Apple to use Intel architecture - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

trache · 06-03-2005, 07:42 PM

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

Holy hell. I can just see how many people are going to try and emulate the operating system as it's going to be in 2006-07. I also think Apple might start to outsource the hardware.. but I hope not, because that's partly why they are so stable.

pattycakes · 06-03-2005, 08:38 PM

why the hell would they do that "cell" sounds like one of the most powerful cpus ever built.

i dont like macs because there are not that many games for them, but this will send mac to hell

t3m3st · 06-03-2005, 09:59 PM

so any sucker who just paid the $3000 for a dual 2.7 is screwed when new software doesn't work... this is terrible

martinguerre · 06-03-2005, 10:44 PM

rumors like this have gone up since 1984. i don't put much trust in them...

/mac user since 1986

ScottKuma · 06-04-2005, 05:24 AM

Stability SHOULDN'T be an issue, since they're now running the BSD OS core...

But if this is true, this is just ONE step away from what I have thought Apple should do for over a decade...Release the Macintosh OS for the Intel architecture and compete head-to-head with Microsoft. I think they could actually win that battle!!

Wyodiver33 · 06-04-2005, 09:41 AM

All I know is this, I've played with OSX at computer stores and it is quite impressive. If it was made available to the PC I would probably buy it. Of course I would need to be able to choose either OSX or XP at boot.

trache · 06-06-2005, 10:47 AM

It is not a rumour anymore. Apparently (as to go along with my conspiracy filled mind) Mac OS X has been able to run on Intel hardware for years.

http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/

This is big, but I don't understand why all the Macintosh die-hard enthusiasts/zealots will no doubt flame on because of this.

What, did they actually think it wasn't going to happen? Half the hardware in the current Macs are third-party pieces purchased from companies like ATI & NVidia (to name but two).

I will either have to hold off buying a Mac until the new models come out next year, or perhaps buy something cheap like a Mac-Mini now and hope they may have a way to down port this new technology to processors that are not Intel based.

n0nsensical · 06-06-2005, 12:21 PM

I always figured this was an obvious option for Apple, but it's still surprising to see Jobs actually going through with it. Microsoft can't be too happy. The hardware was always the big divide that ultimately led to Microsoft OS domination and Apple's niche, but now that's gone and there may be no good reason NOT to switch to MacOS. I thought the biggest obstacle to Apple making the "switch" is that they must have nice profit margins on hardware, so how is this going to affect Apple's shareholder value?

sailor · 06-06-2005, 12:58 PM

Holy crap. If it just "works" on an x86 box, as in I can just go to the store and buy OSX, Im in. For the longest time, I loved OSX, but wouldnt move to mac because I dont like being locked into proprietary hardware. If this means what it could... Ill be blowing gobs of money to move my machines to OSX.

sailor · 06-06-2005, 01:05 PM

Bah.

Quote:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

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.

From http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the...ml?tag=st.next

n0nsensical · 06-06-2005, 01:32 PM

Then I guess in theory it wouldn't affect their hardware profits if it will only run on Apple hardware that can still be overpriced...but if Windows will run on an Intel Mac, it shouldn't be too hard to get Mac OS working on an Intel non-Mac.

Anomaly_ · 06-06-2005, 03:27 PM

What is the financial incentive behind not allowing OS X to run on any x86 machine? I didn't think Microsoft owned that much share in Apple. I'm sure it's not that simple, but I would be interested in knowing why Jobs won't allow it.

exizldelfuego · 06-06-2005, 10:45 PM

Bare with me here while I try and sort out my thoughts on this.

First off: if Microsoft owns anything of Apple, is simply as part of their investment portfolio. Microsoft has absolutely no say in what direction Apple takes as a company. When most people refer to MS owning a part of Apple, they're recalling the deal Apple made with MS several years ago settling a long-standing lawsuit between the two in exchange for MS investing... was it $150 million in NON-VOTING Apple Shares (which was really a good-faith deal, as $150 million was a drop in the bucket to Apple's then $4 billion warchest) and a commitment from MS for Office on Mac OS, which was the really important thing. This marked the beginning of the reemergence of Apple from "the dark years." MS has since sold off their purchased stock at a considerable profit.

Secondly, Apple's not going to stop supporting the PowerPC version of Mac OS X any time soon. I mean hey, if they've kept Mac OS X for Intel going ever since Rhapsody in the late '90s, why would they up and drop OSX for PowerPC when it wouldn't cost so much to keep the development parallel? It's all based on Darwin anyways. So people who have Macs now won't be left behind. People buying new PowerPC Macs won't be left behind. Apple isn't straight-up abandoning PowerPC.

This "switch" is actually quite the blast from the past, and I don't mean just in terms of the "Apple switching to Intel" rumor that has popped up every now and then since the Macintosh's inception. I mean from a strictly NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP point of view (Mac OS X's ancestors). OpenStep, in its prime, ran on four (4) different architectures: 68k, SPARC, x86, and HP-UX (or something like that). And so when Apple bought NEXT and ported OpenStep to PowerPC to become Mac OS X, they initially planned on having an x86 version all along. It got phased out as Apple narrowed their playing field to concentrate on where the money (re: their consumer/developer bases) was really at. So now we learn that Apple has all along been keeping that x86 version up to date. Not a big surprise really, considering that Darwin has been on x86 for a good while now. Just a surprise that the hammer has finally fallen.

Just a heads up from where I'm coming from, back in high school I was the sole Mac Geek on campus amongst all the other WinTel geeks, and was quite the Apple Evangelist. After high school, I stopped caring what other people thought of Apple, all I knew was that I loved them. That being said, the idea that Apple will switch away from PowerPC in favor of x86 (of all things!) is a tough pill to swallow. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, it's one of those things that only time will tell. As it stands, I'll probably buy PowerPC Macs for as long as I can, or until there's sufficient reason not to. Steve Jobs didn't offer enough information about what the new Intel-based Macs would be like to really make an opinion. What he really said was "Hey guys, this is what'll be happening in the next year, and here are the tools that you'll need to start getting ready for it." Which is good. That's what should happen at a developer's conference.

But with news like this, it's so easy to focus in on the narrow, lower-level information (that Apple is switching to x86) that the really really good news is being overshadowed. Right now, when a programmer creates an application, they're making it for Mac OS X on PowerPC. What Apple's getting them to do is not so much getting them to stop making it for PowerPC and instead make it for x86, but Apple's getting them to stop making assumptions about the processor and instead rely just Mac OS X. Apple has said that PowerPC still has a place in Macintosh, and that they will still be coming out with new computers which will have PowerPC brains. It's just that they're going to be coming out with x86 Macs as well. Therefore developers will need to rely on the tools Apple gives (Xcode) in order to make their binaries compatible with whatever architecture any copy of Mac OS X might be running on. Therefore they're taking Mac OS X back to its NEXT roots by making it a flexible, multi-platform OS.

In any migration, actually moving the OS to something else, while no trivial task, is probably the easiest for any company because that can all be managed and handled within the business. The real difficulty is convincing your developer base to shoulder the burden of the switch to get their apps on the new whatever, and then also to get the consumer base to switch over as well. And while Apple seems pretty adept at this (having done so many times over the years), I believe this is ultimately a step which will make the developer/consumer concerns a thing of the past. By getting the developers to program for the OS and not the processor (where they make their code using the provided frameworks and let the compiler worry about the processor), the developer will never again have to worry about migrating their code from one base to another. They'll just need a little bit more QA time to make sure everything runs smoothly on each architecture. And the consumers could care less because all their apps will just work on any machine, so long as that machine is an Apple computer running Mac OS X. This means that in the future, when new and better chips come out from a different source, Apple can decide whether or not it's something worth incorporating into their product lines without having to concern those outside the company in the decision.

So while the news is that Apple is switching to x86, something I approach with some trepidation, the really big news here is that Apple is making a move to become the most flexible computer maker in the market. It's not that they're switching to Intel chips, it's that they're paving the way for the ability to incorporate ANY chip they might want into their product line, with Intel chips serving simply as the catalyst.

The days of Apple's hardware stagnations at the hands of its chip suppliers are soon to be a thing of the past. If four years down the road Intel plateau's while some new up-and-coming chip is offering promise, Apple can build a machine around the new chip. Imagine the possibility of Apple's product lineup, five years from now, with a Mac Tablet running Mac OS X for ARM, a Mac laptop running Mac OS X for Centrino, a PowerMac G6 running Mac OS X for PowerPC, and an Xserve running Mac OS X for SPARC. Setting the feasibility of supporting all these architectures aside, the point is that the POSSIBILITY is there for it. And that's really encouraging.

A lot can happen within two years. And while Apple right now may be saying that they're transitioning from PowerPC to x86 (as in phasing out PowerPC), I fully expect them to keep PowerPC Macs around in machines where it makes sense. The "phasing out" intonations are really there to ensure that the developers step in line. I forsee being able to buy Macs from Apple where I'd have a choice of PowerPC or x86.

jorgelito · 06-07-2005, 12:54 AM

Awesome post, thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

hulk · 06-07-2005, 05:26 AM

It's hard to digest after all the RISC > CISC crap Apple have fed us over the years :P

We'll have to wait and see what the chip is like, though. If it's a bog-standard Pentium, it'll go in the 'why bother?' drawer. A RISC-based Intel chip, though, is a much better prospect.

exizldelfuego · 06-07-2005, 07:13 AM

Unfortunately, for the time being, it's x86 which means that wherever Intel's Pentium is in a year or two, that's where Apple will be. And as much as I dislike that, it's actually a pretty good first step. By first going with x86, it insures that Apple will always have a steady supply of fast chips. Regardless of what else is out there in the market. I expect that once this transition is made, they'll be free to branch out however they deem fit.

Also, ArsTechnica has a pretty good writeup about this, if anyone's interested.

mikec · 06-07-2005, 08:53 AM

I think it's a great move. I have wanted to try mac for years, but refuse to buy a machine that can only run that one OS. this move should allow OS whatever to run on PC hardware. smart move by Jobs IMO>

KingOtter67 · 06-07-2005, 09:27 AM

This doesn't necessarily mean that OS X will run on any intel x86 platform. While the OS has been cross-platform developed for year now, that doesn't mean the hardware drivers to support a complete system have been. And I'm talking consumer hardware more than system hardware.

Besides that... if Apple lets this run on any x86 platform, given the amount of these products in the market, it would pretty effectively turn them into primarily a software company. Which I'm not convinced that's really where they want to be (I won't take credit for that observation... it was made by a friend of mine).

I think you'll see more innovative products from Apple based on the x86 architectured system. Hopefully they'll take the x86 somewhere that only a proprietary hardware company can take it, and that'll get ported over to mainstream (where nobody can innovate because it all has to work together).

martinguerre · 06-07-2005, 12:24 PM

son of a bitch...i honestly didn't expect that one.

it will be interesting to see if they go with a propreitary mobo and the x86 chipset, or use a mobo design that's compatible with the Wintel standards. there are still a ton of decisions that we'll be waiting to see to know what this is going to look like.

exizldelfuego · 06-07-2005, 01:46 PM

Oh I fully expect it to be proprietary. At least in the here and now, Apple is a hardware company. And if they allowed Mac OS X to run on any PC it would ruin Apple's finances. While the real selling point is Mac OS X itself, it's the hardware that runs it which funds OSX's development. This isn't to say that once all of this is said and done and the dust starts to settle Apple couldn't start shifting away from hardware, but at the moment, it's too big a step. If you want to run Mac OS X, you'll have to buy a Mac from Apple, regardless of what processor it runs.

The Apple of today LIKES controlling the whole package, as it were. They make the software. They make the hardware. They make the retail/online stores that'll sell the products to you. They are in control of the "Macintosh Experience" and so long as Steve Jobs is at the helm, there's no way they're going to give that up. For better or worst.

macmanmike6100 · 06-07-2005, 03:26 PM

everything Apple will be proprietary...and good for that! Steve would never allow an Apple-branded system be as unforgivable as PCs are; i.e. everything will work just like today's Macs.

if you read the Arstechnica article, you see a glimpse of Steve's personality, and after following him since '90, I think it's entirely plausible that Jobs simply was fed up with IBM's feet-dragging and lack of innovation on behalf of Apple and realized that there was nowhere else to go except x86. Although, he *did* realize that he might have to go to x86 sometime, ever since the first rumors of Mac OS 10.0 running on both the PPC and x86 architectures.

rubicon · 06-07-2005, 04:06 PM

I'm in support of the move to Intel processors. I'm also in support of Apple keeping the hardware proprietary. I feel the stability and performance of the machines is due to the tight integration between the two.

THGL · 06-07-2005, 06:02 PM

From what I've read so far elsewhere, OS X will not run on a wintel box after the switch is made, but rather Windows "may" be able to run on Mac hardware. I believe that Jobs said Apple won't support it though.

JJRousseau · 06-07-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

It's hard to digest after all the RISC > CISC crap Apple have fed us over the years :P

Exactly!

I heard today that this was partly due to the fact that IBM could not cool a G5 enough to sit in a laptop, so the Powerbook was stuck at 1.67Ghz. IBM doesn't seem to expend much effort on the Apple chip - especially now that they are deveolping the "cell" chip. (Wouldn't that be awesome in a Mac!)

There was an interesting article on zdnet that suggested Apple should have looked to Sun rather than IBM. Interesting thought.

aarchaon · 06-07-2005, 06:59 PM

I fell as though this is a huge step forward for the Mac platform and Apple. IBM couldn't deliver what they promised, and with the XBOX 360 using PowerPC processors, the chances of IBM keeping up are that much smaller. It was a do-or-die decision for apple and I think that in the long-term it was a good decision.

Why I think OSX is so stable and well-made is because of the smaller amount of hardware that it has to be compatible with. I don't think that changing processor architecture is going to change anything. In the video of the WWDC it was shown that software can be compiled for both architectures with xcode 2.1 to make universal binaries, and that 10.5 will be released with both PPC and x86 compatibility.

I think the biggest benefit for the end consumer will be the emulation potential of having OSX made for x86. Something similar to WINE for OSX would be incredibly useful for people who want to use OSX but still need to have the option of using some Windows programs. Also, I am sure that there will eventually be a way to run OSX on non-apple hardware, whether it be via a cracked version of OSX with whatever checking mechanism they use disabled, or through a new version of PearPC that is re-written with the PowerPC emulation code removed, running on a minimalist Linux setup.

I am sure Microsoft will be able to have their users install Longhorn on the x86 Macs, it just makes business sense to sell as many copies of their software as they can. I don’t think Mac will try to be a direct competitor with Microsoft in the software department. Windows is too powerful but I think that OSX could take a significant share of the market. It would be a huge gamble, and for this reason I can’t see OSX being able to be officially supported and legally installed on any non-apple PC.

Regarding the hardware switch, do any of you think that the phasing out of the PowerPC architecture will have a noticeable negative effect on hardware sales for the next year? I can imagine people being scared away from buying the PowerPC based systems at the moment, but in the WWDC video it was mentioned that software and 10.5 will be compatible with both. I think that by the time the PowerPC based systems that are out now are no longer supported, they will be hideously out of date anyway. I would say it will be at least 3 years before you see any signs of incompatibility between the PowerPC systems and new software.

sashime76 · 06-08-2005, 04:47 AM

I think it boils down to one thing, driving AMD and other less known chip makers out of business. It would surprise me if B. Gates has something to do with it. Who's the biggest fish in the monopoly world?

Pragma · 06-08-2005, 08:41 AM

There's an excellent article on El Reg about this - and basically, Apple was about 2% of IBM's chip production, and they won't care one way or the other if Apple goes away. This move lets Apple compete more directly with Windows, as it gives them access to a lot of x86 things - and with some modifications, it may be possible to play Windows/DirectX video games on the MacOSx86.

As for trying to force AMD out of business, I don't see that happening - they already produce a vast amount of chips and giving Intel a bit more business shouldn't matter.

portereight · 06-08-2005, 10:10 AM

The news from a friend of mine who's boss was at the WWDC is that Apple's people hint strongly that it will be possible to install and run windows on an Intel mac, but that they intend to make it impossible to run OS X on a generic PC. They are still a hardware company after all. He seems to under the 3'rd party impression that there will be the option to dual boot or possibly run windows in a virtual partition within OSX much like vmware.

killeena · 06-08-2005, 10:14 AM

Here is a good article about how keeping OSX off of generic x86 hardware is most likely going to fail...

http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1386

I can only imagine that it will just before a matter of time before there is a way around whatever protection Apple puts in place.

IMO, I think they should allow it to run on generic hardware, and let it compete with MS directly. Apple has good design as far as the way their machines look, so I think they would still do very well in the hardware business. An Apple looks undoubtedly more aesthetically pleasing than anything Dell or HP has to offer. Between that and OS sales, I think they coudl really do pretty good for themselves.

martinguerre · 06-08-2005, 10:29 AM

with generic hardware, they incur a whole lot of support issues, and required patching.

a WHOLE lot. think M$. so i can see why they really don't want to go that way.

rubicon · 06-08-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

with generic hardware, they incur a whole lot of support issues, and required patching.

a WHOLE lot. think M$. so i can see why they really don't want to go that way.

Yeah. With all of the spyware and crap so easily corrupting Windows we tend to forget about drivers and stability. I can't tell you the last time I saw a vendor's driver which was "approved for Windows". Most tell you to ignore the compatibility warnings and install anyway.

I realize that Windows Logo testing may be a bunch of hooey, but we all know that programmers can write sloppy code which can undermine the OS.

We'll know soon enough about what runs what as Apple transitions. Even if someone hacks OS X to run on generic hardware the lack of Apple support will always follow it.

Besides, so many Windows users bash the Mac or OS X so why would they bother trying to run it on their generic hardware?

Anomaly_ · 06-08-2005, 03:58 PM

Thanks for the link, killeena.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubicon

Besides, so many Windows users bash the Mac or OS X so why would they bother trying to run it on their generic hardware?

I don't think this is true. PC users (whether they use Windows, Linux, *BSD, etc.) have been critical of Apple because of their overpriced, proprietary hardware not because of anything software related. I realize the stability of OS X is in many ways related to the limited choice of hardware, but the possibility of OS X running on any x86 machine is still intriguing.

bendsley · 06-10-2005, 05:14 AM

I'm not sure if any of you read Bob Cringley on his site or watch him on PBS, but this is what he has to say about the Apple/Intel thing.

Quote:

Apple's Decision to Use Intel Processors Is Nothing Less Than an Attempt to Dethrone Microsoft. Really.

By Robert X. Cringely

The crowd this week in San Francisco at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference seemed mildly excited by the prospect of its favorite computer company turning to Intel processors. The CEO of Adobe asked why it had taken Apple so long to make the switch? Analysts on Wall Street were generally positive, with a couple exceptions. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE!? Are these people drunk on Flav-r-Ade? Yes. It is the legendary Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field at work. And this time, what's behind the announcement is so baffling and staggering that it isn't surprising that nobody has yet figured it out until now.

Apple and Intel are merging.

Let's take a revisionist look at the Apple news, asking a few key questions. The company has on its web site a video of the speech, itself, which is well worth watching. It's among this week's links.

Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

This is the Altivec Factor -- PowerPC's dedicated vector processor in the G4 and G5 chips that make them so fast at running applications like Adobe Photoshop and doing that vaunted H.264 video compression. Apple loved to pull Phil Schiller onstage to do side-by-side speed tests showing how much faster in real life the G4s and G5s were than their Pentium equivalents. Was that so much BS? Did Apple not really mean it? And why was the question totally ignored in this week's presentation?

Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed? Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).

So is 64-bit really nothing to Apple? And why did they make such a big deal about it in their earlier marketing?

Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?

If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board? Apple and AMD makes far more sense than Apple and Intel any day.

Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?

This is the biggest question of all, suggesting Steve Jobs has completely forgotten about Adam Osborne. For those who don't remember him, Osborne was the charismatic founder of Osborne Computer, makers of the world's first luggable computer, the Osborne 1. The company failed in spectacular fashion when Adam pre-announced his next model, the Osborne Executive, several months before it would actually ship. People who would have bought Osborne 1s decided to wait for the Executive, which cost only $200 more and was twice the computer. Osborne sales crashed and the company folded. So why would Steve Jobs -- who knew Adam Osborne and even shared a hot tub with him (Steve's longtime girlfriend back in the day worked as an engineer for Osborne) -- pre-announce this chip change that undercuts not only his present product line but most of the machines he'll be introducing in the next 12 to 18 months?

Is the guy really going to stand up at some future MacWorld and tout a new Mac as being the world's most advanced obsolete computer?

This announcement has to cost Apple billions in lost sales as customers inevitably decide to wait for Intel boxes.

Apple's stated reason for pre-announcing the shift by a year is to allow third-party developers that amount of time to port their apps to Intel. But this makes no sense. For one thing, Apple went out of its way to show how easy the port could be with its Mathematica demonstration, so why give it a year? And companies typically make such announcements to their partners in private under NDA and get away with it. There was no need to make this a public announcement despite News.com's scoop, which only happened because of the approaching Jobs speech. Apple could have kept it quiet if they had chosen to, with the result that not so many sales would have been lost.

This means that there must have been some overriding reason why Apple HAD to make this public announcement, why it was worth the loss of billions in sales.

Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

People "in the know" love this idea, that Hollywood moguls are forcing Apple to switch to Intel because Intel processors have built-in DRM features that will keep us from pirating music and movies. Yes, Intel processors have such features, based primarily on the idea of a CPU ID that we all hated when it was announced years ago so Intel just stopped talking about it. The CPU ID is still in there, of course, and could be used to tie certain content to the specific chip in your computer.

But there are two problems with this argument. First, Apple is already in the music and video distribution businesses without this feature, which wouldn't be available across the whole product line for another two years and wouldn't be available across 90 percent of the installed base for probably another six years. Second, though nobody has ever mentioned it, I'm fairly sure that the PowerPC, too, has an individual CPU ID. Every high end microprocessor does, just as every network device has its unique MAC address.

So while DRM is nice, it probably isn't a driving force in this decision.

Then what is the driving force?

Microsoft.

Here is my analysis based on not much more than pondering the five questions, above, and speaking with a few old friends in the business. I won't say there is no insider information involved, but darned little.

The obvious questions about performance and 64-bit computing come down to marketing. At first, I thought that Steve Jobs was somehow taking up the challenge of making users believe war was peace and hate was love simply to show that he could do it. Steve is such a powerful communicator and so able to deceive people that for just a moment, I thought maybe he was doing this as a pure tour du force -- just because he could.

Nah. Not even Steve Jobs would try that.

The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision. This is simply about business -- BIG business.

Another clue comes from HP, where a rumor is going around that HP selling iPods could turn into HP becoming an Apple hardware partner for personal computers, too.

Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.

Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.

Intel is fed up with Microsoft. Microsoft has no innovation that drives what Intel must have, which is a use for more processing power. And when they did have one with the Xbox, they went elsewhere.

So Intel buys Apple and works with their OEMs to get products out in the market. The OEMs would love to be able to offer a higher margin product with better reliability than Microsoft. Intel/Apple enters the market just as Microsoft announces yet another delay in their next generation OS. By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one).

This scenario works well for everyone except Microsoft. If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft. And if they tuned the OS to take advantage of unique features that only Intel had, they would put AMD back in the box, too. Apple could return Intel to its traditional role of being where all the value was in the PC world. And Apple/Intel could easily extend this to the consumer electronics world. How much would it cost Intel to buy Apple? Not much. And if they paid in stock it would cost nothing at all since investors would drive shares through the roof on a huge swell of user enthusiasm.

That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company.

Remember, you read it here first.

martinguerre · 06-10-2005, 06:15 AM

very interesting article...the one issue i see with it is that for now, Apple is a Steve Jobs wonder. There is only one sucessful CEO in the history of that company...and i can't see him letting go while Apple is still on such a high.

Pragma · 06-11-2005, 09:17 AM

I'm not too big of a fan of Cringely - he tends to be way off on a lot of things, and I don't see his prediction of them merging coming true at all.

brandon11983 · 06-11-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3m3st

so any sucker who just paid the $3000 for a dual 2.7 is screwed when new software doesn't work... this is terrible

Apple has developed a new component of OS X called Rosetta that will convert PowerPC native programs to Intel on the fly. This service is unseen by the user. And the G5 is still a pretty tough cookie to beat, as early benchmarks have it absolutely dominiating the P4 3.6 Ghz.

rubicon · 06-13-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anomaly_

I don't think this is true. PC users (whether they use Windows, Linux, *BSD, etc.) have been critical of Apple because of their overpriced, proprietary hardware not because of anything software related. I realize the stability of OS X is in many ways related to the limited choice of hardware, but the possibility of OS X running on any x86 machine is still intriguing.

It's true... The question is whether or not PC people like to complain more about the hardware than the software. Anyway, we've ranted enough about PC/Mac in the past.

I'm looking forward to using Apple computers until someone rips the last obsolete model out of my filthy, dirty hands. I don't have the energy or the time to keep up with applying updates to Windows and buying 17 "anti-X" software products just to visit a web page. Don't get me started on hardware driver support...

pattycakes · 06-13-2005, 09:28 PM

you can run osx on an xbox lemme go search for the link

pattycakes · 06-13-2005, 09:34 PM

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~ranma1/mac_install.html

i dtheu used an emulator i guess, but i didnt read it all. maybe ill try it oneday if i have a modded xbox. it would piss my girlfriend off she wants a mac

hulk · 06-14-2005, 01:46 AM

It'll run at about 2% of the speed it'd run on a 700Mhz Mac. That's not very fast

06-03-2005, 07:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
trache Insane	Apple to use Intel architecture Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips Holy hell. I can just see how many people are going to try and emulate the operating system as it's going to be in 2006-07. I also think Apple might start to outsource the hardware.. but I hope not, because that's partly why they are so stable. __________________ "You looked at me as if I was eating runny eggs in slow motion." - Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip

06-03-2005, 09:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
t3m3st Vroom! Location: Toronto	so any sucker who just paid the $3000 for a dual 2.7 is screwed when new software doesn't work... this is terrible __________________ I do it for the rare drops

06-03-2005, 10:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	rumors like this have gone up since 1984. i don't put much trust in them... /mac user since 1986 __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-04-2005, 05:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	Stability SHOULDN'T be an issue, since they're now running the BSD OS core... But if this is true, this is just ONE step away from what I have thought Apple should do for over a decade...Release the Macintosh OS for the Intel architecture and compete head-to-head with Microsoft. I think they could actually win that battle!! __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me

06-04-2005, 09:41 AM	#6 (permalink)
Wyodiver33 Just here for the beer. Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Floriduh	All I know is this, I've played with OSX at computer stores and it is quite impressive. If it was made available to the PC I would probably buy it. Of course I would need to be able to choose either OSX or XP at boot. __________________ I like stuff.

06-06-2005, 10:47 AM	#7 (permalink)
trache Insane	It is not a rumour anymore. Apparently (as to go along with my conspiracy filled mind) Mac OS X has been able to run on Intel hardware for years. http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/ This is big, but I don't understand why all the Macintosh die-hard enthusiasts/zealots will no doubt flame on because of this. What, did they actually think it wasn't going to happen? Half the hardware in the current Macs are third-party pieces purchased from companies like ATI & NVidia (to name but two). I will either have to hold off buying a Mac until the new models come out next year, or perhaps buy something cheap like a Mac-Mini now and hope they may have a way to down port this new technology to processors that are not Intel based. __________________ "You looked at me as if I was eating runny eggs in slow motion." - Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip

06-06-2005, 12:21 PM	#8 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	I always figured this was an obvious option for Apple, but it's still surprising to see Jobs actually going through with it. Microsoft can't be too happy. The hardware was always the big divide that ultimately led to Microsoft OS domination and Apple's niche, but now that's gone and there may be no good reason NOT to switch to MacOS. I thought the biggest obstacle to Apple making the "switch" is that they must have nice profit margins on hardware, so how is this going to affect Apple's shareholder value? __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

06-06-2005, 12:58 PM	#9 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	Holy crap. If it just "works" on an x86 box, as in I can just go to the store and buy OSX, Im in. For the longest time, I loved OSX, but wouldnt move to mac because I dont like being locked into proprietary hardware. If this means what it could... Ill be blowing gobs of money to move my machines to OSX. __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato

06-06-2005, 01:32 PM	#11 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	Then I guess in theory it wouldn't affect their hardware profits if it will only run on Apple hardware that can still be overpriced...but if Windows will run on an Intel Mac, it shouldn't be too hard to get Mac OS working on an Intel non-Mac. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

06-06-2005, 03:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
Anomaly_ Insane	What is the financial incentive behind not allowing OS X to run on any x86 machine? I didn't think Microsoft owned that much share in Apple. I'm sure it's not that simple, but I would be interested in knowing why Jobs won't allow it.

06-06-2005, 10:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
exizldelfuego Crazy Location: Seattle, WA	Bare with me here while I try and sort out my thoughts on this. First off: if Microsoft owns anything of Apple, is simply as part of their investment portfolio. Microsoft has absolutely no say in what direction Apple takes as a company. When most people refer to MS owning a part of Apple, they're recalling the deal Apple made with MS several years ago settling a long-standing lawsuit between the two in exchange for MS investing... was it $150 million in NON-VOTING Apple Shares (which was really a good-faith deal, as $150 million was a drop in the bucket to Apple's then $4 billion warchest) and a commitment from MS for Office on Mac OS, which was the really important thing. This marked the beginning of the reemergence of Apple from "the dark years." MS has since sold off their purchased stock at a considerable profit. Secondly, Apple's not going to stop supporting the PowerPC version of Mac OS X any time soon. I mean hey, if they've kept Mac OS X for Intel going ever since Rhapsody in the late '90s, why would they up and drop OSX for PowerPC when it wouldn't cost so much to keep the development parallel? It's all based on Darwin anyways. So people who have Macs now won't be left behind. People buying new PowerPC Macs won't be left behind. Apple isn't straight-up abandoning PowerPC. This "switch" is actually quite the blast from the past, and I don't mean just in terms of the "Apple switching to Intel" rumor that has popped up every now and then since the Macintosh's inception. I mean from a strictly NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP point of view (Mac OS X's ancestors). OpenStep, in its prime, ran on four (4) different architectures: 68k, SPARC, x86, and HP-UX (or something like that). And so when Apple bought NEXT and ported OpenStep to PowerPC to become Mac OS X, they initially planned on having an x86 version all along. It got phased out as Apple narrowed their playing field to concentrate on where the money (re: their consumer/developer bases) was really at. So now we learn that Apple has all along been keeping that x86 version up to date. Not a big surprise really, considering that Darwin has been on x86 for a good while now. Just a surprise that the hammer has finally fallen. Just a heads up from where I'm coming from, back in high school I was the sole Mac Geek on campus amongst all the other WinTel geeks, and was quite the Apple Evangelist. After high school, I stopped caring what other people thought of Apple, all I knew was that I loved them. That being said, the idea that Apple will switch away from PowerPC in favor of x86 (of all things!) is a tough pill to swallow. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, it's one of those things that only time will tell. As it stands, I'll probably buy PowerPC Macs for as long as I can, or until there's sufficient reason not to. Steve Jobs didn't offer enough information about what the new Intel-based Macs would be like to really make an opinion. What he really said was "Hey guys, this is what'll be happening in the next year, and here are the tools that you'll need to start getting ready for it." Which is good. That's what should happen at a developer's conference. But with news like this, it's so easy to focus in on the narrow, lower-level information (that Apple is switching to x86) that the really really good news is being overshadowed. Right now, when a programmer creates an application, they're making it for Mac OS X on PowerPC. What Apple's getting them to do is not so much getting them to stop making it for PowerPC and instead make it for x86, but Apple's getting them to stop making assumptions about the processor and instead rely just Mac OS X. Apple has said that PowerPC still has a place in Macintosh, and that they will still be coming out with new computers which will have PowerPC brains. It's just that they're going to be coming out with x86 Macs as well. Therefore developers will need to rely on the tools Apple gives (Xcode) in order to make their binaries compatible with whatever architecture any copy of Mac OS X might be running on. Therefore they're taking Mac OS X back to its NEXT roots by making it a flexible, multi-platform OS. In any migration, actually moving the OS to something else, while no trivial task, is probably the easiest for any company because that can all be managed and handled within the business. The real difficulty is convincing your developer base to shoulder the burden of the switch to get their apps on the new whatever, and then also to get the consumer base to switch over as well. And while Apple seems pretty adept at this (having done so many times over the years), I believe this is ultimately a step which will make the developer/consumer concerns a thing of the past. By getting the developers to program for the OS and not the processor (where they make their code using the provided frameworks and let the compiler worry about the processor), the developer will never again have to worry about migrating their code from one base to another. They'll just need a little bit more QA time to make sure everything runs smoothly on each architecture. And the consumers could care less because all their apps will just work on any machine, so long as that machine is an Apple computer running Mac OS X. This means that in the future, when new and better chips come out from a different source, Apple can decide whether or not it's something worth incorporating into their product lines without having to concern those outside the company in the decision. So while the news is that Apple is switching to x86, something I approach with some trepidation, the really big news here is that Apple is making a move to become the most flexible computer maker in the market. It's not that they're switching to Intel chips, it's that they're paving the way for the ability to incorporate ANY chip they might want into their product line, with Intel chips serving simply as the catalyst. The days of Apple's hardware stagnations at the hands of its chip suppliers are soon to be a thing of the past. If four years down the road Intel plateau's while some new up-and-coming chip is offering promise, Apple can build a machine around the new chip. Imagine the possibility of Apple's product lineup, five years from now, with a Mac Tablet running Mac OS X for ARM, a Mac laptop running Mac OS X for Centrino, a PowerMac G6 running Mac OS X for PowerPC, and an Xserve running Mac OS X for SPARC. Setting the feasibility of supporting all these architectures aside, the point is that the POSSIBILITY is there for it. And that's really encouraging. A lot can happen within two years. And while Apple right now may be saying that they're transitioning from PowerPC to x86 (as in phasing out PowerPC), I fully expect them to keep PowerPC Macs around in machines where it makes sense. The "phasing out" intonations are really there to ensure that the developers step in line. I forsee being able to buy Macs from Apple where I'd have a choice of PowerPC or x86.

06-07-2005, 12:54 AM	#14 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Awesome post, thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

06-07-2005, 05:26 AM	#15 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	It's hard to digest after all the RISC > CISC crap Apple have fed us over the years :P We'll have to wait and see what the chip is like, though. If it's a bog-standard Pentium, it'll go in the 'why bother?' drawer. A RISC-based Intel chip, though, is a much better prospect. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

06-07-2005, 07:13 AM	#16 (permalink)
exizldelfuego Crazy Location: Seattle, WA	Unfortunately, for the time being, it's x86 which means that wherever Intel's Pentium is in a year or two, that's where Apple will be. And as much as I dislike that, it's actually a pretty good first step. By first going with x86, it insures that Apple will always have a steady supply of fast chips. Regardless of what else is out there in the market. I expect that once this transition is made, they'll be free to branch out however they deem fit. Also, ArsTechnica has a pretty good writeup about this, if anyone's interested.

06-07-2005, 08:53 AM	#17 (permalink)
mikec I flopped the nutz... Location: Stratford, CT	I think it's a great move. I have wanted to try mac for years, but refuse to buy a machine that can only run that one OS. this move should allow OS whatever to run on PC hardware. smart move by Jobs IMO> __________________ Until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the charted electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one millionth of reality

06-07-2005, 09:27 AM	#18 (permalink)
KingOtter67 Upright	This doesn't necessarily mean that OS X will run on any intel x86 platform. While the OS has been cross-platform developed for year now, that doesn't mean the hardware drivers to support a complete system have been. And I'm talking consumer hardware more than system hardware. Besides that... if Apple lets this run on any x86 platform, given the amount of these products in the market, it would pretty effectively turn them into primarily a software company. Which I'm not convinced that's really where they want to be (I won't take credit for that observation... it was made by a friend of mine). I think you'll see more innovative products from Apple based on the x86 architectured system. Hopefully they'll take the x86 somewhere that only a proprietary hardware company can take it, and that'll get ported over to mainstream (where nobody can innovate because it all has to work together). __________________ KingOtter You can't push on a rope.

06-07-2005, 12:24 PM	#19 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	son of a bitch...i honestly didn't expect that one. it will be interesting to see if they go with a propreitary mobo and the x86 chipset, or use a mobo design that's compatible with the Wintel standards. there are still a ton of decisions that we'll be waiting to see to know what this is going to look like. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-07-2005, 01:46 PM	#20 (permalink)
exizldelfuego Crazy Location: Seattle, WA	Oh I fully expect it to be proprietary. At least in the here and now, Apple is a hardware company. And if they allowed Mac OS X to run on any PC it would ruin Apple's finances. While the real selling point is Mac OS X itself, it's the hardware that runs it which funds OSX's development. This isn't to say that once all of this is said and done and the dust starts to settle Apple couldn't start shifting away from hardware, but at the moment, it's too big a step. If you want to run Mac OS X, you'll have to buy a Mac from Apple, regardless of what processor it runs. The Apple of today LIKES controlling the whole package, as it were. They make the software. They make the hardware. They make the retail/online stores that'll sell the products to you. They are in control of the "Macintosh Experience" and so long as Steve Jobs is at the helm, there's no way they're going to give that up. For better or worst.

06-07-2005, 03:26 PM	#21 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	everything Apple will be proprietary...and good for that! Steve would never allow an Apple-branded system be as unforgivable as PCs are; i.e. everything will work just like today's Macs. if you read the Arstechnica article, you see a glimpse of Steve's personality, and after following him since '90, I think it's entirely plausible that Jobs simply was fed up with IBM's feet-dragging and lack of innovation on behalf of Apple and realized that there was nowhere else to go except x86. Although, he did realize that he might have to go to x86 sometime, ever since the first rumors of Mac OS 10.0 running on both the PPC and x86 architectures.

06-07-2005, 04:06 PM	#22 (permalink)
rubicon Stop. Think. Question. Location: Redondo Beach, CA	I'm in support of the move to Intel processors. I'm also in support of Apple keeping the hardware proprietary. I feel the stability and performance of the machines is due to the tight integration between the two. __________________ How you do anything is how you do everything.

06-07-2005, 06:02 PM	#23 (permalink)
THGL Psycho Location: Louisville, KY	From what I've read so far elsewhere, OS X will not run on a wintel box after the switch is made, but rather Windows "may" be able to run on Mac hardware. I believe that Jobs said Apple won't support it though. __________________ "The truth is merely an excuse for lack of imagination." - Garak

06-07-2005, 06:59 PM	#25 (permalink)
aarchaon Insane	I fell as though this is a huge step forward for the Mac platform and Apple. IBM couldn't deliver what they promised, and with the XBOX 360 using PowerPC processors, the chances of IBM keeping up are that much smaller. It was a do-or-die decision for apple and I think that in the long-term it was a good decision. Why I think OSX is so stable and well-made is because of the smaller amount of hardware that it has to be compatible with. I don't think that changing processor architecture is going to change anything. In the video of the WWDC it was shown that software can be compiled for both architectures with xcode 2.1 to make universal binaries, and that 10.5 will be released with both PPC and x86 compatibility. I think the biggest benefit for the end consumer will be the emulation potential of having OSX made for x86. Something similar to WINE for OSX would be incredibly useful for people who want to use OSX but still need to have the option of using some Windows programs. Also, I am sure that there will eventually be a way to run OSX on non-apple hardware, whether it be via a cracked version of OSX with whatever checking mechanism they use disabled, or through a new version of PearPC that is re-written with the PowerPC emulation code removed, running on a minimalist Linux setup. I am sure Microsoft will be able to have their users install Longhorn on the x86 Macs, it just makes business sense to sell as many copies of their software as they can. I don’t think Mac will try to be a direct competitor with Microsoft in the software department. Windows is too powerful but I think that OSX could take a significant share of the market. It would be a huge gamble, and for this reason I can’t see OSX being able to be officially supported and legally installed on any non-apple PC. Regarding the hardware switch, do any of you think that the phasing out of the PowerPC architecture will have a noticeable negative effect on hardware sales for the next year? I can imagine people being scared away from buying the PowerPC based systems at the moment, but in the WWDC video it was mentioned that software and 10.5 will be compatible with both. I think that by the time the PowerPC based systems that are out now are no longer supported, they will be hideously out of date anyway. I would say it will be at least 3 years before you see any signs of incompatibility between the PowerPC systems and new software. __________________ Green. Yellow. Blue.

06-08-2005, 04:47 AM	#26 (permalink)
sashime76 Addict Location: Hoosier State	I think it boils down to one thing, driving AMD and other less known chip makers out of business. It would surprise me if B. Gates has something to do with it. Who's the biggest fish in the monopoly world?

06-08-2005, 08:41 AM	#27 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	There's an excellent article on El Reg about this - and basically, Apple was about 2% of IBM's chip production, and they won't care one way or the other if Apple goes away. This move lets Apple compete more directly with Windows, as it gives them access to a lot of x86 things - and with some modifications, it may be possible to play Windows/DirectX video games on the MacOSx86. As for trying to force AMD out of business, I don't see that happening - they already produce a vast amount of chips and giving Intel a bit more business shouldn't matter.

06-08-2005, 10:10 AM	#28 (permalink)
portereight Crazy	The news from a friend of mine who's boss was at the WWDC is that Apple's people hint strongly that it will be possible to install and run windows on an Intel mac, but that they intend to make it impossible to run OS X on a generic PC. They are still a hardware company after all. He seems to under the 3'rd party impression that there will be the option to dual boot or possibly run windows in a virtual partition within OSX much like vmware.

06-08-2005, 10:14 AM	#29 (permalink)
killeena Crazy Location: Meechigan	Here is a good article about how keeping OSX off of generic x86 hardware is most likely going to fail... http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1386 I can only imagine that it will just before a matter of time before there is a way around whatever protection Apple puts in place. IMO, I think they should allow it to run on generic hardware, and let it compete with MS directly. Apple has good design as far as the way their machines look, so I think they would still do very well in the hardware business. An Apple looks undoubtedly more aesthetically pleasing than anything Dell or HP has to offer. Between that and OS sales, I think they coudl really do pretty good for themselves. __________________ Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. - Theodor Adorno

06-08-2005, 10:29 AM	#30 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	with generic hardware, they incur a whole lot of support issues, and required patching. a WHOLE lot. think M$. so i can see why they really don't want to go that way. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-10-2005, 06:15 AM	#34 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	very interesting article...the one issue i see with it is that for now, Apple is a Steve Jobs wonder. There is only one sucessful CEO in the history of that company...and i can't see him letting go while Apple is still on such a high. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-11-2005, 09:17 AM	#35 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	I'm not too big of a fan of Cringely - he tends to be way off on a lot of things, and I don't see his prediction of them merging coming true at all.

06-14-2005, 01:46 AM	#40 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	It'll run at about 2% of the speed it'd run on a 700Mhz Mac. That's not very fast __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.