Apple Switching To X86, And Why Consumers Shouldnt really care.

[qwijibow 0]

Everyone is getting so excited about Apples Port to x86 from PPC.

First of all, out of everyone who is excited about this, how many actually know the differences in the architechture between x86 and PPC ???

One Advantage of PPC over x86 is the RISC architechture.

But who really knew that risk meant

reduced instruction set computer; a computer processing architecture that requires fewer instructions to run applications, thus increasing processing speed.

MacOSX is written mostly in C.
C is architechture independant, The Vast majority or OSX will not need re-porgramming for the Port.

MacOSX x86 will still NOT run on your PC.
you will need to buy a new PC from Apple.

The Only change the swuitch will make to the consumer, will be the ability to run MS-Windows on your Apple PC without using emulation.

But this kinds defeats the object of buying a mac.

The news has got the consumers all hyped.
byt all that will be diferent is the mchine code, which non developers never see anyway.

Why oh Why are people getting so excited bout screen shots of OSX, showing the cpu name as Intel instead of IBM's PowerPC ?

Ive been reading that this move will make MacOS more popular !!!

Why ? you will still need to buy your PC from Apple shops, (your PC world computer will not run MacOSX)

FreeBSD on which OSX is based is already on x86, has been for decades.

The PPC chip is no more secure than the x86.

Ive been reading that the change will increace the number of virii aimed at MacOSX.

securety is all about the OPerating system.

MacOSX is still the FreeBSD Operating system, which is still one of the most secure Operating systems around, right behind OpenBSD.

Apart from the hype of the Intel name, this change makes no differance.

Linux Is KLinux, wether its running on Intel, AMD, Apple, or Sparc...
And MacOS is MacOS wether its running on PPC or x86.

[vizskywalker 0]

People are excited for two reasons, one, Intel is faster then the the IBm ppc, even with RISC, and two, Intels are cheaper and require less cooling so you can buy a fan instead of the expensive predesigned watercooling ppcs use.~Viz

[unimatrix 0]

First off, RISC or no RISC, Intel chips are ripping apart the PPC in many of the tasks that Apple/PPC once dominated, mainly Graphics and rendering. Plus IBM is getting out of the hardware market slowly but shurely and shifting to a consulting company. Also, Intel has some killer stuff in the pipeline over the next few years. Mac OS X is NOT the FreeBSD operating system because Mac OS X uses a MACH kernel, not a BSD Kernel. While OSX uses many technologies from BSD, technically it is not BSD. The reason people buy Macs are either for Apple Software (ie Final Cut Pro) or they want a complete system that is designed to work. These people could care less, and most often don't know, about the differences between Intel and PPC other than they don't work with each other. So long as the software and hardware they want work and is easy to use they are happy.Many now have purchased Macs to replace older Unix workstations. Many of those old workstations from SGI, Sun, and DEC were $15,000 - $20,000 a piece when they were purchased. Suddenly a $6,000 to those folks seems like a huge bargin. Code is fairly portable, so long as it was good code in the first place. We had to change less than 50 lines in our in house software packages to get them to compile on the X86 version. Security actually has a lot more to do than with just the Operating system. In the corporate world, that also includes physical security (who is alllowed to touch the systems). Just like the stories of people walking into a building and stealing mainframes with no one questioning them. It has actually happened before. Being able to run Windows without emulation, cool. We have virtual PC and XP on a couple machines, although we rarely use it. As far as the fact your home built machine won't run Mac OSX: how does that really change things compared to now? I mean can your home built machine run MacOS X now? I rest my case. Personally I think this is from a bunch of people who really WANT to run MacOSX, but won't because it's "Apple" and not as cool as "Linux" in my l33t network of friends.Linux...the Kernel might be Linux on PPC/Intel/Alpha/ARM, but why is it to get an application to work across distros is a pain in the *bottom*? That was why Red Hat became the defacto standard with SuSE trying to make their distro compatiable. If you want to Run Maya on Linux, you'd better have Red Hat or SuSE. Considering that RH and SuSE now charge per seat licences, the cost factor over other platforms isn't as attractive. Futher more, why is the httpd directory never in the same place between all the distros? Also, the fact that Linux users are more apt to have their boxes custom tweaks makes writing binaries for many different distros extremely costly mainly because of the support costs involved more than development. At least with MacOS it really is the same on PPC/x86. (same goes for *BSD)

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Really, x86 has come a LONG way since its origin. The whole RISC vs CISC thing is really sort of a pointless argument in this case, because the x86 instruction set has been extended multiple times (SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, 3DNOW!, etc). Each of these extensions made changes that made the x86 more and more RISC like. In any case, whatever the theoretical advantages of an architecture, those don't matter when you have PRACTICAL advantages taht can be messured, specifically SPEED. x86 has had FAR more money spent on perfecting it for desktop use, whereas PPC development was NOT done for such a purpose. This is why apple has had to work to keep up with Intel and especially AMD when it comes to performance.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Initially I didn't support Apple switching to x86, but if it is able to kick M$'s *bottom*, then for sure, go ahead. Else, I would like them to stick to PPC as it is one of the world's best processor and it beats PPC in calculation, math and best of all can handle more tasks then Intel and AMD processors. x86 still uses CISC which stands for Complex Instruction Set Computer and it's slower and process less than RISC, Reduced Instruction Set Computer.Even M$ has switched their new XBOX from Intel to IBM's PPC processor.xboxrulz

[Soleq 0]

Microsoft made the switch over to PPC because PPC is still best suited for embedded environments. While the Xbox 360 might be comparable to a PC, I still view it as embedded.In any case, the fact is that Apple did this to save its own butt. If you can forsee a cliff up ahead, it's always in the best interest of the driver to change course. Motorola funked out at chipmaking, and IBM/Freescale seemed to have hit a barrier when it came to efficiency. It's no doubt that Steve's decision was largely based on his eating his own words about a 3ghz G5 PowerMac, and the lack of a G5 PowerBook. Remember back to the whole Yikes! dabacle, and the 500mhz ceiling a few years ago? This isn't the first time the PPC has cost Apple money and reputation.I say good riddence to a past-prime/neglected architecture. I still remember the PPC being introduced as the wave of the future. Revolutionizing. Kick Intel booty. Sure, we might have had the world's fastest consumer PC at one time (the 225mhz PowerTowerPro vs. the 200mhz Intel Pentium MMX), but those days are long over. We lost the Ghz race. We lost the performance mantra. PPC is dead when it comes to Macs, so just get over it.Not being a programmer myself, I can't quite share the thrill/pain of porting code over to the next x86 instruction set. Sure, the OS has been ported since day one (NeXT was x86 based remember), so only high-level coding needs to be altered, if any at all. I pity those who coded in CodeWarrior. Yet another example of Apple pushing out the competition. Off topic for a bit, anyway, as an end user, I know I won't be seeing very much change in my work routine. As long as I have access to my computer, and it runs my applications, I'll be fine. I'm skeptical about Rosetta, but from what I hear (fingers crossed), I'll expect a 70-80% native speed. That to me is more than adequate, especially knowning that a new x86 based Mac will be running at least 3.2ghz, and I'm currently running a 500 mhz G4. Even with the speed cut, I'll be running faster than I am now.Sure, I guess people could bash Apple for switching over to the dark side. But honestly, who hasn't? Remember the days when buying foreign was considered communistic? Now, just about everyone would prefer to own a Mercedes rather than a Chevy. In any case, Apple did what it needs to survive. There's no sense in staying with a dying platform. Many companies have tried in the past, only to see their products deteriorate and die out over a few years. Apple's too smart for that, and I praise their choice.Now, wouldn't it have been interesting to have been a fly on those Jobs-Intel Execs meetings....

[Jguy101 0]

Well, in my opinion, Intel chips really suck. I can see their reasons for switching, but they really should have gone with AMD, who have 64-bit chips that aren't just intended for servers like the Xeon....

[vizskywalker 0]

Hate to burst your bubble, but Intel now makes true 64bit chips as well. And whereasAMD chips mainly simply converted basic instructions to handle 64bits at a time, Intel 64bit chips added new features that could only be done in 64bit, not 32bit.~Viz

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Well, in my opinion, Intel chips really suck. I can see their reasons for switching, but they really should have gone with AMD, who have 64-bit chips that aren't just intended for servers like the Xeon....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They probably would have gone with AMD, except AMD has one of the big problems they had with IBM: supply.

 

AMD only has so much manufacturing capacity, and its already full. IBM just got a bunch of PPC contracts, so the chips apple needed(and were already on backorder) were slow in coming. Intel, on the other hand just got PASSED OVER on all those contracts IBM got, so they have TONS of capacity, and they have plenty fast chips (especially for the things Macs do) and moreover, are VERY reliable and trusted in the industry, which counts for a lot in some cases.

 

Oh, and there is nothing to stop Apple from going to AMD in the future, once the x86 porting is done.

[the empty calorie 0]

Intel is actually making better stuff than AMD. AMD's role is to have to eventually be able to catch up to being able to do what Intel's processor does. They've always followed Intel, so why wait...and cosidering that AMD processors don't have SSE3, Rosetta, would not run.