SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

Apple-Intel Chip Deal Outcry Keeps Growing

vbt - Jun 5, 2005

Next>

		vbt		Jun 5, 2005
			See here : http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/z...05/tc... It's a "bad" news for macmaniacs.

		mal		Jun 5, 2005
			I think at worst case scenario (for die hard Mac fans anyway), it will just mean getting Intel to work on getting faster PowerPC chips out the door. IBM seem to be currently having problems getting the G5s (970) to clock above 2.7GHz, much like when Motorola got stuck with the G4 some years ago. The problems with the G4's clock speeds prompted Apple to go to IBM... I really don't think it will mean a platform shift to x86, there seem to be too many factors against it. It's probably either just a move to put pressure on IBM to work out the G5 speed problems, or talks for some other non-CPU intel chips. On the other hand, if it is true that Apple is going to move to x86, I'd be talking to AMD, not Intel.

		antime		Jun 5, 2005
			It could also be just a manufacturing deal. IBM are going to be manufacturing processors for both Microsoft and Nintendo in high volumes and likely they just don't have the capacity for all their customers.

		mal		Jun 6, 2005
			What do you know? It was true. :lol:

		racketboy		Jun 6, 2005
			In fact Steve Jobs was running his presentation on a Mac running on a Pentium 4. LOL

		dokkie		Jun 8, 2005
			aaaaaahhhh the horror.... the horrorr.... I think I'll get my trusty old amiga from the attic again...

		Scared0o0Rabbit		Jun 17, 2005
			Supposedly there's been a leaked beta version that will run on non-branded hardware. Also supposedly when it does come out it will only run on apple branded hardware, so prices are still going to be outrageous for getting a mac.

		mal		Jun 17, 2005
			I'd heard about the leaked beta, but from what I've seen, whatever it is that's out there is just a load of garbage data.

		Cloud121		Jun 19, 2005
			You can just imagine my reaction when I found this out a couple weeks ago. It certainly wasn't pretty.

		mal		Jun 19, 2005

		it290		Jun 19, 2005
			It's funny, all the Mac dudes are freaking out about this. A friend of mine emailed me after the announcement (he's been using Macs forever) with a bunch of questions about the usability of Linux for the type of work he does. I don't really understand. If x86 means Apple can build faster, better, and maybe cheaper Macs, why is that bad?

msimplay

Jun 19, 2005

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by it290@Mon, 2005-06-20 @ 07:33 AM



It's funny, all the Mac dudes are freaking out about this. A friend of mine emailed me after the announcement (he's been using Macs forever) with a bunch of questions about the usability of Linux for the type of work he does. I don't really understand. If x86 means Apple can build faster, better, and maybe cheaper Macs, why is that bad?



[post=135472]Quoted post[/post]

Its bad for existing customers because the software they already use either won't be compatable with the new mac and hence they will have to buy everything again or the old applications will sit on some kind of sub standard emulation layer like for example the Command line prompt on Windows XP. Talking of emulation layers i'm getting bad images of WINE...

Curtis

Jun 19, 2005

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by msimplay@Mon, 2005-06-20 @ 07:05 PM



Talking of emulation layers i'm getting bad images of WINE... 



[post=135477]Quoted post[/post]

...but Wine Is Not an Emulator. :/

		msimplay		Jun 19, 2005
			lol i know that but the point is that if they are going to keep backwards compatability Apple will have to do something similar IE the PPC architecture is completely different X86 architecture

		it290		Jun 19, 2005
			And? They did the same transition from 680x0 -> PPC. Why? Because the 68000 line was not advancing as quickly as they needed it to. The transition went pretty smoothly, and within a generation the PPC machines were outpowering the fastest 680x0-based machines when running 68k software. Now, emulating PPC is undoubtedly more difficult (and Altivec won't be emulated at all, IIRC), but keep in mind that the emulation will now be running in a fully protected environment, unlike last time. Also, Apple is just going to be emulating a processor (that they have extensive knowledge of), not a totally different (and closed) OS, so the WINE comparison is way way off. This was certainly a smart move for Apple to make in order to avoid stagnation and loss of profits, and I think the consumer will benefit from it. It seems to me that a lot of Apple fanboys just have a chip on their shoulder, especially those who have been touting the superiority of the Power line for the past ten years.

msimplay

Jun 20, 2005

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by it290@Mon, 2005-06-20 @ 04:40 PM



And? They did the same transition from 680x0 -> PPC. Why? Because the 68000 line was not advancing as quickly as they needed it to. The transition went pretty smoothly, and within a generation the PPC machines were outpowering the fastest 680x0-based machines when running 68k software. Now, emulating PPC is undoubtedly more difficult (and Altivec won't be emulated at all, IIRC), but keep in mind that the emulation will now be running in a fully protected environment, unlike last time. Also, Apple is just going to be emulating a processor (that they have extensive knowledge of), not a totally different (and closed) OS, so the WINE comparison is way way off.  



This was certainly a smart move for Apple to make in order to avoid stagnation and loss of profits, and I think the consumer will benefit from it. It seems to me that a lot of Apple fanboys just have a chip on their shoulder, especially those who have been touting the superiority of the Power line for the past ten years.



[post=135485]Quoted post[/post]

I agree with what you say but this emulation layer might not be all that good.

I mean Microsoft have extensive knowledge of Dos but the winxp Command line still sucks for dos emulation.

Its a great time for apple to move to a pentium chip since longhorn is also on the way. It could be a deciding factor because i really don't see the touted longhorn being all that different to Windows XP. I mean i personally haven't tried macos but now the possibility for me will be there because i won't be moving architecture means i will be able to change macos to windows if i wanted to.

Hmm what will the people that support Apple say now because their chip can't be all that much better if Apple themselves are considering Pentium chips

		it290		Jun 20, 2005
			The 'DOS emulation' in XP is a totally different issue, and more akin to the WINE situation. The only issue I foresee with the emulation will be speed, and again, that should be a short-term problem. You won't be able to just load Mac OS onto your PC though. Undoubtedly someone will figure out a way to do so eventually, but I wouldn't bank on it as a stable solution. Part of what makes Macs nice is the controlled hardware platform.

		schi0249		Jun 20, 2005
			From what I've heard, read, and seen, you won't (easily w/o hacking) be installing Mac OS on a PC. However, running Windows on an x86 based Mac will be easy. I love Mac, and I think this could be a good move. Then again, it could also be a disaster. I will wait and see.

		Curtis		Jun 20, 2005
			[Offtopic pedanticness] I wouldn't call the current Windows command line utility a "DOS emualtor", any more than I'd call a shell in Xwindow a "UNIX emulator". It's just not it's function. I'm sure if MS wanted to write a DOS emulator fully supporting VESA display modes, Soundblaster/Adlib compatibility and esoteric memory modes they could...but they've got DirectX, so they won't. Command line is meant to be a way of accessing powerful admin functions or things you wouldn't normally touch via the GUI (NET commands, for example). It's not terribly sucessful, IMO... [/Offtopic pedanticness]

ExCyber

Jun 24, 2005

	
	
		
		
			pedanticness

pedantry

Next>