• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Apple To Go Intel?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Thingi

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2001
Location
Nottingham, England
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00790/

This is really beginning to make sense now....

1. MS got into bed with IBM to produce the processor for the Xbox2, That's not just ten fold more processors than Apple it's going to be almost 100 fold.

2. MS actually own the design (IP) for the GPU, maybe this is also true for the Processor too. Where exactly does that leave Apple, IBM are making one mother of a PPC processor for MS that has many features which cannot be used by Apple now due to IP restrictions.

3. The battle for the desktop processor was fought and won a long time ago. Intel won that. Period. AMD were always a bit player, VIA & IBM even less so.

4. The next battle is for the living room. Holy cow Intel must be bricking it to say the least! MS, The big N and Sony are all using PPC processor tech. That's serious volume sales people. Intel would dearly love to find a new bed fellow for the new fight..... Apple may well be that fellow, no one else seems to be interested.

5. The rumour goes that MS intend sell a desktop type xbox2 at some point.... Probably some kind of box that can do all the digital media stuff 99% people want to do plus play games AND more than likely run some kind of Office application. Wow a closed MS platform without Intel or AMD playing the game..........

6. Intel have already dropped a hint that OS X is more secure than Windows, hell they even said in a round about way buy a Mac if you want security NOW but in a couple of years we'll be safe too.... Iif that ain't a hint Intel will end up in Apple boxes I don't know what is.

7. Intel could well be sick of all the bad virus press that the MS/Intel love-in has caused, think about it... The average Joe thinks a computer runs Windows and has an Intel processor, and what do people hate about computers - it's the Spyware and Virus's

just my 2 cents ;-)


Thingi
 
Interesting look at it. Basically MS and apple trade chipmakers. I don't think that's quite where it's going though.

I think that they've hit a wall for PPC chips. I think i remember jobs saying something to that effect months ago. That doesn't explain why apple wouldn't hang onto IBM for its cell procs though.

This is either a brilliant move by apple, or complete suicide. Many people buy macs because they want OSX. If you can get OSX for x86, people will just make their current boxes OSX. Yeah, apple would probably get a huge amount of money from all the people buying copies of OSX, since lots of people would like to use/try it but don't want to buy an expensive mac. However, they'd lose just about all hardware sales. People would buy macs for a specific purpose only at that point. "I want a self-contained computer, i get an emac/imac. I want a really tiny cute comp, mac mini. I want excessive power, i go powermac."

Interesting to see how this turns out!
 
Why would I want OSX for x86?

Its just a prettied up version of BSD.

You buy a Mac, because its Apple software and hardware, and is tested together, so "it works".
 
but as bill gates has shown, prettied up and dumbed down sells. look at how many people have windows xp pro over windows 2000 or linux or bsd.

joe six pack wants easy. hell, i want easy, i don't want to have to think about security or updates or viruses or malware or spyware. i want to just enjoy using my pc. this is why my servers run linux for security and while my desktop runs windows xp for ease of use.

i think that steve jobs wants to take on microsoft. seriously, there is a ton of money to be made selling os's to dell and everyone else who wants them. besides true capitalistic competition is a good thing for the consumer because we get a better product all the way around (less bloat, more security, more stability, nice eye candy)

think about it. first there was pretty much sears and kmart and a little known retailer that "wanted to give small town folk the capability to buy city folk goods" came into existence (aka walmart). now they are the number one employer, corporation, and retailer in existence in the U.S. (not necessarily the best but they give the customer everything the most convenient way) while kmart and sears are scrambling to stay alive. i mean, they are merging together hoping that this will revive their sales and market influence.

finally, i think ALL chipmakers have hit the wall, now is the time when ease of use becomes the biggest selling point. i think that steve jobs is taking a page from the michael dell or sam walton formula for business success by running apple like a business instead of like a computer club.

or it could be just a marketing ploy and we all could be a bunch of suckers! but i can't wait to find out
 
Last edited:
As many have already hinted at, the big story is actually Microsoft. As I see it, three negative things will happen to MS.

1. They are going to lose market share in the OS industry. The only way to prevent it is to make longhorn the flashiest most secure OS known to man.

2. The CPU for XBOX 360 is going to be more costly than before. AFAIK this three core CPU was eventually going to be moved over into apple's workstations. With Apple not buying these chips in the future, IBM is going to have to keep prices high to cover costs. So basically we or Microsoft are going to be spending more on the 360. Most likely Microsoft, since I do not seeing this as a cost they would pass on to the consumers.

3. Word of mouth. Besides Ipods, when was the last time Jo sixpack mentioned Apple. 90% of them don't, and I feel the reason for that is that Microsoft is the only company they know can make software for their household. With x86 and possible compatibility possibilities, apple can make its way back into the conversation at the dinner table. The only way Microsoft can prevent this, is to spend the $ on marketing. Were talking Windows 95 "start me up" type marketing. Most likely for Longhorn.
 
It's True, Move to intel processors confirmed at the WWDC.

Fat binaries will be used + dynamic tranlation of code for older apps which have not been recompiled for both Arch's.

Thingi

P.S have always wanted to overclock a mac - he says while typing this on an ibook 12" :)
 
"Less filling, better tasting"

That old miller lite ad slogan says it all. I am a happy camper now. I love X86 hardware, with all the upgradability, its like a '65 mustang. Make it work like YOU want to make work. Amd I love Mac OS! just beign able to color code documents in order to make it easy for me to know which ones I want and which ones I dont want ... well just insanely GREAT!

Of course Ill always keep a bootable copy of windows for games ... best OS for fraggin there ever was :shrug:

Linux and AMD ... YOUR TIME HAS COME!
 
for all of you wondering IT IS TRUE. Steve Jobbs did a speech today at 9:30.

Over at the mac forums we are all freaking out lol.

Im with you guys, why would you want OSx on x86? The reason a mac runs nicely is becuase of the relationship between OS and hardware.

I only bought my mac, because i needed something that would work, and not have ANY downtime. Besides our CPUs pwn you guys in the graphics department, and thats why i got it. I couldnt give a crap about OSX. If i could get final cut pro to run on gentoo thats what id do. ...hmm...trip to linuxquestions.org comming...

I think its suicide AND genius. 1. He's gonna lose all the loyal mac users who just dumped a ton of cash on a new machine (ME!) but he's gonna gain all the joe six packs out there.

Had i known this, i wouldve just repaired my dually that i killed and struggled until next year.
 
MadSkillzMan said:
for all of you wondering IT IS TRUE. Steve Jobbs did a speech today at 9:30.

Over at the mac forums we are all freaking out lol.

Im with you guys, why would you want OSx on x86? The reason a mac runs nicely is becuase of the relationship between OS and hardware.

I only bought my mac, because i needed something that would work, and not have ANY downtime. Besides our CPUs pwn you guys in the graphics department, and thats why i got it. I couldnt give a crap about OSX. If i could get final cut pro to run on gentoo thats what id do. ...hmm...trip to linuxquestions.org comming...

I think its suicide AND genius. 1. He's gonna lose all the loyal mac users who just dumped a ton of cash on a new machine (ME!) but he's gonna gain all the joe six packs out there.

Had i known this, i wouldve just repaired my dually that i killed and struggled until next year.


Dont be silly, it'll all be good....
people need to chill out, the processor is just one part of the big picture.
The apple experiance will remain the same, only better...think games...
I welcome this partnership, especially when I think of Apples portables...

once again Apple has everyone screaming WTF!, and that's the way it's always been.

good job apple, dont let IBM's inability to go to bat for you stand in your way.

CN
 
Well I was indifferent to the processor move until I tried Quicktime 7 beta for x86 (released today)......

My AthlonXP @ 2.5Ghz can't even cope with h.264 480p - It got down to 11 frame per second with 100% cpu usage. This is a joke considering my 1Ghz ibook can play 480p h.264 with no dropped frames. My 1Ghz ppc can't quite cope with 720p h.264 (i.e a few dropped frames but not loads - but that's to be expected).

If this is the kind of speed I can expect from OS X on x86 then I'm seriously worried about the Mac platform. I'm just praying to God that the performance is due to QT7 being beta, but it could well be down to the processor, it's well known that AltiVec kicks SSE/2's arse when it comes to FP performance.....

Thingi
 
Thingi said:
Well I was indifferent to the processor move until I tried Quicktime 7 beta for x86 (released today)......

My AthlonXP @ 2.5Ghz can't even cope with h.264 480p - It got down to 11 frame per second with 100% cpu usage. This is a joke considering my 1Ghz ibook can play 480p h.264 with no dropped frames. My 1Ghz ppc can't quite cope with 720p h.264 (i.e a few dropped frames but not loads - but that's to be expected).

If this is the kind of speed I can expect from OS X on x86 then I'm seriously worried about the Mac platform. I'm just praying to God that the performance is due to QT7 being beta, but it could well be down to the processor, it's well known that AltiVec kicks SSE/2's arse when it comes to FP performance.....

Thingi


the problem is windows, QT7 for windows is not a OS you know....it needs windows to run.... :bang head :bang head
 
comfortablynumb said:
the problem is windows, QT7 for windows is not a OS you know....it needs windows to run.... :bang head :bang head
I don't think you quite got my point, h.264 decoding is a good example of raw processor fp performance. Windows isn't that much of a bottleneck mate, blaming XP for QT7 performance is plain rude!

Mac's are mainly used for media creation, I need a processor in my box which makes this fast, now if a 1Ghz ppc can smoke an overclocked Athlon @ 2.5Ghz that gives me good cause to be worried about performance. Especially since OS X does make extensive use of AltiVec instuctions.


9mmCensor said:
Remember OSX on x86 does not nessesarily mean OSX on a home brew x86 PC or a Dell.

This is very true indeed, but I'm talking about pure FP performance which is what all the main OS X content creation apps use. A bespoke mobo from intel isn't going to make SSE2 go any faster than it does now.



thingi
 
Last edited:
Remember OSX is a UNIX based software ... UNIX runs great on Intel hardware ... once it is optimeixed for X86 chips then we will have a real screamer like a banshee!
 
This is very good news because now all of the market competition will basically be within the same architecture. This means more developer diversity and hopefully interoperability.
While I'm not the kind of person that would, I can DEFINITELY see the potential allure of being able to dual-boot between Windows XP and OSX.

As for graphical work being faster in OSX, I can't seriously agree. Then again I despise 90% of the software that Adobe makes (and this is the biggest reason I never owned a Mac).
 
Another Point: I run PS at high res NO PROBLEMA on my PC except for the usual windows SNAFU when i tru to do something else at the same time (like check email or messenger). If you run a PC only with PS then no blue screens. Try to multitask and lots of BSOD.
 
Back