Apple Switches to Intel

Started by benthehutt, August 24, 2005, 09:32:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions
August 24, 2005, 09:32:09 PM
Don't know if everyone's gotten the word, but apparently Apple has finally switched to Intel processors for their next generation computers.  It's an interesting story covered here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v=9

One of the big questions right now is, why?  And, as you know, I like to give every side of a story and let you figure out what you think, so here goes.  I wrote a few ideas dealing with why I think Apple switched, and here's another guy's opinion.  (We both did a bit of research, it's not just out of our butts)  I think this other guy is nuts...;D

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
August 24, 2005, 09:51:55 PM #1
are you insulting kooky people ?

Better be careful now ;D

"My Terminal is my Soul"
August 24, 2005, 11:18:21 PM #2
No, I'm insulting people other than me.  Probably based on their race, creed, or sexuality.  (*Is he kidding?*)  ;D
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
August 24, 2005, 11:32:37 PM #3
Damn, that is quite a story. However, I think Steve is just making another move to hurt Microsoft. Becides, Apples suck. (See, I'm not just a OS Biggot, I hate makers too! LMFAO!)

Mirsky
August 25, 2005, 10:36:14 AM #4
Every platform (except maybe DEC) has its uses ...

Hell, even DEC has it's uses for SOME people (including me [teasing some people about loving it] ;D)...

Macs are great for artist and the like.

And if someone is willing to try different platforms, the more knowledge and experience to them.
"My Terminal is my Soul"
August 25, 2005, 12:11:17 PM #5
The Intel move came down to Apple wanting to move into the next evolution for the portables but IBM didnt see Apple holding enough market share to spend the R&D money to make the G5 a laptop chip. Thats basically all it is. Plus, Intel, feeling the heat from AMD in the server and 64 bit arena jumped on the chance im sure.

Whats dissapointing is Mac's will go from 64-bit back to 32-bit once the switchover is final. P4's :P Ekkk.

Steve should have gone w/ AMD, might have made the damn machines a bit cheaper since they cost so much now but it certainly would have made for a better decision in regards to performance. Simple put, Intel's quality has been waning for the last 6 to 7 years because they've been on top for so long.
"A well known hacker is a good hacker, an unknown hacker is a great hacker..."

I don't care what your parents told you, you aren't special.
  • https://github.com/tazinator
August 25, 2005, 05:08:09 PM #6
I'd love to of seen Apple go with AMD. Although the switch to Intel will still bring the machine cost down conciderably.  I will be watching this one closely. However i would never buy any machine with an Intel CPU, I am an AMD user to the fuckin core. Soooooo ... Something does tell me though, If the Mac OS X will support Intel chips, then .. IN THEORY! there should be no reason why you wont be able to build a PC with an AMD CPU and run Mac OS X on it.
I am not suffering with insanity... I am loving every minute of it.
August 25, 2005, 05:16:14 PM #7
AMD would definitely have been nicer.

Can't have it all I guess.

That is an interesting thought though.. if it supports Intel, will it support x86 architecture in general ? Makes sense and would be nice. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
"My Terminal is my Soul"
August 25, 2005, 05:25:32 PM #8
Apple and Intel are building ID chips in either the processors for the Macs or the boards, not sure what yet as they are keeping it a little tight. Its to prevent people from loading OS X on a homebrew machine, the OS will check for the chip upon startup.

Doesnt mean it wont be impossible to circumvent, just a pain in the ass.
"A well known hacker is a good hacker, an unknown hacker is a great hacker..."

I don't care what your parents told you, you aren't special.
  • https://github.com/tazinator
August 25, 2005, 05:32:16 PM #9
Pity.
"My Terminal is my Soul"
August 25, 2005, 09:05:06 PM #10
A main reason they might be switching also is because they've gotten screwed over twice in the past for not doing it.  I think they're sick of MS and IBM, so they're trying to screw both of them.

Also, it would probably be alot easier to run Windows on your Pc-based mac than the other way around.  Though, the whole ID thing was tryed and it didn't work, it's called the XBox.  And it's gotten hacked a buttload.  For Mac OS to run on a PC though, that's a bit of a stretch.  It'd be an ugly hack cause Apple will surely go with Openfirmware, not any PC standard BIOS.  On top of that, the mac running on a PC would have to support alot more: IDE/SCSI controllers, PCI/AGP/AMR controllers and drivers for all the different types of everything that'll go in a PC.  They do that now, but unless you have a pc w/the same hardware as a stock mac, you'd have to figure out all that crap.  I'd think that would be harder than cracking those IDs.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
August 25, 2005, 09:07:46 PM #11
I'm also interested to see (if someone can get windows running on a "Mac PC") what will finally happen with the "Which OS is faster" wars.  It seems like that would make the race completely fair, not measuring to comlpetely unlike things.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
August 25, 2005, 09:22:55 PM #12
Well, true. The hardware is different. But I daresay that if the documentation of that hardware is there, then it can be done by someone who is good with hardware coding and (maybe just OR) has the dedication / time. But you could be right, that it's harder than cracking the ID...

If I had a spare machine that I'd be willing to dedicate, I might be up for the challenge barring a few things (admittedly, those few things would probably make me say no, but hey.. one never knows what comes out of a kook's brain). But I guess I'd need a drive for that machine too... hehe.

We'll see how it goes, I guess.
"My Terminal is my Soul"
August 25, 2005, 10:47:00 PM #13
You're right Metgod, I'm sure it can be done, but the hardware you could use on it would be extremely limited unless you wrote your own stuff for it.

On a side note, I wonder if the current Mac OS could be ported to an XBox 360 or the newest Mac OS (that's going to be on x86 processors) could be put on an Xbox...  Would that be possible?
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
August 26, 2005, 02:14:46 AM #14
Actually, there is a way to run Windows ME on the older G3 iMac's. Ive seen it done, though its nasty and unpleasant, taking out the fact that its ME its still unpleasant.

The ID chip thing is in play now. The Developer boxes Apple loaned to people for the transition have them. People already tried to copy the OS over to other x86 boxes and thats how it was found about the hardware check. Like I said tho, matter of time. Problem with those types of checks is you cant keep ahead of hacks. Such was the case with the DVD region codes and encryption.
"A well known hacker is a good hacker, an unknown hacker is a great hacker..."

I don't care what your parents told you, you aren't special.
  • https://github.com/tazinator
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk