Apple confirmed to move to x86 with Intel!

mcsenerd said:

... the strength of Mac OS X stability came from it's tight control over exact hardware...that's going to be out the window soon enough.

Click to expand...

I don't know, from what I can see it's only a processor. The operating system is still made by Apple, and it's designed for use in their computers. It's not like they'll be designing the OS to run on every x86 computer out there (although it might work) but if you own a Mac you should be able to feel comfortable in the fact that you will still keep the same stability you have come to know and appreciate.

I can't remember who said it, but I agree - Microsoft makes an OS hoping that computer manufacturers know what they're doing, and computer manufacturers make their PC's hoping that the OS manufacturers know what they're doing. Result is several thousand drivers for hardware used in various platforms out there.

Portability is most definately possible, though. Stability would be the question.

I agree with Cloudane that the Mac is going to lose part of what makes it special. It is no longer a complete package as it always has been

How stable things are going to be really depends. All Apple is changing here is the hardware platform. PC hardware is just as stable as Mac hardware assuming you are talking about the same price points. Changing to Intel is not going to hurt system stability, and it is going to help performance. If the porting of software is as easy as Jobs make it sound, the switch probably won't be as bad as most think.

mynameis said:

Dual Core Intel Processors are already out, called Pentium D.

Click to expand...

Dual core PPCs are also out, called MPC8641D (I know it's not quite as catchy a name though).

I'll bet you anything you like the Pentium D doesn't consume less than 20 watts though!

(you know, I'm having great difficulty finding an Intel chip that will go in a Mini without melting the thing and still come anywhere near the performance of the G4s, can somebody help me out here?)

Amen-Moses

Ok... I started writing a post about how this could be a positive thing......... by the end I scratched it. Even my most effective BS skills were no match for this dilemma. I keep my Apples up on my desk above my PCs so they can look down on them and their little "girlie" processors. It just doesn't seem right to put them on the same hardware playing field. Guess we'll just have to wait it out and see how it all falls.

Actually I've got to correct *myself* here before anyone else does

OS X is designed for specific hardware

Click to expand...

Of course, as Jobs just pointed out, it's not. Because it's compatible with x86 and allegedly any other processor. But Macs as a whole have always been their own hardware, that's why it's so stable and that's why it Just Works. If Apple think OS X will remain as stable and easy to use on a PC (which is inevitable even if they try to lock it to Mac branded computers, surely they know this) then they're kidding themselves IMO.

you know, the more I read these posts, the more I feel like I just got kicked in the 'nads by steve.... I wasn't even wearing a cup.

Really though, I'm starting to feel like I purchased a Gas Guzzling muscle car right before they switch everything over to an alternative power source, and now my muscle car that I love is going to have a very limited life span. I'm sure it's not true, I should be able to get 3+ years of work out of my iMac. I think we need a PPC support group.

Thanks,
Ray

Oh, also, there goes my Business Partner Discount.... @#$%!!!

Amen-Moses said:

Dual core PPCs are also out, called MPC8641D (I know it's not quite as catchy a name though).

I'll bet you anything you like the Pentium D doesn't consume less than 20 watts though!

(you know, I'm having great difficulty finding an Intel chip that will go in a Mini without melting the thing and still come anywhere near the performance of the G4s, can somebody help me out here?)

Amen-Moses

Click to expand...

Where can you buy a MPC8641D?

Pentium-M is a pretty decent processor, it would do fine in a system as small as the mini.

Apple's executives have said "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,"

Of course people will try to crack it to run on any PC.

I can think of a few ways to make this impossible. Say, put a dedicated encryption-key-generating chip on the motherboard of all Intel Macs, and have OS X-Intel check for such a key during the boot process. Since Apple controls the hardware, they can do lots of things that Microsoft can't do (witness how quickly XP activation was cracked.)

Or, more likely, sue people who try. That sounds like Apple to me.

Amen-Moses said:

I'm having great difficulty finding an Intel chip that will go in a Mini without melting the thing and still come anywhere near the performance of the G4s, can somebody help me out here?

Click to expand...

There's no reason to believe that a last processor generation G4 could keep up with a current generation Pentium M.

technologist said:

they can do lots of things that Microsoft can't do (witness how quickly XP activation was cracked.)

Click to expand...

I don't think product activation is the thing to look at....I was thinking more along the lines of how the xBox was cracked to run linux. That system was just as closed as any future x86 Mac will be. It was just too closely related to a PC to not get cracked.

technologist said:

dedicated encryption-key-generating chip on the motherboard of all Intel Macs, and have OS X-Intel check for such a key during the boot process

Click to expand...

. No point in trying to get through the key generating chip...just go around it. Same thing with product activation. Just prevent the OS from looking for it.

I can think of a few ways to make this impossible. Say, put a dedicated encryption-key-generating chip on the motherboard of all Intel Macs, and have OS X-Intel check for such a key during the boot process.

Click to expand...

So, someone will just come up with a crack that stops it checking.

The only thing Apple can do to stop people running OS X on normal PCs is to make it completely incompatible. The fact that they use the words "not allow" rather than "make incompatible" worries me a great deal.

it's all too complicated for me to understand hehehe >_<

Apple Intel

I've given the news much thought and realised that either we've been done in or we will be pleasantly surprised. I love my G5 and all that comes with it and wouldn't consider another platform - I even considered not buying another Apple again but thought again.

- so what can we expect in the future:
(i) Apple will lock the software to the hardware in a similar way that digidesign has with their digi002 and ProTools software - don't think anyone has cracked that yet! (could be wrong).
(ii) Apple will choose the hardware (which will now be cheaper!) very carefully and support that hardware in the OS and not bother with anything else
(iii) The OS will still be based on Unix, BSD, Darwin and still be stable and quite likely virus free and still be much better than Windows or Linux.
(iv) Intel may just be developing a unique processor (did Steve Jobs actually say x86 archietecture or just say Intel microprocessors?) that is only useable with Mac OS (cause they can technically and legally develop PPC chips). It doesn't have to be the x86 architecture because a recompile was also needed with the move from Motorola to IBM and back then everyone was also scared and confused.
(v) It means Intel technology for our use now, like PCIe which makes AGP graphics slow and outdated (year of HD anyone?). Wimax et cetera!
(vi) Maybe its a good thing they didn't chose Cell processors cause it doesn't compare with altivec. (read the report at http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars). But Intel's new processors have many of the same features.

I guess we will all have to wait and see what actually is introduced and how its all implemented. I think we may well be pleasantly surprised. IBM gave better performance than Motorola so maybe this time Intel will do the same. Also what interests me is Steve Job's comment: “Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far. It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.” Thats kinda interesting. He's possibly seen processors noone else has that may just be the next big thing. Lets hope he knows what he's doing.

So what does this switch actually mean? I've been looking at these posts and the language is way over my head. Will the switch drastically change the Mac platform?

i'll use my imac g5 for 2 years then i'll go buy teh best powermac, why apple way

Intel to change Macs?

Quite likely things will change cause its different technology to what has been used with IBM. That can be a good and a bad thing, cause there are positives and negatives with any switch. But ultimately we will just have to wait and see. No one knows nothing except Steve Jobs and the dude from Intel. They may even change their minds again!

did Steve Jobs actually say x86 archietecture or just say Intel microprocessors?

Click to expand...

This is the only hope I'm still resting on. AFAIK he didn't explicitly say that the new Macs will be x86 architecture. But what he *did* do was demonstrate an x86-based computer (a Dell, I heard?) running OS X and its applications as if it was a "normal" Mac, and brag about it. I doubt he'd do that if they were about to get Intel to develop some other architecture (such as the next PPC). But we live in hope.

Avid6eek said:

...No point in trying to get through the key generating chip...just go around it. Same thing with product activation. Just prevent the OS from looking for it.

Click to expand...

You've been watching too many hacker movies. "Just go around it."

It is certainly possible to tie hardware to software. That's what goes on with the Mac now: The OS is tied to a processor. Basic computability theory says you can "go around it" by emulating the hardware (PowerPC) but the process in the real world is so slow as to be impractical. Certainly, with control over both the software and the hardware, Apple could link the two so that the software becomes essentially unusable without certain hardware features.

It's possible to build very, very strong security schemes, and Apple could do this if it finds it necessary. (It's also easy to screw this up in implementation.)

Linux is designed to run everywhere. Commodity hardware is designed to run anything. But OS X and the Mac hardware are entirely under Apple's control.

That said, I doubt Apple will resort to such extreme measures. It's far easier to use the lawyer option.

Amen-Moses said:

Going by what I just read from the real(ish)-time updates I reckon I was right, I reckon IBM told Apple to bugger off. This sounds less like a well thought out transition and more like shutting the barn door after the entire herd has bolted!

I feel for the developers, they are in for a tough time!

It also looks like I've bought my last Mac, Linux on AMD probably will be my next machine. neye:

Amen-Moses

Click to expand...

Happy Trails to you ............................................................

fsck fsck fsck grrrrrrr im so mad

dunno if i should sell off my mac asap neye: