Why hasn't Apple switched to x86?

[pcman2002b]

I'd have to agree with BFG10K. There is something wrong here, everyone who enjoys a MAC because they think the case is sexy or good looking or whatever has got issues. Have you seen Voodoo Computers, that my fruit loving friends is a sexy looking computer. Not to mention that people who build their own computers can find multitudes of great looking cases for dirt cheap online. I have used MACs a lot (unfortunately), and can't stand them, they always lock up, they are butt-slow and not to mention proprietary. Since Apple and Apple alone makes the crap they charge whatever they want for a 5 dollar keyboard thats missing most of the useful keys and charge whatever they want for a mouse that has the worst clicking design I have seen for a long time, ever since they came out with the hockey puck mouse. And anyone that buys a MAC because of their new ad campaign should not be allowed into any computer store ever. You don't see Microsoft attacking the MAC OSX, which sucks by the way, to increase sales. I have WinXP and don't get Blue Screens at all, so don't tell me that MACs are better just because they use some retro processor design, Ooh PowerPC, IBM had something like that back in the mid-90s and nobody paid attention to it. I know that the G4s are using fast processors but the idea of PowerPC is so retro. Why hasn't Apple switched to x86?

Because they don't make computers, they make decorative furniture! And crummy (user unfriendly) operating systems. Where most of the ideas they used in OSX came from WinXP. Apparently they ran out of ideas to make it more of a pain in the but because if you want to right-click you have to push a button on the keyboard and then click the ONE mouse button. AHHH! I hate MACs. Hey dude, whoever started this thread, don't worry about x86s in Apple products and by a real computer. A PC! Even if it was running IBM's OS2 Warp that would be better than a MAC.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: pcman2002b
I'd have to agree with BFG10K.

Of course you would, you didnt bother reading anything else did you? Its ok, Ill post corrections.

There is something wrong here, everyone who enjoys a MAC because they think the case is sexy or good looking or whatever has got issues.

Agreed, physical asthetics should never come into play when purchasing or using anything.

Have you seen Voodoo Computers, that my fruit loving friends is a sexy looking computer.

Ill take your word for it. Ive never heard of them and you didnt post a link.

Not to mention that people who build their own computers can find multitudes of great looking cases for dirt cheap online.

I couldnt

But Im picky and didnt buy a case for looks.

I have used MACs a lot (unfortunately),

Then you would probably know its not "MACs."

and can't stand them, they always lock up,

Learn how to take care of them. Much like Windows, if you do not take care of them, they will treat you like crap.

they are butt-slow

How old of a Mac?

and not to mention proprietary.

Yes, the chipset or whatever on the motherboard *is* proprietary. but uhhh, thats it.

Since Apple and Apple alone makes the crap

Motorola and IBM make the processors, various RAM companies make the RAM, various hard drive manufacturers make the hard drives, nVidia, ATI, and Matrox make video cards, etc.

they charge whatever they want

To make money?

for a 5 dollar keyboard thats missing most of the useful keys

My Mac has more than enough useful keys. Although I wish they would be more intelligent and move the caps lock key (since it is possibly the second most useless key on the keyboard (next to thastWindows key no most keyboards). Buy a different keyboard.

and charge whatever they want for a mouse that has the worst clicking design I have seen for a long time,

I use a logitech mouse, I dont think the clicking is that bad.

ever since they came out with the hockey puck mouse.

And that has been gone for quite a while now...

And anyone that buys a MAC because of their new ad campaign should not be allowed into any computer store ever.

Yes, people that get annoyed at advertizing they could easily annoy (like some guy floating over a field because of the bloat he just installed) should not be let out of the house.

You don't see Microsoft attacking the MAC OSX,

No, they attack Unix in general.

which sucks by the way,

Uhhhh, why?

to increase sales. I have WinXP and don't get Blue Screens at all,

I dont get blue screens either. Nor have I ever seen one on Windows XP. But the overall quality for *everyone* should not be based on the experiences of one or two people.

so don't tell me that MACs are better just because they use some retro processor design,

Its not quite retro...

Ooh PowerPC, IBM had something like that back in the mid-90s

Maybe... the PowerPC?! Surprise! IBM helps develop the standards for the PowerPC processor

and nobody paid attention to it.

Actually, their current POWER4 processors are pretty nice.

I know that the G4s are using fast processors

No, they *ARE* fast processors. Not the fastest, but they are fast.

but the idea of PowerPC is so retro.

Yeah, having more than one company work together to make a standard design sucks. Thank god for Intel and Microsoft!

Why hasn't Apple switched to x86?

Because they don't make computers, they make decorative furniture!

I wish! I would love to have some Apple decorated furniture to go with my computers.

And crummy

s/crummy/quality

(user unfriendly)

s/unfriendly/friendly

operating systems.

s/systems/system

Where most of the ideas they used in OSX came from WinXP.

Actually, if you knew anything about OS X, you would realize that it is based on a BSD userland and a MACH kernel. Windows NT was based loosely on DOS with a little bit of Unix tossed in for good measure. Hell, without BSD there wouldnt be an Internet as we know it! TCP/IP? Yeah, developed on a BSD

Apparently they ran out of ideas to make it more of a pain in the but because if you want to right-click you have to push a button on the keyboard and then click the ONE mouse button.

Dont right click. Use the CLI. I try to do that as much as possible. It helps against strain and makes the system easier to use

Or buy a Logitech mouse, like I did (removed it from an x86 machine I liberated from the evil clutches of a gui!)

AHHH! I hate MACs.

It shows with the FUD you spread.

Hey dude, whoever started this thread, don't worry about x86s in Apple products and by a real computer. A PC!

Macs are PCs.

Even if it was running IBM's OS2 Warp that would be better than a MAC.

Have you used OS/2?

Anyhow, Im tapped on the "why hasnt apple switched to x86 yet?" question. I dont know enough about these things to put up a technical fight. Not that there was much tech being thrown around... Illl just sit and watch and combat morons like this guy when they say outlandish things

Oh! Anyone know when the x86 architecture will drop the damn BIOS? That thing is annoying!

 

[MadRat]

<<Oh! Anyone know when the x86 architecture will drop the damn BIOS? That thing is annoying!>>

Its part of the POST process, so likely the answer is never. The BIOS inits the OS so you can have two levels of programming, system and application, in x86 programming. Seems like there used to be four levels at one time. I haven't been around that long to forget, just what I heard from the old timers...

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Of course you would, you didnt bother reading anything else did you? Its ok, Ill post corrections.

DAMN, n0cmonkey. Do you think you could leave some for the rest of us! Man that post was ripe for the pickin.

The only thing I have left to comment on is:

Actually, if you knew anything about OS X, you would realize that it is based on a BSD userland and a MACH kernel. Windows NT was based loosely on DOS with a little bit of Unix tossed in for good measure.

DOS itself is a UNIX ripoff.

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: glenn1
The question is, who really cares at this point? The only thing which is constant with Apple is that it's a turd of a company with second-rate products. For those wishing they had an apples-to-apples comparison for Macs vs. PCs, here's the one that proves the point perfectly....

Applevs.IntelandMicrosoft

To paraphrase Russ, Apple lost, get over it.

Yeah, Apple lost. But they did beat AMD

 

[MadRat]

NT is a VAX ripoff.

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: MadRat NT is a VAX ripoff.

Are you talking about UNIX on VAX? namely BSD?

 

[cmdrdredd]

that bit about Adobe porting Photoshop from windows is a bunch of crap. See...Photoshop is written to take advantage of each system's specific technology...Altivec for the g4 and SSE2 MMX etc for the Intel and AMD side of it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: MadRat
<<Oh! Anyone know when the x86 architecture will drop the damn BIOS? That thing is annoying!>>

Its part of the POST process, so likely the answer is never. The BIOS inits the OS so you can have two levels of programming, system and application, in x86 programming. Seems like there used to be four levels at one time. I haven't been around that long to forget, just what I heard from the old timers...

actually EVERY MAC OUT THERE has a BIOS actually it's called open firmware and you never see it because it is hidden and not writeable like a standard AWARD BIOS is, but you can load a new firmware to the mac to change certain params. It's actually quite a bit more configurable and powerful than any BIOS on any PC...it's just harder to adjust properly and thus why it's hidden.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: MadRat
<<Oh! Anyone know when the x86 architecture will drop the damn BIOS? That thing is annoying!>>

Its part of the POST process, so likely the answer is never. The BIOS inits the OS so you can have two levels of programming, system and application, in x86 programming. Seems like there used to be four levels at one time. I haven't been around that long to forget, just what I heard from the old timers...

actually EVERY MAC OUT THERE has a BIOS actually it's called open firmware and you never see it because it is hidden and not writeable like a standard AWARD BIOS is, but you can load a new firmware to the mac to change certain params. It's actually quite a bit more configurable and powerful than any BIOS on any PC...it's just harder to adjust properly and thus why it's hidden.

I understand there is the Open Firmware, Im just wondering when x86 machines (Macs are PCs too ) are going to upgrade from the BIOS to a firmware based system.

 

[cmdrdredd]

probably never since it's so hard to adjust open firmware

 

[kgraeme]

The OpenFirmware was one of the fundamental components of the Common Hardware Reference Platform I mentioned before. One of the key features of it is that it allows the system to boot completely different OSs. For instance, MacOS X and Mac OS 9 on the same machine isn't just a dual-boot configuration. When you select to boot into one or the other, you actually reprogram the OpenFirmware to host the appropriate OS. It's also one of the reasons why pre-G3 systems aren't supported with OS X and also why OS X is a bit flakey on beige G3 boxes that don't have a full implementation of OpenFirmware.

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I understand there is the Open Firmware, Im just wondering when x86 machines (Macs are PCs too ) are going to upgrade from the BIOS to a firmware based system.

Are you saying a Mac like, hidden, firmware system? Because currently the BIOS prog is firmware.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ynotravid

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I understand there is the Open Firmware, Im just wondering when x86 machines (Macs are PCs too ) are going to upgrade from the BIOS to a firmware based system.

Are you saying a Mac like, hidden, firmware system? Because currently the BIOS prog is firmware.

No. I mean when will x86 machines grow up and get some kind of firmware, possibly based on the Open Firmware standard. The Firmware on Apple machines and Sun machines, and Alpha machine, and whatever else it may be on, is a wonderful thing, and it is not hidden in any way. The BIOS has lived waaaaay past the point it should have.

 

[PH0ENIX]

N0cmonkey;

Please explain what possible advantages you forsee in moving to 'firmware' instead of BIOS...
And also the difference between upgradable firmware and an upgradable BIOS, in terms of functionality...

NT is not based 'loosely' on DOS at all.
It does rely heavily on similar aspects of *nix OS', But considering the closest thing to an 8-bit environment within NT is the NTVDM, I fail to see how it's "Based" on DOS.
I've heard arguments of similarity to OS/2, but I never used warp enough to say one way or another.

Win9x certainly was a platform on top of DOS, but NT351 no, and NT4, no.

ynotravid;

DOS, was not directly based on any flavour of UNIX. Im sure you can find some history if you open your eyes, but I really dont have the motivation to find a link.
You reckon it's based on unix, YOU find a link.

When that line printer oh-so-long ago spat out a prompt that said 'ready', you can bet your left testicle that there wasn't a single *nix guru in that room proclaiming victory...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: PH0ENIX
N0cmonkey;

Please explain what possible advantages you forsee in moving to 'firmware' instead of BIOS...

Read through some of the docs on the Open Firmware site.

And also the difference between upgradable firmware and an upgradable BIOS, in terms of functionality...

Read through some of the docs on the Open Firmware site.

NT is not based 'loosely' on DOS at all.

My mistake. I forgot Microsoft didnt make DOS.

It does rely heavily on similar aspects of *nix OS',

Yes, it does, whether Microsoft will admit to it or not

But considering the closest thing to an 8-bit environment within NT is the NTVDM, I fail to see how it's "Based" on DOS.

Learn from your mistakes.

I've heard arguments of similarity to OS/2, but I never used warp enough to say one way or another.

Win9x certainly was a platform on top of DOS, but NT351 no, and NT4, no.

I never said NT was DOS.

ynotravid;

DOS, was not directly based on any flavour of UNIX. Im sure you can find some history if you open your eyes, but I really dont have the motivation to find a link.
You reckon it's based on unix, YOU find a link.

When that line printer oh-so-long ago spat out a prompt that said 'ready', you can bet your left testicle that there wasn't a single *nix guru in that room proclaiming victory...

Microsoft killed their unix projects a long time ago. Its great to see Microsoft copyrights on Unix machines

 

[PH0ENIX]

>Quote
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>But considering the closest thing to an 8-bit environment within NT is the NTVDM, I fail to see how it's "Based" on DOS.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Learn from your mistakes.
>

Uh, in the words of a certain infamous australian politician, Please Explain?


>Quote
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I've heard arguments of similarity to OS/2, but I never used warp enough to say one way or another.
>
>Win9x certainly was a platform on top of DOS, but NT351 no, and NT4, no.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>I never said NT was DOS.

No, you said it was BASED on DOS, which I was disputing

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: PH0ENIX
>Quote
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>But considering the closest thing to an 8-bit environment within NT is the NTVDM, I fail to see how it's "Based" on DOS.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Learn from your mistakes.
>

Uh, in the words of a certain infamous australian politician, Please Explain?

Microsoft did a lot of work on DOS. They later made a gui shell for it. They later (not much later?) made NT. I was wrong. It was not directly based on DOS. Im not up on my Microsoft history. My bad.

>Quote
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I've heard arguments of similarity to OS/2, but I never used warp enough to say one way or another.
>
>Win9x certainly was a platform on top of DOS, but NT351 no, and NT4, no.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>I never said NT was DOS.

No, you said it was BASED on DOS, which I was disputing

You admitted Win9x was dos, but said NT was not.

 

[Eug]

Just for the sake of this thread, I'm typing my message from Windows 2000 on my Mac.
(I'm running a lowly G3 iBook, but with OS X and 640 MB RAM, and 256 MB of that RAM allocated to Windows 2000 under Virtual PC.)

Anyways, some points, in no particular order:

1) I don't really give a damn otherwise what CPUs my computers run, as long as they run relatively fast and stably, and have good software. The fact that Apple chose PowerPC is fine with me, as long as they keep producing good OSes and software. What I don't like however, is the fact that for most (RC5 etc excluded) plain brute force speed type applications, Macs generally ARE slower. Indeed, Macs are just about useless for hardcore 3D gaming.

2) There is some stuff I cannot do at all on my Windows XP box, and vice versa with my Mac. Thus I would give up NEITHER my Mac nor my XP box. Indeed, if I had to give up anything, it'd be my P4 NT box, but I'm forced to use it at work.

3) DDR is used on the Xserve, but not in the same way it is on PCs. The CPU cannot make use of the extra bandwidth, since the current G4s are not designed to make use of it. Thus the speed increase will be small, and really only slightly significant with servers. DDR would be pretty much useless on a home G4 desktop or laptop. OTOH, newer chips are supposed to include DDR support.

4) Darwin is already ported to x86. Not the same as a full port though of course.

5) It is clear from this thread that most posters (but not all) have no idea how a current Mac runs. Check out a recent iMac 800 with Mac OS X.1.5, iDVD, and SuperDrive. Then USE it for a couple of weeks. Then you might understand what the Mac owners like. You might not like it as much as some because your needs may be different, but at least then you'll have a common frame of reference from which you can speak.

6) Most homebuilt cheaper PCs come with either no software or else crap software. One must always factor in software costs into the overall cost. Indeed, one would be more appropriately comparing a Mac to something like a higher end Dell, with better software than is usually bundled. For instance the iMac I mentioned above will come with OS X, iDVD, iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto (although I dislike iPhoto), burning software, fax software, an applications suite, and some other stuff. eg. On the PC side, you'd be hard pressed finding anything as good as iDVD for less than $150.

7) Most Macs come with better than average hardware out of the box. CPU speed is not the only measure. The prices are still high, but not as high as many would try to lead you to believe. Indeed, Apple has done even better in the laptop world. I task anyone out there to find a laptop that is similarly spec'd and similarly priced to the Apple iBook. So far I have seen absolutely no sub 5-lb laptop in existence on the PC side that includes built-in wireless, powered firewire, built-in LAN, built-in DVD-ROM/CD-RW, and 1024x768 screen, Radeon, for the same price.

8) It would be quite painful for Apple to suddenly shift gears to switch from a PowerPC to an x86, and indeed, it wouldn't necessarily be a smart move. Essentially the entire OS would have to be revamped, and the software would have to be rewritten. And Apple has recently just done this: Apple moved from OS 9 to OS X because it had to. OS 9 was archaic. OTOH, PowerPC is far from being archaic, although Motorola and IBM have been a slow in ramping up the MHz. (I'm still hoping for the G5 to make its appearance, but it seems it's not going to be any time soon.)

9) OS X is Unix. Thus desktop Macs are desktop Unix boxes, and laptop Macs are Unix laptops, except with the best GUI ever created for Unix (or any other OS for that matter).

10) Linux runs on Macs as well. (I haven't bothered trying to run Linux, because I have no use for it. Maybe if I were a comp sci student or something.)

Anyways, in summary, I suggest that some of you actually try the computers before commenting. You might be pleasantly surprised. And remember, it's always nice to have two computers that complement each other. Can't we all be friends?

Eug (now switching back to OS X)

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: PH0ENIX
N0cmonkey;

Please explain what possible advantages you forsee in moving to 'firmware' instead of BIOS...
And also the difference between upgradable firmware and an upgradable BIOS, in terms of functionality...

NT is not based 'loosely' on DOS at all.
It does rely heavily on similar aspects of *nix OS', But considering the closest thing to an 8-bit environment within NT is the NTVDM, I fail to see how it's "Based" on DOS.
I've heard arguments of similarity to OS/2, but I never used warp enough to say one way or another.

Win9x certainly was a platform on top of DOS, but NT351 no, and NT4, no.

ynotravid;

DOS, was not directly based on any flavour of UNIX. Im sure you can find some history if you open your eyes, but I really dont have the motivation to find a link.
You reckon it's based on unix, YOU find a link.

When that line printer oh-so-long ago spat out a prompt that said 'ready', you can bet your left testicle that there wasn't a single *nix guru in that room proclaiming victory...

Sorry this rubbed you the wrong way Pheonix but all I was trying to get acrossed is that every "inovative" feature of DOS can be found in a predated version of UNIX.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
To answer the initial question, they have. They just haven't told anybody yet.

Let me just politely say, I told you so.

 

[MadRat]

Yeah, right. And one Avro Arrow got away...