Apple to start using INTEL chip......

[Splinter]

I'll bet Apple will never release OSX for PC's. This would completely undermine their strength... OS AND hardware developed by the same company. This is what allows Macs to be so stable; because they write code for machines they build. In the PC/Windows world not all hardware is created equal and therefore each machine has it's own idiosyncracies.

I think we've misconcluded that just because SJ's computer had a Pentium 4 chip in it means he was working on a PC... it was just the chip. You guys ought to know there's much more that goes into a CPU than just that. By the time Apple gets around to building the Macintels they won't be using P4's anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if Intel agreed to build proprietary chips for Apple or maybe Apple's working on a buy out. That is one thing Apple has going for them... money. Regardless, of their small piece of the market, they are the only ones that have the Mac piece... which leads me to my next point.

Apple's tried the clone market. It was not good for them or the platform. They won't do it again.

Watching Jobs speech I didn't get for one second that he was talking about OSX on PCs, rather Intel processors in Mac computers. There's a big difference.

<small>[ June 08, 2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Splinter ]</small>

[emulatorloo]

Originally posted by Splinter:
Watching Jobs speech I didn't get for one second that he was talking about OSX on PCs, rather Intel processors in Mac computers. There's a big difference.

Concur 100%.

There is no suggestion from Apple that Apple will release OS X to be installed on PC Clones. This is about Apple Branded Machines w intel processors, not Dell, emachine, hp etc etc or whatever piece of junk out there running OS X.

{OTOH Apple has said that customers will be able to install Windows on the new Apple Macs.

This is a good thing, because it means that businesses that have a purchase policy of "Windows Machines Only" will be able to get a few Macs in the door. . .they can do direct comparisons of OS X and Win XP. That is a good thing for Apple, and a good thing for Mac Users.}

[dougieb]

I wonder why they didn't go with AMD... Hmmm...

Personally, I'm diggin' the AMD stuff a lot more than the Intel stuff on the PC side.

- and that's interesting about being able to load WinXP on the new macs - is that verified? Because I didn't see that in the keynote. Interesting though. If that is the case, then it shouldn't be a stretch to get OSX working on other PC's... and that my friends is an interesting proposition...

The first real threat to Windows... OSX for WinTel boxes? How many people would go for it?

Another interesting idea... if machines are at 6ghz by next year with quad cores, maybe everything will run at current speeds in emulation (rosetta) layer.

Crazy!

~d

[MichaelFrench]

Originally posted by Splinter:
IWatching Jobs speech I didn't get for one second that he was talking about OSX on PCs, rather Intel processors in Mac computers. There's a big difference.

I agree.

Mike

[croyal]

I also saw the WWDC Keynote and immediately wondered if Mactels would be able to run Windows as we currently run OS 9.

I don't like PCs (as a windows machine) but Jobs is ALREADY shipping Mactels to the developers for only $999 with XCode porting of apps. Microsoft is already invloved because their MacBU section has ledged support for the new MacTels. So why wouldn't the MS Windows arm borrow a little.

These new machines could possibly be the computer of choice-
lower cost
completely cross platform
low heat generation

We artists will only benfit from faster, cheaper, more universal boxes. GigaStudio and DP running on the same machine- with all the sync that is implied!! The main thing is that none of it is emulation!!!!

[lush1]

I wonder in this move to Intel processors will move Macs into the crosshairs of virus, spyware, addware etc.

[sdfalk]

I wonder in this move to Intel processors will move Macs into the crosshairs of virus, spyware, addware etc.

How do you figure that?

It's mostly software not hardware is it not?

[emulatorloo]

Originally posted by lush1:
I wonder in this move to Intel processors will move Macs into the crosshairs of virus, spyware, addware etc.

It isn't the intel processor that is the problem re virii and sloppy security, etc. It is the sloppy Microsoft OS.

OTOH, Apple does need to keep up w keeping Mac OS X secure and free from that crap, cuz I get the feeling macs will get more and more popular.

[Don T]

Hello:
I don't think so. Spyware etc are software dependent. You don't see much of that in linux boxes. So where does this leave linux by the way? It runs easily on both platforms. The all new OSlinuXP!!!!

[Resonant Alien]

You can already run Windows on a Mac today - a PowerPC G4 or G5 Mac for that matter - you just buy a $99 app called Virtual PC (made by Microsoft), and boom - you can open a Finder window and run a full blown version of Windows 2000, XP, whatever.

Now, why you would want to do that is beyond me, but.....

And BTW - As soon as you are running Windows OS on any machine, including a Mac, you are proned to all the Windows viruses.......

[composer11]

Originally posted by dougieb:
I wonder why they didn't go with AMD... Hmmm...

Personally, I'm diggin' the AMD stuff a lot more than the Intel stuff on the PC side.

~d

Easy, Intel has the $$, marketing and branding.

If it's x86 code, let intel work it all out with APPL, then, when AMD pushes the envelope (I assure you, only a matter of time where Mac OS X will be running all over the place on PC's (non MAC hardware), and test sites swap the P4 for the AMD, apple can turn around and offer AMD if they choose.

What I think a lot of you don't get, is PC tech savvy is HUGE on the non mac side of things. There will be a AMD chip in a developer kit in less than one months time and published here. These same folks will also load the OS, reverse engineering and try to install it on a PC only machine as well.

Try to understand this, POWER, PERFORMANCE, Cost/Ratio is HUGE business just for tech and websites. This is the most interesting thing to happen to PC's in a long time (even though I've known about this for years.....((working with AMD and APPLE and x86 code (was published way back in 2001-2002)), anyway getting back to my point, APPLE users simply don't have the so called "fan" base enthusiast "let's push this CPU to the limit" mentality, well, today they do, only they are PC users.

I'll post the links with the proof in due time, as that's all it is, a matter of time.

Besides, this is good news for MAC only software (non Apple) (eg, Motu) as many will be able to keep VST programs (running .exe ala bin instruction compilers)...

[Splinter]

Originally posted by composer11:

Originally posted by dougieb:
I wonder why they didn't go with AMD... Hmmm...

Personally, I'm diggin' the AMD stuff a lot more than the Intel stuff on the PC side.

~d

Easy, Intel has the $$, marketing and branding.

If it's x86 code, let intel work it all out with APPL, then, when AMD pushes the envelope (I assure you, only a matter of time where Mac OS X will be running all over the place on PC's (non MAC hardware), and test sites swap the P4 for the AMD, apple can turn around and offer AMD if they choose.

What I think a lot of you don't get, is PC tech savvy is HUGE on the non mac side of things. There will be a AMD chip in a developer kit in less than one months time and published here. These same folks will also load the OS, reverse engineering and try to install it on a PC only machine as well.

Try to understand this, POWER, PERFORMANCE, Cost/Ratio is HUGE business just for tech and websites. This is the most interesting thing to happen to PC's in a long time (even though I've known about this for years.....((working with AMD and APPLE and x86 code (was published way back in 2001-2002)), anyway getting back to my point, APPLE users simply don't have the so called "fan" base enthusiast "let's push this CPU to the limit" mentality, well, today they do, only they are PC users.

I'll post the links with the proof in due time, as that's all it is, a matter of time.

Besides, this is good news for MAC only software (non Apple) (eg, Motu) as many will be able to keep VST programs (running .exe ala bin instruction compilers)...

Dream on. Won't happen.

[Timeline]

A Dual processor MacTel cound end up being a "Plug & Pray" technology in the end because there are no dual CPU development kits...

They say 2006 for product. I say PPC will be around a while.

I look forward to more PPC upgrades before the end of next year.

If they make it to 3+ghz I will buy one instead of Intel.

[Timeline]

First developers comments:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars
Here's the real roadmap.

Look like Laps are going to be first Sooshie.

<small>[ June 09, 2005, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Timeline ]</small>

[Shooshie]

Strange thing: the chipset which Intel will be releasing about the time of the new Macs, which is a dual--core architecture--is named Conroe. They're releasing one right before it called Tejas, which is the Spanish spellng of Texas. I grew up in Conroe, Texas. Also in those stories is mention of a chip called "Woodcrest," and another called "Cedarcrest," both of which are local names around the town of Conroe. Streets or subdivisions or something like that. Maybe there's an Intel plant there, or something. Beats me. Oh well, if the chip is anything like the town, it will do poorly in languages, lousy in math processing, but great in football. And being a forestry town, these chips could be made of wood.

Shooshie