It'll be official on Monday: Apple switching to Intel chips

[Q Classic]

Go look for it yourself. I remember it from two years ago when the G5 was introduced, and it makes sense independently of that.

But if you think I'm going to spend hours trolling the internet to satisfy you, you must be deranged. I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not, and I'm certainly not going to spend any great effort in that cause.

I've been searching for it this entire time, and I haven't found anything on IBM's side promising or suggesting anything. Closest I've gotten is something saying to the effect that they were working on reducing power consumption and heat.

Since you're not willing to step up to the plate, I'll just mark this as yet another example of Fanboist BFA.
/me shrugs

===

That shows how much you know. Apple won't do it because they tried it before and it didn't work. It would also screw up everything that is good about the mac, since Apple would no longer have tight control over the hardware (which means things don't **** up as much).

I thought you said you didn't care about the hardware, only the software?

In any case, the general consensus among myself and others is that vendor lock-in is bad in the x86 world. It works fine in PPC, because there aren't many competitors--there's Apple, and maybe Genesi with their Pegasos platform. With x86, you'll have all the hobbyists, the plethora of component brands, and what not. (Incidentally, you do realize this is why Windows crashes so much--not so much the operating system, but the fact that most of the hardware drivers are poorly written third-party affairs, right?)

What's more, it seems to me people will notice that there's not much difference between the innards of an Apple computer and a Dell, and wonder why the Apple is so much more expensive--which means they might be relying more and more on style over substance at that point.

Not something I'd like to reward in an open market.

There are a few things which I can tell from my Cube that might reduce the variety in hardware: first among them being OpenFirmware, though I believe it doesn't work with x86 chips. Outside of that... there really isn't that much of a difference. The AGP ports are there, the PCI as well; SATA, IDE, and the same kind of RAM.

Why won't vendor-hardware lock-in kill Apple in an x86 world?

It would also screw up everything that is good about the mac, since Apple would no longer have tight control over the hardware

Also, just to be as snide to you as you are to me:
I thought you said it was the software that was what made the Mac good, not the hardware? Why are you contradicting yourself here?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

I'd like some proof, otherwise, I'll see this as a bald-faced assertion.

Go look for it yourself. I remember it from two years ago when the G5 was introduced, and it makes sense independently of that.

The classic response of someone who doesn't have a source

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by dv8ed

It sounds like the Transitive deal is going to mitigate some of this...though how much, who knows. And if porting everything else is as easy as Mathmatica (yeah right, but...) the transition shouldn't be too bad.

At least all the shouting matches over PPC vs Intel will be over.

I just hope they don't lock OS X to Apple hardware....

What's this transitive deal? Machines with a hybrid IBM/Pentium chip? And, frankly, I don't like the idea of having to run an emulator on an iMac I buy today 1.5 years from now. It's probably better to wait until the switchover is complete, or get a Windows-based machine.

Gatekeeper

[Q Classic]

IIRC, Transitive is a sort of emulator software. It's lower level than say, VirtualPC, but it still emulates the chip.

It's not a hybrid IBM/Intel chip--that would be impossible, since you'd be trying to mix two different architectures (PPC/x86, respectively).

[Agathon]

I thought you said it was the software that was what made the Mac good, not the hardware? Why are you contradicting yourself here?

Go hit yourself in the head with a 2x4. It should be obvious to anyone...

It's not the particular hardware, but the fact that Apple knows exactly what hardware it's machines have. Hence there are very few hardware problems with Apple software upgrades. For example, if you install a new version of the OS, you can be sure that your Airport Card will keep working.

And if you believe that Apple signed on with IBM without the reasonable expectation of a laptop chip, you need your head examined. I mean... seriously... that's just laughable.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
What's this transitive deal?

From wired:

Transitive's QuickTransit allows any software to run on any hardware with no performance hit, or so the company claims. The techology automatically kicks in when necessary, and supports high-end 3D graphics. It was developed by Alasdair Rawsthorne.

When I wrote about the software for Wired News last fall, the company had PowerBooks and Windows laptops running Linux software, including Quake III, with no performance lag whatsoever.

Apple has apparently licensed this.

[Kuciwalker]

I remember that... IIRC someone (Q^3?) debunked their claims rather nicely.

[Q Classic]

It's not the particular hardware, but the fact that Apple knows exactly what hardware it's machines have. Hence there are very few hardware problems with Apple software upgrades. For example, if you install a new version of the OS, you can be sure that your Airport Card will keep working.

Well, duh. That holds true in the Windows world, too. If you stick with big name brands, like Dell, and specific hardware, it's guaranteed to work through upgrades from say, 2000 to XP, or even 98 to XP.

One small note, however. The upgrade from Panther to Tiger is like an upgrade from XP SP1 to XP SP2. Of course things are going to keep working, hardware wise--virtually nothing's changed on the driver end.

And if you believe that Apple signed on with IBM without the reasonable expectation of a laptop chip, you need your head examined. I mean... seriously... that's just laughable.

And to assume something about a company you worship for no better reason than hope is folly.
The reason I figured Apple switched from the G4 to the G5 had nothing to do with laptops, and everything to do with the fact that G4 desktop chips had come to the end of the line, and could not be made faster/better.

[Q Classic]

I remember that... IIRC someone (Q^3?) debunked their claims rather nicely.

I might've. I remember completely trashing CherryOS, and I do recall saying quite a few things about Transitive.

[Asher]

And if you believe that Apple signed on with IBM without the reasonable expectation of a laptop chip, you need your head examined. I mean... seriously... that's just laughable.

Maybe Apple's executives aren't as smart as you'd like to think they are?

Even I've repeatedly expressed my opinion that the chances of a laptop G5 are extremely low. IBM just doesn't make mobile CPUs, they never have. Apple's laptop market isn't near big enough to warrant the investment in the R&D for one.

If Apple somehow assumed a mobile G5 was in the cards, that's their mistake. IBM never promised one, and logically it doesn't make sense for them to make one.

[Agathon]

Well, duh. That holds true in the Windows world, too. If you stick with big name brands, like Dell, and specific hardware, it's guaranteed to work through upgrades from say, 2000 to XP, or even 98 to XP.

Dell? God give me strength...

When you've all finished, the result is that Apple now has a better chip supplier. IBM just couldn't do it. They'll make excuses, but that's all they are.. excuses.

[Asher]

IBM wouldn't do it.

[Provost Harrison]

I am amused by the way Asher pulls the 'nyer, we didn't want it anyway!' attitude

[Asher]

But it's true -- Apple's not a large enough market to warrant the R&D for a laptop chip.

It really only makes sense that Apple switch to Intel. The cost to R&D modern chips is enormous and requires a huge market to finance it. Apple's niche market isn't enough.

They got lucky earlier in that the PowerPC 970 was already in development for the larger, more profitable server blade market.

[Provost Harrison]

Chill Asher, I'm joking...I was more interesting in the cries of treachery that Agathon would scream