As a longtime Mac-using Intel-hater, I feel betrayed. Iguess it's good for
compatability, and maybe it'll help with marketing, but damn. Why couldn't it
have been AMD?
Seems like Apple's doing them selves a favour now. I dont care for what chipset
I use, as long as it does what I want it to do. Wait, you know that already...
Mac users got owned. This isn't a good move for Apple... a lot of mac owners are
going to be pissed, because their machines are suddenly going to loose support,
and are outdated, all of which cost A LOT of money. I know people who just
ordered some Powerbooks and are pissed because of this. Someone the other day
just ordered a brand new G5, learned about this, and shat himself.
What's worse is it's still going to be Mac-Only Hardware... no "build your
own mac" like I always wanted to do.
I dont think it will be too bad. I'll be honest. I'm not thrilled or
incredibly happy about the deal but apple will still have Tiger and a secure OS.
Even if they do use Intel Chips.
Quote by RitalinMac users got owned. This
isn't a good move for Apple... a lot of mac
owners are going to be pissed, because their machines are suddenly
going to loose support, and are outdated, all of which cost A LOT of
money. I know people who just ordered some Powerbooks and are pissed
because of this. Someone the other day just ordered a brand new G5,
learned about this, and shat himself.
What's worse is it's still going to be Mac-Only Hardware... no "build
your own mac" like I always wanted to do.
Why not?
Once the OS / BIOS is hacked, its fairly smooth sailing. Driver support is an
issue, but considering how much the hardware companies would love to cash in on
mac upgrades, I bet existing pc hardware would be compatible. Or not, we'll
see.
Bottom line is, I have very little doubt that within a week of OS-X x86 being
released, it will be cracked for Non-Mac machines.
geee, apple decides to give in finally, never really used a mac, dont
really know how fast the G5 processors now, but guess whos the god of PC chips
now>??????, intel
LOL I've never owned a mac. ...And I'm quite happy about it. On a
side note, Gentoo Linux runs on "normal" PC hardware, and is free...
...And so is an office suite, "open office", and a powerful image
editor, "gimp". ...You can get both of these packages for Windows
too. ...Anyhow, I never saw the point in promoting a different
architecture because it is different, non-standard, and only a little better in
some areas. (Clearly not a mac fan...)
I'm not sure if Apple is really giving in or making any particular bad move.
While the G5 is a kickin' processor, Apple really isn't getting much more out of
their deal with IBM. Two or three years ago (at wwdc), Steve Jobs promied 3 ghz
PowerMacs. At present, they haven't been able to deliver. It's not necessarily
Apple's fault for this. They work with IBM to develop CPUs. Apple has been
pressuring IBM to develop faster chips.
Now look at it from IBM's perspective. A few years ago, Apple provided a decent
chunk of revenue. They needed processors for their computers. IBM was also the
only company to provide to them. The only other serious markets IBM had a hold
in were servers, business machines, and a few other things. Revenue from Apple
was probably worth the development costs.
Fast forward to the the recent past. Look at what projects IBM has lined up:
Xbox360, partnership with Toshiba and Sony for the Cell processor (powerhouse
behind the ps3). Suddenly, Apple's chunk of the pie got significantly smaller.
There simply aren't enough resources to go around. From a financial standpoint,
I'm sure Microsoft and Sony will bring in far more revenue than Apple. It has
also been said that IBM wants to concentrate on the server market more.
Where does this leave Apple? Pissed off. Jobs has been threatening to leave IBM
for awhile now. It's finally happened. I'm sure the folks over at IBM opened up
a bottle of sparkling wine and had a party. I've heard that Steve Jobs is a
pretty hard person to work with. If I were a genious, I'd probably be hard to
work with too.
So it all comes down to this: Intel is a (mostly) dedicated chip developer. They
saw an opportunity to gain marketshare. They took it.
The thing I'm worried about is what this means for Apple's hardware. If it's a
standard P4 with all the trimmings, there won't be much incentive to buy an
Apple machine. Similarly, what's to prevent people from installing Windows on a
Mac? Recent rumors already indicate a "leaked" version of 10.4.1 for
x86 floating around on the internet. It runs at full speed and comes with iLife.
All other OSX apps run in translation via Rosetta, so they're not as fast as a
native version.
Quote by kawaiiguyI'm not sure if Apple
is really giving in or making any particular bad
move. While the G5 is a kickin' processor, Apple really isn't getting
much more out of their deal with IBM. Two or three years ago (at wwdc),
Steve Jobs promied 3 ghz PowerMacs. At present, they haven't been able
to deliver. It's not necessarily Apple's fault for this. They work with
IBM to develop CPUs. Apple has been pressuring IBM to develop faster
chips.
Now look at it from IBM's perspective. A few years ago, Apple provided
a decent chunk of revenue. They needed processors for their computers.
IBM was also the only company to provide to them. The only other
serious markets IBM had a hold in were servers, business machines, and
a few other things. Revenue from Apple was probably worth the
development costs.
Fast forward to the the recent past. Look at what projects IBM has
lined up: Xbox360, partnership with Toshiba and Sony for the Cell
processor (powerhouse behind the ps3). Suddenly, Apple's chunk of the
pie got significantly smaller. There simply aren't enough resources to
go around. From a financial standpoint, I'm sure Microsoft and Sony
will bring in far more revenue than Apple. It has also been said that
IBM wants to concentrate on the server market more.
Where does this leave Apple? Pissed off. Jobs has been threatening to
leave IBM for awhile now. It's finally happened. I'm sure the folks
over at IBM opened up a bottle of sparkling wine and had a party. I've
heard that Steve Jobs is a pretty hard person to work with. If I were a
genious, I'd probably be hard to work with too.
So it all comes down to this: Intel is a (mostly) dedicated chip
developer. They saw an opportunity to gain marketshare. They took it.
The thing I'm worried about is what this means for Apple's hardware. If
it's a standard P4 with all the trimmings, there won't be much
incentive to buy an Apple machine. Similarly, what's to prevent people
from installing Windows on a Mac? Recent rumors already indicate a
"leaked" version of 10.4.1 for x86 floating around on the internet.
It
runs at full speed and comes with iLife. All other OSX apps run in
translation via Rosetta, so they're not as fast as a native version.
I'd love to get my hands on it and play with it.
Apple has stated that they do not plan to prevent Microsoft from releasing a
Windows for Mac. So Microsoft can, if they wish to.
Also, Even though Mac OS X will not be available for Non-Mac based x86 machines,
That doesnt mean it wont be cracked. In fact, I have every faith in the fact it
will be cracked within a week of release.
So I hope to have a Windows XP Pro / Mac OS X dual-boot on my homebuilt AMD
system when it comes. n_n V
Quote by TheRavenIsUnSkill(sic)...Even
though Mac OS X will not be available for Non-Mac based x86
machines, That doesnt mean it wont be cracked. In fact, I have every
faith in the fact it will be cracked within a week of release. So I
hope to have a Windows XP Pro / Mac OS X dual-boot on my homebuilt AMD
system when it comes. n_n V
Go Raven!!! LOL I don't doubt it will come to that eventually.
I already knew this were come to happen. Even when it was only a rumor, there
are already going on internet, Mac OS trial basis for X86 plattforms. I know it
because I got it.
I see it as the process to make a global and unique plattform, wich may forecast
more powerful systems, based on the neccesary processor or components.
This should be better tha worse.
Quote by SebastianvonKaneI
already knew this were come to happen. Even when it was only a rumor,
there are already going on internet, Mac OS trial basis for X86
plattforms. I know it because I got it.
I see it as the process to make a global and unique plattform, wich may
forecast more powerful systems, based on the neccesary processor or
components.
This should be better tha worse.
I'd heard about the x86 version of OSX awhile ago. It was supposed to be an
in-house only thing. Where'd you land your copy? I'd
love to give 10.4.1 a go on my PC (probably VPC).
I've heard other rumors that the new chips will be based on the upcoming Pentium
D, which features some sort of a DRM checker. Perhaps the OS will initially be
locked down by this. In terms of the casual market, it'll keep OSX on the Apple
boxes. But from the underground perspective, it's just another hurdle to go
over. In my opinion, it's the only way to keep Apple from shooting itself in the
foot as a hardware provider.
Looks like its official. Apple will start producing x86 based Comps by this time next year, and switching fully to Intel x86 by the end of 2007.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/macos/story/0,10801,102293,00.html
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050607/tc_usatoday/applejoinsintelinseismicshift;_ylt=AtOqFvhHQqOKQUI5owzrvMQjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_hi_te/apple_chips;_ylt=AjpHwrDRQyXc.m3PZ4TUTD8jtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
End of an era, it seems.
(For the record, I'm a PC user, not a Mac user.)
Discuss?
As a longtime Mac-using Intel-hater, I feel betrayed. Iguess it's good for compatability, and maybe it'll help with marketing, but damn. Why couldn't it have been AMD?
to apple users :>
where is your god now?
Seems like Apple's doing them selves a favour now. I dont care for what chipset I use, as long as it does what I want it to do. Wait, you know that already...
Here is the Apple corp press release on the matter. FYI.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
Mac users got owned. This isn't a good move for Apple... a lot of mac owners are going to be pissed, because their machines are suddenly going to loose support, and are outdated, all of which cost A LOT of money. I know people who just ordered some Powerbooks and are pissed because of this. Someone the other day just ordered a brand new G5, learned about this, and shat himself.
What's worse is it's still going to be Mac-Only Hardware... no "build your own mac" like I always wanted to do.
I still think AMD woulda been better than Intel if the x86 was necessary.
I dont think it will be too bad. I'll be honest. I'm not thrilled or incredibly happy about the deal but apple will still have Tiger and a secure OS. Even if they do use Intel Chips.
It was bound to happen, though the Athlon64 or Opteron would have been a way better choice.
Why not?
Once the OS / BIOS is hacked, its fairly smooth sailing. Driver support is an issue, but considering how much the hardware companies would love to cash in on mac upgrades, I bet existing pc hardware would be compatible. Or not, we'll see.
Bottom line is, I have very little doubt that within a week of OS-X x86 being released, it will be cracked for Non-Mac machines.
i'm never use apple before but ithink AMD enough
geee, apple decides to give in finally, never really used a mac, dont really know how fast the G5 processors now, but guess whos the god of PC chips now>??????, intel
LOL I've never owned a mac. ...And I'm quite happy about it.
On a
side note, Gentoo Linux runs on "normal" PC hardware, and is free...
...And so is an office suite, "open office", and a powerful image
editor, "gimp". ...You can get both of these packages for Windows
too. 
...Anyhow, I never saw the point in promoting a different
architecture because it is different, non-standard, and only a little better in
some areas. 
(Clearly not a mac fan...)
I'm not sure if Apple is really giving in or making any particular bad move. While the G5 is a kickin' processor, Apple really isn't getting much more out of their deal with IBM. Two or three years ago (at wwdc), Steve Jobs promied 3 ghz PowerMacs. At present, they haven't been able to deliver. It's not necessarily Apple's fault for this. They work with IBM to develop CPUs. Apple has been pressuring IBM to develop faster chips.
Now look at it from IBM's perspective. A few years ago, Apple provided a decent chunk of revenue. They needed processors for their computers. IBM was also the only company to provide to them. The only other serious markets IBM had a hold in were servers, business machines, and a few other things. Revenue from Apple was probably worth the development costs.
Fast forward to the the recent past. Look at what projects IBM has lined up: Xbox360, partnership with Toshiba and Sony for the Cell processor (powerhouse behind the ps3). Suddenly, Apple's chunk of the pie got significantly smaller. There simply aren't enough resources to go around. From a financial standpoint, I'm sure Microsoft and Sony will bring in far more revenue than Apple. It has also been said that IBM wants to concentrate on the server market more.
Where does this leave Apple? Pissed off. Jobs has been threatening to leave IBM for awhile now. It's finally happened. I'm sure the folks over at IBM opened up a bottle of sparkling wine and had a party. I've heard that Steve Jobs is a pretty hard person to work with. If I were a genious, I'd probably be hard to work with too.
So it all comes down to this: Intel is a (mostly) dedicated chip developer. They saw an opportunity to gain marketshare. They took it.
The thing I'm worried about is what this means for Apple's hardware. If it's a standard P4 with all the trimmings, there won't be much incentive to buy an Apple machine. Similarly, what's to prevent people from installing Windows on a Mac? Recent rumors already indicate a "leaked" version of 10.4.1 for x86 floating around on the internet. It runs at full speed and comes with iLife. All other OSX apps run in translation via Rosetta, so they're not as fast as a native version.
I'd love to get my hands on it and play with it.
Apple has stated that they do not plan to prevent Microsoft from releasing a Windows for Mac. So Microsoft can, if they wish to.
Also, Even though Mac OS X will not be available for Non-Mac based x86 machines, That doesnt mean it wont be cracked. In fact, I have every faith in the fact it will be cracked within a week of release.
So I hope to have a Windows XP Pro / Mac OS X dual-boot on my homebuilt AMD system when it comes. n_n V
Go Raven!!! LOL I don't doubt it will come to that eventually.
I already knew this were come to happen. Even when it was only a rumor, there are already going on internet, Mac OS trial basis for X86 plattforms. I know it because I got it.
I see it as the process to make a global and unique plattform, wich may forecast more powerful systems, based on the neccesary processor or components.
This should be better tha worse.
I'd heard about the x86 version of OSX awhile ago. It was supposed to be an in-house only thing. Where'd you land your copy?
I've heard other rumors that the new chips will be based on the upcoming Pentium D, which features some sort of a DRM checker. Perhaps the OS will initially be locked down by this. In terms of the casual market, it'll keep OSX on the Apple boxes. But from the underground perspective, it's just another hurdle to go over. In my opinion, it's the only way to keep Apple from shooting itself in the foot as a hardware provider.
Looks like they've finally come to their senses