Jump to content


Apple Is Switching To Intel!


  • Please log in to reply
688 replies to this topic

#21 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 05:06 AM

Belcarius, on June 4th 2005, 03:56 AM, said:

At the end of the day, I don't give a crap who is behind Apple chips as long as they run well.

View Post


Agreed!

#22 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 04 June 2005 - 05:31 AM

Yeah!
OS X is the main reason we buy macs in the first place.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#23 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 06:29 AM

It's lovely to think that everything would continue to run well if they were to suddenly switch to a completely new architecture, isn't it? Aaah... ignorance, 'tis bliss.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#24 G-News

G-News

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Location:Bern, Switzerland

Posted 04 June 2005 - 06:52 AM

If CNET means a switch to Intel means switching to an x86 platform, then no, that is not going to happen (and if it would, it would most likely kill Apple within 5 years).
I just don't see them moving away from G4/G5 after investing years and billions into the platform.
Now officially the forum idiot

#25 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:00 AM

And C|Net probably aren't the most reliable source around, as they're claiming that PC gaming will die. Again.

I mean, really, how much credibility do you want to deny yourself?
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#26 placebo

placebo

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:14 AM

If Apple ends up using Intel x86 chips in their Macs, but I can't run Mac OS X on a hand-built or third-party PC, I will be PISSED. It's my heaven of ecstacy to be able to run Mac OS X (the better operating system) on a PC (the better price:performance)

#27 placebo

placebo

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:15 AM

RandyWang, on June 4th 2005, 06:00 AM, said:

And C|Net probably aren't the most reliable source around, as they're claiming that PC gaming will die. Again.

I mean, really, how much credibility do you want to deny yourself?

View Post

But that kind of announcement is more of a vague conjunction about the general future, while this is a concrete statements, with times and locations.

#28 sillek

sillek

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Location:A

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:22 AM

RandyWang, on June 4th 2005, 02:46 AM, said:

They predicted a 256Mb iPod, and were wrong.

View Post



I'm confused.  What do you call the iPod Shuffle ?  To me..it's a 256mb [or 512] flash based iPod.  Did they predict it in 2002 or something ?

Edit:  Or is that 512 and 1G ?  Bad memory..

#29 Mot

Mot

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1215 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:40 AM

placebo, on June 4th 2005, 07:14 AM, said:

If Apple ends up using Intel x86 chips in their Macs, but I can't run Mac OS X on a hand-built or third-party PC, I will be PISSED. It's my heaven of ecstacy to be able to run Mac OS X (the better operating system) on a PC (the better price:performance)

View Post


You know that will never happen.  Even in these times of iPod mania Apple still gets most of it's money from hardware.  If apple did switch to Intel processors OSX would require some Apple proprietary hardware to run.  Doing otherwise would be suicide.

So this would not mean a dramatic drop in computer prices nor being able to just build a comp and be able to run OSX on it.

#30 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:40 AM

The iPod Shuffle has a capacity of 512/1024Mb. C|Net predicted 256Mb a month or two before the Shuffle was released. I'd link you, but it's midnight.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#31 NAG

NAG

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Run away!
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 08:19 AM

CNET also runs Dvorak articles. How long has he been saying that Macs are going to die? Since 1990?

I just don't trust CNET at all.
"You call *this* archaeology?" Professor Henry Jones

#32 yomoooo

yomoooo

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 June 2005 - 08:21 AM

placebo, on June 4th 2005, 02:14 PM, said:

If Apple ends up using Intel x86 chips in their Macs, but I can't run Mac OS X on a hand-built or third-party PC, I will be PISSED. It's my heaven of ecstacy to be able to run Mac OS X (the better operating system) on a PC (the better price:performance)

View Post


I don't think that would happen, since it would most probably destroy Apple's hardware sells.

#33 NAG

NAG

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Run away!
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 08:41 AM

IF, Apple ever switches to Intel hardware for Macs, they have ways to prevent OS X from running on anything besides their hardware.
"You call *this* archaeology?" Professor Henry Jones

#34 musicdisciple

musicdisciple

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Location:Here be dragons.

Posted 04 June 2005 - 09:45 AM

I just skimmed through all the replies so this might have been mentioned, but couldn't they just be looking at Intel chips to use in a new iPod or something like that?
Bad command or file name. Go stand in the corner.

#35 Macmeister

Macmeister

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:15 AM

NAG, on June 4th 2005, 07:19 AM, said:

CNET also runs Dvorak articles. How long has he been saying that Macs are going to die? Since 1990?

I just don't trust CNET at all.

View Post



Yep, it's actually turned into something of a gimmick for him over the years.  He's made quite a name for himself with regard to it.  Remember when he had the back page of MacUser?

As for the prediction itself, it would certainly be a huge undertaking.  It's difficult for me to see how they would, in reality, actually want to make a core cpu switch -- especially after the long row they've hoed with OS X (not to mention the row third party developers have hoed alongside them!), and actually coming this far.  As Musicdisciple and others in MacCentral/MacWorld forums have mentioned, I'd be more inclined to think they'd be switching to an Intel-based processor for the iPod, or something in a similar vein.

Then again, we most likely don't have all the facts which would lead up to such a drastic measure, were it to actually occur. So, perhaps it's actually more feasible than it appears on the surface.

It'll definitely be interesting to see how things play out tomorrow -- that's for certain.

#36 CG5Addict

CG5Addict

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:40 AM

Macmeister, on June 4th 2005, 08:15 AM, said:

Yep, it's actually turned into something of a gimmick for him over the years.  He's made quite a name for himself with regard to it.  Remember when he had the back page of MacUser?

As for the prediction itself, it would certainly be a huge undertaking.  It's difficult for me to see how they would, in reality, actually want to make a core cpu switch -- especially after the long row they've hoed with OS X (not to mention the row third party developers have hoed alongside them!), and actually coming this far.  As Musicdisciple and others in MacCentral/MacWorld forums have mentioned, I'd be more inclined to think they'd be switching to an Intel-based processor for the iPod, or something in a similar vein.

Then again, we most likely don't have all the facts which would lead up to such a drastic measure, were it to actually occur. So, perhaps it's actually more feasible than it appears on the surface.

It'll definitely be interesting to see how things play out tomorrow -- that's for certain.

View Post


You mean Monday  ;) :P

#37 Macmeister

Macmeister

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:46 AM

CG5Addict, on June 4th 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

You mean Monday  ;) :P

View Post



Ha!  Looks like Memorial Day did me in!   :blush:

#38 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:49 AM

RandyWang, on June 4th 2005, 07:29 AM, said:

It's lovely to think that everything would continue to run well if they were to suddenly switch to a completely new architecture, isn't it? Aaah... ignorance, 'tis bliss.

Right-ho.  Even going from 680x0 -> PPC had more in common than PPC -> x86 does (680x0 and PPC are both big-endian).  The reason for going from 680x0 to PPC was that 680x0 didn't have a real future, but that's not the case with PPC.  (Although the 680x0 series did continue a bit after the 68040 used in Quadras, with the 68060, which was quite a bit faster and ran cooler too--no active cooling required--but also really big as far as CPUs go.)  So I can't honestly think of a reason right now to switch to x86.  I don't really care whose name is on the chip, so if Intel starts making PPC chips that's fine, but not very likely at all.

--Eric

#39 NAG

NAG

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Run away!
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 11:13 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an announcement monday. CNET usually gets general things like that right. They have a tendency to screw up on minor details though so while I doubt we will have Mactel, a tablet or ipod or wifi intel product isn't outside the realm of possibility.
"You call *this* archaeology?" Professor Henry Jones

#40 yomoooo

yomoooo

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 June 2005 - 11:23 AM

Macmeister, on June 4th 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

As for the prediction itself, it would certainly be a huge undertaking.  It's difficult for me to see how they would, in reality, actually want to make a core cpu switch -- especially after the long row they've hoed with OS X (not to mention the row third party developers have hoed alongside them!), and actually coming this far.  As Musicdisciple and others in MacCentral/MacWorld forums have mentioned, I'd be more inclined to think they'd be switching to an Intel-based processor for the iPod, or something in a similar vein.

View Post


Couldn't it simply be that they want to switch to Intels in the iPods because IBM hasn't met the demand?