Apple going to intel?
TheEvilMass
05-06-2005, 01:37
Acording to Cnet http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede
Apple is going to drop PowerPc and go with intel. I don't know about you but I think this is actually a good idea, seeing that they could make OS X available for all. Anyway give me your thoughts on this....
Mac hardware is overpriced and underpowered but their software is good perhapes this will prompt a change.........
All Hail Zodd!
Jjuulliiaann
05-06-2005, 01:59
I'm sorry to poke some holes here, but it would definitely not make OS X available for all. Macs would still need the ROMs, and you would only be able to run OS X on a Mac. There would be no big changes for the user.
Pure Metal
05-06-2005, 02:00
meh OS X seems pretty clumpy and too disorganised for my taste.
*decides not to go on a trademark anti-Apple rant*
The Nazz
05-06-2005, 02:12
I don't think OSX is clumpy or disorganized at all, and I only just switched over from XP. I'm actually eager to upgrade to Tiger--I'm on Panther now. Just waiting for that next paycheck.
Pure Metal
05-06-2005, 02:24
well i'll admit i haven't used it (for any real period of time) myself, but i have seen other graphic designers use OS X at some of the printers i work with, and it seems utterly disorganised. then again i guess it could just be the people :p
TheEvilMass
05-06-2005, 02:33
Yeah it is a bit un-organized(coming from lifetime windows and linux user) but it is ultra-stable....and it looks pertty.... it is based upon unix so you know it isn't going anywhere... I personally hate mac hardware because as I said before it's overpirced and underpowered... buts its pertty.... I use linux most of the time but I am a web designer and graphic artist and linux doesn't support industry standard apps like photoshop and such.... windows does but it crashes... apple, however, does support it but doesn't crash(as much, I have seen macs crash).... So I hope that they make MAC OS-X for the PC simple for the stablity (and the prettyness) or everyone starts spontansly supporting linux (Hell will freeze over first)..
ARbitrary End!!!!
Myrmidonisia
05-06-2005, 03:54
Looks like a big risk to me. I think Apple is going to regret this for a few hardware/OS iterations. Programming is quite a bit different for the two types of processors, plus the data throughput and interrupt context switching is much better in the PPC design. Maybe they think they can save a bundle on processor costs. We'll see.
TheEvilMass
05-06-2005, 04:03
actually the PPC and the x86 instruction sets are very similar, although its easier going from x86 to ppc it shouldn't be all that hard it will just take up time and resources. Convertying software to work with x86 shouldn't be hard but emulating ppc in an x86 environment tends to cost a lot in resources.
Myrmidonisia
05-06-2005, 13:32
actually the PPC and the x86 instruction sets are very similar, although its easier going from x86 to ppc it shouldn't be all that hard it will just take up time and resources. Convertying software to work with x86 shouldn't be hard but emulating ppc in an x86 environment tends to cost a lot in resources.
There is still a very different philosophy in how a x86 runs, compared to a PPC. Being from the world of real-time world of satellite communications, I worry about things like context switches and interrupt latency. Both of those are handled in a speedier manner in the PPC. The other advantage that a PPC has, maybe not important in a desktop computer, is its flexibility. We can stick one on a modem and have it handle everything. The I/O lines are very useful in many different ways. It's like using a micro-controller, at times.
Then there is the issue of power consumption. The x86s heat a room just about as well as a VAX. The price is a bigger power supply, huge heatsinks and lots of fans. While the G5s have started to require a fan, they still don't convert nearly as much power to heat as a comparable x86.