Forums » MacOS X
I just want to let people know that there will be HUGE announcements on monday during Steve Jobs keynote address.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! DON'T MOVE TO INTEL PLEASEEE!
*crys uncontrolably*
Even pc users say intel sucks! WHYY OH WHY APPLE PLEASE DON'T! If they move to intel, I just might become a linux user.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! DON'T MOVE TO INTEL PLEASEEE!
*crys uncontrolably*
Even pc users say intel sucks! WHYY OH WHY APPLE PLEASE DON'T! If they move to intel, I just might become a linux user.
I don't understand all of these rumors about Apple moving to Intel for their processors. There has been a lot of commentary about it in the past week or two, but no reason stands out for why Apple would want to do this.
If I remember correctly, the initial rumors only said that Apple and Intel were negotiating a deal for chips of some kind, but not specifically x86 CPUs. Apple could be interested in new wireless chipets for 802.11n or 802.16 (WiMax), or possibly ARM/xScale chips for a future handheld (The Revenge of the Newton).
If I remember correctly, the initial rumors only said that Apple and Intel were negotiating a deal for chips of some kind, but not specifically x86 CPUs. Apple could be interested in new wireless chipets for 802.11n or 802.16 (WiMax), or possibly ARM/xScale chips for a future handheld (The Revenge of the Newton).
"the revenge of the newton"
not too far off buddy.
And who said anything about these intel chips being the chips used in pc's?
not too far off buddy.
And who said anything about these intel chips being the chips used in pc's?
They did ---> http://www.macrumors.com
I know it's just rumors, but cnet said there would be an announcement, so did the wall street journel.
I know it's just rumors, but cnet said there would be an announcement, so did the wall street journel.
mac and intel? thats funny
if steve jobs does it hes a big fat stupid idiot
if steve jobs does it hes a big fat stupid idiot
Not sure if this is real. If it is I'm not sure how to take this news. Got some mixed feelings.
On one hand you have to admit that Motorola and IBM have both failed to offer better chips in a timely manner. We're still getting only minor speed bumps, while PCs are making leaps and bounds. But at the same time you know that both of these companies have provided us with nothing but great chips that actually work and are reliable. They've admittedly created some great technologies that have narrowed the MHz/GHz gap between Macs and PCs.
On the other hand you got a big company like Intel that makes tons of chips for a living, has a lot of money to do research, and is usually quick to come out with faster chips. These guys know what they're doing and they're always staying on top of things. However, I've also read some bad things about the quality and reliability of Intel's chips. AMD tends to trounce them most of the time in that respect.
But these are just things I've read and observed over the years. So I don't know how much truth there is to them. Let's just hope Apple is doing the right thing. And hey who knows, maybe this'll mean we'll be seeing CHEAPER Macs on the shelves. That would be great. It would help Macs gain a greater marketshare in the long run, and hopefully without turning them into cheap pieces of crap in the process.
On one hand you have to admit that Motorola and IBM have both failed to offer better chips in a timely manner. We're still getting only minor speed bumps, while PCs are making leaps and bounds. But at the same time you know that both of these companies have provided us with nothing but great chips that actually work and are reliable. They've admittedly created some great technologies that have narrowed the MHz/GHz gap between Macs and PCs.
On the other hand you got a big company like Intel that makes tons of chips for a living, has a lot of money to do research, and is usually quick to come out with faster chips. These guys know what they're doing and they're always staying on top of things. However, I've also read some bad things about the quality and reliability of Intel's chips. AMD tends to trounce them most of the time in that respect.
But these are just things I've read and observed over the years. So I don't know how much truth there is to them. Let's just hope Apple is doing the right thing. And hey who knows, maybe this'll mean we'll be seeing CHEAPER Macs on the shelves. That would be great. It would help Macs gain a greater marketshare in the long run, and hopefully without turning them into cheap pieces of crap in the process.
Yes, the current line of intel x86 chips can be unreliable....
but what if there is a new chip? A whole new architecture that is fluent with the PPC architecture?
but what if there is a new chip? A whole new architecture that is fluent with the PPC architecture?
I seriously doubt Apple would be switching to x86. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they did, for obvious reasons. Most likely they'll stick with PPC. If these rumors are true, Intel will need to accomodate that somehow. Otherwise we're going to have a HUGE change on our hands. One would have to question Steve's sanity, as well as Apple's future, if they were to decide on x86 over PPC at this point.
In other news today, Apple will die soon. Since uhh, what? 10? 15 years ago?
Intel stated that x86 is reaching the end of its life (as in improving performance). Also, there is a pretty good chance that they would lose tons of people while developers are recoding all their software to work on x86, which most likely isn't the easiest thing to do. The Intel rumor has been around as long as the G5 rumor, or the Apple will die rumor.
But, we'll find out soon enough as it's beginning now.
Intel stated that x86 is reaching the end of its life (as in improving performance). Also, there is a pretty good chance that they would lose tons of people while developers are recoding all their software to work on x86, which most likely isn't the easiest thing to do. The Intel rumor has been around as long as the G5 rumor, or the Apple will die rumor.
But, we'll find out soon enough as it's beginning now.
They did.
Rosetta is Apple's new Intel translator. New dev kits available in 2 weeks.
Rosetta is Apple's new Intel translator. New dev kits available in 2 weeks.
FFS NOOOOOO have they gone stark staring mad!!!!!!
/me vows to keep his G5 until it dont work no more and is a museum piece
/me vows to keep his G5 until it dont work no more and is a museum piece
Well, I'll be...
(Honestly I don't give a rats ass about what's making things work just as long as it is working. Perfectly. If the transition is sloppy I will be, lets say, not pleased)
(Honestly I don't give a rats ass about what's making things work just as long as it is working. Perfectly. If the transition is sloppy I will be, lets say, not pleased)
Wow. Who would have thought they would actually do it?
As far as future implications, Lemming has the right idea. A Mac will still be a Mac. There's more to the computer than just the CPU. The OS is the important part, and because OSX is a Unix-based system, running on more than one CPU architecture is easily possible. This means several things:
1. Current Macs are not instantly obsolete, since all future Mac software will be able to run on both architectures. Only software like device drivers or system-level software are going to need major rewrites, due to differences in byte order etc. Other software seems to only need a recompile, and some adjustments to newer frameworks for old Carbon apps.
2. You aren't going to be running OSX on a Dell in 2 years, or Windows on an x86 Mac. OSX retains much of its stability through very specific hardware choices on Apple's part.
What I'm curious about are Apple's plans for 64-bit computing, and whether or not AMD will be able to get involved in future Mac hardware.
As far as future implications, Lemming has the right idea. A Mac will still be a Mac. There's more to the computer than just the CPU. The OS is the important part, and because OSX is a Unix-based system, running on more than one CPU architecture is easily possible. This means several things:
1. Current Macs are not instantly obsolete, since all future Mac software will be able to run on both architectures. Only software like device drivers or system-level software are going to need major rewrites, due to differences in byte order etc. Other software seems to only need a recompile, and some adjustments to newer frameworks for old Carbon apps.
2. You aren't going to be running OSX on a Dell in 2 years, or Windows on an x86 Mac. OSX retains much of its stability through very specific hardware choices on Apple's part.
What I'm curious about are Apple's plans for 64-bit computing, and whether or not AMD will be able to get involved in future Mac hardware.
Yea well it's all over now. Apple WILL use intel chips. The transition will be complete in 2007. http://www.appleinsider.com/wwdc2005.php
Holy crap I can't belive it. I'm gonna be in shock for a while.
Holy crap I can't belive it. I'm gonna be in shock for a while.
Oddly, nothing I've read says x86, just Intel.
Edit: Whoops, never mind. They're clearly using x86 processors.
Edit: Whoops, never mind. They're clearly using x86 processors.
Yuck. x86. Not only that, but Intel x86. I wonder who's providing the kickbacks here? AMD chips consistantly outperform Intel chips, and they have better (more mature) 64-bit extensions. *sigh*. Poor Steve.
Hey, Banias is pretty damned nice.
I hate that they had to do this the new Power PC chips were just too hot to manage. :(
Intel sucks.
Intel sucks.
Yes, because roguelazer knows more than the entire research and development team at Apple and all the other teams who determined to use Intel.