Apple have gone Intel!!!

[Stoo]

Both sad news and good news at the same time, sad because it's a shame that IBM couldn't move the Gx processors up to the same performance levels of the x86 platform without making them far too hot..
But good news because this means that the Mac is still going to evolve, and to challenge Microsoft's domination (becuase utter domination of one market by one company is never a good thing) of the desktop market Apple are going to need to be able to produce large numbers of machines quickly, something that under IBM wasn't possible because of supply shortages.

Of course, this does open up the possibility of running OSX on normal PC's (despite the official denial - you know it's going to happen at some point), and to be honest, it's an obvious next move if they *really* wish to challenge Windows (yes, even losing platform exclusivity - the far larger market would outweigh the disadvantages).

If anything else it's going to make future versions of PearPC run *so* much faster

[suryad]

I WANT APPLE RUNNING ON AMDs!!! I think the fab capacity of Intel sufficiently trumps that of AMDs...sad but I think there will be an opening for AMD to dominate this sector as well.

[Oakey]

Of course, this does open up the possibility of running OSX on normal PC's (despite the official denial - you know it's going to happen at some point), and to be honest, it's an obvious next move if they *really* wish to challenge Windows (yes, even losing platform exclusivity - the far larger market would outweigh the disadvantages).

If anything else it's going to make future versions of PearPC run *so* much faster

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Apple BIOS's are completely different to your bog standard PC BIOS. So there's one hurdle for a start.

As for Apple moving into the x86 OS market, why is it an obvious move? Apple's major market is in their hardware, they have a monopoly on the fact that to run their OS and apps such as Final Cut Pro, you need an Apple to do so. Their hardware is also, to be blunt, overpriced. Why would they give up this monopoly by letting people install their OS / Apps on generic hardware?

You see, this causes a number of problems.

Who would buy an expensive Apple if they can run the same software on an El Cheapo eMachines?

Existing Mac owners would feel ripped off knowing they paid a premium for hardware that is equal in performance to some Dell that was considerably cheaper.

All of a sudden Apple would have a lot of disillusioned customers.

Apple rely on their hardware, it's unlikely they would make it just as a software vendor. MS have too strong a foothold, they make the most of their money from the large PC vendors (Dell, Gateway, etc, etc) and if Apple tried approaching any of these companies to start bundling OSX instead of WinXP, MS would just exert pressure on the venor in the form of increasing license costs / threatening to not sell them their OS, etc.

See this for example;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09...windows_money/

[tommylittleboy@]

This is such an interesting debate...can we see the "merging" of the two forces. Even though apple have denied that windows will run on macs, or OSX on PC intel chips (and I doubt they ever will), it is still something that is going to be in the minds of everyone.

I could see this move coming, if you look closely at the end credits of Pixar's The Incredibles, you will notice 'Final Rendering by Intel', which I personally thought was odd. Surely, Steve Jobs wouldnt use Intels instead of G5s for such a high profile movie by Pixar?!

Looking forward to hearing more about this one. I agree, G5s have hit a barrier with repsect to their speeds and heat issues, and intel were naturally going to surpass them with cooler and faster chips. The question I would like to know is what will happen to AMD? I really hope they benefit from this move someway.

[DR]

I WANT APPLE RUNNING ON AMDs!!! I think the fab capacity of Intel sufficiently trumps that of AMDs...sad but I think there will be an opening for AMD to dominate this sector as well.

You could not be more wrong...

[Swafe]

Apple have a version of OSX that runs on X86 architecture, not just G5 archy, they just never released it, most of their code libraries are duplicated, it seems apple have always kept it like this just incase, and now, theyll have a back catalogue of plenty of x86 compatible apps and OS's they can just knock out

[Jonny M]

Hopefully the Pentium-M iBooks will be around when the time comes to replace my current machine.

[Oakey]

Apple have a version of OSX that runs on X86 architecture, not just G5 archy, they just never released it, most of their code libraries are duplicated, it seems apple have always kept it like this just incase, and now, theyll have a back catalogue of plenty of x86 compatible apps and OS's they can just knock out

Um, yeah... no sh1t, that's what this whole thread is about.

I can see Apple doing their damndest to keep OSX off generic Apple hardware in order to maintain their hardware monopoly, however, WinXP on Apple hardware can't be ruled out, and I think it's something Apple would be quite pleased about.

Think about it, gaming is a major reason for the popularity of PC's, if you could dual boot Windows on Apple hardware, then that means OSX for work, and XP for games.

[Swafe]

Um, yeah... no sh1t, that's what this whole thread is about.

Soz, I thought it was about them using Intel chips being used in macs, I was just making the point they'd got the software so could make the switch if they wanted too at any time, cos its not like they have to rewrite any software, so they could do it seemlessly

[Stoo]

however, WinXP on Apple hardware can't be ruled out, and I think it's something Apple would be quite pleased about.

Actually it's already been ruled out by Apple.

Why would apple not want a bigger user base? Moving to x86 gives them to possibility of running OSX on virtually any modern home computer out there, and as everyone knows, there is very little margin in hardware production, so why invest all that money in yourself when others are already doing it for you?

Bios etc can all be gotten around anyway (after all, Pear PC runs OSX quite happily, and that's only a PPC system emulator, not an Apple emulator), mark my words, OSX *WILL* appear on normal PC's, Apple approved or not.

After all, if they really want to go for the Windows market, like they have targetted with the low-cost Mac Mini, you can't get much lower cost than skipping the hardware altogether..

If it shifts more copies of OSX, and OSX software, I very much doubt they they'd shoot themselves in the foot by slamming the door on them..

[Swafe]

I cant remember which way around, but there was a pc -> mac emulator, or a mac -> pc, i cant remember, just a piece of software that emulated and could run apps, albeit slowly

if they limited it so xp couldnt be installed on a mac, even with a P4 in it, would the emulator for windows apps still be slow? or cos its the same chip executing it, would it be near enuff the same?

[Oakey]

Actually it's already been ruled out by Apple.

Why would apple not want a bigger user base? Moving to x86 gives them to possibility of running OSX on virtually any modern home computer out there, and as everyone knows, there is very little margin in hardware production, so why invest all that money in yourself when others are already doing it for you?

Bios etc can all be gotten around anyway (after all, Pear PC runs OSX quite happily, and that's only a PPC system emulator, not an Apple emulator), mark my words, OSX *WILL* appear on normal PC's, Apple approved or not.

After all, if they really want to go for the Windows market, like they have targetted with the low-cost Mac Mini, you can't get much lower cost than skipping the hardware altogether..

If it shifts more copies of OSX, and OSX software, I very much doubt they they'd shoot themselves in the foot by slamming the door on them..

*sighs* I've covered this already. Do people actually read threads?

As for Apple moving into the x86 OS market, why is it an obvious move? Apple's major market is in their hardware, they have a monopoly on the fact that to run their OS and apps such as Final Cut Pro, you need an Apple to do so. Their hardware is also, to be blunt, overpriced. Why would they give up this monopoly by letting people install their OS / Apps on generic hardware?

You see, this causes a number of problems.

Who would buy an expensive Apple if they can run the same software on an El Cheapo eMachines?

Existing Mac owners would feel ripped off knowing they paid a premium for hardware that is equal in performance to some Dell that was considerably cheaper.

All of a sudden Apple would have a lot of disillusioned customers.

Apple rely on their hardware, it's unlikely they would make it just as a software vendor. MS have too strong a foothold, they make the most of their money from the large PC vendors (Dell, Gateway, etc, etc) and if Apple tried approaching any of these companies to start bundling OSX instead of WinXP, MS would just exert pressure on the venor in the form of increasing license costs / threatening to not sell them their OS, etc.

See this for example;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/0..._windows_money/

"Why would Apple not want a bigger user base?"

Why would they when they have a monopoly? You talk as if this shift to x86 means everyone will suddenly switch to OSX. I've said it at least 3 times in this thread already, Apple's profits are in their hardware, they sell expensive systems to a niche market. As for "the possibility of running OSX on virtually any modern home computer out there" that's exactly what they don't want. As I said... WHO WOULD BUY AN EXPENSIVE MAC IF THEIR SOFTWARE RUNS ON A CHEAP GENERIC PC?!?!

Sheesh.

Their hardware sales would slump and people everywhere would install pirate copies of OSX on their 'normal' home PC. As I said, the real money lies in corporate and OEM licenses, something Microsoft isn't going to give up easily (see previous Register article).

Apple quite clearly don't see your visions of 'a bigger user base', otherwise they wouldn't have categorically stated "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac"

After all, if they really want to go for the Windows market, like they have targetted with the low-cost Mac Mini, you can't get much lower cost than skipping the hardware altogether..

Yes, because having users installing pirate copies of their OS is far more profitable than having users buy their hardware, OS and software isn't it?

Actually it's already been ruled out by Apple

No it hasn't. They said they're not going to support or sell Windows on a Mac, but that it doesn't mean someone won't attempt it. I think they would be pleased by this as it means people would buy their hardware knowing they could dualboot. As before, OSX for work, switch to XP for a gaming session. However, they wouldn't be pleased about OSX on any PC as then they've lost their share of hardware sales. There is a difference.

OSX *WILL* appear on normal PC's, Apple approved or not.

That's a given, but you can bet Apple will try their damndest to prevent it.

[zhou]

I personally don't want to see every Tom Dick or Harry starting to use OSX or any future version of the Mac OS.

Just think about it, larger user base = more incentive for people to create viruses/spyware.

Perhaps OSX is better protected against these things, but you can bet anything that the small numbers of people using it is the biggest deterrent for people creating large amounts of virii.

Keep the Mac a niche product!

[Gordy]

Couple of tit bits I picked up today though

intel mac will have a bios

This means the only way they can stop you running OS X on a dell is through drm ( http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf )

Personally for me it would be great to be able to use OS X on my pc and switch to windoze for gaming only but I dont think it will be that easy.


No Plans to support Windows on a mac

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."

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

That would be just as good , giving you both os's on one system again, but I dont think apple will ever help you do it.

[Oakey]

Sigh, people really don't bother to read the thread do they? Come on people, don't just post, check if what you're going to say has already been said.

I already mentioned these points gordy!!! *cries*

[Gordy]

Chill tbh, I was cooking and trying to post at the same time.

Dont see you linking to that pdf tho....