Apple says could move to Intel, but happy with IBM
Posted by malebolgia on 06 November 2003 - 05:03 · 44 comments & 1545 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by philmcneal on 06 Nov 2003 - 05:11
- boo give us mac os x!
-
#1.1 Posted by ryaxnb on 07 Nov 2003 - 02:35
- 1. Apple, just because they move to x86, does not have to make it work on all PCs. They could make it only work on the 'i86.'
2. x86 is dying. No one wants to admit it. But it is old and has little life left. It has gotten very hot, a big deal when more revenues come in for notebooks nowadays.
3. x86-32 is dying even more. x86-64 helps get rid of one or two old x86 problems. But x86-64 is still new, untested, and rather expensive. However, a 64-bit version would be nice, because it might run faster and enable users to access more RAM. Apple would be caught between a move from x86-32 to x86-64, and then, later on (maybe around the time Longhorn comes out) PCs with newer technology (let's call it x90,) hopefully.
4. Apple already has highly competitive G5 processors.
5. Pentiums are hot. In a company where about 1/2 of sales are notebooks, this is an even bigger deal.
6. There is tons of software for PPC, and even some favorites in 68k flavors. It would be a pain for companies to recompile, some might refuse, and especially when Apple is finishing off their move to Mac OS X.
7 They might not be able to make a PPC emulator for x86. x90 might be capable, but that's in the future. I don't think there currently are any PPC emulators for x86.
-
#2 Posted by insurektion on 06 Nov 2003 - 05:28
- i thought this was posted a few weeks ago
-
(7 replies)
#3 Posted by isus on 06 Nov 2003 - 05:43
- jobs has a point. they make millions each quarter, why change?
they have an extremely loyal userbase, they just made a few million off of the va tech supercomp, and will probably make more as people notice that hey, a mac cluster with only 2200 cpu's is #3. etc etc etc.
sure, they don't have huge marketshare, but who cares? they aren't going bankrupt, and they are still VERY innovative. i like it that way. -
#3.1 Posted by Jugalator on 06 Nov 2003 - 08:11
- Hehe
I'm not sure many in the business think like you
"We do good enough, why change?" isn't a philosophy to aim for, since a good economy builds on increasing revenues, not stagnation. Unless you're a monopoly, since then it doesn't matter anyway.
What I think Jobs is really thinking is that Apple will probably be crushed if they switch to Intel by guess-who especially since they'd lose their advantage with selling entire computer systems (like iMac). They probably need these revenues to stay in business. They can't just take Mac OSX to Intel and ask if there is room for them too, leaving their hardware sales behind. And if they don't switch, but develop for *both* Intel and IBM, that could become too expensive instead. -
#3.2 Posted by dp123 on 06 Nov 2003 - 17:40
- And? Your point is?
isus and Jobs are wrong because they should welcome losing their largest revenue source and getting wiped out of hardware?
Or are you saying Jobs actually understands that it's in the best interest of his company to stay with the PPC and it's actually doing fairly well now.
Pretty retarded to claim the attitude is: we're doing good enough while in the same breath saying they'd be wiped out if they did what you want them to... Ain't it? -
#3.3 Posted by superfula on 06 Nov 2003 - 20:16
- I don't think you understand Jugulator's post. isus said "why should we change when we already make this much money". Jug said that line of thinking doesn't happenin business, so it's irrelevant. There's no need to jump up Apple's butt and defend them everytime you think someone disses them. What Jug said is all true.
-
#3.4 Posted by dp123 on 06 Nov 2003 - 22:43
- superfula, defend your own idiocy.
Jug's comment is lame and retarded and speaks out of both ends of his ass. -
#3.5 Posted by superfula on 07 Nov 2003 - 01:07
- And thank you for proving my point. Course your flaming still doesn't change anything. If you knew anything about business, you wouldn't be disagreeing with Jug's statement.
-
#3.6 Posted by nookadum on 07 Nov 2003 - 06:11
- dp123, did you even comprehend what Jugalator was saying in his reply? Isus WAS wrong, that's why Jugs replied that having an attitude like that for business is not good as stagnation shows no worth of stability, improvement is always a high facter. And at least Jug replied peacefully. You on the other hand, well...
You DIDN'T understand Jug's reply at all, then you still flamed with such a stupid attitude. Therefore, you are the lame and retarded one.
---
superfula, I don't think Juga was attacking Apple with his reply.
-
(4 replies)
#4 Posted by xStainDx on 06 Nov 2003 - 06:37
- Damn it Steve. We want OSX86!!! Give it to us!!!
-
#4.1 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 Nov 2003 - 06:55
- Speak for yourself. If X86 is so great why is MS moving to IBM for the Xbox 2?
They wont port it because you guys would just pirate it.
-
#4.3 Posted by pingchp on 06 Nov 2003 - 12:42
QUOTE (#4.2) your point?
mac warez exist today
Agree!
look this
40$ buy Apple Mac OSX Server Panther 10.3 for Mac (3 cds)
whao! 40 bucks -
#4.4 Posted by jagedEdge on 06 Nov 2003 - 13:23
- You're missing the point. You paid for their machine, which still goes to their profits. I doubt they care too much about their OS if they were offering Jaguar for free to new machines last year and $20 for the Panther upgrade for new machines bought after October 8th this year (or any date for the PowerMac G5).
-
#5 Posted by - diego - on 06 Nov 2003 - 06:45
- YEAH !
-
#6 Posted by the evn show on 06 Nov 2003 - 06:57
- OS X exists to sell PowerMacs, iMacs, eMacs, iBooks, and PowerBooks. I don't think Apple is any hurry to sell OS X alone to x86 users at a profit of say $50 when they could sell a single Powerbook and make ~$1,200 profit. To make the same profits Apple would need to sell between 5 and 25 copies of OS X x86 for every Macintosh they isn't purchased WITHOUT raising the costs to support OS X on another platform.
I don't see Apple releasing a stand alone version of OS X any time soon (for anything other than Macintosh systems that is).
-
#7 Posted by jkinzer on 06 Nov 2003 - 08:21
- pffft
-
(4 replies)
#8 Posted by superfula on 06 Nov 2003 - 09:13
- Where in the article did it say they would even consider the x86 architecture? NO WHERE!! All it talks about is changing processor companies. The only way that would happen, is if Intel would start making a PPC. What you need to realize is x86 OS X will NEVER happen as long as the Steve is there. He has never ruled out using Intel processors though. There's a huge difference here people.
-
#8.1 Posted by GamblerFEXonlin on 06 Nov 2003 - 12:16
- No matter, im sure apple steers clear from intel and x86 and whatnot because theyr're overclocked rackets. if you want tolerable noise levels youll have you customize your computer heavily.
500g copper heatsink for a xp2600 no thanks. if they cant make 0.00044ohm superfets cheap, then dont come here say PC is good quality stuff. -
#8.2 Posted by g33kb0y on 07 Nov 2003 - 04:47
- If I'm not mistaken, the only processor architecture Intel uses is x86 (except for, perhaps, their PCA processors). So, when they say Intel Architecture, I think it's relatively safe to assume they're implying x86.
-
#8.3 Posted by nacs on 07 Nov 2003 - 05:09
QUOTE (#8.2) So, when they say Intel Architecture, I think it's relatively safe to assume they're implying x86.
No, not necessarily. The Itanium architecture is not x86.
-
#9 Posted by Gary_Player on 06 Nov 2003 - 10:23
- I'd totally dual-boot it
-
#10 Posted by kairon on 06 Nov 2003 - 11:28
- OS X for x86 will never happen and I hope it stays that way for Apple's sake!They would lose money on hardware and it would just get pirated anyways by PC users.
I like my iMac and I hope it stays on Apple hardware (which it will!)
-
(4 replies)
#11 Posted by DjmUK on 06 Nov 2003 - 13:03
- Doesn't Steve Jobs realise that if he made a version of Panther for the Intel architecture that his company would make a hell of a lot more money.
If they did release it for Intel's then I would definately go and buy it..! (it'll be cheaper than buying the entire Mac). -
#11.1 Posted by jagedEdge on 06 Nov 2003 - 13:26
- No it wouldn't. Most home users are quite happy with Windows now, and look at major companies who don't want to spend too many resources and time just to switch all their computers to OS X because it's better. Apple would definitely fail or lose lots of money if they switched to x86. Of course, right now would be the best time to release it for x86 if they were in fact to do it. Between this time until Longhorn, they could really make quite a few people interested.
-
#11.2 Posted by DjmUK on 06 Nov 2003 - 13:34
- Yeah I see what you mean, but I meant releasing two versions:
1.) Panther for Mac
2.) Panther for x86
That way they can still make a lot of money via hardware/software for the mac, and on a side-board they can sell the x86 version. It'll keep everyone happy if they release it for both.
But very true, they could release it within a few weeks and it'll give everyone a chance to adapt to the Mac before Longhorn in 2006 -
#11.3 Posted by danbalsh on 06 Nov 2003 - 14:17
- And do you really see Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia & all the little shareware companies etc... all porting there software yet again (we have only just finished the switch from OS9 to OS X) what use is an OS without any decent apps to run on it
-
#11.4 Posted by Avicus on 06 Nov 2003 - 14:23
- bah, do you know what would happen if Mac were to release osx now on pc hardware? Windows would release longhorn WELL BEFORE it is ready and then a whole slew of new virii would flood the internet and the end of the internet would be near....
but it sure would be sweet!
-
#12 Posted by redFX on 06 Nov 2003 - 14:57
- When will apple get it through their heads that they could be more profitable as a software company.
They can sell at least 10k units in the first minute if they released panther for the x86.
-
(6 replies)
#13 Posted by Wickedkitten on 06 Nov 2003 - 18:03
- once again, intel chips != x86. It just means that Intel would be making the ppc chips for Apple
-
#13.1 Posted by g33kb0y on 06 Nov 2003 - 21:32
- Just out of curiosity, what are you using to base your statement? I was under the impression that this article deals with "existance of a possibility" for Apple to port their OS to any other processor, specifically referring to the Intel line of processors (which use an x86 instruction set). Where does it say anything about porting the Intel making processors based on IBM proprietery hardware?
-
#13.2 Posted by Wickedkitten on 07 Nov 2003 - 01:09
QUOTE But Jobs said the company is happy with IBM's PowerPC family of chips and feels the performance is "quite competitive." "Right now we don't see a compelling need to switch processor families," Jobs said.
unlike some people I actually read the article before posting on it.-
#13.3 Posted by superfula on 07 Nov 2003 - 01:10
- It says processor, not chipset. There's a large difference. The PowerPC doesn't have to be proprietary hardware. It is that way because it's a more stable environment than the piece that x86 is. Throw in the fact that Steve has been known to say he would never port OSX to x86. Oh, and also because x86 is a piece
-
#13.4 Posted by g33kb0y on 07 Nov 2003 - 01:32
- It sounds almost as if you think that IBM is producing a chip under Apple specification. That's not the case. PowerPC processors are an IBM creation, not just for Apple's units. I work with about 6 different PowerPC machines at my job, where they're all AIX environments. Not Apple. In fact, our new mainframe will be powered by a PowerPC.
So, I highly doubt that Intel is going to be making PPC processors anytime soon - or ever, for that matter. Processors with RISC based architecture perhaps, but not the PowerPC.
PowerPC
QUOTE
But Jobs said the company is happy with IBM's PowerPC family of chips and feels the performance is "quite competitive." "Right now we don't see a compelling need to switch processor families," Jobs said.
unlike some people I actually read the article before posting on it.
haha...ya, that says that Intel would be making PPC processors.
Last edited by 11783 on 07 Nov 2003 - 04:41 -
#13.5 Posted by Wickedkitten on 07 Nov 2003 - 10:36
- ever year of the AIM alliance? IBM didn't just start producing PowerPC Chips for the fun of it, they have been making them for years because they have a thing going with Apple, and Motorola. The only thing is until recently, Apple has been quite happy with the PPC chips that Motorola have been putting out.
Oh yeah and btw Intel does have a ppc chip -
#13.6 Posted by g33kb0y on 07 Nov 2003 - 13:36
- Yes...AIM...the alliance formed between Apple, IBM, and Motorola to create new computing standards based on the PPC architechture.
IBM created the PowerPC not just for Apple/Motorola. IBM wanted the processor to take off, an needed someone to use it. IBM basically said to Apple, We're making this chip, we want you to use it. Apple agreed, but only if they brought someone else in on it, because they didn't want to be the only ones stuck. Hence, Motorola.
"Oh yeah and btw Intel does have a ppc chip"
I'd be interested in knowing what it is. I'm sure you're not referring to the i860...the RISC processor that was designed by Intel for the scientific community.
-
#14 Posted by pixlnet on 06 Nov 2003 - 18:36
- They could get OS X on x86 now, but that would screw up why a Mac is a Mac, period. Apple has successfully branded its computers as the "Mercedez Benz" of the computer industry. Why screw that up because everyone wants a nice looking OS on their PC?
-
#15 Posted by Chicane-UK on 06 Nov 2003 - 18:50
- Hm.. I really do wish Apple would port OSX to the PC
I already use a nice Powermac G4 at work, but I can't really give up my PC in favour of a Mac at home, regardless of how much I like it. Getting the chance to use OSX on my PC would be soooo nice though.
*sigh*
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by Emon on 06 Nov 2003 - 22:04
- why OS X ?
just get x86 version of darwin from opendarwin.org and there ya go .. OS X on a x86 -
#16.1 Posted by coats on 06 Nov 2003 - 22:35
- exactly, assuming you're thinking what i'm thinking, just use a mac os X shell on the PC.
How hard is that to understand, people with macs get it because it looks nice(well maybe not u hardcore apple freaks), so just get a vs for os X and stop all the fuss.
but I guess, if ur not a hardcore mac fan, u wouldn't know how to change the shell/vs. someone should release software that "makes ur pc look like a mac os x". infringement would occur i guess, but whatever. -
#16.2 Posted by jagedEdge on 07 Nov 2003 - 01:22
- You don't get it, huh? The Mac OS X experience is not based only on the GUI, but the underpinnings as well. Darwin being one of them, but also Quartz Extreme and other CoreServices. Those would be a little harder to port to PC, and then you have the problem of Apple suing the hell out of you.
"It's perfectly technically feasible to port Panther to any processor," Jobs said at a meeting with financial analysts. But Jobs said the company is happy with IBM's PowerPC family of chips and feels the performance is "quite competitive." "Right now we don't see a compelling need to switch processor families," Jobs said. "We have all the options in the world, but the PowerPC road map looks very strong." Asked about Apple's interest in selling Macs that could serve up the video recording abilities Microsoft offers with its Windows XP Media Center Edition, Jobs joked that Apple was instead focused on melding the computer with a toaster. "I never get mine quite brown," said Phil Schiller, vice president of marketing. "We can do an up-sell for bagels."
Jobs said that he doesn't see such products creating a big market. "We're not going to go that direction," Jobs said. "There is a small audience that likes this." Jobs said there are several problems with the Media Center concept, in particular the wide divergence in the way people want to watch television as compared with how they use a computer. "Generally what they want to view on television has to do with turning their mind off," he said.
The image also contains a Universal Media Disc, the 1.8GB mini disc-style storage device that will house games, movies and music. It's not entirely clear where this will slot into the machine although, judging by the curve of PSP itself, it looks as if UMDs will be inserted into the side of the machine.
"PSP will be the Walkman of the future," said Kutaragi, who also added that Sony eventually plan to add "telecommunication features" to the device.
"PSP will not be one kind of product," he said. "Rather, it is a platform of related devices with the capacity to add or subtract features."
Kutaragi also announced that final design details are still to be confirmed, so it's unclear how different the current mock-up of the PSP will be to the final model.
Meanwhile, with PSP's movie and music-playing capabilities, Sony have explicitly stated, "We are taking on iPod with our new device. We are coming at [Apple CEO] Steve Jobs on that front." In addition to PSP, Sony will next year release a digital music player to rival iPod for just $60 (around £35).
For more on PSP, including its full specifications, check out the links below.