Why hasn't Apple switched to x86?

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Is OS X compatible with Linux programs?

Some linux programs can be compiled on Mac OS X.

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: imgod2u
Stability is a feature of the OS and the chipset, not the processor. I doubt anyone has the gall or the ignorance to claim any of Apple's PPC/proprietary motherboard is more stable than an Intel chipset/motherboard setup with a P4.

The fact that you CAN create a P4 setup that is stable does not make all P4 setups stable.

Apple has a leg up on stability because they more closley control what hardware goes into there machines.

The ratio of unstable computers with cheap, unstable components weighs heavily against x86 platforms because every company is busy trying to figure out what corners they can cut in order to better compete in the market.

Apple also would like to produce there products as cheap as possible, but they get to decide when is cheap enough cuz they can just charge you the consumer the difference.

I find it ironic that I sound like I'm defending Apple when I'm just stating the facts. Apple does it this way out of self interest.

Although I would love to get my hands on a powerbook, I got to test drive one at work for a little while and it was sweet .
I love OSX for a laptop cuz I don't play games, etc. on my laptop anyways.

 

[PH0ENIX]

As soon as I saw this thread I knew it was going to be painful

Im not going to answer the question, just mention a couple of things.

Firstly there are at least 2 people here who know what they're talking about. Majority, however, are indeed taking guesses.
The ones who are cluey know who you are and i've complemented you about it before...

CMDRDREDD;

Macs are not superior all-round when it comes to Video Editing, CAD, and even audio design.
There's a lot of sweet software packages available for the Mac, and perhaps ease of use is also a factor, but to say the same can't be done on a PC is just untrue.

Seen as you like putting forward examples of mac users...
A prime example - what sort of machines did they use for the computer effects in the 'fellowship of the ring' ?
I can tell you right now it wasn't macs.

And as far as mastering DVDs... I suggest you lookup DVD technology.
There isn't a writable DVD format that is as compatible as retail DVD.
Arguably, DVD-R(and RW) is the most compatible format at the moment... What are apple using? DVD-RAM? DVD+R? DVD-R?
So for making DVDs to be read in 98% of DVDROMS, fair enough.
Making DVDs to be used in set-top boxes and standalone DVD players - there's NO WAY apple has ANY advantage over the PC market.

Just my .02

 

[cmdrdredd]

well, the Apple superdrive is the Pioneer Avr-90 (model correct here?) anyway it can do DVDR and DVDRW and both work fine in many of the stand alone DVD players around. Apple has a FAQ that losts all the compatable players they have tested including the Sony PS2.

Who was it that said they'd dare someone to say a mac is more stable than a P4? Well...i would. My mac has been running 24/7 for 5years and never a crash or problem. I only defrag my HD once a month. My P4 on the other hand while more stable than AMD is really not as stable as my mac. I've had a few crashes mostly due to the OS. WinXp seems to hate some programs i try to run and emulators crash alot which is what i play with alot. NES/SNES etc. Probably faulty programming, but my mac never lets me down.

The mac platform is built for business use and is not intended to be in every household. Apple doesn't need to change since it has an extremely loyal userbase. Just ask any service bureau what platform they use for their printing business. I don't know of any graphics person in the printing industry that doesn't prefer a mac for photoshop, freehand, quark/pagemaker etc. Video editing is one market where Apple is really ahead because they own the firewire name they basically pull money from anyone that markets their products with firewire...IEE1394 ports is usually what they can it. Apple pioneered the technology and my 5 year old mac had it standard. Don't get me rong i love my P4, but I'd never ever give up my mac. I'd give away my PC before i sell my mac.

 

[imgod2u]

Exactly, DUE TO THE OS. That's the point I'm trying to make. Switching to an x86 PROCESSOR would not have ANY impact on stability. They'd STILL be running OSX, Apple would STILL have their choice of what hardware goes into the computer. This misguided myth that somehow, just because you put in an x86 processor, you'd have to support all x86 compatible hardware. WHY?

 

[Dark1]

Pioneer DVR A03
Now Pioneer DVR A04

 

[Lucky]

Video editing is one market where Apple is really ahead because they own the firewire name they basically pull money from anyone that markets their products with firewire.

Not anymore.

 

[Valinos]

Originally posted by: ynotravid
Apple does not want to go with x86 because all they have to market is the fact that there platforms are stable and easy to use. Even if they only expand to include x86 platforms, they will lose the mistic Apple perception.

BUT DAMN THOSE CASES ARE COOL! I wish I could buy one for PC. I saw one a long time ago, made in canada, but they were made completely out of plastic.

www.colorcases.com

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Valinos

Originally posted by: ynotravid
Apple does not want to go with x86 because all they have to market is the fact that there platforms are stable and easy to use. Even if they only expand to include x86 platforms, they will lose the mistic Apple perception.

BUT DAMN THOSE CASES ARE COOL! I wish I could buy one for PC. I saw one a long time ago, made in canada, but they were made completely out of plastic.

www.colorcases.com

Nah, even they dont have a g3/g4 looking case.

 

[kgraeme]

Well, no earth-shattering announcements from Macworld. Unless you've been waiting for an officially sanctioned Windows compatable iPod.

 

[RemyCanad]

I don't know about the newer cases from colorcases.com but the one I have that I got about 2 years ago is no where near the quality of my G4 case.

 

[human2k]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
well, the Apple superdrive is the Pioneer Avr-90 (model correct here?) anyway it can do DVDR and DVDRW and both work fine in many of the stand alone DVD players around. Apple has a FAQ that losts all the compatable players they have tested including the Sony PS2.

Who was it that said they'd dare someone to say a mac is more stable than a P4? Well...i would. My mac has been running 24/7 for 5years and never a crash or problem. I only defrag my HD once a month. My P4 on the other hand while more stable than AMD is really not as stable as my mac. I've had a few crashes mostly due to the OS. WinXp seems to hate some programs i try to run and emulators crash alot which is what i play with alot. NES/SNES etc. Probably faulty programming, but my mac never lets me down.

The mac platform is built for business use and is not intended to be in every household. Apple doesn't need to change since it has an extremely loyal userbase. Just ask any service bureau what platform they use for their printing business. I don't know of any graphics person in the printing industry that doesn't prefer a mac for photoshop, freehand, quark/pagemaker etc. Video editing is one market where Apple is really ahead because they own the firewire name they basically pull money from anyone that markets their products with firewire...IEE1394 ports is usually what they can it. Apple pioneered the technology and my 5 year old mac had it standard. Don't get me rong i love my P4, but I'd never ever give up my mac. I'd give away my PC before i sell my mac.

I'm a mac fan too...but this has nothing to do with the question: Why hasnt apple switched to x86?

 

[human2k]

Originally posted by: Valinos

Originally posted by: ynotravid
Apple does not want to go with x86 because all they have to market is the fact that there platforms are stable and easy to use. Even if they only expand to include x86 platforms, they will lose the mistic Apple perception.

BUT DAMN THOSE CASES ARE COOL! I wish I could buy one for PC. I saw one a long time ago, made in canada, but they were made completely out of plastic.

www.colorcases.com

those are some hideous looking cases..........looks like they just came outta power ranger movie or soemthing....the chieftec cases look decent but one problem: they are huge.........when it all comes down to it..........its always the generic gray mid tower chassis for $20 @ newegg for me coupled with a high powered PSU.

 

[DJP]

Yes, a pc usb keyboard will work on the mac. I've never seen any usb keyboard or mouse that did not work on both platforms the same. In fact if you go check the specs on all microsoft keyboards, they specifically list mac compatibility and include nice mac software to use all the funky control buttons at the top of the pro/office/internet keyboards. Ditto with the ms mice. Whoever told you different was scamming you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Lucky
edit: anyone know if a USB keyboard designed for PC's will work on a mac? They shop said they use different connections for a mac.

wtf, why would they tell me differently. they had a PC USB keyboard for $26 and they wanted $65 for the mac.

 

[Tanked]

"Who was it that said they'd dare someone to say a mac is more stable than a P4? Well...i would. My mac has been running 24/7 for 5years and never a crash or problem. I only defrag my HD once a month. My P4 on the other hand while more stable than AMD is really not as stable as my mac. I've had a few crashes mostly due to the OS. WinXp seems to hate some programs i try to run and emulators crash alot which is what i play with alot. NES/SNES etc. Probably faulty programming, but my mac never lets me down."

Exactly, so the problem is because you're using third party software on your PC. Basically you're saying that the mac is more stable because it can't run as much software.

Also, I have to rant about the AMD unstability - if you would avoid VIA, it'd be just as stable as an Intel chipset.

 

[Valinos]

Originally posted by: Tanked
"Who was it that said they'd dare someone to say a mac is more stable than a P4? Well...i would. My mac has been running 24/7 for 5years and never a crash or problem. I only defrag my HD once a month. My P4 on the other hand while more stable than AMD is really not as stable as my mac. I've had a few crashes mostly due to the OS. WinXp seems to hate some programs i try to run and emulators crash alot which is what i play with alot. NES/SNES etc. Probably faulty programming, but my mac never lets me down."

Exactly, so the problem is because you're using third party software on your PC. Basically you're saying that the mac is more stable because it can't run as much software.

Also, I have to rant about the AMD unstability - if you would avoid VIA, it'd be just as stable as an Intel chipset.

I haven't had any system critical crashes that I can remember on my two Athlon/VIA chipset PC's running Windows XP Pro. One is a Soltek board on the KT333 chipset, the other is a Soyo on the KT266A. I don't remember ever having a problem with the Soltek setup, but my Soyo system had some problems around January, but I blame it on XP.

VIA may have been questionable 2 years ago, but they are real champs now. I haven't used a modern Intel chip or chipset in years aside from some friends' computers so I can't say much for them, but VIA and AMD have no stability problems if you keep the system at reasonable temperature.

And if you avoid VIA with AMD, what do you have? AMD? What's the last chipset they made? Nvidia? While I like Nvidia, they still haven't proved themselves in the chipset dept. SiS has no support and ALi just sucks.

Don't go start bashing VIA without some facts.

You're dead on with the reason Macs might have better perceived stability than an x86 setup. There's no software for Macs.

Still, I'd like to find a decent G3 rig to play around with. Too bad they're still rather expensive for a ~300mhz machine without a monitor.

 

[ed21x]

apparently im still one of the few people that is still into ASM programming =P and compiling + executing lines of code in ASM is much faster on my 700mhz G3 than my 1.6 ghz p4 simply because RISC processors are raw number crunchers and can decode machine language binaries like no other. This can also be attirubted to floating point processing, in which macs get another leg up. now i'm not saying that macs are better, because obviously i use my p4 more for office level applications, but that each type has their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: imgod2u
Exactly, DUE TO THE OS. That's the point I'm trying to make. Switching to an x86 PROCESSOR would not have ANY impact on stability. They'd STILL be running OSX, Apple would STILL have their choice of what hardware goes into the computer. This misguided myth that somehow, just because you put in an x86 processor, you'd have to support all x86 compatible hardware. WHY?

I believe this "myth" is derived from the original post where zane says "They'd instantly open themselves up to so many more sales due to the increased compatibility."

This and the rest of the post seems to suggest that the whole reason for changing would be to open up the platform to more hardware. The idea being to decrease costs etc...

Valino, the 760 chipset is still awsome unless you need more than 2GB of memory.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Apple obviously doesn't like x86 code. They'd have to reqork almost everything they use in the OS and such. becides...RISC CPus are best for number crunching processes. most high end 3d workstations run RISC CPUs and I believe all of IBM's super coomputers have RISC CPUs.

WHy make alot of work for yourself when you don't have to? this is Apple's way. It's like asking them to switch to DDR memory when they're still using PC133

 

[Lucky]

WHy make alot of work for yourself when you don't have to? this is Apple's way. It's like asking them to switch to DDR memory when they're still using PC133

Why do it? Because they could be more competitive in both price and performance. What a lame argument that they shouldnt bother improving their products because its 'apple's way".

edit: and I think its been pointed out before that motorola's processor has grown so complex its not really RISC anymore...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Apple should have stuck wih IBM and they'd have faster G3s than they can get G4s from motorola, but maybe the G4 would still outpace it? I dunno.

 

[Lucky]

the problem is motorola's lack of competition and their general laziness in advancing the processor. Why havent they moved to a .13 chip? AMD/intel rivalry has done wonders for those chips....motorola is just stagnating.

 

[cmdrdredd]

well...there is no competition and apple doesn't push them so what do you want?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Lucky
the problem is motorola's lack of competition and their general laziness in advancing the processor. Why havent they moved to a .13 chip? AMD/intel rivalry has done wonders for those chips....motorola is just stagnating.

Motorola did not think Apple would make it so they poured their money into embedded processors. Apple is starting to come back (ok, they are basically back I think), so Motorola has to switch back to desktop procs too. AMD also has had trouble with the .13u process so its not a surprise Motorola is having trouble. Not to mention Motorola's yields have been pretty bad for a while. I did hear the g3s in the iBooks are .13u, so if thats true its a good sign. There are rumors that IBM may be producing the g5 cpus. This would be neat. It also makes the future of AltiVec questionable...

As far as DDR, Apple is working on it. From what I have read, the current g4 cpus would not take advantage of the extra bandwidth. The next version should work just fine. Look forward to it in the Fall probably.

Apple is slower to adopt new technology. I personally like that. I dont need bleeding edge. Thats just me though.

IBM's POWER4 cpus are PPC based by the way (two(?) fast g3s with HUGE cache and FAST bus).

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
There are various reasons for them to stick to their own platform. First, they can't simply just port their os to support x86 systems easily just because of the amount of hardware compatibility they'll need to add to their OS. They'll need to write new drivers to support the plethera of hardware for x86 that is out there. By staying with their own platform, they control the hardware and the specs, and that makes it a lot easier in terms of compatibility. Its similiar to why games on an xbox, or ps2 works so well, because they only have one hardware to support and they can take advantage of all its features.

Also, how much money do you think Apple will make if they only sold their OS software? They're not even close to the size of MS so they can't leverage their user base. I'm sure their propietary hardware has fat margins and contribute a huge percentage to their total revenue. They simply cannot compete in the x86 arena. Thats why they have to keep their hardware specs closed so they can control it and not have it turn into a commodity.

Heifetz

BZZZZT. Wrong answer. Darwin, the kernel of OS X has already been ported to x86. With a new kernel they would just need to recompile Luna and the other interface software. Drivers for most hardware that works under BSD will work under Darwin. And if they do port to x86 they aren't going to stop selling custom boxes. Apple is a hardware company, they aren't gonna support willy nilly PC products on any of their computers.