http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000157045779/
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/ ... 06corp.htm
Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO
Apple going x86
Moderator: Sigma
Oh and from CNN:
Apple drops IBM for Intel
Mac maker announces that all machines will have Intel processors by end of 2007.
June 6, 2005: 1:58 PM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. Monday said it will shift to using Intel Corp. microprocessors in its Macintosh computers, severing its long relationship with International Business Machines Corp., which had supplied chips to Apple.
Apple (down $0.02 to $38.22, Research) said it would move all of its flagship Macintosh computers to Intel (down $0.19 to $27.14, Research) processors by the end of 2007.
Apple has publicly expressed frustration with IBM (down $0.63 to $75.16, Research) as a supplier in recent quarters. IBM had problems producing enough working versions of its PowerPC 970 chip, which Apple calls the G5. Also, IBM has yet to produce a version of the G5 that consumes less power and would be suitable for use in Apple's laptop personal computers.
Apple drops IBM for Intel
Mac maker announces that all machines will have Intel processors by end of 2007.
June 6, 2005: 1:58 PM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. Monday said it will shift to using Intel Corp. microprocessors in its Macintosh computers, severing its long relationship with International Business Machines Corp., which had supplied chips to Apple.
Apple (down $0.02 to $38.22, Research) said it would move all of its flagship Macintosh computers to Intel (down $0.19 to $27.14, Research) processors by the end of 2007.
Apple has publicly expressed frustration with IBM (down $0.63 to $75.16, Research) as a supplier in recent quarters. IBM had problems producing enough working versions of its PowerPC 970 chip, which Apple calls the G5. Also, IBM has yet to produce a version of the G5 that consumes less power and would be suitable for use in Apple's laptop personal computers.
Another, note the key issue about software:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/06/ ... cnn_latest
Business
Apple confirms chip shift to Intel
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 2:41 PM EDT (1841 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Apple Computer is confirming that it is shifting to chips made by Intel for its Macintosh lines.
The announcement to drop chips made by I-B-M and Freescale Semiconductor comes from Apple's developer conference in San Francisco. The company says that all of its new Macs will be using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.
The decision means that Apple will be relying on the same kinds of chips used in systems that run Microsoft Windows. Analysts say the move risks alienating Apple's historically loyal users. Software now built for Macs will have to be rewritten and then may not work on older Apple machines.
By winning the business, Intel tightens its dominance of the PC processor business, where it now has an 80 percent market share.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/06/ ... cnn_latest
Business
Apple confirms chip shift to Intel
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 2:41 PM EDT (1841 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Apple Computer is confirming that it is shifting to chips made by Intel for its Macintosh lines.
The announcement to drop chips made by I-B-M and Freescale Semiconductor comes from Apple's developer conference in San Francisco. The company says that all of its new Macs will be using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.
The decision means that Apple will be relying on the same kinds of chips used in systems that run Microsoft Windows. Analysts say the move risks alienating Apple's historically loyal users. Software now built for Macs will have to be rewritten and then may not work on older Apple machines.
By winning the business, Intel tightens its dominance of the PC processor business, where it now has an 80 percent market share.
-
The Red Scare
- Posts: 6453
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:38 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
This is horrible HORRIBLE news for Macintosh fans (me 
). Apple has basically made its entire product line obsolete... Who is going to buy Mac software now, if Windows can run on a Mac? This completely eliminates the need to port PC software onto the Macintosh platform. Once Apple's licensing agreements with companies like Microsoft and Adobe run out, there won't be any incentive for those companies to continue to support OS X.
The only hope is that if Apple allows OS X to work on PC computers, it could potentially dramatically increase its market share. But this transition will happen during the same time Microsoft releases Longhorn, and I don't think that Apple will be able to compete with Microsoft's PR machine.
R.I.P. Macintosh (1984-2006)
Oh yeah, and this also means that Linux is in an even worse position, given that its one advantage was that it was able to run on cheap Intel hardware.
). Apple has basically made its entire product line obsolete... Who is going to buy Mac software now, if Windows can run on a Mac? This completely eliminates the need to port PC software onto the Macintosh platform. Once Apple's licensing agreements with companies like Microsoft and Adobe run out, there won't be any incentive for those companies to continue to support OS X.The only hope is that if Apple allows OS X to work on PC computers, it could potentially dramatically increase its market share. But this transition will happen during the same time Microsoft releases Longhorn, and I don't think that Apple will be able to compete with Microsoft's PR machine.
R.I.P. Macintosh (1984-2006)
Oh yeah, and this also means that Linux is in an even worse position, given that its one advantage was that it was able to run on cheap Intel hardware.
-
De Seven Free
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:10 pm
- Location: Manchester UK
- Contact:
Me, and I imagine many others. I use Macs primarily because I prefer the OS. And nobody's said that Windows would run on these Intel Macs.The Red Scare wrote:Who is going to buy Mac software now, if Windows can run on a Mac?
I don't about MS, but I'm sure Adobe are aware that a large proportion of their long term customer base much prefer Mac OS's. Dunno if their aquisition of Macromedia will affect this.The Red Scare wrote:This completely eliminates the need to port PC software onto the Macintosh platform. Once Apple's licensing agreements with companies like Microsoft and Adobe run out, there won't be any incentive for those companies to continue to support OS X.
Yeah. If a version of OS X was released that could run on non-apple boxes with the reliability I'm accustomed to, I'd certainly consider buying an ugly computer.The Red Scare wrote:The only hope is that if Apple allows OS X to work on PC computers, it could potentially dramatically increase its market share.
I know pretty little about Linux, but do you really think that's its one advantage?The Red Scare wrote:Oh yeah, and this also means that Linux is in an even worse position, given that its one advantage was that it was able to run on cheap Intel hardware.
I probably know less about the technology than either of you, but for what it's worth, I'm fairly optimistic. IBM have let Apple down, and maybe this is the best way forward if we want Macs that run my favourite operating system like shit off a shovel.
-
The Red Scare
- Posts: 6453
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:38 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
I'm sure there will be some people, myself included, who will continue to use Mac software. However, given that a lot of PC software (particularly games) is released before the Mac version, people will naturally buy the PC version instead of waiting the extra few months and paying more cash for the OS X software. I think Apple's switch to Intel will therefore seriously hurt OS X development.
For years Apple has argued that PowerPC architecture was superior in every way to x86 chips, now they've done a complete reversal and that makes me really question Apple's credibility. Even on their own webpage they continue to praise the merits of IBM's chips (http://www.apple.com/g5processor/architecture.html)
Yes, its true that IBM was hurting Apple, given that they couldn't produce chips fast enough to meet demand, or create a laptop-ready g5 processor, or meet the 3.0ghz benchmark, but to be honest that doesn't really matter much to me. The current dual-processor 2.7 ghz Power Mac is still fast enough for just about anything, and even if the g5 doesn't work well for laptops that doesn't mean that Apple needed to make a complete shift to Intel for all its models.
I just bought an iMac a few weeks ago, thinking that it would be a solid computer for the next 5-6 years. Now, with the new chips coming out as soon as next year, my computer could be obsolete within two years. Getting over the switches from 680x0 to PowerPC, and then from OS 9 to OS X were hard enough, and now Apple is further screwing over its loyal consumer base.
I don't know much about Linux either, but my understanding is that people like it because its a much more solid and stable operating system than Windows. I don't think that many people would argue that Linux is better than OS X. But Linux is open source and is becoming increasinly popular in areas outside of North America and Europe, so I guess it still might stand a chance.
anyway, just my 2 cents
For years Apple has argued that PowerPC architecture was superior in every way to x86 chips, now they've done a complete reversal and that makes me really question Apple's credibility. Even on their own webpage they continue to praise the merits of IBM's chips (http://www.apple.com/g5processor/architecture.html)
Yes, its true that IBM was hurting Apple, given that they couldn't produce chips fast enough to meet demand, or create a laptop-ready g5 processor, or meet the 3.0ghz benchmark, but to be honest that doesn't really matter much to me. The current dual-processor 2.7 ghz Power Mac is still fast enough for just about anything, and even if the g5 doesn't work well for laptops that doesn't mean that Apple needed to make a complete shift to Intel for all its models.
I just bought an iMac a few weeks ago, thinking that it would be a solid computer for the next 5-6 years. Now, with the new chips coming out as soon as next year, my computer could be obsolete within two years. Getting over the switches from 680x0 to PowerPC, and then from OS 9 to OS X were hard enough, and now Apple is further screwing over its loyal consumer base.
I don't know much about Linux either, but my understanding is that people like it because its a much more solid and stable operating system than Windows. I don't think that many people would argue that Linux is better than OS X. But Linux is open source and is becoming increasinly popular in areas outside of North America and Europe, so I guess it still might stand a chance.
anyway, just my 2 cents
This is not really true. Most software is not dependent on the CPU architecture - it should just be a recompile to get it working on x86. Some programs will have problems, but writing portable software is not that hard these days.squ1d wrote:Software now built for Macs will have to be rewritten and then may not work on older Apple machines.
And new programs don't have to be x86 only. Until x86 Macs are fully phased in, we'll still be able to make fat binaries that will run on both x86 and PPC.
However, OS9 and 68K software will probably not be supported at all.
Don't worry about Linux, it's here to stay on the server side... OS X on x86 might hurt it a bit on the desktop market, but I don't think it's really a competitor on the desktop anyway.Oh yeah, and this also means that Linux is in an even worse position, given that its one advantage was that it was able to run on cheap Intel hardware.
I don't know if Red Scare's assumption that Windows will run on a Mac is valid. The PC archiecture is more than just the x86 processor. For example, I'll bet that Apple will continue to use OpenFirmware, while PCs still use the same BIOS that has been around forever. It will likely take some work to make Windows run on Apple hardware, but it'll certainly be easy for MS to do if they want to. And if Windows does run on Apple/x86 hardware, then there's no work required to get any Windows applications running on an Apple/Windows machine.
I'm not worried about developers abandoning OS X. Mac users and developers are very loyal, as long as Apple keeps its quality high, they'll stick around. And they'll force the corporations to port their software to OS X.
Plus, it potentially exposes OS X to a whole new audience (if they can get it to run on their cheapo Intel boxes).
The conversion will be painful, but I think it's for the best.