Hell Froze Over

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:46 am

This is dramatic. It's been joked that hell will freeze over before apple will run on IBM compatible / Intel pc's, but it happened. This will mean faster chips and lower cost for macs, and this is good. We will have high performance linux on pc servers and slickly usable macs on pc desktop. Microsoft, where do you want to go today? (tm)

This is perhaps the biggest move by Apple since OSX or the iTMS/iPods, and is probably the reason they rewrote the OS to run on Darwin in OSX (so it can compile to multiple cpus). Perhaps MacOS will finally be ready for the masses, if they make the PPC -> Intel app porting as easy as advertised and Windows app -> IntelMac porting easy too. I look forward to it, OSX (especially Tiger) certainly has qualities to make Windows nervous.

And then there's Debian releasing a new version. Is it armageddon yet?

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:36 am

I'm afraid!!! Shocked

Is today the apocalypse??!!
Because I had not received news from the meteo?? Laughing

I feel sorry for Motorola...

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:02 am

I think this is fantastic for mac! or am i crazy?

come to the DARK side!!! hehe or the light side...

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:40 am

I'm not so sure about all of that... Michael Robertson said this:

Quote:

I heard a rumor last week that Apple would announce they are switching to Intel chips. My first thought is that I hoped that Steve Job's success selling iTunes to the other 95% of the world - Microsoft Windows users - would embolden him to take a strategic step that could shake up the PC business as we know it. I was hoping that he would catch the openness wave sweeping the technology world and apply it to his business. I would love to see Apple's PC market share reverse its downward trend. Few people know it, but I started my tech career as a Macintosh user, ran a consulting company specializing in Macintosh, and even wrote my first commercial application, Network Security Guard, for the Macintosh.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Apple's actual announcement on Monday, which revealed not a bold strategy embracing the openness movement but confirmation that Apple is still a company locked in the time warp of the go-it-alone '70s. Apple agreed to switch from processors made by IBM to special processors made from Intel over the next two years - that's it. This is only slightly more significant than Apple choosing to change the hard disk or memory supplier it puts into its computers.

Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops.

Mac users will eventually see the benefit of this move, but will first have to suffer through a period of uncertainty and forced upgrades. Eventually, this switch will enable Apple to offer speedier machines more in line with PC performance. Until then, however, customers will have to make a tough decision - purchase a new computer that is guaranteed to be made obsolete or wait two years for machines to be released and software to be natively working.

My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented on what the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs. My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox - see: MM on Linux on Xbox.

The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the option to install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic AMD or Via white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple will not be reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:33 am

I am excited, yet skeptical. Just have to wait and see.

I wonder if MacOS will be available to install on any x86 or will there be a propriatary hardware requirement to limit it to just Apples? Will Macintosh become primarily an OS, or will they try to hold onto their computer sales market?

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:50 pm

Sejota wrote:

I'm not so sure about all of that... Michael Robertson said this:

Take what he says with a grain of salt, he sells Linux so OSX expanding is bad news. Although I think he's right that there will be some form of hardware lockdown that prevents vanilla pcs to run OSX, I think the OS will still run by nature on x86-64, only with apple's bios or DRM in intel chip that OSX requires before it would run. But if Windows and other software is any indication, DRM never works, and any special hardware checks will be bypassed in software by people who does it just because they can. I think Apple knows this too, so the question is will they turn a blind eye to "unauthorized distribution / piracy" like MS does with Windows. Maybe Apple wants to compete in the mass market now, and play in MS's own pc backyard?

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:03 pm

IH wrote:

Maybe Apple wants to compete in the mass market now, and play in MS's own pc backyard?

This would be great. A great, solid OS competing with Micro$soft.

but...Apple is primarily a hardware company. With their iPods, iMacs, iBooks...i doubt they have enough interest in the software market to compete with MS.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:48 am

OSX is like iTunes. iTMS push iPod sales. If OSX gains wide spread use, even if it may be for on unauthorized pcs, people who like it would say, "geez, OSX is so much better and prettier than Windows with no viruses! Their pc hardware is slick too! Let's get one!"

Maybe Apple is trying to correct their past mistake of ignoring IBM pc clones? Whether mass market OSX would be good for Apple or would it backfire, we'll see.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:18 am

I've also "hear" that 20% of Apple Share are hold by B.Gates.
Also, was him that pulled Apple to choose Intel and so to a universal platform.
It's possible that Windows will spread even more?? Shocked

I'm afraid!!! Mad

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:23 pm

Kail85 wrote:

I've also "hear" that 20% of Apple Share are hold by B.Gates.

Microsoft bought stock in Apple 8 years ago or so, they sold it at a profit a few years ago. I'm not sure but I think it was much less than 20%.

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:31 pm

This is a cool move on Apple's part if it really comes to pass. Even Virtual Mac for PC would be great, if I could run Tiger on a PC.

Apple has always stuck with keeping their hardware locked to their OS, to the point of losing market share when the IBM clones took over.

I appreciate Apple's reputation for quality and compatibility, due in no small part to controlling the hardware, but consumers hate to be constrained by artificial barriers. Telling the consumer they have to buy a Mac in order to use OSX or Tiger may be accurate (because the OS won't work on any current PC product) but it rubs me the wrong way.

Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:50 pm

I would buy my first mac just to celebrate.

their colors are so cool

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:32 am

I wonder how much money apple was paid to use intel processors.
After all intel is paying all the main PC manufacturers to use their processor.
The problem is that AMD have proved themselves to be extremely worthy of a place in the market but intel has to buy their way in so as to keep the competition on its last legs.
This would have to be the worst possible move that apple could make for itself, considering that intel basically pushed them out all those years ago.
I prefer apple but can't justify the extensive cost, so I sit with my cheap and nasty PC.

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 am

IH wrote:

This is dramatic. It's been joked that hell will freeze over before apple will run on IBM compatible / Intel pc's, but it happened. This will mean faster chips and lower cost for macs, and this is good. We will have high performance linux on pc servers and slickly usable macs on pc desktop. Microsoft, where do you want to go today? (tm)

This is perhaps the biggest move by Apple since OSX or the iTMS/iPods, and is probably the reason they rewrote the OS to run on Darwin in OSX (so it can compile to multiple cpus). Perhaps MacOS will finally be ready for the masses, if they make the PPC -> Intel app porting as easy as advertised and Windows app -> IntelMac porting easy too. I look forward to it, OSX (especially Tiger) certainly has qualities to make Windows nervous.

And then there's Debian releasing a new version. Is it armageddon yet?

Unfortunately cpu clock speed doesn't mean faster chips. The mac cpu with clock speed of 2 GB has a faster processing speed than the pentium 3 GB.
Why bother using inferior products?

Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:23 pm

thedonsway wrote:

IH wrote:

This is dramatic. It's been joked that hell will freeze over before apple will run on IBM compatible / Intel pc's, but it happened. This will mean faster chips and lower cost for macs, and this is good. We will have high performance linux on pc servers and slickly usable macs on pc desktop. Microsoft, where do you want to go today? (tm)

This is perhaps the biggest move by Apple since OSX or the iTMS/iPods, and is probably the reason they rewrote the OS to run on Darwin in OSX (so it can compile to multiple cpus). Perhaps MacOS will finally be ready for the masses, if they make the PPC -> Intel app porting as easy as advertised and Windows app -> IntelMac porting easy too. I look forward to it, OSX (especially Tiger) certainly has qualities to make Windows nervous.

And then there's Debian releasing a new version. Is it armageddon yet?

Unfortunately cpu clock speed doesn't mean faster chips. The mac cpu with clock speed of 2 GB has a faster processing speed than the pentium 3 GB.
Why bother using inferior products?

quite neat