Apple to move to x86 shock!!!

This is a discussion on Apple to move to x86 shock!!! within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2438 Somebody here must have an opinion on this. My first thought was "How long before MS releases windows for ...

  1. #1
    Jez
    Jez is offline
    The C-er
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    192

    Apple to move to x86 shock!!!

    http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2438

    Somebody here must have an opinion on this.

    My first thought was "How long before MS releases windows for the MAC?"

    My second thought was "It was nice to have a choice of CPU architecture" - I had considered a Mac just to get a chance to play with the Altivec chip - I'm not keen on the x86 programmers model.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    Didn't see that one coming...

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,220
    They are still going to use a foreign chipset.

  4. #4
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    618
    Like brian said, with all their weird hardware it wont matter what arc the proc is, you wont be able to load up usual x86 operating systems or anything.
    Hmm

  5. #5
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    618
    and a interesting side note, Tiger has a x86 build.
    Hmm

  6. #6
    Registered /usr
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Newport, South Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,266
    AFAIK, all that is happening is that Apple is switching from IBM to Intel for their PPC chips. Intel is a chip manufacturer first and foremost, give them a design (and some $$$ incentive) and they'll make what you want.

    For Apple to switch to the x86 architecture would be a bit silly, because it would expose them to clones and break their monopoly, as what happened with IBM and the PC.

  7. #7
    5|-|1+|-|34|) ober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,429
    >>My first thought was "How long before MS releases windows for the MAC?"

    Yeah, because MS follows Intel around

    This isn't all that shocking... but I think the big thing that will be shocking for Apple is how many customers they use. I know a lot of people that buy Macs because they're "different"... and a lot of them are not Intel fans.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    17
    For Apple to switch to the x86 architecture would be a bit silly
    They already have, and the article I read said that Apple said themselves that Windows should run on it.

    Also, I think it could increase the number of Macs bought... I'd have one of the new macs if it wasn't for the OS and compatibility. By running windows I'll be able to have the cool case and standard OS. But it won't bother Apple if I run windows, as I'll have already paid for OS X by buying the machine in the first place... quite clever marketing really.

    Pete
    Last edited by Pete; 06-07-2005 at 01:35 PM.

  9. #9
    Nosepicker DrakkenKorin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    407
    virtual pc - run winderz on mac osx

    in other news, tiger's available.
    Last edited by DrakkenKorin; 06-07-2005 at 09:48 PM.
    DrakkenKorin

    Get off my Intarweb!!!!

  10. #10
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    They have been doing x86 builds of OSX for the past 5 years, they just didn't tell anyone </not-joking>

    I'd buy one just so i can run OSX and an x86 linux distro. Hunting around for ppc packages and having to build everything else from source just isn't that appealing. I like the x86 move.

  11. #11
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    618
    >having to build everything else from source

    I actually dont mind building things from source. Its almost as easy as clicking [install], just ./configure (if available) make, make isntall
    Hmm

  12. #12
    Registered /usr
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Newport, South Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,266
    Yeah, Linux source compilation is pretty tight I reckon, the only problem being that you have to have (for most people) the compiler packages installed. For non-programming newbies, that may be viewed as a bridge too far.

    Does this mean that the Endian Wars are over?

  13. #13
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    618
    >that may be viewed as a bridge too far.
    yah but most distros have a nice little package manager that you can search for and install any dependancies you need
    Hmm

  14. #14
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Intel x86 won. I knew it would. Don't get me wrong, RISC is awesome and fast, but CISC is far more flexible. I guess if you can't beat em, join em.

    This will help the computer industry and the consumer because now we may actually have a standard that everyone abides by on the PC. Will make developing cross-platform much easier....and may in the long run hurt the Java camp since their main push is portability...which if this takes off.......is not an issue anymore with the PC.

    Having a different architecture has really hurt Apple IMO. Granted their architecture is faster, but as history has shown...the best inventions are not the ones that win out. Remember VHS and Beta? Beta was a much better video tape standard, but they didn't get the marketplace. So we have VHS - or did until DVDs came along. Intel x86 is not the best, but it has been exploited the best.

    IBM seems to think they are big enough and bad enough to make enough money off their PowerPC chips in the XBox 360 console and Sony Playstation console that they don't need Apple. But any loss of a customer hurts, even if you can't feel it just yet. I say IBM has again dropped the ball. They dropped the ball with the PC and even though most of our machines are IBM-standard machines...IBM has little or nothing to do with their make or manufacture. It seems, as in the past, IBM just doesn't believe in the PC.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 06-09-2005 at 09:03 AM.

  15. #15
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by B0bDole
    >having to build everything else from source

    I actually dont mind building things from source. Its almost as easy as clicking [install], just ./configure (if available) make, make isntall
    Thats only if the source has a configuration for your architecture. Try taking an x86 package and making a source build for ppc64. It can be a huge pain.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Formatting Output
    By Aakash Datt in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-16-2003, 09:20 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21