in 2 years ?

How much does it cost to Apple to create all interface ICs for the G5 ?
 
Viro said:
What possible benefit is there to moving to Intel? I'm seriously at a loss. There have been numerous reasons on the Internet suggesting various reasons for the move. However, none of them really make any sense.
Click to expand...

I'd say not having a good performer on the laptop range is a good enough reason alone. I'm quite irritated at my pbook's performance...

But, this is a quote from Jobs' interview with CNBC after the keynote. It might be all just spin, but it does sound like they just didn't see a future with the PPC design.

CNBC said:
"We have a good relationship with IBM, and they've got a product road map, and today, the products are really good," Jobs said when asked what IBM had failed to deliver, in his estimation. "But as we look out into the future, where we want to go is maybe a little bit different. We can envision some awesome products we want to build for our customers in the next few years, and as we look out a year or two in the future, Intel's processor roadmap really aligns with where we want to go much more than any other."

The transition is beginning now, Jobs said, to "get us where we want to be to build the kind of future products we want to build."

"Our products today are fine," Jobs added, "but it's really a year or two down the future where we see some issues."
Click to expand...
 
Well, I think Apple is aware of "the future" more than us peons are. Obviously, Mr Jobs knows more than we know... and has decided to change the platform Mac runs on because of this "fore knowledge".
 
Apple is basing this move on the roadmaps of the 2 processor lines. Intel's is supposed to be better than IBM's in the next 5 years or so. Jobs says Intel will be at "70 processing units" and PPC at "14 processing units" as an example of the spread that will occur in the coming years.

Maybe that scares him a lot and it does scare me as well. I wouldn't want to be that far behind x86 again so maybe this move will help us.

It'll definately be better for the portable line of computers but for the desktops.. I don't know..
 
hmm... interesting. if thats the case i wouldn't mind it. but looking at other oppertunities such as Cell, i wonder how much Apple has lost or gained.
 
We've been hearing rumers for years about Apple going x86, I remember when there were rumered talks with AMD, but if i'm not mistaken AMD integrated chips showed up in the airport basestation, not a mac. I'd buy a compatability card, but I'll be horrified if there is a chip switch.
 
hey i know its not happening.. i just said consider the oppertunities lost or gained.. i'm in no way demanding apple to change or anything (well not anymore).. why dont _you_ serioulsy stop accusing me for no good reason.. what.. so you hate the word "Cell" now?? that would be stupid.
 
No you just keep talking about it and we all get it, also this thread has nothing to do with cell it has to do with Intel, specifically the P4. What I would like to see are some xbenchs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top