Frogboy Frogboy

Apple: Intel Inside!

▼

Apple: Intel Inside!

The 7th sign of the apocalypse?

from WinCustomize Forums

Steve Jobs announced today that over the next year, Apple is going to move its Macintosh line over to have Intel Inside.  According to Jobs, Apple has been leading a "secret life" for the past 5 years -- each version of MacOS X has had an Intel version and many of its popular internally developed programs have had versions compiled for an Intel version.

For users who purchase Intel-based Macintoshs starting mid-next year, they will need to either get upgraded MacOS X software that has been recompiled for MacOS X for Intel or run it through a compatibility layer that will run software via emulation.  It won't be as fast as it would have been natively but with most high end applications expected to be ported over, it will mean that most software for MacOS X should run acceptably no matter what.

14,928 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think that if they were looking to switch they should have gone with AMD.


Very much agreed.

Additionally,

re:
- expect to see X86 chipsets in future macs
- expect to see macs capable of running windows alongside macintosh (dual boot)
- expect to see Windows based PC's able to run Mac OSX (leopard)(dual boot)
- expect to see virtual ware in use to ease the transition
- expect to see people on both sides of the fence moaning about this, and applauding it.
- expect to hear more, and more, and more, and more, and more etc about this ramping up until the end of this new deployment scheme.


I stand by my original submission on this topic. Archive it if you want, and in two years I will remind anybody who disagrees with me that I already predicted the future on this. Keep in mind that SJ had long touted the PPC over Intel chipsets, and had long denied any desire to switch for any reason. Now look at the news. Nuf said. There was development going on from the start to support Intel chipsets, Mac just held their cards close to their chest, but with this "call" they have pushed MS to up the ante or get out.

Undoubtedly Mac is a more user friendly OS. I say this being a predominant windows user, but having had enough experience on Macs to know the difference. Making this switch allows the proverbial mouse to put the thorn back in the lion's foot. MS now has to figure out how they are going to compete with a more user friendly OS on their precious territory. Let's face it, Mac OS will always run better on a Mac, and they will retain the niche market in that regard. Their packaging of the total product is impeccable, and I would submit that if MS would develop their own Hardware Mission, they could produce a hardware product that would be competetive in the same or similar market (see the XBox), but they have never see the point. I mean, where were they getting opposition or competition? Nowhere. Now we have a new era, though. Mac has consistently developed their OS with the end user in mind, but their hardware has been their "Front Window". In magic we have a phrase, "people only see what you show them." So now that Mac has been distracting everybody they go ahead and reveal their true hand when you least expect to see the fakir sitting atop a freestanding rope. Keep in mind, if they wanted to switch chips they could have gone with AMD, and really sent a statement, especially since AMD is leading the way in their market with 64bit technology. Intel is still falling behind. Isn't that the message Mac has been preaching the last two years? "64 bit... etc". So then why not choose the natural selection for a chip switch with AMD? Obviously they are choosing Intel because they intend to grab more market share.

Schools, Universities, and Design shops are the largest markets for Macs. Why not offer the enterprise customer the opportunity to have the pleasure of a Mac on their desktop as well? You see, the retail customer is not where this will impact most, it is in the enterprise area, their last untouched niche. Once you have the Enterprise user hooked on a Mac, you have them at home. A basic familiarity issue. And with the Mac's underlying unix structure (BSD for you purists out there), you can expect to see a huge thrill in the enterprise market as they are able to more rapidly build network infrastructure with enterprise versions of linx, specifically tailored out of the box to easily integrate with Mac's underlying structure. This change is inevitable, and the bits and pieces have been working for years, there has just been no credible report to substantiate this major of a move. MS will not lose all or half of it's market share, but believe that it is too large of a lumbering beast to be able to adapt quickly enough to avoid Mac taking over at least as much of a share as HP or Dell, only this time it will be in the software arena. Let's face it, iPods will not be the popular standard for ever.

See me in two years, I will be proven right.

Sembetu
Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think that if they were looking to switch they should have gone with AMD. AMD chips would make the price of an Apple PC fall a bit - thereby making a Mac Mini even more affordable.

Instead I think by using Intel that Apple PC price will go up a bit.


Let me update you on that. I got news for ya: things have changed. Intel does no longer offer the most expensive chips on the mid-end and high end. AMD is still the most competitive on the lower end though with its Athlon 64 3000+ --> 3500+.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top
That and Intel chips will run far cooler than AMD in most cases. This was important for Apple and their slimline i/PowerBooks and of course new Mini's.
Reply #29 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ah - I see a few Intel fanboys in the crowd. That's all good.

Texasjoe: AMD chips - no matter what you choose - will always be cheaper than there Intel equivalant.

Septimus: Who cares what chip runs cooler? Most of the time the Intel chips run hotter. If they didn't why do they need such a huge fan and heatsink?

Anyway you all want to justify it it really dosen't matter. AMD chips outperform Intel chips. And yes I have proof...

Apple would have made a beter choice by switching to AMD.
Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top
This is the beginning of the end for Apple as a computer maker. Once the make os is ported to the intel platform, it will be the obvious alternative to winblows. But if they eventually sell the operating system for any x86 it will cut so deeply into sales that they might is well get out of the Mac biz. On the other hand, they would likely make a lot more profit from the operating system then they do from computers.

And kona0197 is right. AMD would have been a much better choice, in terms of price, performance and limiting the negative impact of selling out.
Reply #31 from WinCustomize Forums Top
LOL AMD blows intel away by a long shot in everyway

Apple prolly went with intel because they were working with intel for 5 years behind the scenes (At the same time they were professing the ppc architecture to be god -----ooooo them mac people gotta be pissed)

5 years ago, amd wasnt pushing their athlon line as much as they are today.

Apples priority is getting the OSX sttuff to be cross compatible, so customers and mac loyalist dont feel as screwed as they already are .

I think out of all the software promoters out there, the apple fans are by far the most pompus, claiming that they are the porche of the computing world or sometimes they are righteous in the face of microsoft. Yeah I will take it back to that article saying that Apple gets away with things microsoft dont. If microsoft was in the same position ...... .

I was so close to getting an Ibook also. I still might though for development practice.