Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips **Updated 6/7** x86 Mac systems *should* run Windows

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Apple won't need DRM, they can cause hardware incompatibilities; they just have to use something other than the traditional PC BIOS for their motherboard underpinnings, throw in a ROM requirement, and you won't be running OS X on a PC any time soon. Oh, and FAT binaries have existed forever; Apple used them since the early 90's with the 68K->PPC transition, so they're not new.

Well that would partially solve the issue. Still, there would be nothing to prevent a third party from making a mac compatible mobo if they didn't use some funky features to prevent it from being duplicated. The only issue would be to copy their BIOS structure.

 

[Ciber]

Put it this way: Xbox is x86... Do you see anyone running xbox games on their x86 rigs? That's what i thought.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Apple won't need DRM, they can cause hardware incompatibilities; they just have to use something other than the traditional PC BIOS for their motherboard underpinnings, throw in a ROM requirement, and you won't be running OS X on a PC any time soon. Oh, and FAT binaries have existed forever; Apple used them since the early 90's with the 68K->PPC transition, so they're not new.

Well that would partially solve the issue. Still, there would be nothing to prevent a third party from making a mac compatible mobo if they didn't use some funky features to prevent it from being duplicated. The only issue would be to copy their BIOS structure.

Consider this - what if, rather than security by obscurity, this platform was secured mathematically? In other words, assume AAPL/INTC had some sort of small cryptoprocessor or a 'trust module' of sorts. This trust module stored certificates of some sort, in hardware, completely independent of the OS. Now, lets say that in true cryptoprocessor fashion, there was no way to record bus activity - the traces were completely encrypted, shielded, etc.

If the BIOS checked for the existence of this certificate at boot, it could immediately tell whether or not the platform was 'trusted.' Trying to crack this certificate would be like trying to crack something like TLS. Even if you had all the diagrams in the world you couldn't break it since it's mathematically infeasible.

Given the potential cost to AAPL if OSX was cracked for generic x86 Dell boxes, this seems like a very real possibility.

 

[digitalsm]

It is now confirmed. Apple is moving to the X86 platform and is abandoning the PowerPC permantly by 2007.

From the San Fran Chronicle.

Apple Computers will have Intel inside by this time next year said the company?s CEO Steve Jobs at a gathering of software developers in San Francisco Monday.
Specifically, Apple said it ?plans to deliver models of its Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.?

In doing so, the firm will abandon the PowerPC chip platform it has used, in partnership with Motorola and IBM, since the early 1990s.

Apple?s move toward Intel microprocessors and away from its present chip manufacturer IBM marks a historic combination between two of Silicon Valley?s largest, most visible players.

?Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO, in a statement. ?It?s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel?s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.?

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Apple won't need DRM, they can cause hardware incompatibilities; they just have to use something other than the traditional PC BIOS for their motherboard underpinnings, throw in a ROM requirement, and you won't be running OS X on a PC any time soon. Oh, and FAT binaries have existed forever; Apple used them since the early 90's with the 68K->PPC transition, so they're not new.

Well that would partially solve the issue. Still, there would be nothing to prevent a third party from making a mac compatible mobo if they didn't use some funky features to prevent it from being duplicated. The only issue would be to copy their BIOS structure.

Consider this - what if, rather than security by obscurity, this platform was secured mathematically? In other words, assume AAPL/INTC had some sort of small cryptoprocessor or a 'trust module' of sorts. This trust module stored certificates of some sort, in hardware, completely independent of the OS. Now, lets say that in true cryptoprocessor fashion, there was no way to record bus activity - the traces were completely encrypted, shielded, etc.

If the BIOS checked for the existence of this certificate at boot, it could immediately tell whether or not the platform was 'trusted.' Trying to crack this certificate would be like trying to crack something like TLS. Even if you had all the diagrams in the world you couldn't break it since it's mathematically infeasible.

Given the potential cost to AAPL if OSX was cracked for generic x86 Dell boxes, this seems like a very real possibility.

That falls into my (somewhat loose) description of DRM. FWIW, this is similar to what they implemented on the Xbox but they left the HT on the surface layer so it could be easily probed (oops!)

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Ciber
Put it this way: Xbox is x86... Do you see anyone running xbox games on their x86 rigs? That's what i thought.

Not the same thing: Xbox uses all kinds of DRM and a custom OS that is NOT available to conumers. In addition, the Xbox is CHEAP, there is no reason for anyone to want to clone it since MS is losing money on the hardware, as opposed to Apple who makes tons of money on the hardware.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
That falls into my (somewhat loose) description of DRM. FWIW, this is similar to what they implemented on the Xbox but they left the HT on the surface layer so it could be easily probed (oops!)

It is DRM of sorts - in particular, a 'trusted platform module' I am not disagreeing with you but rather elaborating

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: blazert40
OMGWTFCPU!!!!

ROFL :beer:

 

[Ciber]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Ciber
Put it this way: Xbox is x86... Do you see anyone running xbox games on their x86 rigs? That's what i thought.

Not the same thing: Xbox uses all kinds of DRM and a custom OS that is NOT available to conumers. In addition, the Xbox is CHEAP, there is no reason for anyone to want to clone it since MS is losing money on the hardware, as opposed to Apple who makes tons of money on the hardware.

These clowns are talking about running OSX on their current x86 hardware, not on some cloned hardware...

 

[clarkey01]

What does all this mean for AMD (please IBM, enter the x86 market and join up with AMD)

 

[Pennstate]

If you look at the moves that Apple has made in the past few years, it's pretty obvious that Apple wants to become a direct competitor to Microsoft. The whole iTUnes and iPod for window was to get PC users familiar with the Software superiority of Apple. THe OpenBSD that OSX was based on attracts many developers and high-end users. The recent release of Bonjour was also a hint at this move.

OS X + iWork suite + iLife suite + Quicktime will be a formidable alternative to Microsoft's Windows + Office package.

It will be cheaper too.

XP pro is ~ $250, Office Pro is ~$200

WHile OS X is ~$100 (free if you buy a mac), iWork is ~ $80. Microsoft is in BIG BIG trouble.

Now, since Intel is going to make Apple's new motherboards and most likely chipsets, it's not inconceiveable that Intel will keep Apple's hardware proprietary

Now, what I don't understand is why Apple didn't ask Intel to design a updated version of the PowerPC cpu? Paten issues?

 

[RichPLS]

NEWSFLASH!!!
Apple will adopt new logo with changeover to Intel Inside ~ Hot Apple Pie
LMAO!

 

[MaxDepth]

But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.

As initially reported, there are a couple of big problems with Apple moving to Intel. The biggest is shifting all the Mac software to a new platform. Apple apparently mulled moving to Intel a few years ago, when Motorola's chip development fell woefully behind, but Steve Jobs nixed it because of the massive disruption it would cause developers.

What's new this time is a fast, transparent, universal emulator from Transitive, a Silicon Valley startup.

Transitive's QuickTransit allows any software to run on any hardware with no performance hit, or so the company claims. The techology automatically kicks in when necessary, and supports high-end 3D graphics. It was developed by Alasdair Rawsthorne.

When I wrote about the software for Wired News last fall, the company had PowerBooks and Windows laptops running Linux software, including Quake III, with no performance lag whatsoever.

If Apple has licensed QuickTransit for an Intel-powered Mac, all current applications should just work, no user or developer intervention required.

Programmers could port their software to the new platform slowly and steadily, and the shift would be as relatively painless as the recent move from OS 9 to OS X, which, of course, relied on emulation in the Classic environment.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
If you look at the moves that Apple has made in the past few years, it's pretty obvious that Apple wants to become a direct competitor to Microsoft. The whole iTUnes and iPod for window was to get PC users familiar with the Software superiority of Apple. THe OpenBSD that OSX was based on attracts many developers and high-end users. The recent release of Bonjour was also a hint at this move.

OS X + iWork suite + iLife suite + Quicktime will be a formidable alternative to Microsoft's Windows + Office package.

It will be cheaper too.

XP pro is ~ $250, Office Pro is ~$200

WHile OS X is ~$100 (free if you buy a mac), iWork is ~ $80. Microsoft is in BIG BIG trouble.

Now, since Intel is going to make Apple's new motherboards and most likely chipsets, it's not inconceiveable that Intel will keep Apple's hardware proprietary

Now, what I don't understand is why Apple didn't ask Intel to design a updated version of the PowerPC cpu? Paten issues?

Office Pro is more than $200, and iWork is SO NOT a replacement for Office, but I do believe Apple is working on something that is. Of course iWork is cheaper it contains two programs, Office has, excel, access, and publisher. But like Im said, Im pretty sure Apple is working on an update of AppleWorks.

 

[cmdrmoocow]

I wonder if this is related to the Pentium D's DRM in the chips....

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Office Pro is more than $200, and iWork is SO NOT a replacement for Office, but I do believe Apple is working on something that is. Of course iWork is cheaper it contains two programs, Office has, excel, access, and publisher. But like Im said, Im pretty sure Apple is working on an update of AppleWorks.

Actually, what's really interesting is that with MS moving to an XML-based format in Office 12, there's a good chance that Apple can make a suite with files that are 100% compatible with the new format.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Shawn
how could they switch to a x86 processor w/o making all their previous software incompatible?

emulation though it's going to be difficult to see how well it runs. I have a feeling those in the video editing dept. are going to stick with their current systems until apple patches older software to take advantage of X86 architecture.

Emulation is not necessary...


I know that Mac OS X ran on commodity x86 hardware with few major problems as of two years ago...my cousin worked at Apple in R&D.

Remember that ALL of Mac OS X is coded/designed to compile with GCC...Darwin already runs well on x86 hardware. FreeBSD runs great on x86.

Any and all developers who use Xcode to do their coding for Mac are using and compiling and debugging their code using GNU compiler tools. In theory, a few changes to the make files is all that is required to have a working x86 binary using GCC.

Using GCC has given Apple freedom to jump hardware platforms...think of the diversity of FreeBSD or Linux.

I'll wager that, if Apple had to, they could go gold with Tiger on x86 in as little as 3-4 months.

Remember folks...You heard it here first.

I did have inside info, though...

Edit:

I didn't want to say too much before...But I saw OS X running on Intel stuff in 2003 with my own eyes. It seemed to run great. At the time or a little earlier, Apple was seriously considering x86 prior to the commitment to manufacture and, then, release of G5 powermacs. How far or close they were to going Intel then...to that I could only speculate so I won't bother.

You guys are also still making too big a deal out of the software porting problem. There are numerous large oss software codes that literally compile and run without issue on x86 and PPC without any code changes.

If anything, small developers (shareware) won't care about recompiling because they distribute by download predominantly.

Larger developers like Wolfram or Adobe will be minorly inconveinenced but, I'm sure are they really happy about the change because future development (post transition) and code management will be so much easier. Adobe, et al will probably just distribute new x86 OS X media to registered PPC customers who request x86 binary's.

For one, MS Office for Mac will run much, much faster on Intel/OS X because the VB engine won't be encumbered by emulation overhead.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Damn PearPC is so freakin slow.....

 

[miniMUNCH]

A couple other things to consider and be happy about (if you like OS X):

Mac games are going to get a lot better...porting and/or co-development of games for OS X will be much easier. Say goodbye to platform performance penalties like the float to integer conversion snafu.

Graphics cards, sound cards, etc. will hopefully be plentiful for Macs and graphics drivers will be much better.

The WINE project for linux x86 should be become very popular on OS X in the coming months/years...so many windows apps may be usable on Mac with no additional commercial software purchase required. Also, I can imagine MS Virtual PC for OS X turning into more of an official install of MS designed/optimized winXP libraries for OS X. Even if MS doesn't do something like WINE on acid...VMware may decide to do a x86 vmware workstation release for OS X.

Or someone may come up with a means of hacking VMware to trick OS X to installing on VMware...of course, the desktop rendering performance would suck do to lack of 3D acceleration.

 

[ToeJam13]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Mac games are going to get a lot better...porting and/or co-development of games for OS X will be much easier. Say goodbye to platform performance penalties like the float to integer conversion snafu.

Apple developers will also gain another powerful tool. Rather than using GCC, they may be able to use an Intel compiler at some point. Intel has released such a beast for Linux and I have heard of performance gains in the neighborhood of 2-10% over GCC.

Graphics cards, sound cards, etc. will hopefully be plentiful for Macs and graphics drivers will be much better.

This may or may not be true due to differences between the HAL between Windows and BSD.

The WINE project for linux x86 should be become very popular on OS X in the coming months/years...so many windows apps may be usable on Mac with no additional commercial software purchase required. Also, I can imagine MS Virtual PC for OS X turning into more of an official install of MS designed/optimized winXP libraries for OS X. Even if MS doesn't do something like WINE on acid...VMware may decide to do a x86 vmware workstation release for OS X.

Or someone may come up with a means of hacking VMware to trick OS X to installing on VMware...of course, the desktop rendering performance would suck do to lack of 3D acceleration.

It is just a matter of time before VMWare includes basic OpenGL/DirectX functionality. It just needs to be added to the HAL emulation code they use.

Keep in mind that Apple may not use legacy BIOS for boot-strapping into OS-X. They may use a ROM. They may also require entry into the OS-X kernel in a different fashion than traditional x86 kernels (x86-64 mode rather than 16-bit real). Who knows. VMWare may not be able to support such a beast.

That said, Apple hardware has been emulated before. Shapeshifter for AmigaOS could emulate MacOS 7.5 on a MC68020+68551, MC68030 or MC68040 at near full speed using a software only solution. Emplant for AmigaOS did it prior to that using Apple ROMs on a ZorroII peripheral card.

 

[Goosemaster]

This is gonna be so cool

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
This is gonna be so cool

Yes it is, Im glad Ive held off switching to a mac as my main computer(due to $$$).

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
This is gonna be so cool

Yes it is, Im glad Ive held off switching to a mac as my main computer(due to $$$).

You'd probaby still be paying the same "Apple" prices to buy a compatible computer and it may not even allow you to run Windows in which case would suck. Let's just hope the latter is not the case.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
This is gonna be so cool

Yes it is, Im glad Ive held off switching to a mac as my main computer(due to $$$).

You'd probaby still be paying the same "Apple" prices to buy a compatible computer and it may not even allow you to run Windows in which case would suck. Let's just hope the latter is not the case.

No, thats not Apples plan. They will be more expensive than their pc counterpart, because they come with alot more "free" software, and they also have a "fancier" design. But they wont cost a premium like they do now. And one of the Apple execs said they wont not allow windows to be installed, and even if they did virtualPC would be running natively on an x86 CPU and wouldnt be slow as hell like it is on PPC.

As for my due to $$$, that is because I cant afford to buy a new computer right now, not the pricing of Apples. Id have bought a 12" powerbook if I could have had the money, but Im soon to be dropping a significant money on a business wardrobe.

 

[0roo0roo]

guess its true, the cell is just more sony hype. else apple + cell = pwn all!!

and i guess apple is finally fed up with the heat issues. liquid cooling with g5 towers and too hot for laptops.