If they get OSX to run on a x86 chip, what’s to stop PC users from using a MacOS?
Intel will make out like a bandit…even though Apple only holds a 1 digit % of computer sales…they really need every sale they can get to stay off AMDs pricing war.
As far as Apple using Intel chips, there are two possibilities:
1) Apple’s REALLY playing hardball with IBM over chip and speed volumes, using their leak engine to do so.
2) Apple’s marketing staff will implode Monday over the new “Intel is good” directive.
Well, it’s official as of this morning. Nothing like killing your hardware sales numbers for the year in one single morning. I wonder what Steve’s doing this afternoon for an encore?
Seriously, though I’d be very interested in seeing actual real-world benchmarks for Rosetta. It will be seriously interesting to see what happens when the BSD geeks get their hands on an x86-compiled version of OSX.
On the plus side, I’m looking forward to getting Intel hardware in a PowerBook, I missed things like the magnetic latches, backlit keyboard, slot-loading drive, and thin form factor when I got my TR2A. Running Windows at full speed on a Mac will also be nice, no more Virtual PC!
After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.”
Mac peeps all over the web are shocked. I think it’s a hard pill to swallow since one of the myth pillars of “why a Mac is better” was just demolished and done so by their boisterous leader. They’ll find that what’s available on the x86 architecture like SSE2/3 and crazy integer performance will be more than a suitable replacement for Altivec. Most people are also probably pissed because despite the Rosetta stuff, they’ll still be forced to upgrade to the new x86-optimized versions of their favorite software. And some just had to do that with the release of OS X 10.4 which broke a bunch a programs.
It’s shocking but not surprising as Apple really had no choice. IBM and Motorola made them do this. Even if Apple got the 3.2GHz chips used in the game consoles they would still be behind Intel and AMD in terms of performance. I figure Apple wouldn’t be able to get the 3.2GHz chips until early next year (since MS will get a majority of them this fall). By then, AMD will certainly be at 5GHz+ level chips (they’re at 4800+ as it is). With Dual-Core chips all over the place, I wouldn’t be surprised if AMD is at 6GHz+ level performance next year. Intel will be around there at some point as well…but only after they put Pentium 4 architecture to death (it’s currently on a Frankenstein life support system) and move over to a true Dual-Core Pentium M architecture (which is what Apple is waiting for).
Also, Apple saves a gang load of money by not having to develop the supporting chipsets. Also, since a lot of Linux/Unix drivers are already available for x86, it means Apple will have even more device support than ever.
So, overall, it’s a good thing for Apple. In a weird way, Apple will be able to compare their systems more directly against PC systems. However, since they can’t distort performance realities, they will certainly have to really market the ease-of-use factors to convince people to switch. Also, they’ll likely have to lower prices a bit as well as people will know how much the parts cost since they won’t really be proprietary anymore. It’s good for everyone who wants a choice. This move could actually help Apple gain a lot more marketshare.
My favorite quote so far from sad, angered Mac fans is this:
...Then again, having a Mac that says “Intel Inside” would be like finding out your girlfriend has a penis >.<
One other thought…this puts a lot more pressure on MS to get Longhorn out and for it to be good. People are going to look at OS X on x86 and say, “why is there stuff better and it’s running on the same hardware”?
MS and the entire hardware manufacturer community better join together to make sure their stuff works better. I keep waiting for the new BIOS platform that they’ve been talking about for years…it’s about time to introduce that along with the new OS.
[quote author=“gr00vy0ne”]...Then again, having a Mac that says “Intel Inside” would be like finding out your girlfriend has a penis >.<
This is hilarious but I totally agree, albeit a smart move in every point that Groovy noted, Mac sales will plumet until such time that these new chips are released and on the privision that all new Mac’s DO NOT have a crooked, tacky, tasteless, Intel inside sticker (that would kill Apple’s rep very quickly).
[quote author=“gr00vy0ne”]One other thought…this puts a lot more pressure on MS to get Longhorn out and for it to be good. People are going to look at OS X on x86 and say, “why is there stuff better and it’s running on the same hardware”?
MS and the entire hardware manufacturer community better join together to make sure their stuff works better. I keep waiting for the new BIOS platform that they’ve been talking about for years…it’s about time to introduce that along with the new OS.
I don’t think it will be like that at all. Dollars to doughnuts (mmmm doughnuts…) you won’t be able to run OSX on any random PC. You will only be able to run it on an Apple PeeCee due to the BIOS. You also won’t be able to run Win apps just because the Mac proc is an x86-compatible. Apple will still be as Different and distinct as they are now. MS will still sell tons of Windows licenses and Apple will go on selling systems that are only compatible with Mac-specific software. At least VPC will be faster, since it’s not emulating an x86 anymore.
The one wildcard is the WINE project. As a BSD-derived UNIX variant, WINE will have little problem running on an x86 OSX. A well-supported, idiot-proof WINE would be a strong selling point for x86 Macs, but I think Apple’s price premium would keep them out of a lot of corporate shops and budget-concious homes.
I do get a perverse kick out of my Mac-head friends basically turning themselves inside-out over the this, especially the ones who bought Apple’s marketing bullshit benchmarks.
[quote author=“Drachen”]especially the ones who bought Apple’s marketing bullshit benchmarks.
Lol.
I can see Apple selling quite a bit at first (after the Intel release) but I don’t know how long they can carry it if they still want to charge a premium.
[quote author=“Drachen”]
I don’t think it will be like that at all. Dollars to doughnuts (mmmm doughnuts…) you won’t be able to run OSX on any random PC. You will only be able to run it on an Apple PeeCee due to the BIOS.
Well how long do you think it will take before people are reflashing their BIOS with a Mac BIOS that was had through some simple (to hardcore geeks at least) reverse engineering or just copying the BIOS in some way? Can’t that be done now as it is? I guess Apple could put a lot of work into copy protection, but as it was quoted with the release of SP2 “Microsoft took two years to make what hackers broke again in 10 minutes” (not verbatim but it was to that effect.)
[quote author=“OnMyWayUp”]Well how long do you think it will take before people are reflashing their BIOS with a Mac BIOS that was had through some simple (to hardcore geeks at least) reverse engineering or just copying the BIOS in some way? Can’t that be done now as it is? I guess Apple could put a lot of work into copy protection, but as it was quoted with the release of SP2 “Microsoft took two years to make what hackers broke again in 10 minutes” (not verbatim but it was to that effect.)
The same reason people buy DVDs instead of packs of DVD-Rs and a Netflix subscription. It’s not all that hard to rip all the DVDs you want for $18/mo + DVD-Rs. Most people are lazy and not terribly clever when it comes to computers. That’s why most people won’t run Linux+WINE.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]I can see Apple selling quite a bit at first (after the Intel release) but I don’t know how long they can carry it if they still want to charge a premium.
They will charge a premium for the same reasons they do now: great industrial design, excellent proprietary software and rabid brand loyalty. Sony demands a similar premium, and they really don’t bring as much to the table in terms of software, loyalty or cachet.
[quote author=“Drachen”][quote author=“tifosiv122”]I can see Apple selling quite a bit at first (after the Intel release) but I don’t know how long they can carry it if they still want to charge a premium.
They will charge a premium for the same reasons they do now: great industrial design, excellent proprietary software and rabid brand loyalty. Sony demands a similar premium, and they really don’t bring as much to the table in terms of software, loyalty or cachet.
I understand, but when the hardware is no longer designed specifically for the software…I don’t think it will run as well…I guess we will have to see.
