Dr Guy Dr Guy

BUY Apple!

▼

BUY Apple!

from JoeUser Forums

Ok, just days ago I said dump their stock.  But I guess the dump sign was a sign to them to do the right thing!

Yep!  They are talking (talking mind you, not doing) of Porting OSX to Intel!  FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they do, I am going to buy every share I can!  Finally a real alternative to Windows! (I will refrain from the vulgar names for that platform).

If they do, I will be first in line to buy the latest!

Yeaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!  About damn time!

Added June 6, 2005:  It appears it will be the CPU!  Intel Apple! Alright!

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html

104,936 views 47 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Sanoma processors are not inferior processors, especially on the high end.


Yes they are - compared to AMD processors.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Finally a real alternative to Windows!"

There has always been a "real" alternative to Windows. People just never bought it because there were no advantages (for the standard user) but usually fewer applications. OS X on x86 would have even fewer applications than OS/2 and nobody would buy it, except as a curious toy to boot up every few days to look at it. But such users would keep their Windows installation and buy Windows applications. And that's how Microsoft wins.

(Yes, OS X would have all sorts of free Linux applications, but so does Linux.)

You can already buy OS X. Just buy a Mac instead of a new PC when it is time to replace your old computer. It's so simple. Why would you want to run OS X on x86 when you can buy a Mac?

All the advantages I can think of (and none of them are very real) are reasons for Apple not to do the port:
Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Check out http://robbushway.blogspot.com/2005/05/apple-tablet-pc-sightings.html and http://engadget.com/entry/1234000310044375/

It appears that Apple is specifically interested in Intel's Sonoma technology. The rumors DON'T point to a complete switchover (that would be economically and technologically stupid- retool your entire line that you own rights to just to use inferior processors?). Does look like they're interested in portable technologies, however.

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.  As for the debate of x86 vs PPC, that is the old Beta vs VHS.  We know who won.  The best mouse trap does not always win.  The best Marketing always does.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sanoma processors are not inferior processors, especially on the high end.

Yes they are - compared to AMD processors.

Now, now, let us not get into an AMD vs Intel debate.  This is about Apple, and Intel. I personally prefer INtel as I have had bad luck with AMD.  but, YMMV

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

There has always been a "real" alternative to Windows. People just never bought it because there were no advantages (for the standard user) but usually fewer applications. OS X on x86 would have even fewer applications than OS/2 and nobody would buy it, except as a curious toy to boot up every few days to look at it. But such users would keep their Windows installation and buy Windows applications. And that's how Microsoft wins.

OS2 was fine. I used the latest, Warp 4, just a coupole of years ago.  But as you indicate, it suffers from 2 faults.  Poor support and no applications.

Porting OSX to the Wintel platform would entail bringing all the applications that currently run on it.  That is simply a recomile of the code as the OS would hide the underlying architecture from the apps.

Microsoft wins due to lies and great marketing.  But a competitor would make them start cleaning up their act and actaully competing again, and that is what I would love to see.  In its current incarnation, Apple just does not seem to want to get out of its niche.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
"OS2 was fine. I used the latest, Warp 4, just a coupole of years ago.  But as you indicate, it suffers from 2 faults.  Poor support and no applications."

Indeed.

"Porting OSX to the Wintel platform would entail bringing all the applications that currently run on it."

Saying that the applications can be ported is easy. Getting companies to port them to a platform that has no guaranteed users is different. If a company has to choose between porting its Macintosh program to Mac OS x86 or simply marketing their Windows version to Mac OS x86 users (who can also run Windows), the company will do the latter. There is no incentive for companies to port to an untested platform and there is no incentive for users to buy a platform that doesn't have the application support of the next best platform.

And that assumes that all Mac applications are portable to x86, which very few of them are. 68k and all Classic applications, Carbon applications, Mach-O applications are not easily portable. And they make up the vast majority of Mac applications. Just to get this in perspective: Microsoft Office, Apple Works, iTunes, Mozilla are Carbon applications, OmniWeb (a Web browser) is a Cocoa application. OmniWeb is portable and did run on x86 before.

"Microsoft wins due to lies and great marketing."

No, they win because people buy their products and won't switch. No lie stops people from buying Macs, no great marketing on Microsoft's side made IBM equip OS/2 with a horrible installation problem and a flaky unstable GUI.
Reply #32 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I have had nothing but bad experience with Macs. I WILL NEVER BE SUCKED INTO THE MACINTOSH VORTEX! Windows all the way... (i gotta be the only person who thinks this way on this entire site, but I hate Mac, dislike Linux and love Windows!)
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

And that assumes that all Mac applications are portable to x86, which very few of them are. 68k and all Classic applications, Carbon applications, Mach-O applications are not easily portable.

The Assumption was OSX Applications.  In that, there are enough where most Mac users no longer need to boot into classic.  Either the application is now Native OSX, or the Vendor has said it aint going to happen.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The Assumption was OSX Applications"

Define "OSX application". Most Mac OS X applications are Carbonized Macintosh applications and not portable. Porting them to x86 would not be much more trivial than porting to Windows. And since most Macintosh software vendors, and most probably all relevant Carbon Macintosh software vendors already have a Windows version available for x86, they are more likely to get Mac OS x86 users to dual-boot into Windows and use the existing Windows application rather than a ported Mac application.

Even assuming that all Cocoa (OpenStep) applications could be ported and would be ported, Mac OS x86 would still lack more than 90% of available Mac apps and dual-booting into Windows is just too cheap an alternative for users to create demand for Mac OS x86 applications.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, they win because people buy their products and won't switch. No lie stops people from buying Macs, no great marketing on Microsoft's side made IBM equip OS/2 with a horrible installation problem and a flaky unstable GUI.

IBM Killed OS2.  Period.  But Microsoft lies about what it has ready to come out to hold off competition.  They did it with Windows and with Office.

And the problem with the Mac is cost.  That is why Windows has so much of hte market.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
IBM killed OS/2 after OS/2 had already failed in the market. It was probably a very sound business decision. Either way, it's not Microsoft's superior marketing.

The problem with any operating system is cost. If Apple could not sell their own hardware, they could not afford to develop Mac OS X. Mac OS X development would not be cheaper because they'd have to support more hardware and make less money in a more competitive market.
Reply #38 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Now, now, let us not get into an AMD vs Intel debate. This is about Apple, and Intel. I personally prefer INtel as I have had bad luck with AMD. but, YMMV


I'm so sorry to hear about that. but from all available sources it looks like AMD is ahead of Intel in many ways, the biggest two being price per CPU and performance.

Ever try an AMD 64 bit processor?

Oh and Citizen ghv - they don't suck. Far from it.

Anyhow back on topic...
Reply #39 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Yes they are - compared to AMD processors.


on laptops no they ain't. Battery life-wise or performance-wise, Turions wallow in the mud. They don't yet match up with Intel Centrino platform that offers a comprehensive platform with the whole shebang (more interesting to laptop manufacturers)! Learn AMD, learn! Their only plus here is 64bit. That's about everything. I'm sorry to have you face the bitter truth!
Reply #40 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Regardless, (bringing it back to the original topic)... the RISC architecture that Apple uses does pull in more floating point operations per second (FLOPS) than Intel processors. If Apple decides to go with The Cell processor technology (as rumor mills are prone to say) they could triple their existing capabilities.

Last I heard, AMD was licensing chip printing technique to Intel (at Intel's request). Seems AMD's got the edge on cramming transistors into the smallest space.
Reply #41 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As far as I know, the Cell architecture was developped by IBM. If Apple plans on going with it, it wouldn't make much sense to dump IBM in favour of Intel...
Reply #42 from WinCustomize Forums Top
z3_gx_Design said:

I have had nothing but bad experience with Macs. I WILL NEVER BE SUCKED INTO THE MACINTOSH VORTEX! Windows all the way... (i gotta be the only person who thinks this way on this entire site...


No you're not.

I hate Mac, dislike Linux and love Windows!


I only love Windows.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ever try an AMD 64 bit processor?


No, but that may bring me back! Salivating here......
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Regardless, (bringing it back to the original topic)... the RISC architecture that Apple uses does pull in more floating point operations per second (FLOPS) than Intel processors. If Apple decides to go with The Cell processor technology (as rumor mills are prone to say) they could triple their existing capabilities.


The problem is that RISC is not really RISC and CISC is not really CISC. While there is an advantage, the truth is that the RISC has a bunch of CISC and the CISC has a bunch of RISC. In the end, the speed of RISC is faster, but then the programs are bulkier.

So that does not cut it. Nice for the PR stuff, but really not for the users.

And this is not about R vs C. But Apple on an Intel. And saddly, someone already said it will not come to be.

Damn.
Reply #45 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Just a clarification, The Cell was a joint venture by Toshiba, Sony, and IBM as the new processor for the Sony Playstation 3. The technology has now been opened to others to use for internet appliances, server farms, and the like.
Reply #46 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I know that the Playstation 3 has a STI Cell processor (STI = Sony Toshiba IBM), but I'm pretty sure the cell technology itself was developped by IBM. I'll have to check, but I seem to remember reading about IBM's R&D team coming up with this a couple of years ago.