Apple May be Intel Show Pony 481
Robert writes "Computer
Business Review reports that the implications of Apple dropping IBM as its chip vendor
in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing
landscape. Apple stands to gain a competitive edge by partnering with Intel because
it will have access to slightly cheaper stuff."
Re:Are you Kidding Me? (Score:4, Informative)
here is a little comparsion (all prices in CDN):
20 inch LCD: EDU: 899 REG: 999
23 inch LCD: EDU: 1649 REG: 1899
30 inch LCD: EDU: 3549 REG: 3799
Power Mac G5
Dual 2.7 (std config): EDU: 3399 REG: 3799
Re:If they wanted cheaper stuff (Score:2, Informative)
Re:how could they stop it? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).
As for a BIOS, modern Macs have all used Open Firmware [openfirmware.org]. Sun also uses this, and apparently IBM, if what I read earlier is in fact true. Sadly, I've read that Apple has stated the new Macs will NOT use Open Firmware. The dev systems are using a crappy Phoenix BIOS, but I'm hoping the actual released systems will use Intel's EFI, or something similar to Open Firmware.
USB. (Score:5, Informative)
Then in late '98, Apple dropped the iMac bomb.
Not only were they using Intel's USB, they'd dropped everything else. You either got on the boat or you stayed behind. Now EVERYTHING ships with USB - a spec everybody refused to touch until Apple made it trendy and sexy to do so.
Apple + Intel == a very, very good thing. Both companies will get to bust ass doing what they're best at.
Feel the love.
Re:Surely not... (Score:1, Informative)
- IBM couldn't get the power consumption of the G5 down, which is why we haven't seen a G5 laptop - IBM was having yield problems with their G5 model - The G5 wasn't up to snuff with it's x86 competitors source here [anandtech.com] - Freescale Semiconductor, Apple's other business partner who designed the G4, is primarily interested in the embedded market
This is what I know. ^_~
Re:how could they stop it? (Score:4, Informative)
they could also build custom chips on their mb - no chips, no run. Just because machines use the same processor doesn't mean their OS will run on either machines without significant work.
Everyone assume Apple will use industry standard designs as the basis for Intel based Macs; I doubt that will be the case. They've been there before with CHRP and that never really went anywhere.
Re:USB. (Score:1, Informative)
Apple releasing the iMac with USB wasn't the catalyst for USB adaption - they were just reacting to the large number of USB peripherals already available.
Re:Surely not... (Score:2, Informative)
Which is why I'm wondering why the switch to Intel isn't about cheap hardware.
It's not, cause Apple is never going to make "cheap" hardware. Maybe the switch to Intel will lower their cost some and thus bring down prices a little, but Apple computers will still be premium computers at a premium price.
So why not fork over an extra $200 to buy your next computer from Apple? It will be a very high end Intel system that you can run Windows on, and you can toy with OSX if you want to. Apple is never going to release OSX for the general Wintel market, their business model doesn't work that way. But now they've applied the licensing scheme to their hardware-oriented model: Instead of making their OS run on other computers, they've made their computers run other OSes. Now switchers can still run windows on their new Apple, and try out OSX (which sells itself).
-z
Re:Hype vs. actual developments (Score:1, Informative)
When Apple announced "the switch", I didn't like the idea because, well, I like the PowerPC instruction set. Much better than x86.
But in the end it doesn't matter. Nobody cares about assembly, rightly so. Developpers will ship fat binaries because, as opposed to when Microsoft had NT on Alpha or MIPS, everybody ships on CDs or DVDs nowadays, and everybody has boroadband. Or they can use Java.
Afterwards, if IBM or freescale does come up with a competitive processor, well, Apple can just use it if they want. In the meantime they have Intels (or AMDs) to keep them up to par on performance.
Really looks like a good move to me...
pointless, possibly impossible to hack OS X x86 (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of cheaper, more standardized PPC MLBs available from various vendors like TerraSoft and Pegasos. They are G3s or G4s, some with standard PC-style serial ports, etc. OS X does not run on these boards. That is because the Mac needs a custom boot ROM. If people were able to slap together a cheaper PPC box (which they can) and then put OS X on it (which they cannot) there wouldn't have been such a clamor for x86 Mac OS X.
Also, Apple does not use the typical northbridge/southbridge approach to MLB design. They have custom designed ICs, and we have heard nothing as to whether they will try to modify HyperTransport to work with x86 or use something else entirely. Apple makes a whole widget - and while I have no advance knowledge whatsoever, you can be damn sure that the Apple x86 MLBs are going to bear little resemblance to an off-the-shelf VIA board.
Put the issue to bed. Beyond these two facts is the simple fact that if you WERE able to just build a box and throw OS X on it, it wouldn't necessarily work correctly or be supported at all. And most people DON'T BUILD THEIR OWN BOXES ANYWAY. It would have minimal effect on sales because most people buy computers as appliances and tools, NOT as a HOBBY KIT. There will always be some that choose that path, but they are the grand, sweeping minority.
That all being said, i REALLY hope this switch offers us the ability to use a wider range of video cards and upgradable CPUs.
Re:USB. (Score:3, Informative)
The Extended Pro II was a beautiful keyboard - I still have two of them (I had more but gave a few away). The Tactile Pro is a little "clickier", USB (with USB hub ports and the "media keys"), and better still, it actually has all the little Mac meta-characters printed on the keys (the apple, the ©, the curly "f", etceteras).
I'm extremely pleased with this keyboard, though the | key was odd for about a week (which made it hard to
Apple *book keyboards are nice, and the keyboards they're shipping with current desktops are okay... they're still squishier than a six dollar PS/2 keyboard, though.
Re:The Truth about Mac OS X here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:could they stop it? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).
Yes, there is a ROM image file but it was introduced with the original iMac which from then on are called New World Macs. The previous Mac models, the beige G3s, are called Old Word Macs. That file also contains more than just the contents of the Old World ROMs, I believe.
I learned more than I wanted to about the ROM file when I tried to perform a clean install of OS 9 (or was it 8.5?) on my original Bondi Blue iMac. The ROM file had to reside within the first gig or so on the hard drive and as best as I could determine, the clean install placed the new file past the limit.
That had to be one of the most frustrating day I ever spent with any Mac -- and I've been working with them since 1986 (or 1984 i f you include the Lisa 2). Since then I do not do a clean install unless I have a specific reason to do so. Think about it: Apple engineers put a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that an upgrade will work for the 98% of their users who do an ordinary update, not the rest of us geeks.
Re:how could they stop it? (Score:2, Informative)
It was very much a joint effort and appeared on both macs and PCs about the same time. Apple was much more aggressive in their rollout (The original imac only had USB connectors), and USB support for PC's wasn't added until Windows98 (there was an OEM version of win95 that supported it, but it wasn't widely deployed)
From the wiki: Apple computers have used USB mice and keyboards exclusively since January 1999. Compaq included USB as early as April 1996.
Re:That May be true... (Score:3, Informative)
jwz had a real world problem, he's no mug when it comes to linux, but was defeated by the fact that there is no simple solution to a simple problem. His solution was to switch platforms.
Disclaimer: I've been using Mac's since the late 80's. I've used them as my primary work computer for the last 10 years. In that time I've seen a transition from 68k to PPC and from Mac OS to OS X. The reason? It just works. Its the lesson that the Linux advocates such as the parent poster have to learn. In the end ideology isn't important, all that matters is does it work.
Re:That May be true... (Score:3, Informative)
There are multiple simple solutions. He could have enabled dmix. He could have installed Fedora Core 4. He could have bought a $10 card that supports the feature he wanted. He chose a complex solution; changing all of his applications and operating system and hardware platform to solve an insignificant configuration issue. Classic prima donna behaviour.
You've got the rose-coloured glasses on. If you truly used Macs during the 68k era then they didn't Just Work(tm). They crashed. Extensions were a nightmare. There was more black magic involved in MacOS than there was in DOS and Windows combined. Hardware support was spotty at best. Even when the hardware was meant to work, that was no guarantee it would work. I endlessly cursed SCSI scanners that didn't scan, or Local Talk networks that didn't talk, or soft-modems that dropped connections and ran slowly. Apple had a supported hardware list that makes Linux look enriched by comparison. The only peripherals that ever worked "perfectly" were serial-based laserwriters, even though they were SLOW. Apple's TCP/IP strategy was a joke. Applications were notoriously buggy throughout MacOS 7 and 8 days. And the 68k to PPC transition was NOT smooth, no matter what the hazy memories on Slashdot might say.
The thing is, MacOS still doesn't work. I've got hardware here that doesn't work on MacOS X. TV tuners, USB wireless dongles, bluetooth phones. They've all got issues with OS X. Yet we still have fanboys claiming It Just Works. What a load of rot. More rose-coloured glasses.
I haven't learn the lesson? On the contrary, I have learnt the lesson. I've learnt that NO computer Just Works. They've all got issues and complications and brain-damaged behaviour. What I have learnt is that you need specialised knowledge no matter what OS you use. MacOS, OS X, DOS, Windows, Solaris, Linux, they're all roughly the same in terms of complexity. I don't find any of them to be a panacea for ease of use. I don't find any of them to be exceptionally difficult. They're all equally annoying in their own unique and special ways.
So given that not one of them is a technical marvel, what does matter? Applications, of course. But all of them have roughly the same level of applications. So what else? Price, that's very important, but they're all in roughly the same ballpark for price too. So what's left? Freedom. That's the only distinguishing feature left. With Windows or MacOS X you're simply not free. You call that ideology. I call it pragmatism. If you don't know why freedom is important, then that is YOUR LOSS. You obviously haven't been burnt before. When you do figure it out, Linux will be here waiting for you. I promise I won't even say "I told you so".
Re:how could they stop it? (Score:3, Informative)