What is Digg?66 Comments
- eric_n_dfw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why, did your G4 Mac just magically stop working?
OS X will be supporting PPC for a long time - and by the time the x86 based machines are shipping, your G4 Mac will probably be ready for replacement anyway. - myrdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mrman, I agree completely with you. I really don't see a way in which Apple could "lock out" Windows or why they would, as they have already made thier profits off of the hardware sales (and, in theory, the bundled OS X price).
- mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@test5477
Viruses are OS specific, not processor specific. - mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Duston
Well, maybe. Apple is still a hardware seller, and will likely lock down OS X to run on special machines produced by them. They may not since the keynote was running on a Dell (hearsey) but who knows. - DeVryGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Logik : The question isn't if you can install OS X on an old pc or homebrew, the question is will you be able to install Windows on a Macintel.
A mac you can use for PC gaming as well is nothing to sneeze at. - Logik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok here's the run down.
1. x86 partnership with intel.. from this standpoint, i don't see amd
2. OS X will not boot on any old dell or homebrew computer
3. they will not be taking on microsoft by allowing you to install it on any hardware you want.
4. if you want OS X, you buy a Mac. That just happens to have a x86 processor - bash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*gasp* oh noes!
i dont believe it...
well im surprised and disappointed. dammit why intel? amd is the real innovator, they can give you a 64-bit dual core chip thats proven under fire for a cheaper price: athlon 64 x2.
"how will they keep PC companies from making all PCs run OSX?"
the fact that demand will always be for windows since it runs EVERYTHING. - devmage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In an article on news.com: http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nl
They said there will be no running of OSX on non Apple Mac Hardware. If they have gone this far, which still seems like a mistake to me, then why not go all the way? Try and take Microsoft!
"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." - diggmeplease, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Couldn't this also make virus writers more interested in writing viruses for macs? They will try harder and move it up a few spaces on their to do list. It will become more important to them. Although, as someone has informed me, "it already is important, but it will still be far more secure than windoze"
- test5477, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very disappointing, Intel is the MS of chip makers....their had to be better alternatives. I will still buy Mac but I hope this does not backfire.
- dechah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This has the potential to put a major dent in the sale of new Apple hardware until the transition to Intel is phased in. Why would anyone buy a new PPC computer today,when the future is Intel? I can imagine tha tthere are quite a few independant resellers that are going to struggle even more, at least in the next couple of years, at least until the transitions is complete.
- biter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm done with Mac, hello linux!
- Logik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you won't be dualbooting... this will NOT run on any old PC hardware. apple will force the os to only run on their hardware.. it's that simple.. want os x? buy a mac. no difference there.
- Logik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i honestly feel like the switch to INTEL was the worst... amd would've been a better choice i think. granted i think it came down to the fact that amd doesn't have a solid stable low power chip worth using in low power consumption laptops yet, where intel has the pentium-m. very disappointing. I won't be buying another mac for a long time, just purchased my first powerbook about 13 months ago. i've gotten great use out of it, but at the same time i feel like 2 years is too little out of a $1800 laptop.
i'm keeping my powerbook, i work really well with it, but i won't be purchasing a machine until this transition is over and they come to their senses and use amd. - shit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Holy *****: "Mac OS X has been living a secret double life for the past 5 years... the keynote’s been running on a P4 3.6GHz all morning...The soul of a Mac is its operating system."
So it is x86? Damn. I wonder what effect this will have on Microsoft. I, for one, will at least be dual-booting. I will also break off the extra 5 buttons I have on my mouse. - mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its not going to be obsolete anymore than any other mac would be after a year or two. OS X will be identical, programs will continue to work (after a recompilation using the new xCode) and life will go on.
- mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with Logik...How else would Apple make its money??
- Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder how long before HAL.DLL is ported to the new x86 Mac?
- Logik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0if you want a powerbook, buy one. the binaries will be compatible for the next 3-4 years probably without any problems. but at some point you will be cut off. I won't be buying another machine, but i have my 15" powerbook and i'm not getting rid of it.
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow!!! Steve jobs is freaking smart... HOW much fraking press did he get out of this!!!??? It won't matter technically really what processor is in the Mac... but man what a way to get PR/mindshare. Go JOBS GO!!!
- Duston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I understand that he is moving to the Intel chipset "x86". AMD also runs on an x86 format. I think this will finaly allow me to get a mac! (price issues)
- mragentr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Macintel. AMD would have been the better choice, as they have been the real innovatior lately. Wonder if they will be going 32 or 64-bit, single or dual core? If they are not going 32-bit, dual core, then they are stepping backwards, as the PC world is moving to 64-bit, dual core.
- dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0imagine OSX 10.5 Leopard comes out the same time as Long horn, BUT works on macs and PCs, meaning they take Microsoft head on in the OS world.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unless I misunderstood, all programs that come out for the x86 Mac will be compatible with the PPC Mac. Programs that are out now for the PPC Mac will need some tinkering to work with the x86 Mac but for now if you have a Mac you will have no problem running the next gen software...
- hypeiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I thought this deal was to lower prices? If p4 4ghz apple pc is the same price as a p4 ghz dell pc in two years then apple will be dealing head to head with msft... there is not alot of money in selling operating systems to the people that build their own computers since only a small number of people do this and only a fraction of them actually pay for their os. Apple doesn't have the resources to open up OSx to anyone with a PC and troubleshoot all the installation issues so I don't see them even trying that anytime soon. Apple will finally be on the same playing feild as windows since they will be using the same processors... its really hard to convince people that 2ghz g5 is the same as 3ghz p3... joe blow looks at ghz specs and says "gee this computer is twice the price and slower".
My point??? assuming this deal is truely to lower prices then who cares if it runs on your pc right now... your pc right now is going to be a POS in 2 years so when your looking to buy a new one look at dell and apple and see who has the best deal... hopefully they will be priced about the same. - hypeiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If your comfortable with linux i really don't know why oyu would want to go with OSX. As far as I can tell there is just as much (if not more) software support for linux as mac osx and ALOT more hardware support.
I agree RISC type instructions used by the PPC are much better than the insane x86 instructions and it would be nice if we could scrap that instruction set and start over but unfortunatly we are locked into it in an effort to be backwards compatable anlong the way. Almost all processors that are "x86" and over 233mhz convert the x86 instructions to sets of RISC like instructions before feeding the ALU, so as far as I know there is no processor actually running x86 commands into the ALU on the market today. This would have been the ideal time to change the instruction set (when going from p1 to p2) however that would require windows to be rewritten and the decentralization of the computer market woundn't allow this.
This is why I am surprised apple didn't contract intel to make custom PPC like chips for them since they control the OS and the hardware they could pull a move like this. If Intel actually had the choice they would have scrapped x86 a long time ago. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If it looks like a Mac and runs like a Mac, what do you care what is under the hood?
- test5477, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0how will they keep PC companies from making all PCs run OSX?
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If it looks like a Mac and runs like a Mac, what do you care what is under the hood?
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If it looks like a Mac and runs like a Mac, what do you care what is under the hood?
- mragentr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In an utopian world, this would spark the first transition to a happy world where PC & Mac, Unix & NT, open source & closed source, open & closed computer architecture could all co-exist together without the fret of software, hardware, or file compatability. But then again, maybe Intel made Apple a deal they could not refuse (Dell?) in honor of the all mighty dollar.
- DeVryGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Plecky: It's really the same on both sides. There are Macies who refuse to see the merits of the PC side (gaming, cheapness, huge third party) and there are PC Cultists who bash the merits of owning a Mac (great first party software, stability, "It Just Works").
There will always be fanboys on both sides, and God hates them all. - helfire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"how will this affect the virus and spyware advantage that apple has now?"
How would it change it? It's not the prosessor that gets infected with spyware/viruses, it's Windows that does. More market share may mean more people will try, but it wont have anything to do with the prosessors. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My Intel is too slow
--
John J. Deterior
http://3couleurs.blogspot.com - Plecky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Haha, DeVryGuy you're right. I guess I just don't know as many people who are so passionate about their PC's as Mac people are about their Mac's (or as defensive). But you make a good point, but such PC fanboys would drive me nuts too. Maybe I just like the argue and defend both sides, or I'm just a neutralist who likes to see everything as gray and not black and white or right and wrong or best and worse etc. Thanks DeVryGuy for setting me strait, and yes there's a special place in Hell for such fanboys ;) I'm kidding of course...?
- Aflat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You will be duel booting. The thing is, you will have to buy an Apple machine, and then add linux/MS to it. You won't be able to buy a Dell and put OS10 on it, at least I don't think you will be able to.
- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Damn, this must be the biggest geek story of the year... Digg slashdotted, Slashdot slashdotted. All over the lastest release of NextStep 486.
- Plecky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does that make me a evil person?
- Plecky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does that make me a evil person?
- eric_n_dfw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0$0.32 is hardly "tanking". Jeez.
- Ssullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"the fact that demand will always be for windows since it runs EVERYTHING."
That may be true for the end user side of things, on the server side however it's a different story. - biter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Geez, Apple stock tanking and taking my money. Thanks, Steve!
- mlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well if you listen to the TWiT cast ( I think episode 8) Leo talk about the pros's and cons of the Mac Intel questions. I am with Leo,I think it is a ball-sy move, and could either sink Apple, or make it soar, but it is a significant gamble- a good listen (http://thisweekintech.com/node/3791)
- eric_n_dfw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Been using Mac's since Apple bought NeXT (in anticipation of OpenStep on a consumer machine) - I think this is very good news. I just hope MS Office, Photoshop and Final Cut Pro get universal binary releases quickly.
- SaintStryfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the development machine they're selling is a 3.2 P4. If the starter chip for a Mac Mini isn't 4 ghz, I'd be surprised.
Look, I'm one of those "Mac Cultists" you people seem to spit on. bottom line: No other chip maker can support the volume, the special needs, and the engineering that Apple needs. The deals with IBM and Moto were simply attempts to match what Intel could give us. But it's no longer viable. With IBM jerking off to console developers, and Moto hooked to Cell Phones, neither company could afford to make the amount of chips Apple needed, with the development toward the future.
I think if Apple couldn't have dealt with Intel, we'd still be OK - we're growing strong still. But The nice thing about the Apple BoD is that they don't just consider what's happy for the stock now - but what's going to be good 5 years down the road. With IBM, could we say "Yes, we're sure we'll be comfortable 5 years from now?" hell they couldn't meet a rather basic guideline given a whole extra year.
Intel has what Apple wants and needs. Apple gets secure development. And IBM isn't going to lose here - they're still going to be plenty of PPC chips to be made. But I think Apple's making the best choice.
Whether it boots Windows is not important - I for one have no intention of dual booting. Now if WINE is going to be developed, I'll run Windows programs. But I'm not shoving money in Gates' pocket just because I can. I don't have programs - games or else wise - that needs it!
Is there fear? Yeah. Is there a little annoyance at having to choke back years of venom? Yeah.
But watch out Windows - You can't hide behind "Apple is slower!" anymore, the numbers are the same. And you can't hide behind crappy hardware, because we're going to develop great machines with the same hardware. And If you can't innovate - if you give us more breathing room... well guess what?
EVOLUTION HAPPENS. - mragentr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In an utopian world, this would spark the first transition to a happy world where PC & Mac, Unix & NT, open source & closed source, open & closed computer architecture could all co-exist together without the fret of software, hardware, or file compatability. But then again, maybe Intel made Apple a deal they could not refuse (Dell?) in honor of the all mighty dollar.
- Plecky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm just glad about this due to those obsessive Mac people out there (sometimes known as the Mac Cult). Their either going to have to eat up the same words they've been saying about intel to continue supporting mac in future years, or follow PPC in whatever it does and say goodbye to MacIntel. This will be a real test of the Mac Cultist out there, if there really "big fans of mac and Steve Jobs" like they claim they are, then they'll back up the software end. If all they care about is the PPC and hardware, then they'll leave the Mac Cult, those hypocritical sons of a... Hey anyways, maybe this will help the Mac Mini and Tiger and all the other steps apple has taken to attract the PC crowd, personally I know in Mid-2006 I'll be getting one of these new systems! Am I the only one who likes this news just to see the sheer affect it will have on those annoying Mac Cultist. Don't get me wrong, I love Tiger and Mac's been doing awesome, but there's one thing to love something with a open mind and another to just be completely biased. Personally I like seeing these people forced to either eat up all that crap they've been saying about Microsoft-PC chips or go the way of the PPC in a year or so down the road. Maybe they won't be as annoying now...
- mercano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why Intel? If they are looking for low power consumption, high power computation CPUs, the AMD64s have been blowing the P4s away as of late. On the desktop, at least. I think Centrino still has the portable edge.
So how long till WINE for OSX-x86? If they could get that going, they can really start getting some switchers. - Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Logik, I know there are obstacles in getting OSX for x86 running on a non-Mac machine, but I don't think it'll be as hard as you think. The secret will be to trick OSX into thinking its running on a real mac--i.e. create a virtualized X86 Mac environment, much the same way that VMware makes a virtualized X86 PC environment. I'm also thinking of Mac-on-linux, where you can actually run OSX under a PPC install of Linux, even on non-Apple hardware. In fact, you can already run OSX on your existing PC, via PearPC...slowly. The Mac has already been virtualized before, in multiple ways.
It really comes down to the machine check, and whether it can be emulated or not. If x86 Macs have some sort of encrypted challenge/response mechanism between the software and a TCPA-type chip on the motherboard, that may be tough to get around, legally or otherwise. - fu_fish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I had intended on buying a Mac this summer, but now I'm not sure. I think PPC is a greatly superior architecture to x86 and OSX is greatly superior to Windoze (we'll just pretend that I'm not already running Linux), but why buy a machine if it's already slated for becoming obsolete? I know, they're going to support both for a long time, but it would be like buying a G4 powermac right before the G5s started production.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is