Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
Sounds like a rehash of the last article. How does he get paid TWICE for the same BS?

If I was his editor I would throw out this article and tell him to actually write something original that actually made sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Actually, the article isn't TOTALLY out to lunch, in the sense that, if Apple WERE to go with Itanium (which I personally don't see it happening) or even an AMD 64 bit processor (also, rather thin idea) the roadmap he diplays is certainly a viable path.

But those are pretty big "if"s. At least 96pt bold/italic/underlined "if"s.

I don't believe I just agreed with Dvorak.

Please, someone kill me?

:cool:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
jfpoole beat me to the punch, Dvorak has had his thinking wrong for some time now.

If Apple were to switch to an x86 platform (be it Itanium2 or Clawhammer Athlon), they would most certainly make the machine themselves. Big if though.

But considering that there are many rumours about the 970 (like that the 970 may show up in the 15" powerbook revision for example(which i highly doubt)), I'd say the 970 is still more likely the route they will take. That, and they will probably stick with PPC as they did help create it after all.

--PB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
Dvorak has been saying the same thing since 1996, he has become something of a cartoon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
Um...I'll have what Dvorak's smoking, please. Does it come with a bag of Oreos too?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
I have a few thoughts that differ from most here. I can see a positive side of moving to Intel that nobody seems to mention.
1. The hardware supremacy argument would finally be put to rest. We would be on an equal footing with Windows overnight. We could also ride on the back of the Intel Marketing machine like Dell and everyone else does. How many sales are lost when people look at how far behind Apple is in the MHZ war (although we know its not the only measure of power but the average consumer doesn't know that).
2. Can you imagine how many copies of OSX would be sold if Intel users could load it up on their machines? A lot of PC users have liked what they see over the fence but are married to their hardware. For $200 bucks they could feel the power of OSX for themselves. I bet users would abandon windows in droves. PC using friends of mine drool on my desk but they have a significant PC hardware investment that keeps them faithful to Bill.
3. I realize Apple makes most of its cash on the hardware sales but that dynamic is starting to change. Apple has a great suite of apps they could sell besides the OS itself (Final Cut, Final Cut express, iLife, Shake, .Mac, Keynote, a revised AppleWorks etc.? Microsoft makes billions selling software, so can Apple. I also think once market share expanded, as it would, people would take a harder look at Apples hardware offering. There is no competition on the PC side for hardware design & quality.
4. Apple could probably drop there prices even further with the availability of cheaper PC parts and still make the same money.
5. On a hardware note. If someone was in love with Windows with no hope of seeing the light, they could still potentially buy an Apple system to run it on.
6. Many site the failure of OS2, BeOS as an example of what would happen to Apple on PC hardware but they are no comparison. They didn't have any market-share to start with, they had virtually no software base. Linux suffers the same problem although they are making some inroads. If Linux has a larger market share than Apple with the pathetic selection of Software they have available on the platform, how much better would Apple look?

I really don't care what processor is under the hood of my mac. Its the Mac OS that we love. If it runs fast and stable of an Intel, AMD chip. Bring em on. I don't see Intel being the death of Apple but possibly a new beginning. I think sticking to PPC would only be a smart idea if they can smoke the hardware available from Intel. Otherwise we will continue to see our market-share erode. What do you guys think?

MacGuiver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
Tomac wrote:
Thoughts?

The big flaw in Dvorak's column is that he thinks of Apple as a software company, not a hardware company, when the reverse is true (Apple makes most of their money selling hardware, not software). If Apple were to release a version of Mac OS X that ran on commodity hardware they'd effectively be slitting their throat.

Of course if Apple switched to Intel CPUs and if Apple produced a version of Mac OS X that only ran on MacIntel hardware, then it's not as farfetched (although I still doubt it will happen unless the 970 isn't as nifty as we've been lead to believe).
 

·
Canadian By Choice
Joined
·
5,141 Posts
Some good points MacGuiver but the golden goose as far as Apple's current business model is concerned is in hardware sales. The danger is simply that some current Mac users will be tempted to run OS X on current intel based hardware. Moreover, by not controlling the hardware that it runs on, Apple will have support nightmares that would quickly eliminate any profit from OS sales. On top of that, people would likely have to buy new versions of their software apps to be able to run then under OS X (unless there was some sort of compatability API).

If Apple does go for Intel hardware, it'll use the same business model as today and simply tie the OS to their hardware (by using ASICs). That wouldn't increase the user base it would simply unify the underlying processor. Indeed, one reason for not switching processors is that it would make it possible to compare Apples to Apples and directly assess the speed of the OS between Windows, OS X and Linux. Plus, we'd lose the Altivec optimizations in current apps (and the OS).

It might be an idea to seed a trojan horse by making OS X available on Intel for free. No support. Limited utility since most apps wouldn't work with it. Eseentially just a demo of the OS and maybe a couple of Apple iApps. But that would be double-edged and a major risk for reverse engineering.

I think Dvorak is reading too much into Jobs appearances at Intel sales meetings....
 

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by used to be jwoodget:
Some good points MacGuiver but the golden goose as far as Apple's current business model is concerned is in hardware sales. The danger is simply that some current Mac users will be tempted to run OS X on current intel based hardware. Moreover, by not controlling the hardware that it runs on, Apple will have support nightmares that would quickly eliminate any profit from OS sales. On top of that, people would likely have to buy new versions of their software apps to be able to run then under OS X (unless there was some sort of compatability API).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, this is the number 1 thing that developers praise about the Mac. It is very close to a console system in that you have very few hardware configurations to code for and support.

The other problem with Apple going OS X on x86 is that all the developers would have to recode a certain percentage of their code. It's not a simple recompile. The developers, just got their code on Mac OS X, their not going to redo their code again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by used to be jwoodget:

I think Dvorak is reading too much into Jobs appearances at Intel sales meetings....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're right. Apple has started to make appearances at various conferences and meetings that have been Intel-only till now, and too many MacOS X on x86 wishful thinkers are thinking this is because Apple is going x86. It isn't. They just want to get their foot in the door and make a presence. What better way to reach the people you want to switch, than by attending conventions and meetings that were Intel only to show of your offerings. People have also made too much of Jobs statements that Apple will have processor options - he could have simply been referring to the upcoming PowerPC 970 and the successor to the PowerPC 970, which are options over the G4.

Also, the PowerPC 970 will make mincemeat out of the Itanium if it lives up to it's hype, and the future of the PowerPC 970 and it's successors is very aggressive and impressive. Probably more aggressive than Intel's Itanium.

Ummm... by the way, MacGuiver, how many PC users are actually going to BUY OS X. From what I hear at work, most PC users pirate their software. I'm usually laughed at when I mention I actually BUY software.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
All good points Jwoodget and Kosh.

I'm no techie so I have no idea how complex it would be to get OSX and its software running on Intel. Maybe its technically impossible or suicidal. I do however feel that if the 970 isn't all the rumors are making it out to be, Apples market share will continue to shrink. I hope IBM has a rocket ready for us that will compete, or better yet, surpass the Intel offerings. I'm using a dual gig Powermac and personally, I have no need for anything faster nor do most users but thats another subject.

Kosh's comment about PC people never paying for software may be true but Mac Users are no different. Go on hotline or Limewire and do a search for Photoshop, Illustrator etc.. Unfortunately Mac users are no better.

I agree that MacOS on a wintel box may be a technical nightmare. Maybe with a proprietary ROM Apple could assure quality control yet allow PC people wanting to test the waters on better hardware to run Windows and MacOSX on the same machine? Right now, coming to the mac is a big financial gamble for a PC user with their current software and hardware investment. If the experience sux for them, they probably have at least $2000 invested on a bottom of the row Mac.

I like the idea of a steath release of OSX for Intel to test the waters. An OSXle so to speak. You want the full experience, buy a mac. We need to reach PC users in a way that doesn't require a huge infusion of cash to do it. Once they feel the water, they may jump in headfirst.

Any thoughts?
MacGuiver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
Kosh wrote:
The other problem with Apple going OS X on x86 is that all the developers would have to recode a certain percentage of their code. It's not a simple recompile.

If the program doesn't use a lot of assembly code, it should be a simple recompile. Moving code from one architecture to another under the same operating system (Mac OS X PPC -> Mac OS X x86) is generally much easier than moving code from one operating system to another under the same architecture (Mac OS PPC -> Mac OS X PPC).

I know for our product all we'd have to do is change a compiler switch to get a Mac OS X x86 build up and running :cool:

Also, the PowerPC 970 will make mincemeat out of the Itanium if it lives up to it's hype, and the future of the PowerPC 970 and it's successors is very aggressive and impressive. Probably more aggressive than Intel's Itanium.

Until IBM actually starts shipping Power 970 chips, it's a tough call. IBM's estimated SPEC CPU 2000 scores for the 970 are roughly in line with the SPEC CPU 2000 scores for the Itanium 2, so even if the 970 lives up to its hype, it's not going to clobber the Itanium 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
MacGuiver wrote:
I'm no techie so I have no idea how complex it would be to get OSX and its software running on Intel.

If the rumors are true, then Apple already has a copy of Mac OS X running on Intel, so it's probably not a question of whether or not Apple can release Mac OS X for Intel, but rather whether or not they will.

Still, as I've said before, I can't see Apple switching over to Intel processors unless the Power 970 is a flop.
 

·
Canadian By Choice
Joined
·
5,141 Posts
MacGuiver,

There are old and still running rumours that Apple maintains a codebase of OS X running on Intel x86 processors (Marklar?). Not too far fetched given that NEXTStep ran on x86. Before that, there were rumours of a version of OS 9 running on Intel iron. I presume that this considerable skunkworks effort is insurance against Motorola/IBM falling off the FAB planet and represents due dilligence for a $4 billion company to protect itself from such forces. So, it might not take *that* much to make the switch. It just feels wrong right now. Of course, if Apple knows that the 970 isn't living up to the hype, then Andy Grove will be our new best friend and Dvorak will be gloating over his "prescience".

[Oops, jfp beat me too it and even got a real link....]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
John Gruber's got an interesting post about Dvorak's latest predictions. A quote:
<blockquote>Dvorak is a pundit, not a reporter. When he makes a prediction, it is usually based on nothing more than his own conjecture, not actual sources. And looking at his track record, his conjecture usually has more to do with what he thinks will be controversial, rather than what might actually happen. (E.g. he’s often predicted that Apple was about to go out of business, a prediction which never ceases to get a rise out of the easily incensed.) There’s nothing wrong or dishonest about that, but it’s something you need to keep in mind with everything he writes. To the best of my knowledge, he’s never had a serious scoop regarding Apple — a significant prediction that turned out to be right — and he’s been on the job for at least two decades. </blockquote>

Also:

<blockquote>No matter how badly people clamor for it, Apple is never going to release a version of Mac OS X that runs on standard Wintel PC hardware. Whether it’s possible or not, it isn’t going to happen. A frequent comment regarding this rumor is something like “I’d love a version of Mac OS X that ran on my PC.” Sure you would, you cheap bastard. Apple’s Switch campaign is an attempt to get PC users to buy thousands of dollars of Apple hardware, not hundreds of dollars of Apple software. </blockquote>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Read Grubers thoughts, as they are bang on. In fact, I recommend reading Grubers blog on a regular basis, as it is quite well written.

--PB
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top