***CONFIRMED*** APPLE MOVES TO INTEL - X86!

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

earthman

Golden Member
Oct 16, 1999
1,653
0
71
Everyone seems to think there is some kind of bonanza of "choice" coming to the PC world. They are totally missing the point. Macs are proprietary hardware now and will remain so, whether their CPUs are PowerPC, Intel, or whatever. The DRM features in Intel chips will lock out installs of MacOS on anything except Mac hardware, so what is different? You can't install MacOS on an x86 beige box now, and you won't be able to in the future. That point has been made really clear by Apple. Apple is just changing to what they see as a better hardware path. So stop dreaming about "Tiger on your desktops", it ain't gonna happen.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,047
1,676
126
Originally posted by: earthman
Everyone seems to think there is some kind of bonanza of "choice" coming to the PC world. They are totally missing the point. Macs are proprietary hardware now and will remain so, whether their CPUs are PowerPC, Intel, or whatever. The DRM features in Intel chips will lock out installs of MacOS on anything except Mac hardware, so what is different? You can't install MacOS on an x86 beige box now, and you won't be able to in the future. That point has been made really clear by Apple. Apple is just changing to what they see as a better hardware path. So stop dreaming about "Tiger on your desktops", it ain't gonna happen.
One interesting thing though is Apple has already stated that they will NOT prevent people from installing Windows on their x86 Macs.

This means that the Holy Grail of dual boot Mac OS X and Windows machines exists, albeit only from Apple.

It's kinda irrelevant to me, but I'm sure for some users it is a definite bonus.
 

earthman

Golden Member
Oct 16, 1999
1,653
0
71
One interesting thing though is Apple has already stated that they will NOT prevent people from installing Windows on their x86 Macs.

Yeah, but who says Microsoft won't?
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
Why would Microsoft block that? Installing Windows on Macs would be nothing but money in MS's pocket. There's no downside to them allowing it as they are a software only company. Apple loses hardware sales if OSX isn't proprietary, MS loses nothing if their OS isn't. Considering you can't buy a Mac without OSX, Apple has nothing to lose by allowing windows to run on their computers, as a dual boot possibility would be an exclusive feature for them possibly bringing hardware sales their way. The only company that loses here would be AMD.
 

earthman

Golden Member
Oct 16, 1999
1,653
0
71
By that logic Windows would be running on Mac hardware now. It wouldn't be any big deal for Microsoft to engineer that, with their resources, and given that they already do Office for OSX. I wouldn't be surprised if they had such a thing running now, much that way Apple had an x86 OSX running since day one.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
Not really. Getting Windows to run on a PPC computer would not be a trivial task. Getting it to run on an x86 Apple would likely take no modifcations at all since Apple has already said they will do nothing to prevent Windows from running on their systems. No work vs a lot of work are not comparable.
 

CrimsonChaos

Senior member
Mar 28, 2005
551
0
0
Originally posted by: Pariah

Yeah, just seems odd that he'd be trying to make yet another NeXT line of computers. What is the big appeal to Macintosh now that it'll have typical PC hardware and UNIX OS? I always thought Mac was trying to be "proprietary" in all of their products.

He's not. With NeXT he had to create a market and the software. With Apple, he already has the software that people want and a market with a loyal fanbase. Now he is trying to lower the prices and bring it more mainstream. This whole transition thing is being blown way out of proportion. If this goes the way Jobs wants it to, the changes should be completely transparent to the user. It's still going to be the same stylish Apple computer, with the same Apple software, except now it will have a different CPU in it. Big deal. This could have major impacts on the business side for Apple and Intel, but to the consumer it shouldn't mean anything at all unless you're a fanboy of either side who wants to troll all day about which side is better.

If the Apple software is the only difference, then why doesn't Apple just become solely a software vendor?

Why pedal a computer with typical PC parts off as an "Apple" computer, just because it's "stylish" (by the way, Alienware does this too). Why pedal UNIX off as an Apple OS just because of a "stylish" interface?

Apple is pretty much taking typical hardware and a typical OS, making things look pretty, locking everything up and then calling it "Apple". Hey, at least they finally realized their old hardware and old OS were inferior products. The fact is, this IS the same as the NeXT product line that failed years ago. Of course, some of the circumstances are different. But the end-product is the same.
 

ai42

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2001
3,653
0
0
Originally posted by: Pariah
Not really. Getting Windows to run on a PPC computer would not be a trivial task. Getting it to run on an x86 Apple would likely take no modifcations at all since Apple has already said they will do nothing to prevent Windows from running on their systems. No work vs a lot of work are not comparable.

I don't think it iwll be quite that easy. Remember Apple will still retain its tight hardware control. I can easily see Apple using proprietary BIOSes for everything so finding drivers might be a huge issue.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,047
1,676
126
Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
Originally posted by: Pariah

Yeah, just seems odd that he'd be trying to make yet another NeXT line of computers. What is the big appeal to Macintosh now that it'll have typical PC hardware and UNIX OS? I always thought Mac was trying to be "proprietary" in all of their products.
He's not. With NeXT he had to create a market and the software. With Apple, he already has the software that people want and a market with a loyal fanbase. Now he is trying to lower the prices and bring it more mainstream. This whole transition thing is being blown way out of proportion. If this goes the way Jobs wants it to, the changes should be completely transparent to the user. It's still going to be the same stylish Apple computer, with the same Apple software, except now it will have a different CPU in it. Big deal. This could have major impacts on the business side for Apple and Intel, but to the consumer it shouldn't mean anything at all unless you're a fanboy of either side who wants to troll all day about which side is better.
If the Apple software is the only difference, then why doesn't Apple just become solely a software vendor?

Why pedal a computer with typical PC parts off as an "Apple" computer, just because it's "stylish" (by the way, Alienware does this too). Why pedal UNIX off as an Apple OS just because of a "stylish" interface?

Apple is pretty much taking typical hardware and a typical OS, making things look pretty, locking everything up and then calling it "Apple". Hey, at least they finally realized their old hardware and old OS were inferior products. The fact is, this IS the same as the NeXT product line that failed years ago. Of course, some of the circumstances are different. But the end-product is the same.
The reason people like Macs is because the machines Just Work with the OS. Some people say this is an unfair advantage for Apple because they know exactly what hardware is going to be in the machines and it's thus much easier to code for, but whether it's unfair or not, it's still an advantage.

Furthermore, since Apple controls both the hardware and software, they're potentially much more nimble at incorporating new technologies. There is no need to wait for a 3rd party to come up with a driver and hope it works well. They just write the driver themselves and build it into the OS. They don't worry about feature acceptance as much either. If Apple decides it's a feature it wants, it just builds it into the machines and promotes it. eg. All Macs have Firewire for 5 years and all these Macs have Firewire bootability.

I have built my own Windows PCs, but it is definitely refreshing to just have an all-in-one machine that does everything with little fuss. It's not perfect, but it's certainly less time consuming to troubleshoot. Some people don't like all-in-ones, but for what I do, the iMac is perfect for me. I don't game, so the GPU isn't an issue.
 

Gulzakar

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,074
0
0
So let me understand this.

Apple systems are Unix Based...and as such they use Unix code, right? The G3/4/5 series are Unix crucnhers (essentially)...right?

Tiger OS is 64 bit capable of running on the G4 right?

so basically OXS-T will be emulated on an x86 code cpu and system...right? and to take it even further, they have to emulate x86 software on a Unix based OS designed to run 64bit? right?

Pending some level of truths in the statement (notice I said *some*), I'm not an OS expert...doesn't it seem like one GIGANTIC disaster waiting to happen? I mean, that is the beauty of OSX...it's Unix for everyone :) isn't that half the problem of the current PC's? clunky x86 code and processing?
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
anyone read the article today on Ars Technica? If I was an Apple engineer I would be looking for some other work now