Report: Apple Switching to Intel Chips

[Placebo]

A stormy, decade-long relationship between Apple Computer Inc. and IBM is over, according to published reports. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce Monday morning at the company's software developers conference in San Francisco that Apple will discontinue using microprocessor chips made by IBM in favor of Intel chips, according to CNET Networks Inc.'s News.com and The Wall Street Journal.

Officials from Apple, Intel Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. could not be reached Sunday to confirm the report.

For years, rumors of Apple's wish to jump to Intel have been circulating. But two weeks ago, analysts were skeptical when The Wall Street Journal reported that Intel and Apple were in negotiations.

One reason for the skepticism is that the move represents a significant risk for Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple.

More...

[johncoby2]

1. There goes the neighborhood.

[Placebo]

3. ...

:rofl:

[merwin]

43. Why? Apple's OS can run on almost any processor you put in front of it.

It's a UNIX base, remember?

[Kellanved]

56. yes, the OS is UNIX-based; but the programs are not compatible

The current mac programs are compiled for the PowerPC RIS , not the Intel x86 CIS.
I.e. none of the current programs will run without a new compilation. Not a problem with well-written open source software : you could just recompile it, but it is very much a problem for the usual proprietary software.

So, until all the major pieces of software get released in a MacOS/x86 version, you'll have to use some strange and - probably - crash prone emulator to run them.

[Xithras]

63. Crash prone? Probably not.

Apple knows exactly how the PowerPC chip is supposed to operate, so nobody is in a better position than they to write a stable emulator. Once that's written, it would be trivial to build it into the OS and make its operation seamless.

[alfredo]

64. There's always VPC

Of course MS may be reluctant.

All software made will be hybrid. I bet there will be the same deal as there was between OS9 and OSX.

[Kellanved]

65. Well, programming an emulator is tricky

You have to simulate everything to the smallest detail. Not just the specs of the emulated processor but everything: bugs, quirks, OS-dependent "esoteric" behavior, anything a programmer might have had used to attain some unknown goal.

And in each and every case the emulator has to behave exactly like the genuine article. But that's just half the story: it also has to run in an acceptable speed on the host system.

So: yeah, the Mac folks familiarity with the system and the closed hardware base will help a lot. But there will be software incompatible with the emulator - there always is.

[OrwellwasRight]

98. The whole point of a Mac used to be

that you didn't have to emulate anything. That's why Windows always was and always will be such a POS, because it is a mere shell running DOS underneath, but Mac was always a Mac, no BS C:// to try to understnad (and to waste valuable memory).

OS X was bad enough with its lack of an apple menu, no application swithcher, its weird heirarchy that allows you to choose the desktop from within the hard drive instead of the desktop always being the outermost choice in any menu hierarchy, and its adoption of the ridiculous column view (who scrolls sideways?).

Now Mac won't be Mac and the only reason to buy it is to get a pretty white computer? F that.

Steve Jobs: YOU ARE A SELL OUT!

[frylock]

118. because it is a mere shell running dos underneath..

that only applies to Windows 9x; DOS is emulated in 2000 and XP using NTVDM.

[OrwellwasRight]

121. Hey, are you trying to question my knowledge of Mac v. PC

or are you merely trying to increase the pain of this sad and tragic news?

Whatever happened to Motorola anyway?

Hope you're doing well!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[youspeakmylanguage]

124. I'm afraid he is right...

...not that it makes Windows any less of a POS.

[OrwellwasRight]

134. As long as we agree that Windows is a POS,

that's all that counts.

But is Mac going to be a POS too, now that it is based on Intel chips (and for the record, doesn't the intel pentium chip have some kind of "tracking" capability in it that makes it easier for folks to spy on you)?

And, if you read Frylock's next post to me, you'll see that he "bowed to my wisdom." It's because we're actually friends. He is a computer whiz guy and would certainly not need to bow to my computer knowledge except in good fun.

Hello. :hi:

[frylock]

129. i would never do such a thing..

I bow to your wisdom!

;) :hi: :loveya:

[OrwellwasRight]

135. Check out the props I just gave you...

How 'bout them Pads?

Can you tell I'm a bit out of focus today?

Check out this blog and guess which of my friends is partially responsible:

http://cruzbustamante.com/

:puffpiece: (what does this smiley mean anyway?)

:hug:

[LifeDuringWartime]

146. who scrolls sideways?

I DO!! I LOVE the column view.

OSX does have an Apple menu, the Dock functions as an application switcher (as well as pressing command-tab OR F9, F10, F11 for Expose), and the placement of the desktop makes perfect sense. The way it is currently set up, each user has their own desktop.

Macs are *usually* much better pieces of equipment. They are very well-built. They've had their problematic models like any other company, but they are consistently some of the highest-quality computers. Don't forget the great customer service.

[OrwellwasRight]

161. The apple menu is a shadow of its former self

with no ability to access favorites, the shut down process is different (asking if you really want to shut down as if I am some lame windows user who might change her mind), and it is frankly not rainbow colored. I can't even remember now all the things I used to do in the apple menu, but I can tell you they all are not there now (they have been relocated). :freak:

As far as the Dock functioning as an app switcher, well, as anyone who has been using Macs since 1988 can tell you, when you have gone to the upper right corner to access a menu that is ALWAYS there, not hiding, not covered, no key strokes, for fourteen years, it is well nigh imposible to get used to doing anything else (as well as slower if you have to take your hands off the mouse and recall some ridiculous DOS-like key stoke combination). I still can't get used to it. The dock is not the same; you have to wait for it to float up and then sometimes it doesn't float up when you want it or it disappears too fast; it is just not as reliable as the app switcher to my mind. :argh:

I had to download a piece of freeware that emulates the app switcher (and brought back the favorites folder, etc.) to make it work for me.

And you are the first person who claims to be a Mac person that I have ever met that likes the sideways scrolling. It is so counterintuitive to go A-BE, then BI-CH, then CI-?? instead of just A-Z in one, long, lovely scroll.

I'm glad OS X seems superior to you. But I for one will not stand by Macs as they become crappier (i.e. more windows like). If Steve wants to be Bill, I'll buy the cheapest crappiest computer available instead of the most expensive, crappiest computer available because that will be the only difference left to me. :banghead:

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Great! With a few tweaks, I'll be able to run Apple's OSs on my Dells

Motorola was the best anyway....

[benburch]

6. Unlikely!

Remember, you would need to have the machine look like an Apple to the software. Apple intentionally makes their software unusable on non-Apple machines. For example, though you can get some really nice PPC blade processors, nobody has gotten MacOS X Server to run on one. This is more than "a few tweaks". Darwin will already run on your Dell, but MacOS X is very unlikely to ever allow itself to run there.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. If they port to Intel, someone will do it

there is a huge pool of unemployed hackers

:)

[youspeakmylanguage]

52. Another reason to avoid Apple products...

...as if I needed another one.

[hoboken123]

80. Yeah!

I too avoid well-designed and well-made products.

[youspeakmylanguage]

123. :-P

I tend to avoid overpriced hardware and bloated, proprietary OS's. But hey, I'm supposed to "Think Different" and embrace the clique, right? That is, if I'm cool enough and rich enough to join...

[hoboken123]

132. "Embrace the clique"?

A linux user deriding computer cliques???

Oh, that irony!

"Oh no, my clique is better than yours!"



/geez, defensive much?

[youspeakmylanguage]

136. What clique?

You are making less and less logical sense with each post.

Linux and it's users are defined by their diversity and the diversity of the distros. There is a "flavor" of Linux that can match almost any hardware configuration and there are OS packages of software that can match almost any user requirement. All that is required of the end user is to learn the basics of Linux and then learn how to configure and run their particular system. While that may be challenging at first, the very nature of Linux and the OS movement allow people from almost all economic and geopolitical backgrounds to use AND put to practical use almost any computer manufactured in the last 10-12 years. Linux users vary from Fortune 500 companies to socialist governments to lone libertarian screwballs.

Compare that to a groups of users who depend on the same company for their hardware, OS, and most of their software (almost all of which is proprietary), paying out the wahzoo to do so, and who then band together and snort and scoff at all users of other hardware and most software, claiming they are inherently inferior. That sure sounds like a clique to me!

I don't get defensive. I could care less what hardware and software other people use. But the whole "Apple is the best!" BS gets on my nerves.

[hoboken123]

138. Self created BS

...who then band together and snort and scoff at all users of other hardware and most software, claiming they are inherently inferior...

But the whole "Apple is the best!" BS gets on my nerves.


AFAIK, you're the only one saying these things.

And then arguing against it.

This is logical?

[youspeakmylanguage]

139. LOL

I've heard the same BS from Apple users ever since I started using computers as a kid. Look up and down this thread and you'll see plenty of arguments claiming Apple hardware/software is superior.

Perhaps you should read the entire thread and not just my posts.

[hoboken123]

141. LOL

...who then band together and snort and scoff at all users of other hardware and most software, claiming they are inherently inferior...

And then:
Look up and down this thread and you'll see plenty of arguments claiming Apple hardware/software is superior.


So now your point is some people might think Apple's hardware or software might be superior? That's it?


So that organized band of derisive scoffing Apple users...I looked thru the thread. Where exactly are they?

[youspeakmylanguage]

143. yawn

When did I say organized? Is a membership roll hidden someplace? Do Apple users wear matching shirts and come down the street with coordinated finger snapping? Or maybe I can find them lounging down in the Bowery, playing poker and singing a tune from the old country. Do you prick your palms and learn the secret handshake when you plonk down $2,000+ in an upscale Apple store? Are paddles involved?

I said "band together", obviously in chat rooms and on online forums such as this. I never said "organized".

This is getting asinine. Pat yourself on the back. You win a cookie.

[hoboken123]

144. Thought so

From 'scoffing at all users' and their 'inherent inferiority' to nothing. No quotes of posts, no examples from the thread. Impressive.


I must learn this technique--make up posts, then argue them.

[youspeakmylanguage]

145. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Refute a blindingly obvious statement by claiming that unless the original poster goes through the entire thread (137+ posts, readily available) and copies and pastes quotes to the same thread, then the posts in question don't actually exist and the orginal poster's argument is somehow diminished.

I think techniques like this are popular in Washington right now. If you bury your head in the sand, then of course everyone else should do the same.

You're putting me to sleep faster than reruns of "Matlock".

[hoboken123]

149. Right

You said they were all over the thread.

I said I found none and asked for some examples.

Now they're blinding obvious? Blindingly obvious, but unable to quote or reproduce?



I am duly impressed. You should teach a course.

[youspeakmylanguage]

151. OK...

sigh

Now pick up your toys and go home. Your mom's calling.

[hoboken123]

152. Uhhhmmmm....

"The hardware is high quality and high style"

"yep, you've used a mac at a kinko's. where do you want your honorary degree in CS sent?"

"I made The Switch and I love it. No reason at all why it can't serve a middle market for servers and clusters on a much larger scale. The science community is moving to OSX clusters (on dual G5 Xserves) in droves these days. It just works. And dropping the Unix Geek snobbery (I can relate, cuz I have it too) OSX server can be admined by a near beginner safely."


These posts arguing points about Macs' strengths are your paranoid 'scoffing at ALL users' about their 'inherently inferior' computers? You are too much! If you have a newsletter please sign me up.


And dropping the Unix Geek snobbery...

Wow, look at that. Almost like it's taught at the clique meetings.

[youspeakmylanguage]

153. :-)

Limiting the scope of your comprehension to whatever quotes you cherry pick to suit your strawmen does not a winning argument make. It is amusing, though. Thanks again for livening up my afternoon. You were almost as interesting as watching the rain fall on the parking lot outside my office building.

[hoboken123]

154. You are the best I've seen in a while

I posted what you linked, two of them the entire post. You don't like the quotes, yet you are the one who linked to them.....how amazingly odd.

From answering non-existent posts while ignorant direct questions, to the linux-holier-than-thou attitude with a big helping of a persectuion complex, I am in awe.



/3% marketshare for Apple=clique
/3% marketshare for linux=rugged individuals

[youspeakmylanguage]

156. Peace!

From answering non-existent posts while ignorant direct questions, to the linux-holier-than-thou attitude with a big helping of a persectuion complex, I am in awe.

Who was answering "non-existent posts" "while ignorant direct questions"? I guess if the posts were non-existent, then I missed out on the fun.

Thanks again for the idle amusement.

[hoboken123]

157. U2

You sure fought off all those clique-y Apple loving posters scoffing at you and every user, even if they didn't actually post.

Bravo for that.

[youspeakmylanguage]

175. BTW...

*plonk*

[hoboken123]

178. You are the best

Always remember that.

[priller]

4. I simply don't believe this. It makes no sense.

If Jobs announces this at the developer's conference tomorrow, he'll be lucky to make it out alive.

[Placebo]

9. I think most sense when it comes to portables...

People have been clamouring for a PowerBook G5 for 2 years now, but the fact of the matter is that it will likely never happen. The G5 is too hot (hell, they had to design a liquid-cooling system for the latest ones) and consumes too much power as a viable chip for laptops.

And IBM has shown no evidence that they're coming up with a "mobile" version of the G5 or one that consumes less power.

Meanwhile, Intel will have dual core Pentium M's within a year. And the Pentium M is a damn fine chip.

PowerBook M5 anyone? ;)

[benburch]

10. Nonsense!

This will be a good thing.

99% of all software will only need to be recompiled. If you stick to the public APIs and never directly massage the hardware or use AltVec accelerations, your software won't need to change at all.

[Renew Deal]

13. Why?

OS X is what makes Apple special, not bloated hardware.

[priller]

17. Apple is a HARDWARE company.

Apple makes the vast majority of its profits (something like 80%) off of computer hardware. If OS X could suddenly run on most cheap Intel boxes, there would be no reason to buy expensive Apple hardware, and Apple would be out of business.

That's the main reason why this makes no sense.

[Placebo]

18. Think first. Who said they're releasing OS X for PCs?

They'll likely still fix it so that OS X only runs on Apple computers. Calm down! :P

[priller]

22. Ha ha! That will last about 2 seconds

before it gets hacked.

[Placebo]

23. Why?

As someone else said, there are PPC-based servers out there that it's impossible to get OS X to run on now. :shrug:

[wakeme2008]

26. But there is a ton of Intel PCs out there

and once on an X86 machine Apple would have to support other hardware.

[Placebo]

28. Says who?

They can do what they like. :)

[youspeakmylanguage]

53. Microsoft thought they could do what they liked...

...now, thank goodness, governments around the world are forcing them to play nice with others.

[Rush1184]

62. even if it does get hacked,

how many average users will be able to get it to work on their PC box.... next to none. And Apple would never let anyone release a non-apple PC version unless they released it, so no legal copies for businesses, schools, univeristies, or any non-apple PC end user. Thus, anyone who wanted to run OSX would still depend on apple for their hardware, thereby not presenting a problem to apple's lock on hardware sales.

[Llewlladdwr]

25. Doubtful.

Once the OS has been rewritten for the x86 architecture (and it will have to be rewritten) then it'll run on any x86 based machine. Sounds to me like Apple finally realizes that proprietary hardware is a dead-end and is positioning itself as a competitor to LINUX.

[SkipNewarkDE]

36. Wrong

x86 architecture refers to the processor. It doesn't refer to the hardware around it, which can be pretty much whatever one desires. Unless Apple decides to make a clone using the same reference platform as most x86 machines, you aren't going to have OS X that runs on everything.

Unless of course they intend to do that. There is a version of Darwin that does this.

[onehandle]

38. Ha Ha Ha.

Apple will go out of business aaaaany minute now.

The hardware is high quality and high style. There will always be a market for people who want a Superior machine.

Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche are still in business and they have a smaller market share than Apple.

[benburch]

42. And they ONLY have 7 billion in the bank...

And zero debt.

I'd say they are hurting!

[LifeDuringWartime]

51. really $7 billion?

thats quite a bit of cash.

[youspeakmylanguage]

54. LOL...

...competitor to Linux? Competing for which users? The two computer cultures couldn't be more fundamentally different! Linux users are open-source, hands-on techies who usually fall on extreme ends of the political spectrum (socialist/libertarian) who want products they can customize and tinker to their heart's content AND use on hardware up to 10+ years old*. How does Apple appeal to them? With neon cases and empty slogans?

*The Linux distro I use (Ubuntu 5.04) was designed to work on 386Mhz processors and up!

[hoboken123]

81. Any clue what you're talking about?

"Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore"."

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/0,39023165,39183867,00.htm


Pretty sure he's a linux user.

[youspeakmylanguage]

122. Your point?

I doubt Steve Wozniak personifies the average Mac user, or Bill Gates the average Windows user. The average Linux user is just as likely to think (and probably look) like this guy as Torvalds. And we have no idea how Linus Torvalds has his personal network set up. For all we know he may have hacked parts of the Tiger GUI and software to run under his own customized Linux kernel. He also isn't exactly a multi-billionaire, so the Mac may have even been a hand-me-down.

I'm talking about the Linux culture versus the Mac culture, and how they are vastly different on many levels.

UPDATE:

You left out some choice quotes...

"Oh, and part of it is that I got the machine for free," said Torvalds...

"As to the why ... Part of it is simply that I wanted to try something else, and I felt like there were enough people testing the x86 side that it certainly didn't need me. Part of it is that I personally believe there are two main architectures out there: Power and x86-64 are what _I_ think are the two most relevant ones, and I decided that I had to at least check the other side of it out seriously if I really believed that," said Torvalds...

He really sounds like he is working overtime licking Jobs' boots.
:rofl:

[CountAllVotes]

5. Jobs! You finally sold out!

:kick:

[evlbstrd]

7. Then simultanously support two hardware platforms?

As the PowerPC platform is phased out? Or will Intel manufacture the G5's and future PowerPC chips?

[priller]

12. "Phase out" makes less than zero sense

It's not like the two chips are interchangeable, you know. Jeez. Let's just say I will be more shocked than I've ever been in my life if this turns out to be true.

[evlbstrd]

14. I agree. n/t.

[Placebo]

15. Well from what we "know" (eek) right now...

this will be a gradual change, fully completed by sometime in 2007.

[evlbstrd]

20. So what happens with OS X support for "legacy" hardware?

And all of my applications?

[Placebo]

21. I don't know, but I just got Tiger...

and just bought an iBook G4 a couple months ago, so, I'll be just as screwed as you if Apple does something rash.

Don't worry, I'm sure Apple will handle this well. They've shifted processors before, albeit yeeeeears ago, and they did it pretty well.

[evlbstrd]

24. True,

And the transition from System 9 to OS X seemed to go pretty smoothly.

[merwin]

44. That doesn't matter. The applications don't care what hardware is in

your system. It only cares about accessing a CD burner, or a video card, or a sound card, etc. The OS and the drivers do all of the necessary translations to the specific hardware.

It's the same thing as having the thousands upon thousands of different types of hardware for Windows. Your apps will run just fine on any of them.

[alfredo]

70. Talked to an Apple Rep, he said don't worry.

You will not be left high and dry.

[burrowowl]

8. Would be a bad move

Intel chips have aging architecture complete instruction set instead of reduced and their math is much wanting.
In the calculation world good math sets are really needed.

[high density]

16. An Apple with x86 architecture?

It sounds like they're about to embrace just about everything that Apple has ever been against. If they're going to do that, why not at least go with the better and cheaper AMD chips instead of Intel?

[wakeme2008]

27. Right dual cores X64 are now out there

:) plan to have one for my Windose box... :)

[Kellanved]

57. Apple was in talks with AMD as well

My guess is that they'll want chips slightly different from normal x86 CPUs.

I wouldn't be too surprised, should IBM be the real reason behind this. IBM will make the CPUs for all three major gaming consoles; IBM is probably making better money with those than with Apple.

[ToeBot]

19. Maybe Intel finally found a use for those Itanium's,

it's for damn sure no one else is interested.

[stepnw1f]

29. I Advertise for Free for my PC

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[althecat]

30. A stalking horse for an OSX release - the clone wars II???

[gmoney]

31. Uh, anyone consider that Intel may be hired to make G5 chips?

Intel is a versatile manufacturer, and can probably make the G5 chips Apple's been using (or perhaps the G6 chips that would be the next generation). Apple's had supply problems with IBM for years, and they've been having trouble boosting the clock speed for a while, too. If Intel can deliver APPLE chips with high performance, in quantity and on time, that will really help Apple get new product to market faster.

At least I hope so... but it's sucked for the past few years that Jobs announces a new machine, but it's 3 or 4 months until it actually ships.

[Placebo]

34. Will never happen.

They wouldn't go through all that trouble for a customer as small as Apple.

[mccoyn]

125. Intel makes a lot more than just Desktop CPU's

They make chips for markets much smaller than Apple already. Why would they not do it now?

[entanglement]

94. Exactly; Apple is reportedly unhappy with

IBM's delivery speed of G5s; however, why should Intel help fab a chip that is in competition with its processors?

[DS1]

32. Apples are slow, they should switch to AMD 64 bit chips

Intel is just as bad, it's like jumping from horse to horse on the same wagon train.

[Placebo]

33. Yes, but you must admit...

the Pentium M is a beautiful thing. :)

[onehandle]

35. G5s scream.

The "Apples are slow" mantra is from 1994.

[DS1]

40. Really? The one I used at Kinkos on a number of occasions just about

put me to sleep
Goddamn that thing was a pig.

[realcountrymusic]

47. Yeah sure

I sit in a lab all day surrounded by Unix, P4 and G5 machines. The G5s kick ass on the Pentiums all day every day for almost everything. Our newest, a dual 2.7GHz racehorse, is the fastest workstation I've ever used. Watching it render video like you were saving a word processing document is a wonder to behold.

I love how people who know almost nothing about computers have such strong opinions on the Apple/PC issue. About three posters in this thread know what they are talking about.

Apple is a very strong company. I doubt very much today's announcement will presage a porting of OSX to x86. Jobs is a genius at creating rumor buzz, and this has been a doozy. Watch the other hand.

If licensing were sorted out, it would be no big deal for Intel to tool up to make next-gen PPC chips, by the way. They do way more specialized processors than PPC for much smaller customers than Apple.

Any serious multi-platform geek will tell you that the issue is simply not black and white. Different platforms and operating systems are good for different purposes. For high end AV and scientific work, OSX is clearly the professional platform for a vast number of users. For the average schmoe who spends the day reading the web and watching videos online, a $300 Dell is just fine. Until it gets loaded with spyware, viruses, and mysterious processes.

And to return the favor, every time I have to tweak our WinXP machines so they are secure (again) I laugh in amazement. Windows is a dinosaur OS, and Longhorn is 2 years away and already trumped (if pre-announced feature lists are to be believed) by OSX Tiger.

Almost any expert will tell you Apple machines and software have a lower total cost of ownership in most enterprise settings, and certainly in most creative or scientific settings. As someone who actually has to spend my budget buying 6 or 8 computers a year, training students to use them for specialized creative work, and keeping them running and up to date, I can report that I have voted with my dollars for a few years, slowly winnowing out Wintel boxes and moving to an increasingly all Mac environment (now including my main server).

RCM

[DS1]

61. Regardless of your experience sitting around various hardware

My experience with macs has been less than impressive all around.

And I do know what I'm talking about re: computers, so you can guess what I'd suggest you'd do with your comments in that regard.

[chopper]

72. heh

"And I do know what I'm talking about re: computers,"

yep, you've used a mac at a kinko's. where do you want your honorary degree in CS sent?

[realcountrymusic]

93. ROFLMAO

You tried a Mac at Kinkos. Nuf said.

I stand corrected, however. I didn't think Jobs would do it, but it does appear that OSX for x86 is a reality. I don't think the plan is to knock off Linux, and since the open source world is doing a huge amount of development for Apple for free that would be stupid! What this does is take a huge amount of wind out of the sails (and maybe the sales) of Microsoft. Apple OSX "Leopard" running on x86 smoothly at about the same time MS releases Longhorn! And "Rosetta" looks promising from the initial reports as a PPC emulation solution.

Apple makes beautiful hardware, though they do make an occasional dud. They have superb customer support, huge brand recognition and respect, and an established record, well known in science and high-end media circles, for lower total cost of ownership over time. The OSX GUI is far more intuitive and easy to master than Windows (any flavor), and more elegant and integrated than either Windows or Gnome/KDE, yet almost any open source app can be compiled for it easily, and now it appears that almost any Windows native app will also be able to run smoothly on the same machine with Apple's beautiful proprietary media apps (esp. the video stuff and now Logic for audio) and all the power of Unix guts for serving, especially.

Yeah, a lot of the Apple universe is proprietary and no doubt will stay that way, so in a sense Apple is Microsoft wannabe. But you are not locked into anything proprietary for most functions other than high end media work and the OS itself. I have not minded at all paying for each generation of OSX to date. It tickles me to be running a third or even fourth OS upgrade on machines that are approaching 3 and 4 years old (some of which began as OS9 machines). And so far Apple has certainly delivered major new functionality with each upgrade cycle, though as the OS matures this will slow down.

That said, I'm going to try to hold off on buying new Mac hardware, like a million other people, and see if the prices on PPC machines drop as they reach the end of the cycle. I have a brand new dual 2.7 G5 (w/ 4 GB RAM, a 500GB RAID array) that blows me away at the moment, and two older G5s (a dual 2.0 and a single 1.8) that are working like tanks in my lab.

And I bet dollars to donuts that someone hacks the OSX for intel kernel so that it will run on a generic box within weeks of the first developer kits reaching their destinations. It might be ugly for a while, but you will be seeing OSX running on generic x86 boxes, I am sure of it. As far as I am concerned, this is a good thing. And I for one will continue to pay the premium for Apple hardware unless they license the OSX for x86 thing to other top hardware makers. How cool would an AlienWare running OSX be?

RCM

[htuttle]

96. The kernel is already open source -- it's part of Darwin

In fact, just about everything below Quartz is in Darwin.

If they do try to stay proprietary (and I'm still not convinced they will), it will be something hooked into the interface (which means you could probably run it headless on any appropriately configured box, but you can already do that today with Darwin for x86).

However, it's entirely possible that they will not force people to buy Mac boxes. While they may lose an exclusive market if they allow OSX to run on non-Apple hardware, if it did run on non-proprietary x86 hardware, their potential market for 'switchers' would be HUGE.

I will bet that they WILL require the presence of Intel's Pentium D chip (the one with DRM built in) for anything cool to work. I'm thinking that's part of the deal.

I think Apple's hardware design skills could give any x86 box maker a run for their money. The iMac(s) would still be cool no matter what chip was inside.

But who knows. :shrug:

[realcountrymusic]

114. whoops, right you are

I've seen Darwin running on x86. Jobs said something -- I think -- about a hardware lock to keep it proprietary, somekind of DRM built into the chip, in fact (it had some acronym).

That said, someone is going to hack it for at least basic functionality quickly, I suspect.

the more i think about this the better i like it. i watched the full keynote just now. the box Jobs was using was cooking with gas -- did you see the Mathematica demo? Functionally the same as the fastest Windows workstation I've seen, to hazard a guess based on seeing it run -- they may have tweaked the demo to look that way of course. Apple builds cool computers, sometimes crazy (and sometimes stupid) but always cool. They'll be cool with intel chips too. As long as everything works and the upward momentum continues.

rcm

[bdc9]

67. both are just computers...

I use both Macs and PCs everyday, and they both do the job. I was strictly a PC person until the G5s came out, and my company decided to give one a shot. I must admit that the transition was a little bit strange since I was so used to Windows. However, over time, the one thing that impresses me about my mac is the way it continues to fly, even as it ages.

Out of the box, a new PC is just as fast (or faster, who knows). However, I recently filled up my Mac's hard drive to very near full (less than one gb left on a 250gb drive). I couldn't believe how well the machine kept working. My PCs always slow down over time, particularly my laptops. I don't know if it's the hard drive, the spyware, or just badly written programs, but they can slow to a crawl. Many of my PCs have gotten so slow, that I reformat the hard drive and reinstall windows, just to regain that new PC speed. Luckily, I've never had to deal with that with my Mac (in 2 plus years).

I realize that everyone's experiences are different, and I've always hated elitist Mac speech, but I must say that I do love my mac.

And my pc, just not nearly as much.

Seriously, If you haven't lived with a mac for any amount of time over the last 2 years, you really don't know what you are missing.

[realcountrymusic]

95. That's very well said

People who deal with lots of different computer platforms generally will tell you the OS wars are stupid partisanship, with most passion coming from people who've never actually made a systematic comparison. Different machines for different purposes, and may they all network happily!

That said, I agree with your personal point of view. I walk into an empty lab with 7 workstations and two servers every day: four Macs, five Wintels (one of each as a server). When I sit down to do email or post to DU or write a letter or surf, it's almost always at a Mac just because it's more comfortable and fun. When I need to edit video, always a Mac. When I need to design a website, always a Mac. When I need to scan large format documents or reams of PDFs, I use a Wintel because Adobe Acrobat Pro runs faster for some reason on the Wintel boxes. If I have to edit photos, I tend to use the Wintel since that's the only machine I've got Photoshop running on. But I spend way more time keeping the Wintel boxes secure and getting rid of junk that makes it through 4 layers of security (hardware firewall, software firewall, antivirus, spyware/adware blocker) that never even touches my Macs.

The biggest difference is when something goes wrong. Not only Apple, but Mac developers, have a totally different attitude to customer support than any PC manufacturer I've dealt with, or (gasp) Microsoft or even the PC divisions of major cross-platform app makers. (Macromedia, for example.) I've had bad Macs. I've never had a bad experience getting them replaced, fixed, tweaked, etc. I won't even begin to detail my frustrations with Dell and Microsoft.

So in my opinion, the thing to keep an eye on is the culture of the companies involved here. If Apple can expand market share and run on more boxes without losing its devotion to doing things right and taking care of customers (which has slipped in the past, though not lately) then they will continue to have a very loyal base and a lot of happy new customers who have downloaded one service pack too many from a server in Redmond.

RCM

[burrowowl]

115. You are right.

Clock speed isn't everything, it depends on what is processed during those ticks!
Apple's mathematical algorithms are better for mathematical and scientific work. HP and Vax used to be used for number crunching and IBMs for bidniz.

[slackmaster]

41. It depends entirely on what kind of task is being tested

Any platform has strengths and weaknesses. Saying that "Type X is slow" is not a meaningful comment.

[alfredo]

117. They want Intel chips for their consumer devices too.

[AlCzervik]

37. I'll beleive it when i hear it from his mouth at WWDC

[onehandle]

39. Me too. I can wait half a day.

Something is definitely up. I'll wait for the details.

[alfredo]

45. Jobs sure knows how to get people to talk about Apple. He is the

king of the buzz. How many Apple threads are there. I started one, I am sure there are two or three more out there.

Nobody can hype like Jobs. He's pretty good at delivering on that hype too.

[Zech Marquis]

46. if anyone can make such a huge shift

it's Apple. And I seriously doubt this has been a snap decision made over night..IBM doesn't make PCs anymore, plus they have the new deals for chips in the next generation game consoles, so...Apple wants to advance the processors and other compoentns, Intel wants a new partner as well.

[Rush1184]

48. Apple going Intel

At the WWDC keynote speech today, Steve Jobs announced that macs are going to move into using Intel processors. The speech is not over yet, so this is all that is known so far.

http://live.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/wwdc2005_keynote.shtml


EDIT:

Here is the press release from Apple:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

[Robert Oak]

49. sad day

Yet IBM turned around and outsourced the jobs and screwed over
their engineers...

in technical terms this means downgrade in architecture quality
of processor.

Still it's the evil empire.

I wish he had announced AMD.

[woosh]

77. Are you kidding?

Apple is changing because they are years behind on the 64 bit chip.

[tridim]

50. Smart move, but it may be a bad for users

Most Mac software will have to be rewritten to get rid of optimized PPC code. Yipes! That's deadly serious, and costly.

[funkybutt]

55. not really rewritten

just recompiled, tweaked.

they said for the millions of lines of mathematica, they only had to change 20 lines of code.

[Kellanved]

133. yes, but that would have been the case anyway with 64 Bit.

Re-Written is too drastic - but certainly, it will take some work.

The move to 64 bit was due for the PowerPC CPUs as well and would have resulted in comparable trouble for software and drivers.
So this is probbaly the best moment possible for switching CPU-families.

[LeftHander]

58. ::sigh::....I don't want a Intel based computer....

That is why I use Macs. I'm a musician and have a project recording studio. I just bought a used Dual G4...

OS 9 was so solid. Audio apps rocked. I have had lots of issues switching to OS X. I was forced to by some particular software plugins that only run in OS X. Now I get to be forced to switch again. (Hopefully not for three or four years)

All I can say is I hope it works better than it does now. I already have lot of problems to solve getting our tunes recorded, mixed and mastered. the convinence and clarity of digital audio is not that great. When everyone rips crappy MP3's what difference does 48khz, 96, 128 make?

Those 8 and 16 track analog tape multi-track recorders on e-bay and good old LP vinyl are looking better and better.

Give a listen:

http://sonicbids.com/SoulAmp

http://soul-amp.blogspot.com

[Placebo]

68. I just bought an iBook G4...

boy do I feel like a fool. :(

[tridim]

71. I use Sonar Producer and and E-MU 1820m on my PC

It works perfectly. Check it out.

[stlsaxman]

100. Don't feel forced to upgrade now...

"That is why I use Macs. I'm a musician and have a project recording studio. I just bought a used Dual G4...

OS 9 was so solid. Audio apps rocked. I have had lots of issues switching to OS X. I was forced to by some particular software plug ins that only run in OS X. Now I get to be forced to switch again. (Hopefully not for three or four years)"

I run Audio Desk2 on OSX and it works incredibly well, hasn't crashed once-
yeah, 9.2.2 was/is solid as a rock but so is Panther (no Tiger, yet but i really don't
need to upgrade as AD2 is so stable and all the plug-in are great.

You really shouldn't feel forced to switch again- ever! :) it will work for years and
years to come...

[LeftHander]

120. Maybe going back to OS 9...

And to the old version of AudioDesk...for recording only for the next project.

As for ::::shudder:::: windows and the PC for Audio...thanks but no thanks.

I might have one slightly problem matic application on OS X...but I will not trade that for the steaming pile that is Windows...

I'm a DBA by trade and have had the displeasure to work with windows WAY to much. WHen push comes to shove Windows falls flat. Reboots are part of your maintenance.


I think most of my issues with AudioDesk come from projects that were intially recorded in OS 9 and then moved to OS X. I switched midway through this CD. All but three songs were recorded in OS 9 on a iBook G3 (8 simultaneous tracks 24 bit/48khz to a firewire drive.)

The bottle neck occured when we went to a G4 powerbook and OS X. It couldn't keep up. We went to OS X and a G4 to use IZotope Ozone for mastering. Thus I bought the dual G4. which has been solid for the most part. the MDD has had a few hiccups.

[stlsaxman]

160. iBook G3 is what i use...

>I think most of my issues with AudioDesk come from projects that were intially recorded in OS 9 and then moved to OS X. I switched midway through this CD. All but three songs were recorded in OS 9 on a iBook G3 (8 simultaneous tracks 24 bit/48khz to a firewire drive.)<

iBook G3 is just what I use, w/ a MOTU 828 mk1 and an upgrade to AudioDesk2 which is OSX Panther compatible and it's just solid as can be. All my songs til i got AD2 were on OS 9.2.2 and I've never had a problem with the switch.

Hope your situation gets stableized...

[SRSU]

59. Old news

Devs were informed of this 3 days ago.

It's a good move. Apple can not continue to use it's architecture with out suffering a loss. (as far as not as much growth as possible goes)

This will definitely give them more market share. Porting code will also likely be considerably easier. I know much of my software I would never dream of porting to OS X. Now I just might...

Most end users won't care... Considering they have no clue what hardware is in their box unless they are told. Even then they don't understand the differences unless you are talking in the most basic terms.

[funkybutt]

69. So you were told 3 days ago?

that seems to be about when the "rumors" got really loud.

[AlCzervik]

74. my husband works for apple and worked on this project

and i didn't know until today. It makes sense as to why the switch, the g5 chips put out the same heat as a 130 watt light bulb meaning more fans and more noise.

[funkybutt]

105. Yeah..there was no way they were going to cool a G5 Powerbook

are the intel chips cooler?

[AlCzervik]

108. yes, according to what i know they run about 60% cooler.

[funkybutt]

109. ah interesting!

I wish I had a family member who worked for apple. I'm a Mac Addict. LOL

[AlCzervik]

110. me too, i drank the kool aid about 3 years ago and i'm hooked

when i heard about the switch to intel for sure i was a little leary, so was my sister, she works for IBM so you can only imagine right? I think it'll work out, it's still an Mac. And even if you had an apple employee in the family they can't tell you anything, like cloak and dagger, my husband was nagged to death but he never said a word other than "you'll see Hon when everybody else does."

[htuttle]

60. Well. Steve is betting the farm again

Pardon me while I silently gnash my teeth and get a stress headache -- it's MY farm as well. I make my living writing OSX code.

Thoughts since the rumor was confirmed this morning:

1) This is going to kill their hardware sales this Christmas. I hope they already realized this (probably did).

2) The technical issues aren't really a big deal. OSX has been running on Intel all along (in the backroom). Most recent OSX programs are written pretty much 'within the lines' which means they will port very easily.

3) Are they really going to go toe-to-toe with Dell on box-building? Maybe. If anybody can Apple can. They DO build cool hardware, no matter what chip is inside.

4) Would this lead to them not building their own boxes anymore? I doubt it. Steve tried going software-only at NeXT, and it didn't end well.

5) There will be a compatibility layer for PPC OSX programs called Rosetta. I'll be surprised if Classic shows up on Intel, though. Real surprised.

6) This almost certainly means that Intel's 'D chip' media content control technology will be the new standard. Good for RIAA, bad for the rest of us.

It's still sinking in here. As more details come out over the next week, it will be more clear to me how this is going to go.

The devil definitely IS in the details in something like this.

Finally, the best analogy I can think of for Apple and M$ both running on the same Intel platform is from Major T.J. King Kong in Dr. Strangelove:

"Well, boys, I reckon this is it. Nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Ruskies."

[lateo]

66. Great news now can I start making Apple clones?

Please?

[woosh]

73. So now a mac will basically be Unix running on a Intel chip

Sounds like Linux. Wait, it is linux, without the powerful tools.

[htuttle]

75. No, WITH the powerful tools, but with a far cooler interface

There aren't many Linux programs you can't compile on OSX. Most of them you can find already compiled if you use something like 'fink'.

And I have yet to find any Linux user who thinks that the window manager they are using is cooler overall than the GUI on OSX.

[woosh]

78. I'd like to meet the Linux user

who gives a shit about a GUI.

Oh yeah, and I'm skepticle about your claims about "most" linux programs being available to Mac. Open source coders can barely keep up with Linux, let alone cross developing their code for a user that doesn't even know what a bourne shell is...

[hoboken123]

82. Isn't he a linux user?

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/0,39023165,39183867,00.htm

"Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore"."

[woosh]

85. And that relates how?

To what I said?

My job makes me use windows xp for email and web, but I use solaris and linux to get all of my work done.

Maybe someone should ask Linus whether he prefers the Mac desktop or a bash shell...

[funnymanpants]

111. You are misleading

Woosh asked "I'd like to meet the Linux user who gives a shit about a GUI."

So you posted an article showing that the very inventor of linux uses Mac OSX, so he must care about the GUI, right?

Well, no. The article states clearly that Linux removed the Mac OS X operating system from it, and hence the GUI:

"it's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more ;)," he says.

[hoboken123]

130. Misleading?

I was showing the #1 Linux user enjoying his Mac.

You wish to make bad assumptions, that's your business.

[funnymanpants]

163. Good grief!

In context, you are outright lying. If one did not read the article, one would assume that Linus had an Apple desktop with all sorts of Mac features, including the apple pull down menu in the left.

In fact, Linus *removed* that from his computer.

When one says I ran a Mac, it is implied that both the software and the hardware is Macintosh. If one does something like Linus, then one always says "I am running yellow dog (or some linux application) on a Mac box."

Sorry. I shouldn't have said you were misleading. I should have said you were lying.

[hoboken123]

168. Good grief!!

In context, you are outright lying.

I quoted the article verbatim and everything I've said is true. This would be the opposite of lying.


If one did not read the article, one would assume that Linus had an Apple desktop with all sorts of Mac features, including the apple pull down menu in the left.

Once again, you can assume anything you want. You'd again be wrong, but go ahead.


When one says I ran a Mac, it is implied that both the software and the hardware is Macintosh.

This relates how?

I never said anyone 'ran' a Mac, that's you. All I said was 'I was showing the #1 Linux user enjoying his Mac'.

IT IS A MAC.

Is there an apology coming?


Sorry. I shouldn't have said you were misleading. I should have said you were lying.

Wow. I'd call you insane, but I'd hate to stoop to your level.

[funnymanpants]

177. apologies--but you did mislead a bit

>>I quoted the article verbatim and everything I've said is true. This would be the opposite of lying.

Yes, you are lying *now*. In my linguistics textbook, it points out an example of a linguistic lie. Person A asks person B how much weight he can lift. Person B says 50 pounds. In fact, person B can lift 150 pounds. Technically, he is not lying, since he can lift 50 pounds without breaking a sweat.

But linguistically he is lying, because Person A assumed person B would give him the *maximum* amount. When you state that "I was showing the #1 Linux user enjoying his Mac'" the person reading this assumes that Linus is using the Mac operating system. In fact, the title of the article is structured in just this way to draw in a reader. But then the article clearly states that Linus *removed* the Mac OS operating system. It also states that the only reson he uses the Mac was because he was given it free.

By excluding these pieces of information, you mislead.

However, you do deserve an apology. I went back and read what you were responding to. The poster before you said he was skeptical that Mac could run linux programs could compile on the Mac machine. By pointing out that Linus is using a Mac machine, you were essentially saying "hey, if the #1 linux person can use it on a Mac, it must be able to compile the software." This is a fair assumption on your part. I assumed that you were responding to the parent thread.

So my apologies. However, you should not have stated that Linus is enjoying his Mac--now you are misleading.

>>Wow. I'd call you insane, but I'd hate to stoop to your level.

Well, you just stooped below my level. I called you a liar based on what you said, on your words. (But I admit I was wrong, since I misread the context--again, my apologies.) Calling me insane is just name calling.

[youspeakmylanguage]

148. The article also clearly states that Torvalds didn't pay for the Mac...

...and is simply trying out "something different". In no way does it prove that he is dedicated to or even impressed with Apple products.

[htuttle]

84. OSX comes with Bash nowdays

Open source coders don't have to worry about OSX. OSX users/developers port Linux code to OSX, then send the changes back in with conditional compiles. Keep in mind, however, that OSX is based on *BSD, not Linux. *Everything* you find on BSD you find in OSX.

Look at the config.* files of most major open source projects nowdays. I'd bet 80% of the ones that don't replicate tools already built into OSX are set up to be built on it.

And if Linux users didn't give a shit about a GUI, why are there websites and user groups set up to talk about nothing but one particular window manager or another? Seems like a lot of effort for something they 'don't give a shit about'.

[woosh]

88. LOL... Too funny.

People aren't using Linux or unix for desktop operating systems to any serious degree. It's used in infrastructure, and microsoft and linux are the only two battling it out here. Once you get to the enterprise level, no one is even logging into the console, let alone wishing they had Gnome, KDE or whatever desktop unix is packaging up. It's just overhead and impacts performance.

Mac is a niche player in the desktop world, and wont be making any serious challenge to that market anytime soon, intel or not. They need to stick with their overpriced gadgets and peripherals to stay solvent, and that's why they are turning their desktop hardware over to intel.

[realcountrymusic]

91. Tried OSX Server lately?

I made The Switch and I love it. No reason at all why it can't serve a middle market for servers and clusters on a much larger scale. The science community is moving to OSX clusters (on dual G5 Xserves) in droves these days. It just works. And dropping the Unix Geek snobbery (I can relate, cuz I have it too) OSX server can be admined by a near beginner safely.

RCM

[woosh]

119. Yes

I use it. I work for a company that have macs all over the place (educational). I can't see any reason to switch to a BSD derivative for servers, and little reason to want every users switching. Why?

So now this thread has seen two claims that MAC us capturing a segment of the market that I just don't see. I just changed jobs, in the Cambridge/Boston area, where there are a few scientists and researchers, and let me tell you, they're not looking for people to help them with their Macs. Linux maybe. Oracle definitely. Solaris definitely. J2EE definitely. But no Mac.

And Mac users of all people should not be throwing the word snob around.

[realcountrymusic]

127. chill

I used "snob" jokingly, I swear.

I too work in a major university, and among scientists. Our impressions are different. I see more and more Macs everywhere, and not a week goes by that some major lab doesn't switch to an Xserve cluster these days.

I just taught 3 students who wouldn't know a command line from a communist how to boot and start services on my lab's main OSX server so I don't have to show up every morning to light the fires. Life is sweet.

But as a native Cantabridgian, I admire your address.

rcm

[youspeakmylanguage]

147. You obviously know more about Linux than I...

...but I have to disagree with you about Linux on the desktop. There are MANY users and developers interested in developing desktop-oriented distros centered around a specific GUI. Just check out the Ubuntu Linux community, which revolves around Gnome.

It may be a niche thing, but Gnome and KDE have strong, active communities of developers that are working overtime to create great GUI desktop systems. New and updated distros are being released almost daily. I would hardly say they don't "give a sh*t".

[woosh]

162. My answer is very simple.

When a sysadmin or a developer wants to do anything on Linux, or any unix system for that matter, the first thing they do is open up a shell and type at the command line.

[youspeakmylanguage]

172. Right, but isn't the goal...

...to someday have a wide range of Linux desktop users navigate their system mostly through a GUI?

I have a lot of interest in Linux just as a desktop user. I have no interest in becoming a sysadmin or developer, yet I am already getting a kick out of using the command line. Yet most average desktop users want a GUI.

[woosh]

173. To be honest, I'm not sure.

There are so many distributions that goals vary widely.

[youspeakmylanguage]

174. Right, I guess I should clarify...

...that I'm refering to the subsection of Linux users that just use it as a desktop OS. I think that the goal of most mainstream distros aiming for the average desktop user is to fully integrate a GUI into the Linux experience. This is especially true of people looking to make the switch from Windoze and Mac to Linux.

I'm learning Ubuntu Linux myself and through my positive experiences w/ Ubunutu I have come to enjoy the GNOME desktop.

[bettys boy]

167. That would be me

Two years ago I chucked my Linux PC for an iBook. I am now on my second.

I had been with Linux since kernel 1.1.59. Slackware, Caldera, RedHat, Mandrake (and FreeBSD, too, if that counts).

As a Solaris sysadmin I enjoyed my Linux hobby but it's nice to spend my weekends washing the car or taking the dogs for a run, rather than recompiling kernels, or debugging driver failures.

[Irreverend IX]

170. Congratulations, you found one.

Care to tell me why I should choose a GUI with no taskbar and only one desktop? I have roughly 40 windows open right now on 4 desktops on my Linux box; 15 windows is about the point where OSX becomes unusable due to the awkwardness of constantly shuffling them around. Of course, Apple could solve all this if they did what the Linux environments have been doing for the last 7+ years, but Steve doesn't like the idea that his way of doing things isn't the best. Then there's the awful column interface for file browsing, the crackheaded way mouse wheel scrolling is handled, and... just don't get me started. Combine that with Apple's abysmal ergonomic designs (one-button mice, whoohoo!) and the fact that I have to pay thousands of dollars for this lousy quality compared to zero dollars for Linux, and you've got a computer platform I won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

[reprobate]

76. Untold secret. Jobs getting ready to take on windoze.

Here's my thinking: Steve Jobs said that OS X will now run on PPc and Intel processors. If this is true look at what it opens up:

How many countries are mortally pissed at M$ now, some moving to Linux. If OS X runs on the same processor, who wants to bet that they'll choose it instead of Linux. One big reason would be the already existing support that OS X has and Linux does not. The switch would be a no brainer. OS X is more stable, more secure, and has a lower total cost than windows. And if the price of the OS stays steady, it's also initially cheaper.

For corporate users, the same holds true. Plus they won't need the huge IT depts. that M$ requires. Not even counting the money that computer down time costs them.

I can only speak for myself, but everyone I've spoken to who has made the switch feels the same, that OS X is far easier to use than XP, with a far lower learning curve. In fact, most say "Why didn't I do it years ago.

Yup, I truly think Sir Steven is preparing to slay the M$ dragon.


Your thoughts?

[AlCzervik]

79. i think Jobs love to kick gates in the balls when he gets chance

i understand why they made the switch, it's about the heat and the speeds and hey if it can take on Bill then tally ho. I love my Mac and i'll the next one even with an intel chip in it.

[funnymanpants]

87. I doubt it

>>If OS X runs on the same processor, who wants to bet that they'll choose it instead of Linux.

Me. I'll bet you a million dollars! Countries suc as Brazil and Germany are choosing open source, and linux, to save money. Switching from one propietary system (MS) to Apple is illogical since it would not save them money.

>>One big reason would be the already existing support that OS X has and Linux does not.

False. Red Had, for exmpale, provides support.

>>it's also initially cheaper.

I doubt buying Mac is cheapter than Windows. They are both expensive. But let me be clear that the main cost is "lock in" whereby the company tries to lock you in to their product. Once you invest in their product, you will not be given support. This ensures you will have to devote a substantial part of your business/income to support upgrades you don't need.

This has happened to my friend who is a dentist. All of his data is in program called MOGO. MOGO dictated several years ago that he upgrade from DOS to Widows, though he didn't need to. The cost was thousands of dollars, including 3 licenses and 3 new boxes. Now the company demands that he continually get the newest Windows OS, which means more money in hardware and software. He can't affored to buy other dental equipment because of this cost.

I doubt using Mac would be any differnet. Mac and the propeitary software that runs on it often dictates unnecessary upgrades.

[stlsaxman]

102. Huh???

>I doubt buying Mac is cheapter than Windows. They are both expensive. But let me be clear that the main cost is "lock in" whereby the company tries to lock you in to their product. Once you invest in their product, you will not be given support.

>Now the company demands that he continually get the newest Windows OS, which means more money in hardware and software. He can't affored to buy other dental equipment because of this cost.

>I doubt using Mac would be any differnet. Mac and the propeitary software that runs on it often dictates unnecessary upgrades.

As long as I've had my iBook which runs OSX (5 years now), the support has been incredible and ALL software updates have been FREE!

[funnymanpants]

107. did you even read my previous posts?

I cited the example with java. This is not the only example. The person who runs groklaw.net points out that she had to upgrade her iTunes just to download a song, that she was going to pay for anyway.

Nor did I state anywhere that Mac doesn't give support. I argued that Red Hat does give support to show that you can get support with linux.

Software updates are not free with propietary software. Try updating photoshop for free.

To be clear, upgrades for open source are not necessarily free, either. But you are not forced to make them. Users can run linux on hardware 15 or 20 years old.

[Kellanved]

150. No chance: MacOS is not better than the existing PC OSs in that regard

The only reason for MacOS being "better" than Windows is the closed hardware base. It is pretty "easy" to write a good OS for standardized hardware.

Most of the PC problems are driver problems; Apples dodged that problem by having less different types of hardware.
Open the hardware base and MacOS would get all the problems - just remember MacOSX is OpenBSD with a nice shell; OpenBSD is available for free.

So: Apples hardware will remain a closed shop.

[funnymanpants]

83. here's a thorough analysis

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824781,00.asp

Basically, the article claims that Apple will try to gain a greater market share by creating a platform/machine that will run both Windows and Mac programs.

It predicts that Apple will use encryption technology to make sure its platform (OS X or whatever) will run only on its own hardwared.

As a former Apple user who switched to linux, I hope Apple goes bankrupt. Most people don't realize that Apple is just a small-time Microsoft. I mean, this is really BS. At first I was estatic that Mac would use the intel chip, thinking greater compatiblity, and thinking that one could now buy cheap "boxes" (computers) and put the Apple platform on them.

When I read how Apple will probably try to prevent this, I became pretty mad. If you buy their produce (the OS), why shouldn't you be able to use it like you want? Mac is playing the same game as Microsoft, tryint to force users into their produce.

Plus, my girlfriend has a Mac, and it sucks. Like I said, I used to be a Mac users, and I will concede that some things about Mac are nice. But overall, their propeitary approach has turned me off. For example, I downloaded an open source (free) XML editor that runs on the java platform. Only, it would not run on the Mac because it needed a later java machine, and I could only get the latest java machine by getting the *latest* Mac OS. Mac was forcing me to get the latest version of their platform, when I didn't need it.

[suston96]

86. Very thorough analysis...

"I used to be a Mac users."

Very thorough analysis.

Their "propeitary" approach turns me off too.

[alfredo]

89. A proprietary approach may turn you off, but there were reasons for it.

Apple is a hardware company. The OS added value. Control ensures quality.

Apple has sunk billions into R&D, and there is no way their investors would allow them to open their family jewels to the community.

[funnymanpants]

92. That doesn't mean their product is better nt

[alfredo]

97. For me, I will take a UNIX based system any day.

I have had two kernel panics in 5 years. Photoshop has not hung or otherwise crashed on me. I have been using it since ver 4.

I have not had a virus, worm, or trojan in ten years. The only hardware problem I have had was from lightning.

[funnymanpants]

101. clarification

>>For me, I will take a UNIX based system any day.

I think you are missing what the article means or what I have said. Mac will continue using unix. It will only change the chips is uses. That is why the change will not be dramatic at all for Mac users--in fact, it won't be felt at all for most.

But my point is that Mac is playing the same game as Microsoft in exploiting users. In the previous post I pointed out how they will do that. You stated that Mac has s responsiblity to its shareholders. Well, I'm not a shareholder, and this strikes me as rather a weak argument. Shell oil could make the same argument.

Nor am I arguing that Mac should open up its code. But what it is doing is making sure you can only use their code on their hardware. That's exploitive and similar to the way MS forces users to use their products. (Think of how the gov't won a battle sueing them for bundling their browser with their operating system.) To cite an analogy, it would be like Ford making sure that their car could only run on roads that it had built, in order to makes sure it continued to get money from its road tax.

And I personally don't think Mac makes a better product. I prefer my linux box over my girlfriend's Mac, though I do admit that some things on the Mac are far superior.

[alfredo]

103. I know they will keep the UNIX platform. I also know most Mac

users do not want the Mac to become just a commodity like Dell and HP. They don't really mind the closed architecture, they understand. Many are content creators who understand the concept of intellectual property.

The shareholders know that it is the intellectual property that adds value.

Macs are bought willingly, there's very few places that mandate the Mac in the workplace. Macs are a choice, there is not much in the way of forcing with the Mac. Also, for many years running Windows with VPC was available. They even had one that had an Intel processor alongside the Motorola. It ran Windows natively.

[funnymanpants]

106. disagree

>>Many are content creators who understand the concept of intellectual property.

Intellectual property should not apply to software, in the same way it should not apply to science. It does not make for a better product. That is why much of the world is moving towards open source software. Let me point out that unix is based on open source--that is, it was develped by sharing code. That is what makes it so stable.

>>The shareholders know that it is the intellectual property that adds value.

As I said before, I really don't care about shareholders. This is a weak argument, anyway. Since when are we supposed to put the shareholders first?

The shareholders know that it is the intellectual property that adds value.

>>Macs are bought willingly

That's besides the point. Many companies sell products that are bought willingly. The company still explolits the user. Think of credit card companies who lure people.

As I said, I think many things about the Mac suck. (Did I mention how much I hate resource forks? These stupid things make back up much more difficult.) I am glad they have only 4 percent of the market and I hope they go bankrupt. The last think we need is another propietary operating system mucking things up.

[alfredo]

113. The resource fork hasn't caused any problems with backing up

data. There's plenty freeware that will do the backup including the resource fork. It can be done from the command line, so it can't be that bad.

The thing in Apple was formed during a time when there wasn't an open source movement as we have today. They have opened up what they can, but they will not open up a technology they spent years and millions of investor dollars to develop. Look at QuickTime. They cannot open it up because some codec's belong to other companies. They are just licensing them.

I would love to see the whole industry open source, but it is just unrealistic for multibillion dollar industries to take such a risk as changing their whole business model.

[funnymanpants]

116. I would like to see something different

>>The resource fork hasn't caused any problems with backing updata.

Look, I have dealt extensivlely with this problem. Please don't tell me it doesn't cause problems. One of the biggest limitations has to do with the fact that you can't use rsync in OS X like you can with linux. With OS X, rsync can't follow hard links. This means that when you back up to a hard drive, you can only have one copy, the current day. With linux, you can have multiple days (for instance, a whole week).

It is true you can still back up, but you are more limited. You cannot use the most powerful open source tool called DAR.

>>I would love to see the whole industry open source, but it is just unrealistic for multibillion dollar industries to take such a risk as changing their whole business model.

I am not advocating that Mac has to open up all their code, though honestly I think they will suffer in the long run for not doing so. What bugs me in the current situation is how they will specifically write code that will make it hard for you to use their software on non-Mac hardware. Like I said earlier, that is like Ford making a car that only drives on roads that Ford builds. I would be pretty enthusiastic about Mac embracing the intel chip if Mac didn't try to limit customer's choices.

If their hardware is so good, why not give customers a choice? You can use brand x to run OS X, or our superior brand?

It is this kind of manipulation that gets me, the same that Gates is involved in. But I really think in the long run Mac will be the losers. (Of course, that is mere speculation--time will tell!) I don't see the rest of the world willing to invest major parts of their economy in a propietary solution that will lock them in and require them to spend more money down the road. Why should China and Brazil finance silocon valley?

So I would like to see something different, and that is Apple simply keeping their code closed but not playing games. Further down the road they can decide if they want to open it up.

I think that if we don't blow ourselves up, and don't melt the earth with global warming--if we live long enough, propietary software may be looked at as a relic of the past. Like I say, only time will tell.

[alfredo]

131. Let's face it, Apple is more open than many of the major players

Two new releases may go a way to addressing your concerns. Xcode2.1 and WebKit have been released. Webkit was released to address concerns by the KHTML people. At this point we don't know Just how open the Mac will be on the Intel platform. One problem with the Wintel world was the dizzying array of drivers and such. Apple kept it simple by reducing the hardware choices. It made it easier to develop software when you didn't have to support 10 different video cards.

No drivers needed for my third party mouse, my printer, and graphics pad to use them. I need no drivers for my FireWire drive, cameras, my CD burner, or my printer. I do have Twain for my scanner, and I do have drivers for my graphics pad to enable Inkwell, but it works even without the drivers.

Look at all the work that is needed to support all the different types of hardware on the Linux platform. Hardware compatibility has been the big problem with Linux. I would love to have a Linux laptop, but I would have to buy a new printer, and I am not sure how well it will work with my other hardware.

[funnymanpants]

164. I don't think this is right

I think you do need drivers for your periphals. They are just built in.

Linux doesn't have that much of a problem with hardware anymore, though it is not as good as say Windows. But in fairness, that is because companies that sell the hardware will write drivers for Windows, but not for linux, and many of them won't release the code for their products.

[alfredo]

166. I should have been clearer by saying the Mac doesn't need third

party drivers for most hardware.

[realcountrymusic]

126. Whoa!

"Intellectual property should not apply to software, in the same way it should not apply to science. It does not make for a better product. "

This is simply an amazing statement. First of all, science would be a shambles without "intellectual property" laws. The "better products" of modern science are utterly dependent on the patent system that monetizes creativity. No one works hard for free. You take whatever service you provide for the world, stop taking payment for it, and call me when you can't eat and tell me how you plan to keep working hard anyway. The analogy to "open source" code is not correct (like several other analogies in this thread, such as "Ford requiring you to drive its cars on its roads' -- it's more like Ford requiring you to use Ford engines in Ford vehicles," which is effectively the case unless you can "hack" the drive train of a non-Ford vehicle.) Open source software IS covered by intellectual property laws and conventions. You sign a public license agreement every time you use it that constrains what you can do with the source code and obligates you to make your own source code available. As Apple has done, you are free to use OS code to make commercial, proprietary products as long as you make that source code with your modiffications publicly available. Apple has figured out how to add value to BSD, Darwin, and many other OS technologies, just like thousands of other software developers who would disappear if they couldn't own their products and sell them.

The loose interpretation of the meaning of "open source" is a force for harm in public debate. It's not "free software" for every end user. People keep pointing out that many developing countries are moving to Linux for economic reasons (because they can't keep pirating Windows and join the WTO, for example). But there is a major reason the corporate world is also embracing many Open Source projects and technologies, and it's not because IBM and Novell are broke. It's because they can make *more* money creating proprietary, licensable products out of OS foundations, and because this enlists a global community of developers in the collective project of advancing technology so everyone can do more, faster, and yes, make more money.

To listen to some of the arguments here, you'd think Apple had been giving away computers and software for free and just announced they were going to start charging for it.

Another misunderstanding here is the premise that making something as complex as an operating system work across multiple hardware platforms is easy, that making OSX run on *one flavor of* Intel x86 and PPC is somehow a restriction rather than an expansion of options. News flash: WINDOWS does not run on every processor, nor as well on some x86 processors as others. Apple is a hardware company that also makes dynamite software that entices customers to buy its hardware.


You are free to download Darwin and FreeBSD and design your own operating system to run on any chip you like. If you do a good job, you can claim intellectual property in your proprietary project (just keep your modified source code public and let other people build on your work) and sell it. If you want professionally designed software or hardware, there has to be an incentive for professionals to work. Science is no different.

RCM

[funnymanpants]

165. No, you get several things wrong

>>First of all, science would be a shambles without "intellectual property" laws.

What are you talking about? Are you confusing technology with science? Are you saying that Einstein kept all of his ideas on relativity secret (like he might have done in the medieval ages) or that he published them for everyone to see? Are you saying I have to pay a patent fee to look at the periodic table?

Can you imagine how science would have failed if each country tried to keep its secrets for itself rather than have them open?

>>it's more like Ford requiring you to use Ford engines in Ford vehicles,"

No. According to the article I read, Mac will use encryption to prevent others from using their operating system on other boxes, *primarily* to make more money from hardware sales. I don't see Ford *intentionally* making sure its engines don't work in other cars. They don't because of technical reasons, namely that the engine would have a different size, etc. In contrast, one could easily port the Mac OS to another box. Mac will stop people from doing so just to make more money. It is like making a stereo with non-standard speaker jacks so that the user will have to buy your speakers. As sleazy as Bill Gates is, he doesn't prevent his operating system from functioning on certain hardware.

>>As Apple has done, you are free to use OS code to make commercial, proprietary products as long as you make that source code with your modiffications publicly available.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I am a Linux user and have actually written and released code under the license you are referring to, the GNU license. Apple is *not* released under this license. How could you think otherwise? We wouldn't be having this debate. Apple used BSD rather than Linux for precisely this same reason. If it had used Linux, it would have been forced to release its code.

>>Another misunderstanding here is the premise that making something as complex as an operating system work across multiple hardware platforms is easy, that making OS X run on *one flavor of* Intel x86 and PPC is

News flash: think before you post. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Linux runs on many, many platforms, and according to the author of the article I posted, as well as posters on slashdot, it *would* be easy to get OS X to run on other platforms. In fact, it is so easy that the expert thinks Mac will try to encrypt it to prevent people.

>>You are free to download Darwin and FreeBSD and design your own operating system to run on any chip you like. If you do a good job, you can claim intellectual property in your proprietary project (just keep your modified source code public and let other people build on your work) and sell it. If you want professionally designed software or hardware, there has to be an incentive for professionals to work. Science is no different.

God this is wrong! I do not have to release my code if I use BSD! Why do you think Apple used BSD and did *not* release their code?

And as I pointed out above, science is completely different. Scientists publish their papers publicly.

[realcountrymusic]

171. whatever

this place is full of people who act like they know what they are talking aboout, and you are one.


http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

And while you're at it, pick up a copy of the BSD source:
http://www.freebsd.org/


Granted, there are a variety of different "Open Source" licenses, with different strictures. The point is that a good deal of Apple's OSX is open source and freely available for you to tweak, modify, or build on. I'm not a developer, really, though I do hack around with code for fun. But I don't really believe you are either.

And if you are a Linux user, surely you've spent hours trying to get this or that flavorf of Linux to work with this or that hardware setup. Linux Fanatics are the new MacAddicts, willing to sacrifice truth in the name of their ideological passion for an operating system.

And as for science, you don't know jack. Since you can wave being a "Linux user" around as your flag, I'll wave mine. I'm a scientist. Scientists publish papers publicly, sure. Steve Jobs gives keynote addresses to the WWDC. Both also file patents. Get a clue.

RCM

[funnymanpants]

176. In other words, I'm right

>>Granted, there are a variety of different "Open Source" licenses, with different strictures.

Gee, really? After trying to give me a lecture on open source, you now realize you didn't have a clue (though you are trying to tell me to get one--nice irony). I don't blame you for not knowing the difference between BSD license and other styles of licenses. Most people don't and it's not as important as say, knowing about global warming. What I do fault you at is being very smug and trying to lecture me and then getting caught dead wrong.

You further compound your ignorance here by giving links that are supposed to prove something but don't. You are blowing smoke, maybe hoping to fool others. Neither of these links comes even close to disproving my statement that BSD is radically different from the GNU license. We would not be having this argument if they weren't not different, because Mac would have to release their code. How can you miss something so obvious?

>>Linux Fanatics are the new MacAddicts, willing to sacrifice truth in the name of their ideological passion for an operating system.

I see. You get the facts wrong but I am sacrificing the truth. I will point out that I used to be a Mac defender, somewhat of a fanatic. Never again. I won't be so stupid with Linux. Linux is just code to me. I don't feel strongly about it, because it just helps run a machine that is not that important to me. I do feel strongly that open source is much saner and less exploitive. I say this after having to struggle forever trying to figure out Microsoft's RTF format. I am sick of documents not opening on one computer or an older computer. As I wrote above, I think it is ridiculous that my dentist friend cannot get dentist equipment because he must continually upgrade his computers because of the proprietary problem.

I have also admitted several times that there are things on the Mac which are so much better than on Linux.

You skirted my question about science, it seems, too. I pointed out that I don't need a license to view the periodic table or to read Einstein's relativity. That knowledge is free and open for me to question, to test, and to use. Am I wrong about this? I thought I might be after I posted, because I recall that scientist's want to control the DNA knowledge. I apologize if I got this wrong, but it seems to me that science is built on sharing knowledge, not hoarding it and keeping it secret like proprietary software does with its code.

If you are a scientist, I am sure you are not so sloppy in your field as you were when you tried to lecture me on the BSD license. So yes, this "forum is full of full of people who act like they know what they are talking aboout and you are one."

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alfredo]

99. One had a bit of a limp?

Glad to see they hire the handicapped.

I heard they even put a DLC member on their Board of Directors.

[stlsaxman]

104. ...and Apple is BLUE- Bigtime!

>I heard they even put a DLC member on their Board of Directors.

yup! and check out Apple's Buy Blue listing- 99% !!!!

http://buyblue.org/alphalist.php

[alfredo]

112. Steve is a good Dem

[youspeakmylanguage]

140. ...so is Bill Gates.

I love the fact that Bill Gates gives so much of his money to progressive causes.
I still despise his company's software.
They make nice mouse products, though.

[alfredo]

142. The problem is, his gifts usually come with strings attached.

In India he pledge help only if the government bought new software licenses and rejected alternative platforms. The same thing goes with school districts in the US. Some found that his gifts ended up costing them dearly. They got locked into long term contracts and the burden of costly hardware upgrades.

[Deja Q]

128. DUPLICATE BY NEARLY TWO WEEKS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3312981 is the original, dated May 23. (this was HARDLY breaking news.)

[youspeakmylanguage]

137. It was not news then, it was a rumor...

...which was why that thread ended up in the DU Lounge. Now that it's been confirmed by Jobs it becomes Breaking News.

You do win 200 Calvinball points for breaking the story on DU, though. Congratulations!

[Placebo]

159. No, sorry, you're wrong.

:)

[AlphaCentauri]

155. Does this mean Macs may run longhorn?

or even better anyone can program the Mac in java, pascal or C# or any other language available with out having to port the code.....

[Placebo]

158. I'm pretty sure Apple said yesterday...

that you won't be able to run OS X on any 'ol PC, but you will likely be able to load Windows onto a Mac.

Don't know why you'd want to do that though. lol

[alfredo]

169. More info from macrumors.com

http://www.macrumors.com/


- It appears Rosetta, Apple's Intel-Mac PowerPC emulator which was demonstrated at WWDC does not support AltiVec (Velocity Engine) according to Game developers.

- The new Intel-Macs may likely support Windows in a dual-boot capacity, assuming Mircosoft provides software support:

Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.