revvo Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Oh please. This is the biggest rumor ever and the ****tiest. 1) Apple makes most of its profit by selling hardware. Moving to x86 would kill them seeing how their market share is minimal compared to MSFT. 2) OSX is written for the PowerPC architecture. How the heck can Intel cpus even support this in the future... <Dr Evil>Right....</Dr Evil> 3) Many ppl think OSX on x86 would be great but I totally disagree. Apple has total control on their hardware and o/s so they have the power to make their systems rock solid and optimized. If the O/S was to move on the x86 architecture, not only would Apple lose lots of profits but they wouldn't have any control because of the vast majority of hardware out there so OSX on x86 stable? Dream on. Apple is one company working on its o/s for one architecture. Linux and BSD variants have thousands of people/contributors making it available to have distributions on different architectures so don't bring up the argument "Yeah but Linux runs well on PPC and x86" because you have just failed. OS-X will stay on PowerPC. If they were to even think of making an x86 operating system, then it would be an O/S with a completely different core/kernel (obviously) and probably many other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emel Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I guess IBM is busy this time preparing chips for xbox2/PS2/Nintendo Rev... thats a lots of chips.. if each console plan to release atleast 1 million consoles at launch.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Id sure hope so. If OSX truely moved to x86, I would switch from windows in a heart beat. 585848866[/snapback] If (pretty BIG if there) this turns true, I wouldnt switch. I cant give up my gaming. :no: I thought the whole reason Apple moved to IBM is because Motorola wasn't able to make the chips fast enough, now the same is happening with IBM? 585849036[/snapback] If Apple was unhappy with IBM for not coming up chips fast enough, then the switch to Intel would hardly make sense as Intel has given up "the MHz race". I'd never believe the slightest bit in this rumor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharpGreen Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 me neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YBG Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I think this is still being confused...Apple is NOT planning on moving OSX to the PC (x86) Apple MAY BE planning on switching the company that produces their processors 585849122[/snapback] That's what I thought.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Apple will switch to x86 the same day they let you put music you bought somewhere other than iTunes on an iPod. 585848968[/snapback] Uhhh, you can put music from CD's on an iPod. You can also put any MP3 on them, or Audible audio books. I guess that just blew your theory out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverity Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 2) OSX is written for the PowerPC architecture. How the heck can Intel cpus even support this in the future... <Dr Evil>Right....</Dr Evil> 585849138[/snapback] It's only the matter of compiler, in most cases you can recompile code (written in high level language) for x86 without problem. OS-X will stay on PowerPC. If they were to even think of making an x86 operating system, then it would be an O/S with a completely different core/kernel (obviously) and probably many other things. 585849138[/snapback] Why change kernel, if Darwin is already runs on x86? :huh: But, anyways, x86 version of OS X would kill Apple, cuz less people will buy thier hardware in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotabigtruck Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Remember, most of Apple's profit *now* is hardware. They might have the total Windows killer on their hands. Imagine if they thro=ew in a Windows compatibility layer which would operate similar to Classic. Zillions of people would switch because they'd have a good OS (OSX) on great hardware (PCs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Blue01 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Remember, most of Apple's profit *now* is hardware. They might have the total Windows killer on their hands. Imagine if they thro=ew in a Windows compatibility layer which would operate similar to Classic. Zillions of people would switch because they'd have a good OS (OSX) on great hardware (PCs). 585849448[/snapback] If they had Windows emulation even I'd switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvo Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Zillions of people would switch because they'd have a good OS (OSX) on great hardware (PCs). 585849448[/snapback] No they wouldn't. The proof is look at how Windows behaves from one computer to another. It all depends of the user and how he configures it. This is because Microsoft doesn't have control over what people can change in their computers. In the case of Apple, the hardware for the G4/G5's have been most probably tested on and this is why OSX remains rock solid. Therefore, no "zillions of people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djsaad1 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Id sure hope so.? If OSX truely moved to x86, I would switch from windows in a heart beat. 585848866[/snapback] That doesn't help apple at all though. Fine you would buy their software which costs like 100 dollars or so but you wouldnt' be buying any of their hardware. Once again I think this move will kill apples hardware forever. They will be left with OSX and the Ipod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Dorr Veteran Posted April 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2005 Whatever. This is, once again, some over zealous geek hearing about the Darwin project and turning that into OS X running on X86. Here's the deal: You can run the OS X kernel on x86 all you like. Works well for some people. Even has the DarwinPorts project to get a bunch of software up and running on it. However, it is NOT OS X. The kernel is a big difference from the full OS...but this is just another person overhearing things they way they want to and getting confused. Go check it out here: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverity Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 This is, once again, some over zealous geek hearing about the Darwin project and turning that into OS X running on X86. Here's the deal: You can run the OS X kernel on x86 all you like. Works well for some people. Even has the DarwinPorts project to get a bunch of software up and running on it. However, it is NOT OS X. The kernel is a big difference from the full OS...but this is just another person overhearing things they way they want to and getting confused. 585849549[/snapback] Exactly, Darwin is an open source BSD distribution and is a kernel of OS X, but everything most people want from OS X (GUI) is proprietary Apple code, and only available for Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankyone Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 2) OSX is written for the PowerPC architecture. How the heck can Intel cpus even support this in the future... <Dr Evil>Right....</Dr Evil> 585849138[/snapback] not exactly, they could use an emulation layer just like WOW64 in Windows x64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelsinho Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 interesting :hmmm: very interesting :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban nerd Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Im getting confused too. Can someone lay out, in plain english, what this would mean in the end? 585848987[/snapback] It's true that Apple will be moving to Intel processors - but before you go switching, be aware that Apple will also be developing their own mother board hardware to go with this. The fact that it will be running Intel does not mean that you can plonk a new copy of OSX Intel version on your stock standard PC. It would be beneficial for apple to open their system out to work on a standard PC architecture. For staters, the software would be pirated all over the world and in no time at all Apple would hold at least 50% of the market. People would then be talking about nothing but Apple and more and more people would be going out and getting a legit copy of the software/ hardware. It's no secret that Microsoft allows continual leaks of their OS as they know how this will spread and benefit them in the longrun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted April 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2005 Whatever.This is, once again, some over zealous geek hearing about the Darwin project and turning that into OS X running on X86. 585849549[/snapback] No. Not at all. This is coming from a (well-known mostly respected) source who claims to know for sure that Apple is in the process of preparing to switch to Intel because they were having supply issues with IBM and were unable to produce a notebook version of the G5 due to the massive power requirements and heat output. I'm not saying it's true, but it is a NEW source with a reasonable motivation for Apple make the "switch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvo Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 not exactly, they could use an emulation layer just like WOW64 in Windows x64 585849578[/snapback] Go back where you came from.How can you even compare XP -> x64 transition with OS-X -> x86? 64bit cpus actually support 32bit code and unless I'm utterly blind and deaf, every AMD Athlon 64 owner confirms this with a finger up their nose. PowerPC is a _completely_ different architecture by IBM. Emulation? Yeah look at how well PearPC runs. If it was that easy, they (the guys at PearPC) would of done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 i think I would switch also, or dual boot. 585848959[/snapback] Id switch right away. I hate windows with a passion, but Im not to errm.. i duno, Linux just doesnt feel like a daily OS to me. OSX is just amazing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharpGreen Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Liquid: if you hate windows some much why do you still use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvo Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 No. Not at all. This is coming from a (well-known mostly respected) source who claims to know for sure that Apple is in the process of preparing to switch to Intel because they were having supply issues with IBM and were unable to produce a notebook version of the G5 due to the massive power requirements and heat output.I'm not saying it's true, but it is a NEW source with a reasonable motivation for Apple make the "switch." 585849617[/snapback] Ok Einstein, now tell me how would Apple compensate (with what sort of deal) to make more profit than they are making right now. They'd be stupid to plan this and end up with the same yearly revenue or even less. Microsoft Windows and Office is everywhere. Apple OS-X isn't.Sure, you might be interested and a few hundread other members of Neowin might also believe that this could be a "smart" move but how much is that of the total population? Not much. In general, people who use computers are ignorants, ignoring what exists out there. I'm sure theres some "idiots" out there who know Apple by their iPod but don't know that they develop an O/S (0mfg!). If they find a way to make more profits than they are right now, they might think of doing it. Otherwise, forget it and as it stands right now, I don't see this happening. Liquid: if you hate windows some much why do you still use it? 585849650[/snapback] noob. :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Yeah i would move also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankyone Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Go back where you came from.How can you even compare XP -> x64 transition with OS-X -> x86? 64bit cpus actually support 32bit code and unless I'm utterly blind and deaf, every AMD Athlon 64 owner confirms this with a finger up their nose. PowerPC is a _completely_ different architecture by IBM. Emulation? Yeah look at how well PearPC runs. If it was that easy, they (the guys at PearPC) would of done it. 585849618[/snapback] they could build a x86-RISK/PPC processor, who knows, maybe they already exist :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn00pie Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Is that good news for the consumer or bad? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YBG Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Liquid: if you hate windows some much why do you still use it? 585849650[/snapback] Probably because he doesn't have money to just go out tomorrow and buy a mac... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts