Apple Comp. moving from IBM to Intel

Actualy Microsoft needs Apple Computer to avoid the whole monoply situation. That was why they provided money to Apple a few years ago. They need Apple to have a certain percentage of the market to avoid going back to court.

Interesting situation though.

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

Watch.

geogob said:

What would it mean? Well... you can a macintosh that can natively run any mac and PC programs with OS X or run MS Windows natively.

Click to expand...

You'll still have to buy your hardware from Apple if you want to be able to get Mac OS.

So the next question one could ask is "why whould I want to run MS Windows when I have OS X and it can already run all my windows programs?" and the answer would probably be "the is no reason to unless you are too lazy to switch from windows to OS X".

Click to expand...

Yes, because we all know every Windows apps work on Linux out of the box, right? What the hell are you talking about?

I'd like to think this could be the end of Microsoft's ugly monopole... of course that will probably not be the case (I'm sure they'll figure out something, like buying Apple Computer).

Click to expand...

DeMachina said:

You'll still have to buy your hardware from Apple if you want to be able to get Mac OS.

Click to expand...

That's yet to be confirmed. Knowing the hacker mentality, I doubt OSX will remain apple-inly for very long.

In the long run, I doubt Apple will be able to keep their OS "mac hardware" if they stick with x86 chips only.

After sitting here and listening to the WWDC Keynote speech, I wanted to confirm one important thing. Originally, I thought that Apple may have done something very smart, and gone and developed for the Intel Itanium. One thing that Steveyboy continuously says is "intel" chips, and not x86 chips. This got me curious as to whether or not he actually was developing for x86 and not just some special intel chip. If Apple had gone with the Itanium, they'd have had a 64 bit processor, by Intel, but would have a processor and OS that would not be compatable with just any run of the mill beige box out there. Halfway through the keynote, he shows the stats on the box: A 3.(x ... to hard to make out) ghz Intel Pentium 4.

So, it is, most definately, compiled for x86.

Keganator said:

That's yet to be confirmed. Knowing the hacker mentality, I doubt OSX will remain apple-inly for very long.

In the long run, I doubt Apple will be able to keep their OS "mac hardware" if they stick with x86 chips only.

Click to expand...

[URL=http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html?tag=st.next said:

]news.com.com [/URL]
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."

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.

Click to expand...

Sure, Mac OS X will probably get hacked to standard (not Mac) x86 hardware, but legality of such an OS will vary from country to country. Apple is still very much an hardware compagny, could they even survive to a switch as a simple software supplier? I'm under the impression that no (but, this is an extremely uninformed opinion (dare I say slashdot formed opinion )).

keg said:

After sitting here and listening to the WWDC Keynote speech, I wanted to confirm one important thing. Originally, I thought that Apple may have done something very smart, and gone and developed for the Intel Itanium. One thing that Steveyboy continuously says is "intel" chips, and not x86 chips. This got me curious as to whether or not he actually was developing for x86 and not just some special intel chip. If Apple had gone with the Itanium, they'd have had a 64 bit processor, by Intel, but would have a processor and OS that would not be compatable with just any run of the mill beige box out there. Halfway through the keynote, he shows the stats on the box: A 3.(x ... to hard to make out) ghz Intel Pentium 4.

So, it is, most definately, compiled for x86.

Click to expand...

Somewhere today, Apple said that OS X has been working for x86 from day one, so it's indeed for x86. However, by the time Apple switch to Intel for it's desktop offering (2007), cheap CPU (maybe still midrange) will mean dual core 64 bit CPU.

qeobob said:

... not everyone doing his little thing in the basement hoping it will work with that other guy's work.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because we all know Linux doesn't have major corporate backing ... But I won't even go there. Linux can't be beaten today in a lot of application (your personnal computer is, arguably, not one of them) and I don't see Apple ever beating them. OS X is for PC/workstation first. Linux is for server/worksation, PC is still (untill recently) very much an afterthought

For that reason, I have not doupt Max OS X will reach the point where it will be able to run natively any Windows based programs. Of course you might need to have a windows license and install in on the box so the system libraries are available (somehow I doupt MS will allow apple to distribute the Windows librairies in Mac OS X), but windows program will still work.

Click to expand...

Direct X is the easy answer to that, but there's much more MS API that won't get ported to OS X. Of course, stuff could get emulated, I'm not calling that "natively" running. It will probably be slightly easier to port x86 apps to MAC, but they'll still need to be ported. Do you know anything about programming? (seriously, no offense meant)

The main reason Apple did this is because of Freescale (the current G4 cpu manufacturer). So geo was spot-on.

Freescale (Motorola's G4 operation, with a name change for legal reasons) promised multi-core G4's that would out-perform IBM's G5 PPC chips. They gave Apple an expected deliver date, and of course, didn't come through.

Their G4 was progressing (according to the Freescale roadmap) much along the lines of the Pentium III - which would later evolve into the Pentium M. It was designed with notebooks in mind (low power - high performance), and was said to reach 3Ghz by this year.

It was supposed to eventually replace the G5 (on a long enough timeline).

Apple makes most of their hardware bank from their portables. The've been stuck at the sub-2Ghz spot for a long time now, and they were feeling the heat from the Pentium M market. I believe the last update (5-6 months between updates) was only a 200Mhz bump (yay Motorola!). The problem with the G5 is that it runs hot, and IBM was having lots of problems scaling it down for the Powrbook line. Not to mention power consumption...

And, since Freescale still hasn't kept to their word, they had no other choice but to switch to Intel to remain competitive.

I'm happy about it, simply because the prospect of having the Pentium M in my Powerbook gives me a hard-on. If I can't run Windows apps, oh well. That's what I have a Windows box for. However, I must admit, the idea of a 'all-in-one' computer is enticing.

The good news is, that the HAVOK Physics Engine - which is used in practically every game created these days - can finally have a dev kit for OSX (yay, games are back!). Previously, these guys hadn't created a PPC Dev Kit - hence the lack of all games using it (which made me question how MicroSoft would be able to use it for Halo 3). Now, all they have to do is port it to OSX on familiar hardware.

As far what chips, it's still up in the air really. The demo Mac was using a P4 3.6Ghz CPU with 2GB of DDR.

I have no doubt that the Pentium M will find its way into the 'Book' line. However, Apple is a big fan of 64-bit processing. So, I guess we'll have to wait and find out.

Another reason, I believe, is that Apple eventually wants to turn the iPod into something more than a music player. Something with a scaled down version of OSX - designed like the Newton. A kind of 'all-in-one-portable'. It'll play videos, music, etc. That's what I always thought the iPod should be. The name just sounds better for a product like that, I think.

By the way - you should download the Quicktime 7 Windows Preview and watch the HD stream with H.264 (which detects that you're using QT7 automatically). The quality is amazing. You can make out everything - including the text on his demo machine. I have QT7 Pro on my Macs, excellent program.

Phil Schiller, Senior VP of Apple Computer stated that OSX will make use of Intel's DRM - to ensure that their OS only runs on their computers. He also commented, saying that they're not going to keep users from installing Windows on their machines - although it will not be officially supported.

Dual-booting, here we come.

this could be a very clever move by apple. they'll be producing machines that can run both their own operating system. and their competitors. this means that everyone who wants to run OSX will have to buy a mac, but those who want to run windows could still buy a mac.

this becomes less of an issue the harder it gets to put windows on an apple. but if i could get a machine that would run both for a reasonable price. i know where i'd go.