Forums » MacOS X
Please, cheer up. The best of both worlds can be combined. Probably, apple will go way down in the following year or so, but then skyrocket uncontrollably after that. This is a big gamble, we will see if it pays off.
As a coder, I think that this is not as terrible a move as you make it out to be, because as I said, the best of both worlds can and should be combined, and I believe the result will be quite interesting, and quite possible amazing as well.
As SL said, Apple knows more about this than us. Though they were running an x86 processor AS A DEMO, I believe that is one thing subject to change. As with the bittage of intel processors. Apple might have some secrets to share from its experience with IBM... I doubt they will go with AMD, they obviously see something in intel we don't. THough AMD might have cool and neat 64 bit processors right now, what if tomorrow intel turned around with a multi-core hyperthreaded RISC 64 bit 4ghz CPU with AltiVec? That is a big what-if, but that is the potential we are talking here.
I have always wondered why they bothered with the __ppc__ / __ppc64__ etc defines, now I know. :)
As a coder, I think that this is not as terrible a move as you make it out to be, because as I said, the best of both worlds can and should be combined, and I believe the result will be quite interesting, and quite possible amazing as well.
As SL said, Apple knows more about this than us. Though they were running an x86 processor AS A DEMO, I believe that is one thing subject to change. As with the bittage of intel processors. Apple might have some secrets to share from its experience with IBM... I doubt they will go with AMD, they obviously see something in intel we don't. THough AMD might have cool and neat 64 bit processors right now, what if tomorrow intel turned around with a multi-core hyperthreaded RISC 64 bit 4ghz CPU with AltiVec? That is a big what-if, but that is the potential we are talking here.
I have always wondered why they bothered with the __ppc__ / __ppc64__ etc defines, now I know. :)
I watched the Keynote address. I also just read some initial reactions from Wall Street analysts. I think I am sold on this idea. Here are the reasons:
1. It has been in development for 5 years which looks like from the keynote address has paid off, I don't think there will be the lag that Wall Street is predicting, at least on the software side of things.
2. Attaching Intel's name to Apple might bring in wary computer users.
3. AMD may have faster processors than Intel but they both are way ahead of IBM which has failed to deliver 3 ghz.
4. No G5 laptops because of IBM.
5. Apple isn't going to want Celeron processors, they are going to want the top of the line stuff. For chrissakes, they had to use liquid cooling to get where they are now. They aren't going to slack off now. Their customer base wants the best.
6. I really don't think it is the Intel processor that makes PC's unreliable, it is the OS. How does Linux compare on Intel and AMD processors?
7. Cheaper Macs, enough said. I hope.
The few questions I have are:
1. Will this make games easier and quicker to port because perhaps graphics cards suddenly become more compatible?
2. Will this lead to a more level playing field with Windows?
3. Will this cause me to wait until next year to buy a new PowerMac? I'm currently on a Dual 867.
4. WTF is Hyperthreading anyways?
1. It has been in development for 5 years which looks like from the keynote address has paid off, I don't think there will be the lag that Wall Street is predicting, at least on the software side of things.
2. Attaching Intel's name to Apple might bring in wary computer users.
3. AMD may have faster processors than Intel but they both are way ahead of IBM which has failed to deliver 3 ghz.
4. No G5 laptops because of IBM.
5. Apple isn't going to want Celeron processors, they are going to want the top of the line stuff. For chrissakes, they had to use liquid cooling to get where they are now. They aren't going to slack off now. Their customer base wants the best.
6. I really don't think it is the Intel processor that makes PC's unreliable, it is the OS. How does Linux compare on Intel and AMD processors?
7. Cheaper Macs, enough said. I hope.
The few questions I have are:
1. Will this make games easier and quicker to port because perhaps graphics cards suddenly become more compatible?
2. Will this lead to a more level playing field with Windows?
3. Will this cause me to wait until next year to buy a new PowerMac? I'm currently on a Dual 867.
4. WTF is Hyperthreading anyways?
Where are you all getting the idea that this will mean cheaper macs?
Cheaper components. Namely the chip. That's also why Apple got nVidia involved.
I am assuming a chip with a larger mass production would be cheaper. I am assuming they are planning to use the same CPU as they will in PC's. IBM's G5 chip was only two percent of their entire production line. Intel's Pentium line, I'm sure is quite a bit larger. Of course, they may not go with the Pentium chip, they may use a Xeon, I don't know.
i say go with an FX-57
wait, they chose intel... nevermind
wait, they chose intel... nevermind
I just noticed this thread (and the other one). I had started one on this subject in the off-topic forum, since this one is really about issues with VO on MacOS. Anyway, I havent read this whole thread yet, but some of you might find what I wrote in Off-Topic enlightening.
There's a great article over at Rampancy.net (Bungie/Halo fansite) pointing out various myths and misconceptions regarding the whole Apple-Intel thing. Check it out!
http://rampancy.net/ten_myths_about_intel_macs
http://rampancy.net/ten_myths_about_intel_macs
Interesting Arolte. There was an article in Fortune two months ago about apple. Many people still don't understand what apple do and how they do it. They have probably the best product design teams in the world if you include everything from ID to marketing.
A lot of people have been saying that the price of a mac will drop by a huge margin. It won't. The margins apple make are massive compared to the wintel box companies, and using slightly cheaper components wont change this. A $1 saving on your BOM will see (roughly) a $3-$5 reduction on the sale price to the end user. To drop by the margin of difference to a typical PC, apple would have to be getting their components for free.
Apples strength is not in selling pretty boxes, its about selling an experience, identity, culture etc. The change to x86 wont change this in the slightest.
A lot of people have been saying that the price of a mac will drop by a huge margin. It won't. The margins apple make are massive compared to the wintel box companies, and using slightly cheaper components wont change this. A $1 saving on your BOM will see (roughly) a $3-$5 reduction on the sale price to the end user. To drop by the margin of difference to a typical PC, apple would have to be getting their components for free.
Apples strength is not in selling pretty boxes, its about selling an experience, identity, culture etc. The change to x86 wont change this in the slightest.
"I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if millions of Mac Users cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silenced."
I took this from a post I saw on slashdot.
I took this from a post I saw on slashdot.
LeberMac Im so thinking the opposite way. Steve has been smart all along since he came on board. He looked way ahead back then when there wasnt any OS X yet.
Now he has an OS, probably the only OS in the world that runs on literally any processor you want to with small modifications. On the surface nothing much will change, except become better all the time... I hope macs get faster, MUCH faster, cheaper and all in all BETTER even. Microsoft is trembling. I am happy, the faster this happens the better. :D
M. Duncan
Now he has an OS, probably the only OS in the world that runs on literally any processor you want to with small modifications. On the surface nothing much will change, except become better all the time... I hope macs get faster, MUCH faster, cheaper and all in all BETTER even. Microsoft is trembling. I am happy, the faster this happens the better. :D
M. Duncan
I agree with mdaniel,
Apple wouldn't be making a switch like this and risking alianating their core user-base unless they had an angle to persue.
For one thing if Apple uses Intel chips Virtual PC (Microsoft's Windows emulator) will be signifigantly more efficent. Perhaps it will even be able to work with the mac's own graphics card and finaly be able to brake the game barier.
Also if a dual G5 is comprable in performance to Intell's curent frontline chip, the imagin what Apple could do with a dual Intell mac.
Also while the PPC chips have a more efficent arkitexture allowing them to perform comprable to an Intell chip of nearly 3 times the speed, Intell chips look better on paper, and therefor sell better.
I expect that Intel and Apple will work together to develop chips that are better suited to Apples needs than the G-5 was. I mean think about it? if the G5 and G4 were so grate (don't get me wrong the G4 was an exelent chip in it's day, but those days are past) then why are the G4 and G5 macs the only personal cumuters on the market that use 2 processors?
Unfortunatly however, simondearsley is right about the price of macs not comming down signifigantly. But, there is another side to that that a lot of people overlook:
Macs are more expencive because they use better hardware, and i'm not refering to the processor. A Powerbook comes standard wih eathernet, Airport, and a higher quality video card than non mac computers.
When i bought my powerbook i looked into what a comparable Dell would cost and it was nearly $1000 more than my powerbook (of coarse the dell looked less expencive untill i upgraded it's capabilities to match that of the powerbook).
So in sumary, i am optimistic about the future of Apple (even though it's anoying that my G4 powerbook will be less forward compatable than if they stuck with IBM)
Apple wouldn't be making a switch like this and risking alianating their core user-base unless they had an angle to persue.
For one thing if Apple uses Intel chips Virtual PC (Microsoft's Windows emulator) will be signifigantly more efficent. Perhaps it will even be able to work with the mac's own graphics card and finaly be able to brake the game barier.
Also if a dual G5 is comprable in performance to Intell's curent frontline chip, the imagin what Apple could do with a dual Intell mac.
Also while the PPC chips have a more efficent arkitexture allowing them to perform comprable to an Intell chip of nearly 3 times the speed, Intell chips look better on paper, and therefor sell better.
I expect that Intel and Apple will work together to develop chips that are better suited to Apples needs than the G-5 was. I mean think about it? if the G5 and G4 were so grate (don't get me wrong the G4 was an exelent chip in it's day, but those days are past) then why are the G4 and G5 macs the only personal cumuters on the market that use 2 processors?
Unfortunatly however, simondearsley is right about the price of macs not comming down signifigantly. But, there is another side to that that a lot of people overlook:
Macs are more expencive because they use better hardware, and i'm not refering to the processor. A Powerbook comes standard wih eathernet, Airport, and a higher quality video card than non mac computers.
When i bought my powerbook i looked into what a comparable Dell would cost and it was nearly $1000 more than my powerbook (of coarse the dell looked less expencive untill i upgraded it's capabilities to match that of the powerbook).
So in sumary, i am optimistic about the future of Apple (even though it's anoying that my G4 powerbook will be less forward compatable than if they stuck with IBM)
There wouldn't be a Virtual PC for Mac anymore. The new chipset would run Windows right out of the box.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html
There'll still be a use for VirtualPC and like apps, if you want to run/test an app on the fly w/o restarting. And they'll run a hellova lot faster, not having to emulate hardware :)
_Nik
_Nik
Of course, you could always just use qemu/bochs. Or even, *shiver*, WINE.