After News.com’s Friday report that Apple is moving to Intel/x86, the respected publication Wall Street Journal and now NYTimes threw their reputation behind the rumor. Many people still remain skeptical, but I personally believe that the time is right for Apple to switch to x86-64, for two main reasons:1. Longhorn is late.
Remember all those articles and opinion pieces online that “Linux’s big chance” is now with Longhorn being late and with Longhorn losing features one by one and with many companies claiming that they won’t upgrade to Microsoft’s new monster? Well, what a better time for Apple to get into the x86 market and steal the thunder from both Longhorn and Linux! If the “time is right” for Linux because of Longhorn’s problems, then the time is even more right for Apple! Linux is no real threat on the desktop compared to the Mac OS X experience, while Longhorn hasn’t won many hearts either for different reasons we all know.
2. x86-64 is still a virgin market.
There is no OS today for x86-64 that anyone would call “really mature”. This is essentially a new platform: a platform on which many existing OSes have to “start all over again.” Linux applications still have major problems with x86-64 (weird incompatibilities or even compilation problems), while the newly released WindowsXP-64 has almost no third party drivers for it yet except the very basic stuff. And Microsoft doesn’t seem to care to market it either. If Apple were to come over to x86 today, it would be for full 64bit support for their Apple PCs and it would be good enough to compete on fair terms against Linux and Windows. In the 32bit market, Windows XP is simply unbeatable because of its vast hardware compatibility that it enjoys via third parties. Linux tried and it still has a 2-3% of that market. But on x86-64, the market is just different, and Apple has a serious start-off advantage.
Remember, we are not talking about having OSX running on random PCs here, Apple would never get into the “generic PC” market. This market is impossible to support fully; that was one of the reasons BeOS was killed when it moved from PPC to x86 as well. Apple won’t make the same mistake. They know better and they have the infrastructure to modify the stock x86 platform to lock-in Mac OS X to their modified PCs only. I am confident that Windows and Linux and FreeBSD would be able to run just fine on these hypothetical Apple PCs, but Mac OS X won’t run on your random PC. And it would be better that way (for Apple), as third party hardware manufacturers release hardware faster than anyone could add support for them, even if they had the full hardware specs. And these hardware manufacturers could probably not be persuaded to write brand new drivers for Apple which it will still have a fraction of the market share when on x86, so the logical step for Apple is to “lock” OSX to specific hardware so the user experience remains good.
Regarding software compatibility, I won’t be surprised if Apple re-introduces “fat binaries”, like NeXTSTEP had. These are binaries that run on both PPC and x86. Of course, lots of third party software will have to be recompiled, but at least it won’t be necessary to be re-written or heavily modified as it was in the switch from 68k to PPC in 1993 or from OS9 to OSX in 2001. In other words, the move to x86-64 could be really smooth for users! Emulation does not make much sense as emulating the PPC in “OS-mode” like Apple did with 68k inside PPC is complex and it would be slow [update: this is the only part of this editorial that I didn’t predict on target, as there will be emulation *and* fat binary support – Jobs confirmed today the rest of my points in this article]. As for PPC user support, I am sure that Apple would be able to support PPC users for at least 4-5 more years, as they did with 68k support.
For those who claim that Microsoft will never recompile Office for x86-64 for Apple, I can only say that Apple coming to x86 is not bad business for Microsoft initially in terms of “fighting together” Linux. Microsoft has failed to squash the Linux hype but users who go Mac OS X almost never look back. With Apple managing to squash Linux in the x86-64 market, Microsoft will have to fight Apple at a much later future date. And it will be easier for Microsoft to fight an ‘enemy’ that plays with the same rules as they are rather one that doesn’t (open source). My enemy’s enemy is my friend, kind of thing… This is a lot like you are getting beaten at both the club and the school, but you give your lunch money to the bullie at the club guy to come and beat the school guy. At the end, you end up with ONE bully instead of two and that’s a progress…
With all this in mind, I believe that THIS is the best time for Apple to move to x86. I would argue that the best time was actually last year, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to IBM who seem to have managed to anger Jobs, mostly because the G5 doesn’t fit well on laptops rather than because the G5 might not be fast enough. And remember folks, the laptop business, is Apple’s business. If IBM can’t deliver, it’s time to move to someone who can. It makes sense, and the time is right, so why not?
if they switch to x86, I’ll choose another platform to live on, heck, I will buy myself an amigaOne and be happy on a niche market ignoring all this bullshit about sunden CPU changes and stuff
Microsoft won’t allow them to make a competing operating system for x86/64. Did we all forget the Microsoft owns Apple, or has that changed?
I’ve read this and other articles. As for hardware, there really only a few manufacturers of core logic for most devices. Consider that we have two laser printer engines, maybe 3/4 USB manufacturers, etc. If Apple really wants to figure out how well a swtich to Intel platforms would go, they should make up an OS-X ‘Live-CD’ that supports the major on-board chipsets, memory types, video hardware, etc. If Linux distros can do this, why not Apple? Then make this ISO a give-away ala AOL. Let people try it out and have it generate a report on what works (or will work) and what won’t. Then price it $10 below WinXP Home. Frustrated WinXP users would gladly pay to get an OS that is stable and is pop-up and spyware free. It could supr another round of Windows refunds!
I noticed that too.
First she says that longhorn is late then that mac os x will never run on generic pc… DUH!!!!
Why people care about Mac that much anyway? They’re like toys for grownups… Childish-looking transparent plastic mumbo jumbo…
Steve jobs should be a hairdresser…
>>Microsoft won’t allow them to make a competing operating system for x86/64. Did we all forget the Microsoft owns Apple, or has that changed?
What did you say? Or I am living in a parallel universe and I just found out.
Jumping to x86 to take advantage of that platform’s ubiquity may be a good idea, if you assume that Power is simply not going to become popular. But it would really suck if they jumped to x86 just as Power took off. If, and this is a big if, the next generation of consoles become the hub of home computing (with hardware vendors making drivers for the consoles) the move to x86 would in hindsight seem like a monumental mistake. To me this seems especially dangerous given that most hardware that consumers care about are USB-like addons, something that the consoles will support.
Microsoft does not, and never has, owned Apple. Microsoft at one time did own some Apple stock but sold it years ago.
>> Microsoft does not, and never has, owned Apple. Microsoft >> at one time did own some Apple stock but sold it years ago.
I know sometime recently, M$ purchased a very large chunk of Apple. Here is an article I found:
<http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec081097.html>
Are you saying that Microsoft has sold all of these shares?
If M$ does not own any part of Apple any longer then that is only one way they can’t kill them. Right now M$ has such a stranglehold on the industry that competition is impossible. Most users are much more familliar with Windows then MacOS or Linux, so they threaten their OEM customers that they will pull there OEM if they install an alternate OS on their PC. They have done this in the past with Be Inc. and will do this again.
1.- The move of apple to x86, is making in the same time that fedora have support for PPC… may be this mind somethig for apple.
2.- Many years ago, apple was cheking the apple OS in x86, to see how is runnig, or anyone think that the reason for the mach kernel, boot in x86 was a accident??
Remember that Apple’s updates contain BIOS patches for added functionality. Apple still could control what hardware gets used on their machines by implementing their own BIOS.
Just a thougth.
hmm NYTimes has a reputation other than spin and lies.
What dosn’t make sense is x86-64 is amd’s place, intel is still playing catchup with their emt64t rip off.
Apple will adventually go generic x86. People’s desire to get their x86 hardware running on OSX will cause projects to spring up porting FreeBSD code over to the DarwinBSD kernel. It’s inevitable that the code will be ported once Apple steps into x86 land.
Another big thing to look forward too, assuming Apple does go into x86, is Wine! Once on x86 we will see working Wine providing a windows layer for apps that are not Apple ready yet. Wine is also working on dx9 libs that are getting near native performance. Should be interesting to see unfold. Also what about Qemu and GNU cross compilers (just use crossdev from gentoo forinstance), the two could provide a great way to move between ppc and x86.
Why people care about Mac that much anyway? They’re like toys for grownups… Childish-looking transparent plastic mumbo jumbo…
Wow ! A real expert in all things Mac at last. Knowing perfectly the last developments of the platform. Probably an insider ?
>>1.- The move of apple to x86, is making in the same time that fedora have support for PPC… may be this mind somethig for apple.
Do you think apple cares about fedora? How many linux distributions support PPC? Please.
The fact is that Steve Jobs has said many times that technically speaking, Apple could port OS X to x86. However, he said that is was not convinient for Apple. Apparently, things have changed.
This is a question cause I really dont know:
Are new technologies like DDR2, PCI express, SATA represented on the Macs already?
I know sometime recently, M$ purchased a very large chunk of Apple. Here is an article I found:
<http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec081097.html>
Are you saying that Microsoft has sold all of these shares?
If M$ does not own any part of Apple any longer then that is only one way they can’t kill them. Right now M$ has such a stranglehold on the industry that competition is impossible. Most users are much more familliar with Windows then MacOS or Linux, so they threaten their OEM customers that they will pull there OEM if they install an alternate OS on their PC. They have done this in the past with Be Inc. and will do this again.
Yes, Microsoft sold all of their shares
One of the primary attractions to Linux on x86 has been the fact that it is Unix-like. If Apple moves OSX to x86, the combination of ease-of-use and Unix core will virtually guarantee that Linux never gets a foothold on the desktop. Ever. Doubt it? Price has never been the reason for keeping Linux off the desktop. It’s always been a question of usability. Apple has that. And consumers have shown that they’re willing to pay for that kind of usability. Hence, …
Has anyone ever thought that Apple might get Intel to simply manufacture ppc chips for them? That’s what they had IBM and Motorola do. Everyone is getting way too worked up on this one…..
1) Apple is pre-announcing hardware that won’t be released for two years.
I know they have a lot of money, but what would possess them to kill all of their computer hardware sales for the next two years? This isn’t just a matter of killing your income; shareholders will have an absolute fit, and Apple stock will plummet.
2) What about users who actually use Macs for business?
So now that I’ve invested several thousand dollars in video and animation software for my business, I have to turn around and plan to spend several thousand more just for the sake of upgrading my hardware? That’s ridiculous. Breaking backwards compatibility happens sooner or later, but not all at once. Apple has been trying to prove that they’re not just a pretty desktop system for the artist or grandma, but a serious business solution. Screwing over your customers on a whim is not a good strategy for making friends.
How do you think Virginia Tech, the US military, and other big institutions who have invested in multi-node XServe clusters are going to feel when they suddenly discover Apple isn’t going to support the hardware on their thousands of computers anymore?
3) It’s great that Darwin runs on Intel, but what about Apple’s new Core architectures?
How are you enjoying Quicktime 7 for Windows? Oh, wait, Apple hasn’t released that yet, have they? Strange, considering that they have that completely current version of OSX running on Intel hardware back at Steve’s secret underground lair. So now that Apple has spent a couple of years perfecting these technologies to run on the PowerPC and take advantage of things such as Altivec, they’re just going to turn around and start porting it to x86? It’s not even like we’re talking about a mature architecture here; it’s still version 1.0 in the user world. Talk about your QA nightmares.
2) How long before enterprising hackers release a “Mac-independent” version of OSX?
I’ll bet Steve froths at the mouth at the mere idea.
1) “Gee, it will be so cool to be able to port apps over so easily!”
Assuming that people do. OSX is still a completely different architecture. Even if the processor is the same, the way the system handles things is completely different. How many major x86-based Windows apps have been ported over to Linux? Not many, huh? Why would OSX be any different? For those who answered, “WINE,” that doesn’t solve the problem. It will require the WINE developers to actually get behind the project, and Apple can’t afford to have a business strategy reliant upon the goodwill of others. Apple would have to fork WINE just like they did the Konqueror kode for Safari. How long did it take Apple to release an officially supported version of X11?
Also, once you have the ability to run Windows-based apps with native-speed emulation through WINE, how can you guarantee that you won’t be inheriting a whole bunch of exploits, viruses, adware, spyware, etc., that can be run without recompiling? No thanks. Even if you set it up to run in a sandbox, adware in a sandbox is still annoying and sucking up precious memory and processing power. You know, like Dashboard.
In conclusion: whereas I’m sure Steve is pissed at IBM, it’s not the PowerPC architecture, but Apple’s chip suppliers, that have historically been at fault for performance issues. What Apple is looking for is a partner who will offer reliable development of the PowerPC, not a different chip architecture. With the recent hype about how cool the PPC-based Cell processors are, why would Apple give up that free marketing boost to say, “yeah, it’s cool, but we’re going to go to go use Intel.”
When you do business, you look for partnerships that will make you money, not cost you money. If Intel could, for example, offer a reliable development cycle for the PowerPC (assuming that the deal is even about a CPU at all), then Apple would be set and Intel would have a really nice feather in their cap: all of the major operating system developers would be looking to Intel for their chips. Yes, I know, AMD is better. The geek community likes AMD (heck, I like AMD), but the majority of desktop and business systems still ship with Intel Inside. Let me put it another way: those people responsible for maintaining Microsoft’s 95% install base aren’t the kind who frequent sites like OS News.
Apple is married to PowerPC. They could have dumped it when Motorola screwed them over, but instead they opted to find a new partner. History tends to repeat itself.
I don’t see anywhere in the quotes that the architecture will be switched. The first part of the quote used by CNet states that Apple will be scrapping contract with IBM and form new relationship with Intel. It never explicitly mentions a switch to x86.
It is more likely for Apple to sign a contract with Intel for a custom PPC chip.
However, the most likely case would be more disinformation from Apple to distract the media and stop the spread of the real rumour. Note that WDCC might not have any exciting announcement at all.
Also, what happened to Freescale’s MPC8540, The dual core CPU with Hypertransport etc.? From the look of this page, it’s already available for shipping (http://tinyurl.com/92agj) Can’t Apple use this chip for Powerbook?
I can see this move helping linux more than windows, wine anyone. wine can run on anything x86 from what I have herd, and I would assume apple might start putting resources into getting all the windows apps working in linux/mac if they could. This would kill off any chance windows has since all your favorite windows apps would run in linux and mac, making both of them very good choices.
How long before enterprising hackers release a “Mac-independent” version of OSX?
I’ll bet Steve froths at the mouth at the mere idea.
If you think about it, that may actually be what this strategy is all about. This may be a graceful way for Apple to transition from a hardware company to a software company.
Consider: If Apple transitioned to a proprietary x86 platform, the barrier to running OS X on a generic white box machine would largely be issues of OS and driver support. There wouldn’t be anything stopping x86 compiled applications from running on white box x86 hardware if there was a version of OS X that supported it.
So…
1.) Transition your OS and applications to a closed x86 platform until you have a big enough catalog of applications and a large enough market share to survive as software company alone.
2.) When you are no longer dependent on hardware revenue alone, release an x86 version of OS X for generic x86 hardware. At that point, you already have your ecosystem of OS X/x86 compatible hardware and application software developed. And it’s already far too late for Microsoft to cut you off at the knees. The usual barriers to competing against them, that is, industry application software and hardware support, have been removed.
3.) Profit!
Win XP Pro
FlyakiteOSX
Stardock Object Dock
Topdesk
= fake OSX on Win XP – no compatibility issues.
Play any games you want
Use any hardware you want
still have the elegant OSX front end over the Win XP workhorse
Run whatever software you want – quit jabbering about 1 button mice.
I works so insanely well – its like a perfect convergence of the two OS’s.
It’s just going to be Intel making a ppc chip. All this speculation about x86 is absurd. They won’t be making a switch. I wish they would and find it to be a good idea for Apple, but it won’t happen. Especially since Apple sells their hardware. I mean, if they are switching to Intel it’s for a reason to do it for their hardware alone. Otherwise, OS X will run on AMD 64 bit chips, but they aren’t talking to them are they?
A couple things
First, obviously Apple has always kept the Darwin builds up to date on x86. And if they just distribute the fat binaries then that pretty much negates major compatibility headaches. There’s just not much assembly language code these days, so it should be quite a bit easier than the early 90s. Some altivec stuff will have to be rewritten, but its probably not that big of a deal. Apple probably has some kind of tool to help the developer along to SSE2 translation if need be
About Wine. You better believe that Apple would just fork Wine. They’re not going to work with the Wine guys when they don’t have to. Would you? Apple has resources unlike the little guy out there who doesn’t get very far with forks. But there’s absolutely no incentive to have to ask permission from Wine people to make a commit.
>But running Windows is not a primary reason to buy a Mac.
There are many reasons why a user might NEED to use Windows for something. I think you are failing to understand that I am talking about NATIVE support of Windows/Linux/BSD on an Apple PC, not just through emulation. Windows on one partition, OSX on another…
I agree with you. It’s just a matter of numbers. Apple would have to basically get their market share up to a certain number where they could still survive with piracy.
I do agree with you, and I mentioned this in a previous post that sales in the transition could take a serious hit though.
Yes, Microsoft sold all of their shares.
Have any source to back this up? While I’ve seen many people blindly state this, I have not seen any evidence at all that supports this, and I’ve looked for it. Unless you can show me some evidence that says otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, Microsoft still holds the original Apple stock it purchased in 1997.
Yes, I agree with Eugenia, it was all about the laptops. I wonder when Jobs finally made his decision, was it late last year? Did Jobs think, back in June 2003 that IBM would eventually introduce a laptop processor?
In the end, Apple had no choice to do this, but it does not mean that they will succeed-the inevitable solution does not ensure success, but staying with IBM seemed to ensure failure, at least in laptops. I think Apple could have remained competitve with workstations for yrs to come, but that obviously was not enough. Next yr is looking really bad for Mac laptops vis Intel, and that’s unacceptable to Steve.
I suspect that in 2001-2002, Jobs took the solution that was most expedient for that moment” OSX needed to take route, and IBM G5 in the desktop was good for that. Changing to OSX and Intel at the same time would have been herculean. Now it is time to move on.
For the next two years it will be interesting to see how Powermacs sell, and what type of improvements Apple puts into them; are we stuck at overclocked 2.7 with AGP for the next two yrs? If so, PM’s will sell down to zero units in a short order.
A lot of this makes sense… I specially agree with the “custom pc” angle. I think that it would make the most sense to enter through the laptop market first. This is the best chance to customize a pc to just the right specs for apple to do what they need to do. At the same time, apple will be able to move away from the G4 on their laptops.
It makes business sense to move… I just hope apple will not turn into another alienware and does not over charge too much.
It doesn’t mean history isn’t repeating itself. Of course its not going to BE exactly the same.
1. IBM is having problems producing a 3.0 ghz ppc chip for Apple but is able to produce a 3+ ghz triple-core chip for the Xbox 360?
2. Why does everyone believe that Apple is switching to an x86 processor?
3. Why couldn’t Intel make a PPC chip a-la Altivec the way Freescale and IBM do?
I really would like to know why haveing BeOS moving from PPC to x86 killed it. Why does this happen? I could argue locking your OS into a box that you control 100% has many downsides as far as trying to get market share and could kill it. You are pretty much saying lock it into a box that only OSX can run on and let the cult followers foot the bill. If you opened the box to all those same cult followers would leave and not foot the bill and no one else would jump on to foot the bill? I used BeOS and it was cool and nice at the time. But I refuse to believe the switch from one cpu arch to another killed it. Lets face it BeOS was not that great for the whole pc market. It was good for freaking geeks like most people on this site. Just like Linux is great buy my mom and grandma won’t be using it in this life time. OSX is not just for freaking geeks, but grandmas and computer idiots/dummies. So I think they have a good shot at taking lots of market if they made OSX run on any x86 like windows does. I know because I would run it in two seconds. So would lots of my friends who are computer idiots/dummies.
Do you people recall the AMD/IBM talks awhile ago?
Do you remember the fab work that AMD is using from IBM?
As you all know; Apple is considering a switch to the X86 line.
Could it be possible that Apple will use a stricly enforced X86-64 hybrid from AMD/IBM based in part of PPC?
It’s a shot in the dark! Steve Jobs is notorious for rabbit tricks.
<< Have any source to back this up? While I’ve seen many people blindly state this, I have not seen any evidence at all that supports this, and I’ve looked for it. Unless you can show me some evidence that says otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, Microsoft still holds the original Apple stock it purchased in 1997.>>
Which matters not a bit, as ALL of Microsoft’s shares were non-voting shares.
Garaunteed: Apple will NOT be using x86 procs. Intel will be fabricating a powerpc or a variant thereof for Apple. Mark my words.
Us geeks are just speculating right now, but I guess it does allow Apple to play AMD against Intel and vice versa in the future.
this article is far from correct.. linux does NOT have major issues on x86_64
Why the hell should Apple switch ti x86, when cell architecture is knocking at a door?!?!? I believe if Apple whould switch to cell, it would outperform any Win/Linux box on latest x86 hardware.
to me this will mean only one thing:
IBM or Motorola will lounch the next-gen PC, using PPC processors and one of the commercial linuxes, and when that happen… bye bye x86
(amd was smarter when intel when they made the move support more pipelines and less frequency, but PPC is way better.)
“So now that I’ve invested several thousand dollars in video and animation software for my business, I have to turn around and plan to spend several thousand more just for the sake of upgrading my hardware? That’s ridiculous. “
Well, it is possible that they would release both x86 and PPC versions of their software for a few years, or have a trade in program that allows you to trade in your exisiting PPC based mac and get a x86 mac at a discounted price. Look at what Avid does with their upgrades that require going from one hardware platfrom to another (ie avbv to meridian or meridian to DNA) they have a trade in program that makes the transition less painfull. I doubt Apple would just say “by new hardware or else” – video applications are one of their most succesfull areas, they wouldnt risk losing all the FCP marketshare back to Avid.
As for Virginia Tech… well yeah, it sucks to be them I guess. I’d imagien they run a lot of custom written software and not as much third party stuff… but mabye not, i’m not to framiler with what kind of work they do.
Take this for what it’s worth. Before I left Apple as a NeXT employee who worked on the Rhapsody for Intel initiative, we despised the architecture for Intel 64 bit on NeXTSTEP/Openstep possibilities.
Dean Reece, head of I/O Team who designed and architected I/O Kit as a C++ based architecture was not one bit impressed with the HP-Intel initiative.
We couldn’t get shit for support from Intel or any 3rd party device driver, outside of DEC for our ethernet cards. They treated NeXT like shit and said there is no need to give help to a nice platform that wasn’t strong in the market.
This attitude fueled the reason why Apple writes their own device drivers and why they have a small set offered. They designed I/O Kit to encourage the prigs from Matrox, nVidia and ATI to write optimized drivers and so far you can see the results.
Apple does not want to be a Gaming Platform, get over it. We buried Sprockets intentionally because it would have only delayed the transition even further with Carbon.
The system is now at a state for companies to either jump onto Cocoa or be left stranded on Carbon.
Apple has a time limit set for Carbon. I’m looking forward to them making this clear at WWDC.
Longhorn way overdue has nothing to do with Apple having an OPPORTUNITY to break into the market.
When you own the OS and the major Productivity Suite standard on commodity x86 hardware you can dictate when you release your next OS.
FAT Binaries has not jack shit to do with making the logical transition to x86.
FAT Binaries supported a lean set from HP Geckos, Sun SPARC 5, 10, Motorola 68k and finally x86 486-Pentium Pro sets, when NeXT sold Openstep.
Both SPARC and Moto were limping along in any commercial demand and thus were not as well maintained.
Intel based would need a major update to its product line that includes Xeon, Celeron and obviously the x86-64.
Making it target specifically x86-64 and nothing else won’t make the system a commodity solution. It will be as expensive as a PowerPC G5. It’s not smart.
Then the Operating System is not optimized for x86.
Be my guest and download Darwin 8.1 and see for yourself. I have. Rhapsody on Intel had more support.
The shared Interupt model on x86 is dogshit. We had nightmares dealing with that crap on device drivers, especially dealing with shared INT.
wait till u hear from steve
>>DRM on the motherboard!
That’s the very first reason that popped into my head for why Apple would make this switch when I first read about this possibility yesterday.
>>I think that it raised their mindshare and introduced more people to BeOS than would have tried it had Be Inc. stuck to PPC. The company had other problems.
Yea Be stopped listening to its users and was dead set on making an internet only os computer. They did this after they kept hitting the monopoly problem of MSFT forbidding h/ware makers to sell any computers with anything else on it*. Be later won their suit against MSFT for that but it did little good because the company was defunct by that time.
*hint, lovers of MSFT stock, THAT is what anti-trust really is, so don’t even try the arguement of “well it wasn’t really a forbiddance, they could do it, just wouldn’t get MSFT discounts for the OS anymore if they did” – that’s the same thing Standard Oil did and others guilty of antitrust.
@person – you need only look at the NASDAQ site to see how little Microsoft has to do with Apple shares.
It’s true that they bought $250M in shares. Currently Apple is a $31.25B company (according to the NASDAQ site), so even allowing for growth, their $250M wouldn’t translate to much now. In fact, at the time MS bought those shares, Apple had $6B in cash reserves! It was purely a symbolic gesture, nothing more.
But look at the holdings report to find the top shareholders. Microsoft don’t make the top 5 (and that’s from 71M with Barclays down to 19M with Calamos).
The fact is that even if they still held the shares (which they don’t, but I can’t locate a non-existant shareholder in today’s data) and even if those shares were voting shares (which they were not), then Microsoft must have less than 19M shares (else they’d be in the top 5). 19M shares out of 616M shares is a shade over 3% of the total. That’s not enough to swing a company.
Microsoft don’t own any Apple shares today, but even if they did, they wouldn’t have the power to effect strategic changes on their own.
Let the meme die. Freely available information disproves it in a moment.
As for Virginia Tech… well yeah, it sucks to be them I guess. I’d imagien they run a lot of custom written software and not as much third party stuff… but mabye not, i’m not to framiler with what kind of work they do.
———————————————-
As recall all of VT PPC G5 machines run their own custom designed software & OS, I doubt this news has anybearing on them whatso ever, they used the PowerMacs for the G5 processor not the OS
And even then it’s still not fair, since the CPU speeds should be identical, but you know what, NOBODY makes a PC with a 1.25 ghz CPU. WELCOME BACK TO THE 90’s!
—————————————-
LOL!
OK, I think your mams calling, its school time
It seems that IBM put much of its PPC innovation in the PS3/Xbox360 area neglecting to give Apple and Steve jobs the feeling they were the PPC king of the road. This combined with the lack of a marketing-able fast laptop left Apple behind.
Although I fail to see how AMD with its x86-64 fits in.
“And even then it’s still not fair, since the CPU speeds should be identical, but you know what, NOBODY makes a PC with a 1.25 ghz CPU.”
I picked up a P3 1.3Ghz, used for $20, complete system, plus a 21″ NEC CRT for $40. $60 vs $799, that’s the true comparison, even the same era for CPU speed. No 1.25Ghz CPU should be compared to a P4, only the P3.
even bigger LOL
so now we are comparing second hand PCs to new iMacs
The eMac is a joke, it won the worst of the year award last year for some magazine poll. The Macheads should compare 3Ghz to 3Ghz systems. DOH! They don’t have have one! The $2,999 top of the line Mac only has dual 2.7Ghz CPUs. I can buy 4 PCs that are 3Ghz for that price, and still have money left over.
“so now we are comparing second hand PCs to new iMacs”
Not iMacs, eMacs…. and considering the poor quality of the eMac, it’s quite appropriate.
Steve Jobs must have gotten tired of lying and decided that he’s got to go to x86 to remain speed competitive.
Considering the lack of expansion slots, iMacs and eMacs are inferior to PowerMac and full P4 desktop PCs. The cheapest PowerMac is $1499 and it’s still only 1.8Ghz, which is twice the price of a 3Ghz P4.
Let me tell you guys the truth so you don’t have to wait till tomorrow nor wonder what it’d be.
It’s a PCI add-on card with an Intel CPU on it. Apple’s own version of Virtual PC, only it’s real. It allows you to run Windows applications at native speed so you get the best of both sides. Certainly, you can run Linux on it as well.
Believe it or not, there’s just hours before I have the proof.
Apple did loose when switching away from 68000 to powerpc. This is only half side of the truth since they did not only change the processor but the operating system giving it a new foundation on a bsd-kernel making it over with dozen new libraries to push the new advantages upwards to desktop level.
Nah. They were two totally separate switches. PowerMacs came out in 1994, while OS X was released in 2001.
The x86 switch will still be a lot easier than the PowerPC switch, because OS X was designed with portability in mind from the start. The previous MacOS was so tied into 68k that even large parts of the operating system had to be emulated on PowerPC.
I think there are some serious issues to look over before contemplating a move to a whole new architecture, like the one suggested here.
The Mac is a specialised and it always has been. It’s almost religious. Why would Apple even think that they would sell a serious number of x86-64 Apple hardware just because it would be x86-64 and no longer PPC? -It makes absolutely no sense to me.
If the argument is notebook performance, take a look at the dual core e600 processor (G4) from Freescale (formerly Motorola). At 1.5 GHz it performs well in range of a single core 1.8 GHz G5, which is the logical IBM named choice of processor for a next generation PowerBook.
If the argument is a whole new processor market, or platform market, forming around the x86-64, I find this to be a fairly risky approach for Apple, unless it simply intends to be a hardware company doing what everyone else does….only better….
Sun Microsystems has tried this, and to my best belief failed at it… Their own child, the Ultra Sparc processor, is almost dead and nothing dictates the use of Solaris on its Opteron hardware, leaving Sun somewhere inbetween the fields of being a hardware and a software vendor. Apple: Do not go there!!
Bottom line: One needs to carefully examine what makes people buy a Mac compared to a more mainstreaam product, say a Dell. The answer to me is the superior design, the power, beauty and simplicity of Mac OS X. All of this still holds its ground on PPC hardware. The average Mac user does not gain much from having to buy new Apple x86-64 hardware, new Adobe software and so on, compared to what they get now – even if you calculate in the advantages of sheer processing power.
Why not see the Mac for what it really is: An alternative to the mainstream way of computing that is wintel. This is mainly what has kept the company alive, since it carries with it a sense of religion… -So keep it an alternative!
Well that’s an interesting idea allright. I don’t know if you are for real and whether your idea is feasible or not, but your scenario makes _a_lot_ of sense. Interesting. Well done and hats off to the one who thought it. Really.
1. IBM is having problems producing a 3.0 ghz ppc chip for Apple but is able to produce a 3+ ghz triple-core chip for the Xbox 360?
No. IBM is not having any problems! This is about the power/heat consumption of the G5. The G5 is a beautiful chip – only problem is that it runs too hot to include it in a laptop. IBM does not find it in their best interest to invest millions of dollars into delivering a low powered (less heat producing) version of their chip. Why would they? IBM will cater to their biggest customers (Sony Playstation and Microsoft XBOX360). These customers want more performance, not reduced power consumption.
======
2. Why does everyone believe that Apple is switching to an x86 processor?
You have to ask, why is Intel interested? There are 3 scenarios:
a) Apple is not switching and the rumors are false.
This would be plausible if it weren’t for the fact that Apple just can’t put the G5 into a slim, sexy laptop. There is just no cheap way to do this. (I say cheap, since there is probably a way, but it is prohibitive for a consumer product). Apple sees 1+ years down the road where the G4s cannot compete with the new x86 based machines in performance or price. They have to act now and take away control of their future from IBM.
b) Intel is producing a G5 PPC chip.
Why would Intel spend millions (10s of millions+) in producing a LOW POWERED (ie: less heat producing) version of the G5. Just so they sell 2-3 million chips/year to Apple? Hell no, it just doesn’t make business sense. [They might if they forsee a future in selling this for use in portable XBox or PS… but this would be a future product – Apple needs something now and cannot wait! Also, this would be a huge risk to Intel. They cannot just jump in and start producing/modifying a chip that they have never worked with (even if they have a completely licensed core identical to what IBM produces – which will never be the case!). It would take time – and time costs customers and money. Apple just can’t wait.]
c) Apple is switching.
The NeXT software (which is what the Apple graphical interface is based on) was able to run on x86 several years ago. The OS (Darwin) has been ported/runs on x86. The Altivec (velocity engine for hardware enhanced mathematical manipulations) can be handled by Intel’s own hardware engines. All I can say is that the pieces are there, and they work. It is reasonable to believe that Apple already has the OS working on a PC.
======
3. Why couldn’t Intel make a PPC chip a-la Altivec the way Freescale and IBM do?
See above.
Combine religious zeal with totally missing the point et voila: Your OSNEWS editorial is ready for consumption.
What keeps amazing me is that Eugenia still doesn’t seem to understand the difference between her opinoin and the truth, yet the very same person likes to accuse others of zealotry. Choice quote:
“>> Linux is no threat on the desktop compared to Mac OS X”
> Hehe, Eugenia is trolling again…
When I am saying no “competition on the desktop”, I am talking abnout the desktop EXPERIENCE, not the actual strategic and market advantages. OSX offers ways better desktop experience than any linux. That’s no trolling, that’s the truth.”
No Eugenia, that’s not the truth, that’s your opinion. It may be an informed opinion (although I doubt it), but it’s still only your opinion.
Now combine that with an editorial that doesn’t really have an argument, but manages to waste a lot of space for not making any sense.
So Eugenia tells us that Apple’s move to x86-64 makes total sense. So far so good.
But why does it make sense according to Eugenia?
The first reason is that Longhorn is late. Well, it would still be late if Apple staid with ppc, so what exactly is your argument here?
The second reason is that x86-64 is still a virgin platform, as is ppc64, so still no argument.
So without providing any argument why this move does indeed make sense, Eugenia now turns to telling us, why it won’t hurt Apple.
Her main point is, that Apple will not move to an open platform, but keep all the control it currently has over the hardware OSX is running on. While this might be true, what Eugenia fails to see is that this point alone brings down her whole argument as to why a move to x86-64 would be good for Apple, as according to her, nothing realy changes.
So she is essentially arguing that it would be a good move, without providing any argument why it would be a good move and combines that with telling us that it won’t be a problem as nothing will change.
Amazing.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AGSGQ00.htm?campaign…
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan
pony-tail hippy boy needs to get a haircut and real.
If Apple does make the switch to x86-64 it won’t be long before they are temped to release a mass market version of their OS. The driver situation is a lot simpler than most people are making out. Apple only need to convince a few companies to provide drivers: Intel/Nvidia/ATI/VIA/SIS, by then they’ll have support for most motherboard integrated computer functions out there and add-in GFX cards. Even if they only limits themselves to Intel/Nvidia they’ll have huge access to a lot of the high/middle tear PCs out there. Once the market begins to be established support for add in cards will develop naturally.
With MS’s browser dominance diminishing (at least websites are becoming more standards compliant), Apple’s “popular” ITunes taking on the stagnant (IMHO) WMP and threatening MS’s attempts to lock people into their proprietary codecs, and people’s willingness to at least consider open office document standards this could be a prime time for Apple to work towards releasing an MS competing OS.
Anyone else feel like IBM is getting out of the hardware business (harddrives/computers/cpus(?))? They seem to be turning themselves into purely a consultancy/development house.
r2d2d3d4d5 : ( wtf with that nick ??
)
IBM still makes HD under hitachi’s name..
IBM’s deskstar series were fast but most of them died after a year and IBM was not easy with the warranty so most stores no longer want to deal with IBM…
PPCs for apple : they did not meet up to their promises ( 3Ghz PPC ) …
they’ll make a lot of new CPUs for the upcoming consoles though …
> They seem to be turning themselves into purely
> a consultancy/development house.
Not all that unlikely considering that IBM’s biggest cashcow, IIRC, is Global Services.
Who is Apple going to sue for breaking the news if news it is ?
Maybe Intel is going to work on a x86-64 with powerpc instruction set on top of the x86 one ?
“Maybe Intel is going to work on a x86-64 with powerpc instruction set on top of the x86 one ?”
erm, why the hell would they do that?
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Let’s see what the man has to say today.
To steal the PC market when Microsoft is not looking… I don’t buy that. You would then have to convince hundreds of thousands of people who have fostered an institutional hate for Apple. I just don’t see it happening.
And Intel processors aren’t that very much faster than PPC either, are they? I mean, it’s not as if they’re selling 4 Gig boxes. Why is that? Because Intel doesn’t want to sell faster machines or because they can’t get them cool enough not to melt the copper from the dye?
>Win XP Pro
>FlyakiteOSX
>Stardock Object Dock
>Topdesk
>= fake OSX on Win XP – no compatibility issues.
>I works so insanely well – its like a perfect convergence of the two
> OS’s.
Ha ha you never have run OSX right.
You can put all the themas and shit on Windows but it still suffers from a crappy underlying kernel and code.
Now you could try BSD or Linux with Aqua theming, LimeRad8 icons, kxdocker etc. That would come close but dressing up Windows XP to make in a OSX tranny do not work your girl would still have a swaety sticking hairy belly underneath those nice clothers.
I feel sorry for people like you.
Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room. Today you can run Linux Binaries on BSD. Millions of Linux servers are already installed in Corporations and giving Gates Nightmares. Linux sever growth rate is dwarfing the growth rates of Windows and Unix servers.
OSX is based on BSD. With OSX on intel/AMD you get the user-friendly, factory-installed, Linux-compatible, fast desktop system that can run more than 5,000 free GPL applications including top notch office applications like OpenOffice. All this is will be happening at a time that Linux server growth is going through the roof.
Do the Math: Beautiful OSX on the desktop, Rock-solid Linux on servers communicating with open computing standards(like NFS) which Microsoft hates. This is the worst nightmare yet for Redmond.
mkay, let’s summarize…
1. Intel producing PPC’s… Don’t really think so for basically the same reason IBM is not putting more R&D into the G5 line, intel won’t be doing it. Not enough of a market te warrant this. Add to that the fact that intel won’t be very willing to tout an architecture they didn’t design (look at how they treat the x86-64 platform) and this seems very unlikely.
2. Intel x86 based PCI add-on card. What? And push all that I/O through the PCI bus? Like that would not slow down the system (unless they implement a complete PC on that board, it’ll still have to communicate with the other hardware in the PC. They’ve invented AGP and PCI-Express for a reason ya know).
3. MacOSX runs on x86. Stevie Wonder himself said so. He even persists that the version is kept in sync with the PPC version. Why no QT7 on windows? Platform advantage, new software should always come out on your own platform first!
4. Developpers will switch in a heartbeat. Actually, I’m just waiting for the announcement to go and convince my boss that we should start making crossplatform application from now on (and I’m one of those developpers you speak of).
5. Existing user base generally aren’t PPC zealots like you guys like to make them out to be. They’re usability zealots, this has nothing to do with processor architecture. They HATE windows, that’s why they buy Mac’s. Add to that the fact that a lot of windows users als o hate windows but don’t buy macs because of the price of the hardware… Even if apple starts making custom x86 hardware, the current userbase won’t dimminish (as it would when staying with PPC given it’s current spead of development).
6. Backwards compatibility: Userspace programs are always easy to port to a new hardware platform given the API’s are the same. Mostly recompile and voila. Updates to all these programs to the new platform might be as simple as an easy download.
7. Hardware compatibility: Apple can “steal” (ie “read and learn”) and refine most of the opensource drivers, this is a very rich set of drivers readily available. And as stated, they only NEED support from the biggest vendors. Given that Nvidia even supports freebsd… well… there you are then.
I’m not sure what will happen, sales wise, when apple makes the switch. But form a technical standpoint, a logical standpoint, it all makes sense.
They surely switch because of (in no particular order):
1) IBM can’t deliver
2) Intel is adding DRM to its processors (if not why not go with AMD, just for ads which count a lot of course?).
3)WiMax
4) Being able to run x86 OS mainly windows so people can swithch easily to Apple OS and still being able to run their softwares, game mostly I suppose. (maybe like shapesheaver, dual boot is enough though)
Someone remember Intel saying that they’ve the technology to run PPC code in their processors? Might be a reason too…
/kml
PS I don’t think that they’ll go in the console market though, at least not now, but building a console for the next round is the right time.
It’s been interesting to read the reaction of folks :
1) People currently using x86 hardware who assume they’ll be able to use OSX, which is the most unlikely of the rumour threads. You’ll need Apple hardware for OSX, until of course the hackers get a hold of it, I give it 6 months.
2) People currently using PPC OSX, who mostly are annoyed at the possibility of Intel-based machines, some will get over it, some like me will refuse to buy Intel Macs. If I wanted an Intel machine I’d buy a PC clone, I know the difference.
3) People who currently use XP/x86 and now because of the rumour, they swear they’ll buy Apple/Intel. I don’t think they will, OSX is nice, but they’ll find it irritating and mostly will try out the hacked version (see 1) on their self-built AMD watercooled beast machine.
4) Ironically, the REAL market this move would be aimed at hasn’t yet had much of a say. The majority of people who bought an iPod, the “general masses”, whos only experience of Apple is not of the seat-of-the-pants innovator, but of the DRM-embracing pop-music seller.
Not long now ’till we find out for sure!
One thing is recompile to new platafform another is to have same performance. There are programs that are optimized to Altivec, and PPC plataform, is not always a simple recompile. Although the program shoul work correctly.
Let’s wait and see!
For me Intel only in latptop/notebooks thing.
The day is here, stop speculating, stop trolling, stop feeding the trolls, cut your loses – the announcement will/wont be made soon! 🙂
“After News.com’s Friday report that Apple is moving to Intel/x86, the respected publication Wall Street Journal and now NYTimes threw their reputation behind the rumor. Many people still remain skeptical, but I personally believe that the time is right for Apple to switch to x86-64, for two main reasons.”
The New York Times threw their reputation behind Jason Blair too, and subsequently their reputation went right down the toilet. x86 has too much baggage. Apple could do a lot better.
OSX is based on BSD. With OSX on intel/AMD you get the user-friendly, factory-installed, Linux-compatible, fast desktop system that can run more than 5,000 free GPL applications including top notch office applications like OpenOffice. All this is will be happening at a time that Linux server growth is going through the roof.
No, we never have Linux compatibility layer for Darwin.
I just bought a Mac Mini to use at home, replacing my Intel box running Linux. Why? The Intel box is big, loud, and hot. I’m annoyed with all the counterproductive sniping in the Linux community and the unwillingness of much of it accept that Linux is not yet perfect. I’m dismayed at all the energy that seems to go into rolling out Yet More Cookie Cutter Distributions and how not enough energy goes into real creativity and innovation.
My home use is restricted to email and browser use, so this little Mini handles those just fine. Best of all, it is small, very quiet, and doesn’t raise the room temperature 5 degrees.
Besides, there’s always Fink.
i’ll say it again, OSXen
I don’t give a flying fsck what Steve or Apple will do and why they’ll do it. I am sure it will be great and innovative.
And I will buy it.
I was just gonna say the same:
Everyone just shut up…
If Apple switches to Intel, does it mean it will be possible to run new versions of Mac OS on PC?
No
If the keynote hits and the “switch to Intel” rumour turns out to be bull, then it will hopefully shut up the “OS X on Intel!!!!!1111oneone” fannerds once and for all.
If Apple switches to Intel, does it mean it will be possible to run new versions of Mac OS on PC?
Not legally, and not without some kind of hack.
That’s unless Apple feels suicidal and starts competing with Windows head-on.
“If the keynote hits and the “switch to Intel” rumour turns out to be bull, then it will hopefully shut up the “OS X on Intel!!!!!1111oneone” fannerds once and for all.”
i can honestly say, in the last 10 years, i have heard a billion variations on that comment. and as they STILL haven’t switched, and yet here we are again, i am thinking that nobody will be “shut up” by today…
I wouldn’t mind checking out osX, it looks neat.
If Apple switches to Intel, does it mean it will be possible to run new versions of Mac OS on PC?
Not legally, and not without some kind of hack.
Oh, I forgot. Much of your hardware won’t work.
So, it’s Monday already, when is this supposed announcement about to happen?
Apple will move to an Intel-manufactured PPC chip
10 A.M. PDT, get live coverage here – http://www.macrumors.com/ .
you need to remember, American timezones are behind 90% of the world. its tuesday here already, another few hours until 10am monday in the states
1. WTF does Longhorn being late have to do with Apple switching to the poorly designed, i.e. hacked, x86/64 architecture being a good idea?
2. Big deal. x86/64 is a crappy design, AMD’s appears to be slightly better than Intel’s(based upon available information), but it still is nothing more than an x86 hack.
Now adding these up, unless Apple a) licenses (and ships) M$ libraries with a Windows emulation layer, or b) get a good version of WINE going the switch makes no sense. I really doubt that developer are going to go: Hey Apple switched to x86, c00l, lets write more software for OSX… but, uh, we still have to use Cocoa/Carbon/etc. so er, uhm… oh well…
(i.e. if it does happen, don’t count on suddenly seeing TONS of ported software(games included).)
Well, there goes the PowerPC.
Another casualty to Intel.
Who cares if Power runs games.
The real money is in Desktop OS’s.
So keep a lid on your emotions and ideas till then
We can have a post keynote commentary later on
Actually, there’s a LOT of money in game-consoles, and it’s ironic that the PS3 will be more powerful than most desktops (if you add the Cell and Nvidia grunt) when it’s released next year….and guess what? It shouldn’t need to be water cooled! Maybe we should all campaign for OSX on PS3 and XBox360! There’s almost certainly going to be a linux disti, I’ll look forward to that!
I approve of AnonymousCowards’s evaluation of x86, and comments in the other thread about it being a poor-mans architecture, the original sucked as do all of its bastard-child mutant siblings…if it were as great as some are convinced then M$ wouldn’t have thrown it in the trash in favour of PPC for XBox 360 – despite the backward-compat nightmare consequences (the reverse of which Apple will undoubtedly experience).
This is Why: http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1125226
15 more minutes 🙂