47 public posts in this discussion.
Steve Jobs has actually gone and done it. Intel will produce all of Apple's chips starting in 2006, since IBM weren't interested in Apple's business anymore (much higher volumes on embedded space, plus new games consoles).
Suddenly the decision to maintain x86 portability throughout OS X makes sense.
Enormous news.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
So how long until they start shipping with windows is my next question.
Well it'll still be custom hardware - non-PC BIOS for one thing, various custom ROMs etc. Apple did this in the 80s to prevent what happened to IBM - compatible clones.
But even if an Intel-powered Mac ran Windows - why would you?
Intel-powered Mac - why would you??
Intel inside - the worlds most widely distributed warning label... :p
You know I really couldn't care who made macs because its a mac... IT STILL SUCKS ASS...
I work for apple lol..
ibm cpus were alright in way they kicked the shit out of the pentium 4 cpu's
but i guess the fact the pentium d was released dual core :) X2 64 bit cpu was just gonna kick the shit outta there nice g5 cpus probably also the fact that ibm have turned there view to making cpu's for Playstation and xbox bigger market which doesnt suprise me.
they are looking at a more affordable way to produce pcs ect.
I sold 3 g5 macs to the goverment with these attached to them :S... good old servers they make :D
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10662
wanna medal or a showbag? :)
The problems are:
1. IBM is not interested in engineering G5s to run in laptops.
2. IBM is not interested in boosting clockspeed on G5s either.
3. IBM doesn't care about Apple, in short, who now only represent 3% of their PPC business, and soon much less than that.
4. For IBM generally, their microelectronics division (which makes the POWER and PowerPC chips) only produces 4% of the group's total revenue.
So 3% of 4% (ie 0.0012% of IBM's total revenue) doesn't really light IBM's fire when Apple demand faster engineering turnarounds and lower prices.
So Intel it is. The clever bit is that Apple have maintained complete OS X portability for 5 years, and that programmers who've written to Carbon or Cocoa will be able to port to Mactel in a day or two, depending on assembler optimisations.
That said, I was still surprised.
You go where you can get the service and its not like intel are a competator...its microsoft that they wana hang by the toes
green
Quote from Smurf:
You go where you can get the service and its not like intel are a competator...its microsoft that they wana hang by the toes
Microsoft owns Apple, does it not?
so when does the banana f*cking start?
Quote from Seqo:
Microsoft owns Apple, does it not?
I agree but macs still siht over pc's for stability and video editing..
Quote from Smurf:
I agree but macs still siht over pc's for stability and video editing..
I completely agree...
but your last post sounded like Microsoft was Apple's competitor... when, in reality, they are more partners than anything.
Microsoft do not OWN Apple - they have shares in it, but not controlling shares, and they certainly don't own it.
3 % ibm are making is exactly the same as what ppl who sell apples are making you may order a $5000 mac from the apple centre in darwin but we make 3% of that and it aint exactly enough to power the lights and run the aircon for a day which is why we are soon heading over to sell things like ipod covers convertors cathodes and fans least we make $5 on a fan and "2 on a cover which is neally more then asif we sold a laptop or a g5.
you really shouldn't be discussing things like that on a public forum Korny.. expecially since you are just an employee of the store.
Quote from Xaine:
Microsoft do not OWN Apple - they have shares in it, but not controlling shares, and they certainly don't own it.
As part of a court settlement, Apple received an undisclosed cash payment (believed to be around $2 billion USD). Microsoft also bought a special consignment of non-voting shares for "50 million. They're non-voting and Apple doesn't pay dividends on them, so in the stock market they're worth about 50c.
Finally Microsoft agreed to produce Office for Mac OS X, for at least 5 years. This part of the deal has since passed, though Microsoft continue to produce Office for Mac. Probably because the Mac Business Unit at MS is the most profitable division in the company.
Still, it's a common misconception that MS own Apple.
Quote from El Presidente:
Microsoft also bought a special consignment of non-voting shares for "50 million. They're non-voting and Apple doesn't pay dividends on them, so in the stock market they're worth about 50c.
What reason did Microsoft have to purchase these shares?
Quote from Seqo:
but your last post sounded like Microsoft was Apple's competitor... when, in reality, they are more partners than anything.
Steve Jobs said so when they struck their out of court settlement.
Of course, things may heat up a little with OS X moving to Intel chips as CPUs. While the underlying hardware will be different enough from a regular PC that OS X won't boot on your Dell, it wouldn't be too hard for Microsoft to port a Windows variant to run on Intel-based Macs. They use OpenFirmware (essentially, an advanced BIOS), and I believe MS has NT 4 code that was set up to boot on OF.
Mind you, this would lead to direct comparisons of Windows to OS X. I suspect Microsoft would rather this didn't happen. Most of what MS has promised (and then dropped) for Longhorn has already been released in OS X Tiger, and OS X Leopard will be released at the same time as Longhorn is due. Maybe there's more competition than they're letting on.
Now if there's one thing that's held the Mac back in a big way, it's games. If I could travel back in time, I'd tell Steve Jobs to give up a lot of the cash, and instead demand DirectX be available for OS X programs at all time. This would make writing games for both platforms about 1000000x easier. Moving to Intel will help a bit, but not as much as having DirectX would.
Quote from El Presidente:
Steve Jobs said so when they struck their out of court settlement.
Now if there's one thing that's held the Mac back in a big way, it's games. If I could travel back in time, I'd tell Steve Jobs to give up a lot of the cash, and instead demand DirectX be available for OS X programs at all time. This would make writing games for both platforms about 1000000x easier. Moving to Intel will help a bit, but not as much as having DirectX would.
You would have to go back further than that mate.
Apples problems started in 1990 in reference to games, and has never recovered.
I thought Korny ran his own business under contract from apple :-/
its no secret information we currently sell that shit but theres no money in macs and every mac store australia wide knows it... 3 % isnt much not worth it unless you sell $40,000 worth of them :S..
apple are doing this so they are the main supplier they wanna cut the other stores selling there products out and hopefully this will be a bad thing and they go broke (AGAIN)
Quote from CoCoBuckeTs:
You would have to go back further than that mate.
Apples problems started in 1990 in reference to games, and has never recovered.
I'm not saying that this is where the Mac and games parted company, I'm saying that it was a golden opportunity to close the gap. Like it or not, most major games are written to DirectX, which ties them to Windows. A parity port of DirectX on Mac would make cross-platform simultaneous release a lot more attractive to a lot more companies.
Still, it's not going to happen. So essentially Mac gamers (are there any?) are still reliant on OpenGL-based games and developer goodwill for quick release.
Quote from Korny:
its no secret information we currently sell that shit but theres no money in macs and every mac store australia wide knows it... 3 % isnt much not worth it unless you sell $40,000 worth of them :S..
This is more than a lot of PC sellers might get. They do make it up on volume, however.
Quote:
apple are doing this so they are the main supplier they wanna cut the other stores selling there products out and hopefully this will be a bad thing and they go broke (AGAIN)
Well it's you or Apple, really, and since Apple makes the product, they hold the cards. Resellers have not worked out very well for them.
[edit]
And even during the "Apple is dying" days of the early-mid 90s, Apple was larger than McDonald's. They have 6 billion in cash reserves, 76% of the MP3 player market, 83% of the online music market, and Mac shipments are rising at 40% per annum. They're doing just fine.
Ahh, misinformation on my part.
I was under the impression that they bought a controlling share of Apple - mainly for Firewire and the production of OSX compatible Microsoft products.
If they'd bought a controlling share of Apple, they'd have suffered another anti-trust suit for it.
As to Firewire, Apple only owns the trademark. They don't have exclusive control of the technology.
i cant go running with an ipod, i cant play games on a mac and i can download mp3s for free. Apple in general for me is useless...
But the OS and graphical editing is nice on the apples. Very quick and easy to use, to knock up a few pics for signing.
I just get locked up in the lack of free ware, games and ability to update the hardware.
Well its relatively easy to update the hardware for a mac... throw the whole thing out and go buy a new one :P
You upgraded your PC lately?
Let's see. I want the latest and greatest graphics card.
Hmmm, AGP is out. Guess I need a new motherboard.
What? I need a new CPU and RAM? OK, if you say so.
While I'm here, apparently IDE is dead as dirt. Guess I'll need a new SATA drive too.
Hmm, the case no longer fits the new mobo, and the power supply isn't big enough for the new CPU and GPU.
Actually, you know what? I should just buy a new PC. Since they're so upgradeable and stuff.
Quote from psyave:
I just get locked up in the lack of free ware, games and ability to update the hardware.
There's a lot of freeware for Mac - just about everything opensourced is on Mac, plus commercial stuff you can't get on anything other than OS X or Windows.
Games do suck, I agree. Except for Blizzard, nobody major releases for Mac at the same time as PC. Everything else that appears is ported, so it appears 6 months to 12 months later. This would be acceptable for CounterStrike, which is a ****ing egyptian mummy, but Source is Windows-only. Though some games, weirdly, come out better on a Mac.
Updating hardware is pretty simple. Open the case, add or swap the hardware you want. But why bother? OS X gets faster with every release. Except for PowerMacs, nobody should be rating upgrades over replacements.
oh noes, my motherboard died, and i lost a stick 'o' ram.
Ima go buy a new one, thats compatible with almost every worthwhile PnP device available, and im good to go again.
Good call, but generally Apple picks better gear which is less likely to break.
I buy el cheapo PC parts. My graphics card is the most expensive thing in my rig. Funnily enough, it all breaks pretty quickly.
I also have a 4 year old PowerBook G4. It has nothing wrong with it. Previously it belonged to a graphics designer who worked it as hard as possible.
Actually, I wonder how long it will take for people to start replacing their processors on Mactel machines. It'll certainly make upgrading processors easier and cheaper for Mac folk.
Also, an Apple VP said that they wouldn't stop Windows being ported to Macs. What's interesting is that according to their porting guide, they'll be ditching OpenFirmware. Hmmm.
whay would you want a MAC fullstop - unless its a Big Mac from the golden arches ...
Quote from TopGun:
whay would you want a MAC fullstop - unless its a Big Mac from the golden arches ...
You of all people know the answer. MAC numbers uniquely identify your network card.
Quote from El Presidente:
I'm not saying that this is where the Mac and games parted company, I'm saying that it was a golden opportunity to close the gap. Like it or not, most major games are written to DirectX, which ties them to Windows. A parity port of DirectX on Mac would make cross-platform simultaneous release a lot more attractive to a lot more companies.
Still, it's not going to happen. So essentially Mac gamers (are there any?) are still reliant on OpenGL-based games and developer goodwill for quick release.
However, I'd expect a Cedega port shortly after x86 OS X is released. Transgaming are likely to jump on this possibility :).
Thats not gonna run all games, but it's gonna run quite a few of 'em. It's also likely to help push Cedega development along faster, and possibly in the long run make Cedega compatibility a viable and worthwhile consideration for game developers.
I'm not so sure. OS X doesn't use X11 as its presentation/windowing layer.
True, but Transgaming contract out to do OS X ports of Windows games, as well as working on Cedega (indeed, code written for an OS X port can sometimes find it's way back into Cedega).
They do have the expertise at their disposal to make the port. Most graphical stuff is translated directly to OpenGL anyhow, which will require only some modification to initialization/closing to make work.
Well I'd like to think that heading to Intel will improve port turnaround times, but not much actual coding is done in assembler these days - it's C or C++ mostly.
Like I say, the killer is the API. If they used OpenGL and (say) SDL, no worries. If they used DirectX, porting is nigh impossible. This is why the Mac has Doom III and not Half Life 2.
As an aside, John Carmack is single handedly responsible for keeping OpenGL relevant in the games space.
i have a g4 sitting on my desk at home i dont use it but i have 1 lol.. kvm between my Windows and OS X :) best of both worlds
Really i dont know what the big thing is about OS's. The reason why we have computer systems is to run applications not to run the darn operating system on them. The operating system is one part of the puzzel yes, but if you have the greatest operating system in the world ( insert os here ) and you cant run any applications on it, then what use is it to you? NONE?
Mac has allways had a closed application market because how they perceive what people want in the market and also controling the hardware and also software development. IBM is different, they handel the hardware well leaving the vendors or application developers to develop how they see fit for applications on the PC. Such why we see Microsoft today, one of the leading suppliers of I.T. Solutions.
Its going to be intresting to see how apple handels the CISC cpus compaired to there original RISC cpus. But from the news sources i have been reading, this wouldnt be the first time mac has run on x86. Reports from apple indicate that they have been running cross compatiablity with there OS over the last 5 years over different computer aritechtures. Now talk about a good hardware/software abstraction layer.
love you chad (licks you) :P
nah i agree :S i like any os that works fine and doesnt crash..
yeh XP hasnt crashed for me and my win2k server hasnt crashed.
Quote from chad:
Its going to be intresting to see how apple handels the CISC cpus compaired to there original RISC cpus. But from the news sources i have been reading, this wouldnt be the first time mac has run on x86. Reports from apple indicate that they have been running cross compatiablity with there OS over the last 5 years over different computer aritechtures. Now talk about a good hardware/software abstraction layer.
OS X is a form of UNIX (BSD, can't recall if it's an OpenBSD or FreeBSD kernel), of course it's got a good hardware/software abstraction. UNIX has been run on most CPU architectures created to date, ever since the time Dinosaurs (Mainframes) roamed the earth.
Quote from chad:
Mac has allways had a closed application market because how they perceive what people want in the market and also controling the hardware and also software development.
Just to clarify: Apple produce the hardware and the Operating System, plus some applications. They do not control all Mac software however - there are thousands of third party vendors.
Quote:
IBM is different, they handel the hardware well leaving the vendors or application developers to develop how they see fit for applications on the PC.
This was not the original plan. The PC was cloned against IBM's wishes by two teams of engineers: one reverse engineered the IBM BIOS and wrote a detailed specification for it, and the second team created a completely new BIOS from that spec. This was achieved by Phoenix on behalf of Compaq, who produced the first IBM clones.
Quote:
Such why we see Microsoft today, one of the leading suppliers of I.T. Solutions.
We see Microsoft as a success because IBM never thought anyone would clone the PC, so they didn't make their licence with MS exclusive.
Whoops.
Quote:
Its going to be intresting to see how apple handels the CISC cpus compaired to there original RISC cpus.
CISC vs RISC is not the big deal it used to be. In terms of instruction sets, the PowerPC family has significant advantages over IA32. For instance, instructions are of a uniform length and the stack counter uses a different counting mechanism, which makes PowerPC code more resistant to some common IA32 buffer overflow exploits. This was a deliberate design decision by Moto and IBM when they designed the PowerPC line initially.
On the other hand, the PowerPC family have too many instructions to be considered truly RISC. For starters, it has a square-root function, which isn't even present on most other chips! Add in Altivec/VMX and a bunch of other bits and bobs, and it's not fully RISC-like.
By the same token, Intel and AMD chips share their internal designs with original RISC design approaches. All that happens is that a small part of the chip breaks down IA32 instructions into an internal, RISC-like microcode. To the compiler it looks like the direct descendant of an 8088; in reality it's more closely related to a MIPS or Alpha chip.
In terms of porting software, Apple have a two-part strategy. For developers who've been using XCode and writing to Cocoa, it will be pretty easy: They tell XCode to produce a "Universal Binary", a single application file which will run on either PowerPC or Intel processors. No need to ship separate versions. Doubleclicking on the same icon will have the same effect. You could drag and drop the same app from a G5 iMac to a P4 iMac and it'll run right away.
For other applications, which do not have universal binaries, Apple have a dynamic runtime instruction set translator called Rosetta. The technology is similar to JIT Java Virtual Machines: the program will transform PowerPC machine code into x86 machine code on-the-fly, optimising based on run time usage. This is not ideal, as PowerPC chips have a lot more registers than any IA32 chip in production, but doing it at runtime makes things easier. In his keynote speech Steve Jobs ran a PowerPC copy of Photoshop on a P4 system using Rosetta, it ran just fine.
Quote:
But from the news sources i have been reading, this wouldnt be the first time mac has run on x86. Reports from apple indicate that they have been running cross compatiablity with there OS over the last 5 years over different computer aritechtures. Now talk about a good hardware/software abstraction layer.
Actually the technology goes back in further to at least the mid-90s, when the forerunner of OS X (NeXTSTEP) was ported to PC from its original Moto 68k line. Ever since then NeXTSTEP technology, which underlies OS X, has remained completely portable, so long as you code to the API. This behaviour was maintained, and Apple apparently decided it was worth keeping against just such a day.