MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Monday, October 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 51.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Apple moving to Intel

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Should Apple have chosen Intel or AMD?

Intel
1
33%
AMD
1
33%
They should have stuck with IBM
0
No votes
Screw Apple, those proprietary-hardware/price-gouging bastards
1
33%
 
Total votes : 3

Apple moving to Intel

Postby Beer Moon » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:16 am

Well, it finally happened.

http://www.theregister.com/2005/06/06/jobs_intel/

What sucks is that it might still be sort of proprietary to particular chips, as Anand has reported.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439

Apple has confirmed that their Intel based Macs should be able to run Windows, but you will not be able to run the x86 version of OS X on any hardware platform you choose. Obviously with the switch to Intel's architecture, it is going to be much more difficult for Apple to prevent users from circumventing any protection they may have implemented to run the x86 OS on their own hardware. Even if Apple's protection is cracked, you can expect driver support to be extremely limited for configurations outside of what Apple will be shipping.


And I was all excited that I'd be able to dual-boot to OSX. Oh well. Tough luck then Mr. Jobs. You still aren't getting any scratch from me.

Microsoft may not be easy, but it sure as hell made me software-savvy. Probably too savvy, since they're not likely to get any scratch from me anymore either lol.

Oh! And I'm curious to know what you mac users think about Apple cozying up to chip-zilla. Wouldn't AMD have been a better choice? Anand does a good job of explaining it, but I would think many mac users would be irked about having to feed the Intel machine just to get a good old mac OS. What say you?
Beer Moon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:08 pm

Postby tibor » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:49 am

I honestly don't know enough about AMD vs. Intel to vote for one or t'other. I've been a Mac user for years, so RISC has been drilled into my head as inherently better than CISC architecture. But you're not the first person I've heard say that AMD would have been a better option.

My first thought on hearing the news Sunday was, "They're nuts." Microsoft is moving to IBM processors for the Xbox 2. But after thinking about it a bit, I am guessing that some of the things you can do on a Mac fly compared to a PC on the same architecture. If that is true, then Apple can once and for all stop trying to get consumers to understand about megahertz issues, and just do an apples-to-apples comparison. They can say, "Look, we're faster, AND our OS isn't the security nightmare that Windows is."

They're also not getting a ton of support from Big Blue. I read that Apple's chips account for less than 2% of the Fishkill production chips. Apple just isn't that important to IBM, and Intel would love to make up some business from the lost Xbox chips. Apple doesn't want to/shouldn't go through another vendor partner who shafts them because Apple isn't big enough to worry about (Hello, Moto.)

I'm not surprised they're not allowing OSX to be installed on any PC. Apple, unlike Microsoft, is a hardware vendor in addition to software. And the reason that Apple's computers "just work" is that they are a hardware vendor, and can spec components exactly as they see fit. They can make sure everything plays nicely, and don't have to worry about making their stuff work with millions of possible component configurations. Sure, PC manufacturers are SUPPOSED to adhere to standards, but for the most part they don't. That leads to many of the problems experienced by consumers in the Windows world.

At the end of the day, the architecture my machine is running on won't really affect me.
tibor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:55 am

Postby Mike S. » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:39 pm

I thought this line was funny... "Apple will begin shipping Intel based Macs starting around the middle of 2006, so why would you ever want to be stuck with a PowerPC based Mac that you just bought less than a year prior?"

So far as I know that's ALWAYS how Apple has been. Once PowerPCs came out you couldn't run ANY new program on the older processors, period. Once OS X came out you couldn't run ANY new program on OS 9. The same will doubtless be true of Intel chips... the fact is, any Mac you buy, at any time, has about a 1 year lifespan before it's a worthless paperweight --- it's how it always has been and how it always will be, because when the people who make the hardware make the software, they sure know how to screw you!
Mike S.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:34 pm

Postby ShaneDog » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:48 pm

Actually, they explicitly said that there's nothing stopping you from running windows on a X86 Mac. That said, it won't be easy to do considering Apple uses a customized firmware that isn't analagous to the BIOS used by most X86 motherboards.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby Beer Moon » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:11 am

ShaneDog wrote:Actually, they explicitly said that there's nothing stopping you from running windows on a X86 Mac. That said, it won't be easy to do considering Apple uses a customized firmware that isn't analagous to the BIOS used by most X86 motherboards.


By mid 2006, I would hope that the BIOS that's currently analagous to most X86 motherboards will probably be on its way out too.

http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050524/index.html

Till then...

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
Beer Moon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:08 pm


Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar