Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → This is unexpected. Apple ditching IBM and going to Intel.
This is unexpected. Apple ditching IBM and going to Intel.
2005-06-04, 6:35 PM #1
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

Innnnnnteresting...
2005-06-04, 6:45 PM #2
I read about this the other day. Can't wait to see how that turns out.
2005-06-05, 4:06 AM #3
does this mean that the mac os x may work on pc's in the future?
2005-06-05, 5:29 AM #4
I really hope this works out. It will really make the spread of OSX more widespread. Considering that the average use doesn't know the difference between a AMD - Intel - PowerPC. :p

It will also make porting my linux software easier. :D
Free your mind, use Open Source.
2005-06-05, 6:05 AM #5
ITS JUST A RUMOR. And until the words come out of Job's mouth, you shouldnt believe it.
And when the moment is right, I'm gonna fly a kite.
2005-06-05, 10:44 AM #6
Quote:
Originally posted by gbk
ITS JUST A RUMOR. And until the words come out of Job's mouth, you shouldnt believe it.


No, there was a rumor a while back. It's since been confirmed.
D E A T H
2005-06-05, 10:52 AM #7
My dad (he's in finance with a company which specifies in researching technology) believes this is evidence that Jobs is trying to make apple even more mainstream. Currently, 3% of computers across the world are Apple. Jobs has historically strayed from the norms, and he thinks this is a sign that he may be willing to make Apple computers more ubiquitous.
former entrepreneur
2005-06-05, 11:04 AM #8
Steve Jobs is the man.
My JK Level Design | 2005 JK Hub Level Pack (Plexus) | Massassi Levels
2005-06-05, 11:07 AM #9
I've always had a penchant for Wozniak more than Jobs. I find him to be a much cooler guy.
D E A T H
2005-06-05, 11:23 AM #10
Quote:
Originally posted by ragna
does this mean that the mac os x may work on pc's in the future?


Doubtful. They could easily port Mac OS to x86 and still remain completely proprietary by simply using making Mac OS exclusive to one chipset. That's assuming they're even planning using x86, which no one knows, but porting wouldn't be too tough since it is BSD.
2005-06-05, 11:47 AM #11
Good lord, two threads about Apple at once on Massassi? It must be the apocalypse!!!!!
www.dailyvault.com. - As Featured in Guitar Hero II!
2005-06-05, 2:04 PM #12
Quote:
does this mean that the mac os x may work on pc's in the future?



It already does. Virtual PC is the Windows XP Environment on your Mac. Buggy as hell though, oh, and not guaranteed to work :p
2005-06-05, 3:41 PM #13
This is very unlikely to happen, we have heard nothing about this at Apple, neither via the Staff updates, Developer updates, Sales Prep, Sales Training, basicly nothin as if just after launching a new OS and shed load of new hardware, I dont think this will happen for a very long time, the only reason Intel and Apple are talking is down to WiMAX and you know what Apple are like about Wireless stuff, they love it.

Oh well lets just see whats happens at 10am PST
2005-06-05, 4:44 PM #14
Which reminds me...Airport Basestations are very defective.
2005-06-05, 5:58 PM #15
The conversation on the GeekSquad forums is a much more heated one than this.. We don't want to learn MacOS if they switch to an x86 platform. :( Stupid better compatibility meaning stupid people using lots of software...
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
The OSC Empire
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On
2005-06-05, 6:17 PM #16
Apple = smart.

I was listening to Leo Laporte (one of the Screen Saver guys back when TechTV didn't--you know--suck) on KFI about this. I was very pleased to hear about this. Leo was talking with John C. Dvorak about this. Leo says that this is suicide on Apple's behalf because EVERYONE will have to rewrite their software for the new chipset. Not really. Mainly all you have to do is just hit the compile button. Yeah, you may have to change code over if there's assembly or other code written for a specific chipset. But the OS is going to take care of the dirty work for the SE. That's for what they are. I should have called the show then and explained this to him. Oh well.

I think this will help out Apple.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2005-06-06, 8:23 AM #17
Hmmm... Does that mean that the Apple OS will work on any X86 CPU? Because if it works on an Intel, it would work on an AMD. If they could make their OS compatible will all Windows apps, they could compete with MS. I don't know if that's possible though.

On the other hand, why would they partner them-selves with Intel? Intel really isn't making very good CPU's right now. AMD is creaming Intel in many bench marks for half the price. Unless Intel pulls something big out of their sleeves I don't see that changing in the next 2-3 years.
2005-06-06, 12:48 PM #18
Quote:
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet
Hmmm... Does that mean that the Apple OS will work on any X86 CPU? Because if it works on an Intel, it would work on an AMD. If they could make their OS compatible will all Windows apps, they could compete with MS. I don't know if that's possible though.

On the other hand, why would they partner them-selves with Intel? Intel really isn't making very good CPU's right now. AMD is creaming Intel in many bench marks for half the price. Unless Intel pulls something big out of their sleeves I don't see that changing in the next 2-3 years.


Because their target market, Apple's OS, really is inline with the intel market. Modelling, music, art, movies, stuff like that is all reputedly 'better' on Macs, and they all happen to work faster on Intel chips.
D E A T H
2005-06-06, 1:30 PM #19
Not all. It's about half and half give or take a few bench marks. I'm sure AMD would do much better if it was running on a 64bit OS with 64bit apps like the Mac OS is.
2005-06-06, 1:43 PM #20
Quote:
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet
Not all. It's about half and half give or take a few bench marks. I'm sure AMD would do much better if it was running on a 64bit OS with 64bit apps like the Mac OS is.


I doubt it, really, as we don't even know how much that 64 bit will help. All we've seen is a couple XP64 games and programs benchmarked, and they came out WORSE for the wear.

And actually, yes, P4's destroy AMD's on things like compiling videos and all that nonesense.
D E A T H
2005-06-06, 2:23 PM #21
"Hmmm... Does that mean that the Apple OS will work on any X86 CPU? Because if it works on an Intel, it would work on an AMD."

No, they could easily port it x86 and make the OS only run on a proprietary x86 chipset.

And it was made official today. I had a feeling this one wasn't BS. http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/
2005-06-06, 2:26 PM #22
It's true, from several sources. Apparently the ability to compile fat binaries has been around for a while, and Apple's compilers have been silently doing so for some time now.

I like the look of MacOS X and eagerly anticipate the day it's cracked to run on generic Pentium machines.

I do think this is funny, though, since Microsoft has been making moves to distance themselves from Intel and IA32/x86. In addition to openly supporting AMD's 64-bit extensions, .NET is little more than a powermove to make Windows binaries run on alternative processors - including PowerPC (Xbox 360).
2005-06-06, 5:11 PM #23
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
I doubt it, really, as we don't even know how much that 64 bit will help. All we've seen is a couple XP64 games and programs benchmarked, and they came out WORSE for the wear.

And actually, yes, P4's destroy AMD's on things like compiling videos and all that nonsense.


Um, no they haven't. you may be referring to the 32bit apps running is 64 bit, and of course they'll be one or two fps slower. The few games and apps patched to work in 64bit run much better 64bit. I imagine that even more performance would be gain for an OS designed from the ground up for 64bit running programs designed from the ground up in 64bit. Like Apple.

P4's do not "destroy" AMD in everything other than gaming. Like I said before the not all the bench marks show AMD in the lead. Very few have huge performance deferences. Go read them for your self.
2005-06-06, 6:50 PM #24
/me loves his P4 with RAMBUS and spits in the eye all who oppose him and his beloved box.
2005-06-06, 6:51 PM #25
Eww, that means it's an old crappy P4. Eww, P4 A's and B's. *hiss*
2005-06-06, 8:00 PM #26
AMD for ever! :D *covers eyes*
2005-06-06, 8:57 PM #27
At least they'll be cheaper now. I may even consider buying one, though I'd rather just have OSX install on one of my PCs.
[This message has been edited. Deal with it.]
2005-06-07, 3:41 PM #28
Quote:
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet
Um, no they haven't. you may be referring to the 32bit apps running is 64 bit, and of course they'll be one or two fps slower. The few games and apps patched to work in 64bit run much better 64bit. I imagine that even more performance would be gain for an OS designed from the ground up for 64bit running programs designed from the ground up in 64bit. Like Apple.

P4's do not "destroy" AMD in everything other than gaming. Like I said before the not all the bench marks show AMD in the lead. Very few have huge performance deferences. Go read them for your self.


Actually, they do destroy AMD's. I think it's you who are not reading reviews.
D E A T H
2005-06-07, 4:38 PM #29
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Actually, they do destroy AMD's. I think it's you who are not reading reviews.

You're absolutely right, a high-end P4 will net you an extra 8 fps in Quake 3. Whoa. Of course, that's only at 640x480 -- if you bump up the resolution the framerates equal out.

Too bad the video card is always the bottleneck in a real world situation, and - fittingly enough - the thing that always does everything processor-intensive in a modern game, so it really makes no difference if you have a Cray Supercomputer with an array of vector processors or a Pentium 3 when you're stuck with a GeForce2.

Rendering calls are batched and they execute asynchronously. Bus speed makes all of the difference - the processor is fluff.
2005-06-08, 1:38 PM #30
Quote:
Originally posted by Jon`C
You're absolutely right, a high-end P4 will net you an extra 8 fps in Quake 3. Whoa. Of course, that's only at 640x480 -- if you bump up the resolution the framerates equal out.

Too bad the video card is always the bottleneck in a real world situation, and - fittingly enough - the thing that always does everything processor-intensive in a modern game, so it really makes no difference if you have a Cray Supercomputer with an array of vector processors or a Pentium 3 when you're stuck with a GeForce2.

Rendering calls are batched and they execute asynchronously. Bus speed makes all of the difference - the processor is fluff.


I'm talking about non-gaming situations, Jon. If you'd have read my post before, you'd know that.

Yes, me and my uncle had a very lengthy discussion on the topic and how bus speed was the main limitation with processors today. I know that much is true.
D E A T H
2005-06-08, 1:44 PM #31
Quote:
Originally posted by Jon`C
You're absolutely right, a high-end P4 will net you an extra 8 fps in Quake 3. Whoa. Of course, that's only at 640x480 -- if you bump up the resolution the framerates equal out.

Too bad the video card is always the bottleneck in a real world situation, and - fittingly enough - the thing that always does everything processor-intensive in a modern game, so it really makes no difference if you have a Cray Supercomputer with an array of vector processors or a Pentium 3 when you're stuck with a GeForce2.

Rendering calls are batched and they execute asynchronously. Bus speed makes all of the difference - the processor is fluff.


Actually, if you had a Cray, you could enable software rendering and completely bypass the video card, netting you a great increase :D

↑ Up to the top!