Topic: Apple and Intel - Together at last??!?

[Javora]

I came across this report while I was looking for the DVD article.  It looks like Apple is in talks with Intel about using Intel processors.  Gee has Jobs finely decided that he wants his company to have more than a 3% market share??!?  Does Intel feel that the AMD/Microsoft relationship is getting a little too cozy??!?  This is probably much ado about nothing but I have been waiting for this to happen for so long.  The thing is, I remember reading a couple of years ago about Apple developing a Intel based copy of its operating system.  Speculation was running wild then, I remember that someone from Apple (I think) said that it was only for debugging purposes.   

Anyway here is the Reuters report:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to it using Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, reigniting decade-old speculation and sparking a 5 percent rise in Apple's stock price.

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple was expected to agree to use Intel chips. But it said the talks could break down or could be a tactic to gain negotiating leverage with Apple's current chip supplier, International Business Machines Corp.

At stake for Apple is a more predictable and consistent supply of microprocessors -- the computing engine in computers -- as well as potentially lower prices for Apple Macintosh computers, which historically have cost more than PCs running Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating systems.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy and Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on the report, which they termed "rumor and speculation."

But industry analysts on Monday expressed skepticism that Apple would soon drop IBM's PowerPC processor for Intel's Pentium chips, which power more than 80 percent of the world's personal computers, noting the momentous task of porting, or rewriting, Apple's OS X operating system as well as all the software programs that run on PowerPC chips to Intel's.

"It's just too much software to have to change," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of newsletter Microprocessor Report. "This is just putting more pressure on IBM to fix these problems."

IBM has in the past had problems in producing enough working G5 PowerPC processors for Apple's Power Mac computers and the G5 chip uses too much power, hence producing too much heat, to be used in its popular iBook and PowerBook laptops.

Though Apple has less than a 3 percent share of the PC market, its embrace of Intel chips would mark a fundamental change to the computer industry's historic alliances and rivalries. Apple has long blazed its own path by avoiding chips from Intel or rival processor maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which together power nearly all the world's PCs.

"It's like Ferrari going to BMW for an engine," said Richard Doherty, the research director for technology consulting and research firm Envisioneering. "This is seen as a whole changing of church."

"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.

Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."

"He said, 'We've had talks with Intel' and that's about it," Bajarin said.

Shares of Apple rose $2.02, or 5.4 percent, to $39.57 in morning trade and shares of Intel rose 26 cents, or 1 percent, to $26.61.

Analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group said any such transition to Intel chips would not be easy for Apple. "Apple has put so much behind the PowerPC in terms of how much better the PowerPC is than Intel's processors," Enderle said. "It is risky." (Additional reporting by Daniel Sorid in San Francisco and Bill Berkrot in New York)

[jualdeaux]

I just read this report and was going to post it myself.

If nothing else, this could be the first step toward getting the Mac OS on other, non OEM, PC platforms. That will definitely give MS a run for its money. And would make people like me more willing to swicth over, or at least give it a long tryout to see if I like it.

And, it might even make it much more attractive for game makers to start making games for the new OS.

[Clark Kent]

This is also a very very old mac rumor that has popped up every few years.  My personal bet is that Apple is feeling edgy over the new Xbox, which offers power PC chips (the CPU macs use) with more power and higher CPU speed than is currently offered in the highest level Powermac.  Not a good move if they had wanted to maintain a strong relationship with apple.
A ported over Mac os is supposed to run Mac software at 80% of current mac operating speeds, though.  Also, I doubt apple will make a move into the larger market, as microsof would crush them financially , and probably use soem pretty dirty tactics to do so.  Apple has been happy with it's small niche market, and have been making record profits, along with dominating the portable music market because of their iPods. 
Just my opinion, though, with alot of conjecture.

[Monty]

On a semi related note:

http://www.kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=24516&file1=24516-1.jpg&file2=&file3=&name=WinOSX

 

[Nemesis]

Link to full story

And it's on that note where Apple's relative position in the personal computer market will hurt it. Intel's biggest customers like Dell, HP and others on the Windows side of the computing world, have a bigger voice in what features wind up on Intel's priority list. Apple's relatively small 2% to 3% market share would necessarily place its requests for new features on Intel chips at a relative disadvantage.

It's also not impossible that the latest round of Apple-Intel rumors are a deliberate leak from Apple, designed to ratchet up the pressure on IBM and win concessions.

Link to full story

It also claims that Apple's adoption of Intel chips would give it a chance to compete head on against Dell.

Now, you and I might believe that Dell is Intel's representative on earth, but we've heard mumblings against the PC company now for several months.

The inner feeling at Chipzilla is, it appears, that Intel has created a Dell monster that now is a little bit too powerful.

If Apple were to do this I think that they would be better off with AMD.   Not because of anything in the chip design but because of power and influence. 

Apple as a customer would be useful but not exactly major to Intel how much could Apple influence the design and features in the Pentium IV or its successors?  With Intel the Apple deal would merely be another feather in the headdress.

With AMD Apple would be both a major coup and a major source of stable revenue.  With AMD Apple would have the power and influence that Dell has with Intel.  Power and influence that Apple lacks in its relationship with IBM as its sole supplier of PowerPC chips.  With AMD the Apple deal would be the biggest peacock feather in their hat, one that they would do much to avoid losing.  Apple would be able to influence the chip design in ways that they could not concieve of with Intel.   It might even be worthwhile to AMD to use custom pinouts on the chip so that only those chips made for the Apple market could be used in Apple computers (letting Apple controll upgrades) something I doubt Intel would consider.. 

[Javora]

This is also a very very old mac rumor that has popped up every few years.  My personal bet is that Apple is feeling edgy over the new Xbox, which offers power PC chips (the CPU macs use) with more power and higher CPU speed than is currently offered in the highest level Powermac.  Not a good move if they had wanted to maintain a strong relationship with apple.
A ported over Mac os is supposed to run Mac software at 80% of current mac operating speeds, though.  Also, I doubt apple will make a move into the larger market, as microsof would crush them financially , and probably use soem pretty dirty tactics to do so.  Apple has been happy with it's small niche market, and have been making record profits, along with dominating the portable music market because of their iPods. 
Just my opinion, though, with alot of conjecture.

Your right this is a old rumor, one that has gotten a lot of milage.  Personally I feel that IBM made the right move with the PowerPC/X Box deal, especially when you consider how many X Box 360's will be sold compaired to Apple machines.  The X Box is just too big a deal to pass up in favor of Apple.  You also have to factor in what the report said about the heat issues that the PowerPC chip has, it may not be viable for Apple to release the Mac with those chips for that reason.

Microsoft really can't crush Apple, remember when Bill Gates gave Apple approx. $50,000,000 USD back in the mid '90s.  That was in part because Microsoft was facing antitrust violations in Federal court.  Along with settling any outstanding patent suits that Apple had against Microsoft at the time IIRC.  If Microsoft tries anything to hurt Apple, Microsoft will end up right back in court again facing those same antitrust violations.  Since Microsoft has already been declared a monoply once already, Microsoft may not fair so well the next time.  Apple's move to an X86 chip could also explain why Apple decided to create its own Office software in favor of Microsoft Office, this way Apple can appear to have everything customers ever need.

[Death_Merchant]

MacOS X can run on Intel chips, but why?

Sure, better laptop chips, a dual-core CPU solution, better pricing....

But, moving to a different architecture would also be a huge undertaking. Even if Apple has a ready-made build of OS X, all of the applications for the platform would need to be recompiled at the very least.

There's a much simpler explanation available. The Apple-Intel conversations that the WSJ is reporting likely have to do with Intel's Xscale CPU, a cool little chip that is fantastic for things like appliances and portable devices (like gadgets and set-top boxes). If Apple is looking at branching out into other consumer electronics hardware, the Xscale would be make sense.

[Clark Kent]

This is also a very very old mac rumor that has popped up every few years.  My personal bet is that Apple is feeling edgy over the new Xbox, which offers power PC chips (the CPU macs use) with more power and higher CPU speed than is currently offered in the highest level Powermac.  Not a good move if they had wanted to maintain a strong relationship with apple.
A ported over Mac os is supposed to run Mac software at 80% of current mac operating speeds, though.  Also, I doubt apple will make a move into the larger market, as microsof would crush them financially , and probably use soem pretty dirty tactics to do so.  Apple has been happy with it's small niche market, and have been making record profits, along with dominating the portable music market because of their iPods. 
Just my opinion, though, with alot of conjecture.

Your right this is a old rumor, one that has gotten a lot of milage.  Personally I feel that IBM made the right move with the PowerPC/X Box deal, especially when you consider how many X Box 360's will be sold compaired to Apple machines.  The X Box is just too big a deal to pass up in favor of Apple.  You also have to factor in what the report said about the heat issues that the PowerPC chip has, it may not be viable for Apple to release the Mac with those chips for that reason.

Microsoft really can't crush Apple, remember when Bill Gates gave Apple approx. $50,000,000 USD back in the mid '90s.  That was in part because Microsoft was facing antitrust violations in Federal court.  Along with settling any outstanding patent suits that Apple had against Microsoft at the time IIRC.  If Microsoft tries anything to hurt Apple, Microsoft will end up right back in court again facing those same antitrust violations.  Since Microsoft has already been declared a monoply once already, Microsoft may not fair so well the next time.  Apple's move to an X86 chip could also explain why Apple decided to create its own Office software in favor of Microsoft Office, this way Apple can appear to have everything customers ever need.

I couldn't agree more about the Xbox thing, except for one thing- offering a higher speed processor to MS for the XBox than they offer Apple for their Power Macs.  From what I've read, there is not stock computer more capable than the power mac when it comes to dealing with heat.  If a mass produced gamestation can handle a 3 core 3.2 GHz G5, then so could a computer. 
Like I said, this was a great offer for IBM, and a good move to provide for the X Box.  however, it's a bad move to offer it to the X Box, and not offer that, or something as good as it to Apple.  Assuming that they wanted to maintain their business relations with Apple.

[Javora]

I couldn't agree more about the Xbox thing, except for one thing- offering a higher speed processor to MS for the XBox than they offer Apple for their Power Macs.  From what I've read, there is not stock computer more capable than the power mac when it comes to dealing with heat.  If a mass produced gamestation can handle a 3 core 3.2 GHz G5, then so could a computer. 
Like I said, this was a great offer for IBM, and a good move to provide for the X Box.  however, it's a bad move to offer it to the X Box, and not offer that, or something as good as it to Apple.  Assuming that they wanted to maintain their business relations with Apple.

and

Apple has been happy with it's small niche market, and have been making record profits...

Are you just talking about PowerMac's or are you talking about iMac's and Apple laptops as well in regards to the heat issue? I agree a full sized PowerMac will handle the heat but the other two categories are not so well off because if the limited space.  Granted you wouldn't see a top end processor in the iMac or a laptop, but if IBM never resolves the heat issues when would you see that processor in those types of models?

As far as the XBox/IBM deal goes it would depend on the contract that Microsoft maneuvered IBM into.  Microsoft has the clout to push or force other companies into a contract that favors Bill and company.  Microsoft may very well have for lack of better words "demanded" exclusive access to IBM's latest greatest processor.  With IBM not being in the greatest financial position, this deal was too sweet to pass up regardless of the specifics of the contract.  Which is why I added the second quote because even though Apple seems to like its niche market, they will never have the clout that Microsoft has and Apple will suffer for it.  If Microsoft did force IBM to sell it's best processor only to Microsoft, then I wouldn't be surprised to see ads stating that Microsoft's XBox's are even faster than the most powerful Mac's.  That is the sort of dirty trick I would expect from Microsoft.

Please note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just curious about your thoughts.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

update Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

[toasty0]

Link to full article

update Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

I'm not sure what to think about this decision. On the one hand, I think that Jobs has lost his mind jumping into the Arena full of very aggressive and extremely hungry lions. On the other hand, it's about time Mac open up its architecture ( to X86 ) to open source and easily developed applications.

[Clark Kent]

I disagree toasty.  I think Apple has been about a niche market for the last 20 years and hasn't really actively pursued a large market share over that whole time, at least as far as the mac goes. 
I think if this happens it's because IBM has basically left Apple with no other choice.  Also, I'm not a huge fan of intel, I prefer AMD lines better, and intel seems to have been playing catch up lately.
My guess is that IBMis dumping Apple in favor of the XBOX sales.

[Sirgod]

I want my Amiga back.   

Stephen

[Nemesis]

I want my Amiga back.   

Stephen

If you insist.

Link 1

Link 2 Amiga Emulator

Link 3 Amiga forever

[Sirgod]

Outstanding Nemesis. thanks Bro. a Special WHOOT!!! just for you.

Stephen

[Nemesis]

Link to a commentary on the whole Apple to Intel switch

Meet Apple's Nessie PC: On Rumors of Apple's Switch to Intel
By Timothy R. Butler
Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
June 04, 2005, 16:25:42 EDT

Hardware
Having read the CNet News.com story about Apple’s supposed impending switch to x86, let me propose an excellent code name for this forthcoming system: “Nessie.” Like Nessie’s namesake Loch Ness Monster, the rumor of Mac OS on x86 rings of the stuff of tabloids, not something that people take seriously. Of course, that leaves us to ask what we are to make of it when one of the most respectable online computer news sources, News.com, reports as virtual fact that Apple will be switching to Intel, and the story apparently seems credible enough to get Reuters to pick it up.

That’s a question probably most analysts are wondering this weekend as we wait for Steve Jobs’ annual WWDC keynote on Monday. Has Jobs fallen off his rocker or is this simply another rumor on par with the perennial Apple PDA announcement that has never occurred? To be sure, that it is not reported as mere rumor, indicates that News.com thinks they are on to something; any journalist knows that as tempting as the “big scoop” may be, a reputation is built slowly but can be crushed by one under researched and over reported story. Just ask Dan Rather.

Unless Jobs is trying to dry up the demand for Mac hardware, so as to be able to concentrate more fully on everything iPod, I will submit four points as to why Apple will not be switching to Intel.

[Nemesis]

Another article on the potential switch, with an AMD connection.

Link to full article

THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQUIRER has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models.

[Javora]

Huh, I come back from vacation and see this, surprising to say the least.   

So much for Apple being happy in a niche market.  Well if this is true I think it is a step in the right direction for Apple.  We will find out tomorrow for sure, but after so many rumors over the years I don't want to jump the gun now.  If this processor switch is true does it go far enough?  Are we going to finally see true duel boot Mac/Windows systems without having to use a emulator?  Or are we going to see special modded Intel chips that will only run Mac OS?  Heck, for that matter does Apple even have the clout to make Intel design a special chip just for the Mac?  I guess time will tell and I'm sure we will have a much better understanding on Monday.  But wouldn't it be nice to see companies like Dell, Gateway, and HP offering people a choice between Mac and Windows OS?  Or better yet to build your own Mac system?   


BTW, nice catch on those Amiga links.   

[Nemesis]

I don't actually expect that an X86 Mac would run Windows.  I suspect that much of the custom hardware (ROMS specifically) would in some form be migrated to the X86 Mac from the current PowerPC Macs.  Apple (I expect) will keep making proprietary Mac only hardware.  If I am correct then Apple has no interest in making the X86 Mac able to boot Windows or the Mac OS able to boot on a generic PC.  At best Mac users will be able to use generic processors and various cards (video etc) to upgrade the Apple made machines.

BTW, nice catch on those Amiga links.   

With Mirror Mirror being down (and my having scheduled time to play grrr..) I had time on my hands.  I knew that there was current Amiga stuff out there and decided to go looking when Stephen made his comment. 

I've never actually used an Amiga.  When they were out and growing I thought that Commodore would manage to screw it up and dead end it and went PC instead.  The same applied to some very interesting Atari machines about the same time.   Unfortunately I was right or we might have far better gaming machines then we do now (and Microsoft would not be the monolith that they are). 

[Javora]

I don't actually expect that an X86 Mac would run Windows.  I suspect that much of the custom hardware (ROMS specifically) would in some form be migrated to the X86 Mac from the current PowerPC Macs.  Apple (I expect) will keep making proprietary Mac only hardware.  If I am correct then Apple has no interest in making the X86 Mac able to boot Windows or the Mac OS able to boot on a generic PC.  At best Mac users will be able to use generic processors and various cards (video etc) to upgrade the Apple made machines.

Good point, I think that my opportunistic side was getting the best of me for a moment.  I forgot about Apple using the Rom chips to keep a tight grip on hardware/software platform.  That is unless the hacker community can find a way around those Rom chips.  But the simple fact that the Mac OS is going to be coded for the Intel (and later AMD??!?) processors is going to remove a lot of obstacles.  We could however see a one-sided cross platform machine as Apple could allow Windows to run on a Mac but not vice versa.  At least until Microsoft cripples the OS, that is if Microsoft wanted to.  I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Clark Kent]

Well, it's true, Apple is dumping the POwer PC Chips for intel brand chips.  They don't want OS X to run on any non mac PC, but they will set it up so it CAN run windows.  Good news for drawing in new mac users, terrible for all of us that are already mac users.

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?part=rss&tag=5733756&subj=news

[Javora]

In his speech, Jobs revealed that Apple has been developing all versions of OS X since its inception to run on Intel and PowerPC chips.

"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life the past five years," he said.

Yeah really big secret there Jobs...      

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

And the stupidity continues, not that it was a real suprise but still bad decision IMHO.  This is one of the biggest reasons why people don't switch to Mac's.  Nobody wants to spend a huge amount of money for hardware that is outdated before they buy it.  If Apple really wanted to gain market share they would have closed down Apple's PC hardware division and started selling the Mac OS on the shelf like Microsoft.  I think the real benefit are those that already are Mac addicts but have bought a separate Windows machine for work and or an occasional game or two.  However if these people plan on moving WinXP from their PC system to the Mac system they are in for a big suprise.

Maybe in another ten years Apple will come the rest of the way and finely dump the Mac only hardware.  Until then I'll wait, I've waited this long already.

[Clark Kent]

I think apple maintains such a tight grip on it's hardware is because it over complicates the OS development process.  Third party architecture requires special drivers, which makes the stock OS unstable.  By limiting what computers Apple OS can run on, you add to the stability of the OS.  DO NOT FLAME ME AS THIS IS NOT MY OWN ARGUMENT , AND I DO NOT CLAIM IT TO BE TRUE.
I personally am a mac fan as it is more functional for me than any PC I've ever used.  I don't have to worry about viruses, spyware etc etc, and I have been able to work easily with all but one file I've taken from a PC environment.  The OS never crashes, and I've only had one freeze since I went OS X.  Sometimes a program (AOL and MS Word are the only two that this has happened to , surprise surprise) will crash, but the rest of the OS remains unaffected.  It even interfaced instantly with a projector last week at school when the specially built PC couldn't.
In short, my Mac just simply works, so I stand by it.  I am wary, however of the change. 

[Death_Merchant]

I agree with Clark Kent (except for that avatar choice... my God man, have you no mercy?!?!)

A close architecture, while annoying to those who live to tweak and optimize their PCs, keeps my Mac running solidly.

However, this switch to Intel is a blow to those needing a Mac upgrade. What are we to do?
1) Buy a dead-end G5, or
2) Wait over a year for rev 1 of an Intel Mac?

[Clark Kent]

I'd say buy regardless.  I've been watching the keynote address, and it sounds like there are some pretty good advances with the current line of chips before everything swithes.  I expect rosetta toget better by the time the first high end intel macs are released.   I'm sure the new Powermacs will be 64 bit, or Apple would not be jumping in like this, and I expect that the Intel Powermacs won't be out until 2007, so just go on as you would normally.
Brian

[Death_Merchant]

Check out Wired's musing as to what this is all REALLY about....

and you thought it was just for laptops?

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html

[Javora]

I agree with Clark Kent (except for that avatar choice... my God man, have you no mercy?!?!)

A close architecture, while annoying to those who live to tweak and optimize their PCs, keeps my Mac running solidly.

However, this switch to Intel is a blow to those needing a Mac upgrade. What are we to do?
1) Buy a dead-end G5, or
2) Wait over a year for rev 1 of an Intel Mac?

I agree with the argument that Apple is using, it's simple logic and I understand where they are coming from.  But look at how much hardware is in a PC now days.  About 10 different motherboard manufactures.  Only two companies make almost all of the graphics cards and TV tuner cards.  Only one company makes most of the sound cards, the rest is on-board or sub 2% market share companies.  The CD/DVD drives are all standard.  Hard drives pretty much take care of them selves.  What’s left modems/10-100-1000 network jacks and the return of the 3.5" floppy (ok I threw the floppy in for kicks and giggles    )?  Most of what’s left is connected threw an USB/Firewire port with many already having proven Mac drivers.

So what are we talking about here, about 20~30 different device drivers for internal components at most??!?  Given that I'm just not sure that argument holds water like it used to 5~10 years ago.  Granted most if not all of the Mac's drivers are on the Rom chips but come on, if Apple can't handle 20~30 extra drivers than what they are used to than what the heck are they doing in the computer business??!?  Bottom line the people at Apple appear to be control freaks and will more than likely need a management change before we finally see the Mac OS on the store shelves.  IMHO is the only thing that will really bring apple out of the niche market and into competition with Microsoft.

The other thing I see as an issue with Intel processors in the Mac machines is that virus writers will find it easier to write viruses for the Mac.  All that is needed now is a low-end Mac and a copy of WinXP for a duel boot machine.  A lot of the coding problems that made Mac viruses unfeasible will soon be resolved.  You Mac owners may want to keep your antivirus definitions updated more regularly when the change occurs.

The one good thing that I see from all of this is that game companies may find it worthwhile now to include Mac support for their games.  Game ports to the Mac platform should be much easier after the switch.

As for what to buy in the mean time I think that's obviously going to be up to the individual Mac user.  If they have a Mac that is over 2 years old or the machine can't do the things that they need to do now then going to the latest current G5 would be the thing to do.  This would also give these people time to wait until the high-end Intel Mac's are out and all of the transition kinks are worked out.  But if I had a new Mac or a Mac that is less than a year old then I would wait until I feel the time is right.  Your mileage may very.

[Javora]

Check out Wired's musing as to what this is all REALLY about....

and you thought it was just for laptops?

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html

Hmmm, that seems to contradict what Nemesis found about the Pentium D.  Here is the link to the thread where I’m quoting him:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163356665.0.html

Intel denies the DRM in the Pentium D:

Link to full article

The Intel Pentium D Processor and the Intel 945 Express Chipset family do not have unannounced embedded DRM technologies.

While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.

I would guess that a backlash had begun and Intel felt compelled to deny this to protect themselves.  I hope so because then they might reconsider any future plans along these lines.

Hmmm, is Intel telling the truth about the Pentium D or are they trying to deceive customers into buying this DRM crap hoping we won’t find out??!?  Or at least deceive the customers until it is too late for any organized customer outrage to do anything about it.  Or does this Wired article have its facts mixed up.  *Shrugs*

[Clark Kent]

I agree with Clark Kent (except for that avatar choice... my God man, have you no mercy?!?!)

A close architecture, while annoying to those who live to tweak and optimize their PCs, keeps my Mac running solidly.

However, this switch to Intel is a blow to those needing a Mac upgrade. What are we to do?
1) Buy a dead-end G5, or
2) Wait over a year for rev 1 of an Intel Mac?

A friend of mine works for WSJ, and he sent me this article, it might help you in your decision process:

PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY
By WALTER S. MOSSBERG   

What the Apple Plan
To Switch to Intel Chips
Means for Consumers
June 9, 2005; Page B1

The war in Iraq rages on, the European Union is fraying and North Korea may have nuclear weapons. But if you read the business and technology news this past week, all of that seemed to pale before an event variously described as seismic, epic and stunning: Apple Computer has decided to adopt processors made by Intel for its future Macintosh computers.

There's a reason this was big news in the computer world. For decades, Intel's chips have been tightly linked to the software of Apple's archrival, Microsoft, and Apple has touted as superior the IBM PowerPC chips that powered the Mac. Plus, Apple CEO Steve Jobs, probably the most charismatic business leader in America, attracts attention for anything he does, even though his Macintosh has a tiny share of the PC market.

But what does Apple's move mean for the average consumer, who just wants the best computer for the job?

In the long term, the change will strengthen Apple and the Mac, which is good news for anyone devoted to that platform or considering switching to it. That's because Intel's processors and other chips will give Apple more options than IBM's products could for building Macs that run faster and cooler, and have longer battery life. The first Intel-based Mac is due in spring 2006.

Even consumers who use Microsoft Windows, which runs on the vast majority of computers, will benefit, because the Mac's impact on the industry is vastly greater than its market share. Apple is the most innovative major computer maker, and the only one largely dedicated to serving consumers instead of large corporate customers. Almost everything it does is later copied by the Windows PC makers, so keeping Apple strong and innovating is good for Windows users, too.

In the short run, however, the chip changeover should make little difference to average consumers. For all but the techiest techies, changing the processor in these machines will be a nonevent, sort of like changing the engine in next year's Lexus cars. As long as the new engine is at least as fast and smooth as its predecessor, few drivers would notice or care.

What makes a Mac a Mac isn't the processor under the hood. It's Apple's elegant operating system, OS X, which won't see major changes for 18 months, and the company's stylish hardware designs, which it will continue to produce. When you peer at the screen of the first Intel-based Mac, it will look just like today's PowerPC Macs, only it should run faster.

Of course, if Apple fails to execute the switch well or the Intel processors don't meet expectations, the Mac could be in trouble. And users would lose if too many third-party software developers decline to spend the money and time to convert their products so they run on the Intel chips.

Here are answers to a few common questions I've received about the switch.

Should people hold off buying a Mac that uses the IBM PowerPC processor, which Apple will soon abandon, and wait for the new Intel Macs?

No. If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice for you last week, it's still the right choice. Today's PowerPC Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models this year.

Plus, all new software for the Mac will continue to run on PowerPC models for at least a few more years, the likely life of any Mac you buy now. That's because Apple has created a tool for software developers that easily creates "universal" programs capable of being run on either the PowerPC or Intel models.

Now that Apple will be using the same processor as Dell, H-P and other competitors, will people be able to run the Mac operating system on these non-Apple machines?

Unless some hacker does a masterful job, the answer is no. Apple intends to keep its operating system and hardware tied tightly together. The new Intel-based versions of the Mac's OS X operating system will be designed so that they cannot run on non-Apple hardware, and Apple has no plans to license OS X to other PC makers.

Will users be able to install and run Microsoft Windows on the new Intel-based Macs?

Apple's official position is that it won't block the use of Windows on its new machines. Unofficially, however, the company says people won't be able to just buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on an Intel-based Mac. That's because Apple is unlikely to build in all the standard under-the-hood hardware pieces that Windows is designed to mate with. And it won't supply any special software called "drivers" to help Windows use the unique under-the-hood hardware Apple will use.

However, I expect some third-party company to supply the missing drivers and otherwise make it possible to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Microsoft itself might even do this. That would allow Mac users to run Windows programs that lack Mac equivalents at speeds comparable to a Windows computer's.

Will Mac prices fall due to the switch to Intel?

There's no way to tell now, but I doubt it. Apple's lower volumes, higher quality and unusual designs will likely keep it out of the very basement of the market.

[Javora]

Apple is the most innovative major computer maker, and the only one largely dedicated to serving consumers instead of large corporate customers.

 

But yet most games are only released on the PC, I guess gamers aren't consumers.   

[Clark Kent]

I'm not much a game person, since flight sims and SFC are about the only games that attract me, but last I checked at the applestore they had an entire wall of name brand games.

[Javora]

I'm not much a game person, since flight sims and SFC are about the only games that attract me, but last I checked at the applestore they had an entire wall of name brand games.

Which is only about 4% of the total PC games that are out or are coming out.  So either that wall includes every game since StarCraft or that wall isn't all that big or that wall includes something other than games.      

Fact is gaming companies don't want to produce game for a 2% market share.  That is why games like Battlefield 1 or 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and other main stream games won't show up on the Apple system.  And I'm not talking about port-overs either, I'm talking about games released specifically for the Mac.  Not that Jobs has made it easy for companies to make games for Apple since Jobs has stated in the past (unless his mindset has changed recently) that games weren't meant for the Mac.

[Clark Kent]

I think he's recently had a change of heart and sees that stance is not doing him any good.  The only games I ever see on the shelves at any store, be it for mac or pc are name brand ones, i.e. current popular games.The other 96% or whatever does not concern me, so I have no idea what is out there.
the only point I am trying to make is that there is most likely alot more out there for the mac than you might think.  Things have changed for macs over the last 5-6 years, and you might be surprised at what's available on the mac.
Don't take that as a statement of trying to convert you.  If you are a game fanatic, I'd still agree that a desktop PC is your best choice for playing games hard core on.  Whatever your computing preferences, I'm sure you have wha'ts best for you, and I'm sure it works great for your needs.
The mac market, however is fairly unique.  Alot of people don't really know that we're even around, let alone what we can do with our macs.  As far as being innovative, I'd have to agree that Apple does push the market in that area.  Windows was a hack of the Apple OS (still is)  Longhorn seeks actively to mimic and copy OS X, the first computers with optical drives were macs, the first ones to push USB and firewire were macs.  there's a huge list here.  Apple, for having such a small market share, is bold, and pushes computing convention.  Then the PC companies swoop in, use Apple innovations for their own PCs, often for cheaper. 
Anyway, keep your PC, be happy with it.  At least I hope you're much happier with your PC than I am with mine.  All I can say is I got my mac because it works for me and I like it.  If you feel different fine, but you sound very anti mac, which automatically tempts me to be defensive.

[Nemesis]

first ones to push USB and firewire were macs. 

Apple does have a lot of firsts (unlike MS) but USB is not one of them.  It was developed specifically for the PC and was on PCs first. 

The problem Apple has is that they abandoned their original audience when they created the Mac.  The Apple I, Apple II and Apple III were all open at the hardware level.  Anything someone wanted to do with an Apple computer was fine with Apple the company.  Then along comes the Mac and they sealed it off as a hardware no fly zone.  It became you can do anything WE think you need to do.  Yes they eventually changed but by then the original audience was on the PC bandwagon.

Then along comes IBM and creates the PC using the Apple I-III openness.   IBM proceeded to dominate the PC industry and did so until they did 2 things. 

1/ Hold back on the next generation 386 machines leaving the opening for Compaq to establish the way 386 PCs were defined. 

2/ MCA (Micro Channel Architecture) IBM's attempt to seal things off like Apple did, the PC industry just waved goodbye and IBM became irrelevant as a PC standards setter.  OS/2 while technically superior was another lock in to IBM failure.  They needed to make OS/2 more open to generic PCs like DOS and Windows but they couldn't bring themselves to be open that way - then. 

If the Mac had been open from the beginning the whole PC field would I think be different.  If IBM had not tried to hold back the tide (the 386) and change the PC to an IBM proprietary architecture (and OS) then the "lesser" companies like Compaq and Dell would have been held back for years. 

Microsoft is progressively going more to the "what WE decide" way that damaged Apple and IBM so badly.  I expect it to end the same way for Microsoft.  This is an opening that Apple could use to become relevant again.

[Javora]

I think he's recently had a change of heart and sees that stance is not doing him any good.  The only games I ever see on the shelves at any store, be it for mac or pc are name brand ones, i.e. current popular games.The other 96% or whatever does not concern me, so I have no idea what is out there.

I hope you're right, I think games and gaming is the only way Apple is going to get out of that 2% market share.  As it stands now IIRC, Battlefield 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Star Wars Battlefront 2 (like most of the Star Wars titles) will not appear on the Mac.  I'm hoping and praying that the move to Intel will convince game producers to jump on the Apple bandwagon, I think it is the only way Apple will ever get out of the market share basement.

All I can say is I got my mac because it works for me and I like it.  If you feel different fine, but you sound very anti mac, which automatically tempts me to be defensive.

Ok now I can see where you are coming from.  For the record I don't hate any type of Hardware/Software (with the exception of Digital Rights Management Hardware/Software), rather it be Apple, Microsoft, ATI, nVidia etc.  They all have their good and bad points.  I do however hate fan boys, the people who will sing praises of a certain item even if problems and/or shortcomings are smacking them in the face.  I can understand the mentality, these people spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on a product or platform and they don't want to feel that they have made a mistake given the money they have spent.

For instance I use WinXP and Microsoft Office.  I can't talk about all the problems they have as Frey doesn't have that much hard drive space on his server.     Spell/Grammar checker would take up a good amount of space all by itself.  However I don’t go ballistic just because someone attacks Window/Office.  Even though I have invested thousands of dollars into this system, I know it has shortcomings.  No one can’t have the perfect computer platform, it’s just not out there.  I just wish more people would realize that.

And I don't hate the Mac, in fact I dream of the day that Apple has a 46~50% market share.  I also dream of the day I can dual-boot Mac/WinXP on my PC.  I want Apple to be in direct competition with Microsoft, I think it will be the only way software innovation will really get off the ground.  Until then I'll take what ever Apple can come up with three years later when Microsoft decides to incorporate it.  But I don't ever see Apple getting to that point until they open up the hardware, and game producers jump on board.  It's like Apple (Jobs) is doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.  Heck, look at the bottom of Nemesis's last post, he stated exactly how I feel and wrote it down better than I ever could (BTW great job Nemesis  ).  And I think that is where my frustration towards Apple is coming from, I'm not trying to attack you directly but instead I'm openly mocking Apple for the choices they have made.

[Clark Kent]

For the record, nemesis, I didn't say apple devloped USB, just that they were the first to push it.  Their iMacs, which were then "consumer" designed machines came standard with USB and firewire, and walked away from SCSI and what was then more standard connection devices.  The majority of PCs are still playing catch up on that move.

I think he's recently had a change of heart and sees that stance is not doing him any good.  The only games I ever see on the shelves at any store, be it for mac or pc are name brand ones, i.e. current popular games.The other 96% or whatever does not concern me, so I have no idea what is out there.

I hope you're right, I think games and gaming is the only way Apple is going to get out of that 2% market share.  As it stands now IIRC, Battlefield 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Star Wars Battlefront 2 (like most of the Star Wars titles) will not appear on the Mac.  I'm hoping and praying that the move to Intel will convince game producers to jump on the Apple bandwagon, I think it is the only way Apple will ever get out of the market share basement.

All I can say is I got my mac because it works for me and I like it.  If you feel different fine, but you sound very anti mac, which automatically tempts me to be defensive.

Ok now I can see where you are coming from.  For the record I don't hate any type of Hardware/Software (with the exception of Digital Rights Management Hardware/Software), rather it be Apple, Microsoft, ATI, nVidia etc.  They all have their good and bad points.  I do however hate fan boys, the people who will sing praises of a certain item even if problems and/or shortcomings are smacking them in the face.  I can understand the mentality, these people spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on a product or platform and they don't want to feel that they have made a mistake given the money they have spent.

For instance I use WinXP and Microsoft Office.  I can't talk about all the problems they have as Frey doesn't have that much hard drive space on his server.     Spell/Grammar checker would take up a good amount of space all by itself.  However I don’t go ballistic just because someone attacks Window/Office.  Even though I have invested thousands of dollars into this system, I know it has shortcomings.  No one can’t have the perfect computer platform, it’s just not out there.  I just wish more people would realize that.

And I don't hate the Mac, in fact I dream of the day that Apple has a 46~50% market share.  I also dream of the day I can dual-boot Mac/WinXP on my PC.  I want Apple to be in direct competition with Microsoft, I think it will be the only way software innovation will really get off the ground.  Until then I'll take what ever Apple can come up with three years later when Microsoft decides to incorporate it.  But I don't ever see Apple getting to that point until they open up the hardware, and game producers jump on board.  It's like Apple (Jobs) is doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.  Heck, look at the bottom of Nemesis's last post, he stated exactly how I feel and wrote it down better than I ever could (BTW great job Nemesis  ).  And I think that is where my frustration towards Apple is coming from, I'm not trying to attack you directly but instead I'm openly mocking Apple for the choices they have made.

Sounds like we're mostly at an understanding on this.  It's a sensitive issue for me, since I remember the "good ole" mac vs pc debates where it went from "I like PCs more" to "you're an idiot for using a mac" very quickly, along with other unneccesarily abusive language.  Hope you see why I'm touchy about it. 
As for your hopes for Apple, the Apple OS still won't run on a regular PC after the change, witout a hack, but I'm sure some enterprising individuals will figure out how to do that in short order.  The biggest obstacle to getting more developers for the mac is that the mac uses a completely different type of OS than windows.  The good news is that the days of the classic OS, which was completely unique and different than anything out there is gone.  The Mac OS now is Unix based, which will help, but I don't know how much.    The new macs will most likely be able to run a windows partition, rather than an emulator, so your vision of a Apple/Windows dual boot machine is most likely coming soon.
My biggest problem in computing is windows.  I've gotten sick and tired of all the bugs that the software giant can't seem to work out.  I've gone from system crashes every week, to a system that has frozen once in the last year, which is unbelievably gratifying for me.  Yeah, I know it's not perfect, the mac OS has it's limitations too, but I am happier with it.  I wonder, though, how well the new Intel OS X will run on the Intel machines.
46-50% market share?  I don't know about that.  at that level Apple would be too big a contendor for Microsoft's tastes.  I seriously doubt MS would allow such a thing to happen.  Typically when a smaller company like Apple starts to gain market share, the Big fish jumps in and finds some way to eat up the little fish.

[Javora]

Sounds like we're mostly at an understanding on this.  It's a sensitive issue for me, since I remember the "good ole" mac vs pc debates where it went from "I like PCs more" to "you're an idiot for using a mac" very quickly, along with other unneccesarily abusive language.  Hope you see why I'm touchy about it.

Oh, no, I'm not going to belittle you for your choice.  The Mac is what works for you and that's all that matters.

As for your hopes for Apple, the Apple OS still won't run on a regular PC after the change, witout a hack, but I'm sure some enterprising individuals will figure out how to do that in short order.  The biggest obstacle to getting more developers for the mac is that the mac uses a completely different type of OS than windows.  The good news is that the days of the classic OS, which was completely unique and different than anything out there is gone.  The Mac OS now is Unix based, which will help, but I don't know how much.    The new macs will most likely be able to run a windows partition, rather than an emulator, so your vision of a Apple/Windows dual boot machine is most likely coming soon.

Yeah I saw what the Apple reps. said about Mac OS not running on a PC, I think that reality is still a long way off.  Personally I don't want to use Apple hardware, as it will still be too restricting, as I like to upgrade my hard ware once in a while.  I've waited this long for the Mac OS on my PC I can wait a while longer.

Apple will have no problem finding developers for the Mac.  In fact I'd be surprised to see any of the current developers jump ship.  Don't get me wrong those current developers are going to complain and whine about the change but I don't think they are going anywhere.  If any of the developers to quit, Apple will have no problem finding new ones, look how many developers are producing products for the iPod.

I wonder, though, how well the new Intel OS X will run on the Intel machines.
46-50% market share?  I don't know about that.  at that level Apple would be too big a contendor for Microsoft's tastes.  I seriously doubt MS would allow such a thing to happen.  Typically when a smaller company like Apple starts to gain market share, the Big fish jumps in and finds some way to eat up the little fish.

Apple has been running the Mac OS on an Intel system for years now, if anything you are going to see a speed increase instead of a decrease.  If the machines do end up slower Jobs might was well resign now and save Apple board the trouble of firing him.

As for the market share I do think it could happen, and I don't think there is a damn thing that Microsoft could do about it.  The U.S Federal court already deemed Microsoft a monopoly.  If Apple started gaining market share and Microsoft did anything to hinder that, Microsoft would end up right back in court facing possible breakup of the company.

[Javora]

Found this article that may ease Apple owners fears of Intel based Mac's.  Here is the link:

http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5739589.html?part=msn&subj=ns_2543&tag=mymsn

Developers get taste of Intel-based Macs
By Ina Fried, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: June 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
In late-night sessions this week, Apple developers have been getting their first look at how much work they have ahead to convert their programs to run on Intel-based Macs.

After announcing the big shift on Monday, Apple Computer has offered developers an early chance to get their bearings, with labs of Intel-based Macs up and running at its Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco. The labs were open until 9 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday and until midnight Tuesday.

And though Apple won't start selling Intel-based Macs to customers until sometime next year, the Mac maker is leasing test machines to developers for $999 starting this month.

Fetch Software president Jim Matthews said his company has been through past transitions, including the mid-'90s shift from Motorola's 68000 family of chips to PowerPC processors and the more recent move from OS 9 to OS X. Matthews said he appreciates the advance notice Apple is giving developers this time around.

"Apple is giving us plenty of time and hardware we can test on, which wasn't the case the last time," Matthews said.
For developers, the amount of work needed to make their code ready for next year's arrival of Intel-based Macs varies considerably. For Mac programs that are fairly new, written after the arrival of Mac OS X in Apple's Cocoa environment, the changes can be made in a matter of hours, or even less in some cases.

"We've already ported our app to Intel," said Wil Shipley, CEO of Delicious Monster Software. "All we had to do was click one button. It took about 40 seconds. It ran perfectly on the sneak-preview Intel Macs here at WWDC."
But for others, the changes will be more complex. For those whose applications were developed prior to Mac OS X and then "carbonized" to run natively in OS X, the work is somewhat more involved. If developers have used Apple's Xcode tools, it is still only a matter of weeks, at most, Apple said. But, if developers used tools from Metrowerks, they must first bring their code over to Apple's tools and then begin the work of tweaking the software for Intel's chips.

Microsoft is among those in that last camp. Both Virtual PC and Office for Mac were developed in Carbon, using tools from Metrowerks. Microsoft said it doesn't know how much work it has ahead of itself.
"That's one of the main things our developers are looking at," said Scott Erickson, group product manager for Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. Microsoft has already said it will make future versions of Office run natively on Intel chips, but it has yet to detail plans for Virtual PC, software that allows Windows programs to run on a Mac.

Developers seem generally upbeat, though. Bare Bones Software has had a team of workers testing code on the Intel machines Apple has made available. CEO Rich Siegel said the early testing largely confirms the belief that the effort needed won't be extraordinary.

"Our initial analysis and prediction of a smooth transition still appears to be accurate, even after a few days of review and analysis," Siegel said in an e-mail interview. "There are some adjustments to be made, but nothing particularly daunting."
One community where there are signs of discontent is the high-end computing market Apple has garnered with Mac OS X. There has been much discussion in recent days on Apple's mailing lists for scientific and technical computing issues about the work those developers face. Many have written optimizations and code that specifically targets the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions.

Though Apple believes that there is not that much work for most developers, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller said the company is trying to be careful not to trivialize the work that needs to be done.
He notes that the work required to take OS 9 applications and make them run natively in OS X, a process known as Carbonization, ended up being tougher than Apple had thought. "That turned out to be more work than we all expected" Schiller said in an interview Monday. "This is not near the (same) effort."

For smaller companies that may not want to invest the time or the $1,000 to rent the Intel system, a company called Advenio has a service in which it will do the necessary porting work. As an indication of the relative time involved, the company is charging a flat $100 fee to create a universal binary of a Cocoa application; the fee for porting a Carbonized program starts at $500 and depends on the amount of work involved.

Fetch Software's Matthews said he is not too worried about the time needed to move applications over to the Intel chips, especially as compared with past transitions. "I think this is probably going to be the least traumatic switch for our software."
Of more concern, though, is what customers do during an uncertain time for the Mac, as Apple tries to continue selling PowerPC-based Macs while laying plans for a day when such machines will be entirely supplanted by Intel machines. "It's going to be fine as long as customers don't freak out, as long as customers don't stop buying Macs," Matthews said.

[Nemesis]

A related link

[Nemesis]

Another link

[Javora]

Another link

Brutally honest to say the least, but is that character in the cartoon strip talking to himself??!?

[Nemesis]

Another link

Brutally honest to say the least, but is that character in the cartoon strip talking to himself??!?

I'm sure it seems like it.  He is on tech support.

[Death_Merchant]

In terms of games on Mac, the Intel announcement may make things interesting: It is now likely that any Windows emulator (like Virtual PC) would now run AT FULL SPEED on an Intel Mac. CPU instructions no longer would need emulation. You could literally running Windows in a window.

I also would point out this interesting opinion here (http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel)

Here's another way to look at this deal: what Darwin is to Mac OS X, Intel will supply for Mac hardware.
  What I mean by this is that by basing Mac OS X around the open-source Unix-derived Darwin core, Apple essentially gave up on the idea of creating their own OS software from scratch. Is Unix ideal? No. Is Unix good enough? Yes. And it allowed Apple to move forward and put their effort into the parts of the OS that separate them from everyone else: Cocoa, Carbon, QuickTime, and their own applications.
  With this Intel partnership, Apple is doing the same thing for their hardware. No more going it alone, designing the entire kit. With a core architecture designed by Intel, Apple will be free to concentrate their own engineering on what they do best: the user experience. Not just how the case looks, but how it feels. In the end, it's the product that matters, not the underlying technology. Mac OS X established that for their operating system, and this Intel deal will do the same for the hardware.
  This doesn't mean Mac hardware will simply be "a PC with a pretty case" any more than that Mac OS X is merely "Unix with a pretty UI". It just means that both Apple and Intel get to concentrate on the things that they do best.

[Nemesis]

The one true reason PC users don't want the Mac on x86 hardware.

Link to the reason

[Death_Merchant]

The one true reason PC users don't want the Mac on x86 hardware.

Link to the reason

Chuckle...


More shots across Microsoft's bow.....
"Dude, you're getting a MacDell."

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,1072719,00.html
"If Apple decides to open the Mac OS to others, we would be happy to offer it to our customers," Dell wrote in an email. It's the first time any PC industry executive has openly shown enthusiasm for selling machines with Apple's software.

[Clark Kent]

You know, apple has opened up it's OS for third party computer manufacturers before, perhaps they should consider offering a deal to Dell?

[Javora]

Dell building Mac systems would be one small step closer to opening the Mac OS on to any Intel/AMD machine.  I really think that once Apple realizes that open hardware is the way to increase market share and profits, Microsoft is going to be in for the fight of its life.  This is the best thing for all customers and it will finally give the MPAA/RIAA DRM junk the boot once and for all.

[Clark Kent]

Dell building Mac systems would be one small step closer to opening the Mac OS on to any Intel/AMD machine.  I really think that once Apple realizes that open hardware is the way to increase market share and profits, Microsoft is going to be in for the fight of its life.  This is the best thing for all customers and it will finally give the MPAA/RIAA DRM junk the boot once and for all.

I dunno if I'd want to see the Mac OS released for all to use.  I think it would just be setting apple up to become like M$, and that's not what I'd liek to see.  Apple has enough flaws ass is, no need to add to the list.

[Bonk]

I'd probably prefer the latest FreeBSD on a new intel processor. (not proprietary - equivalent technology).

Ditching Motorola and then IBM to replace them with Intel essentially removes what was unique about Apple.  The differences will be purely cosmetic and continued sales might actually be endangered by these changes that have removed much of what created Apple users brand loyalty.

Dell building Macs? SHUDDER... so much for mac performance and quality. (Dell = crap in my books, ceape3st parts, ever corner cut... check the caches available on the cheapy "product dumped" processors used by dell - its laughable.)

While on the subject - ITUNES IS A TROJAN on windows systems. I had a devil of a time figuring out what had crippled a friends machine, until I had found ITUNES using 100% cpu which was not cleared with a reboot, the condition persisted for days, until I identified it and uninstalled ITUNES. (Thankfully it did uninstall, so I guess it's not really a trojan, but it sure behaves like one).

[Javora]

Ditching Motorola and then IBM to replace them with Intel essentially removes what was unique about Apple.  The differences will be purely cosmetic and continued sales might actually be endangered by these changes that have removed much of what created Apple users brand loyalty.

Dell building Macs? SHUDDER... so much for mac performance and quality. (Dell = crap in my books, ceape3st parts, ever corner cut... check the caches available on the cheapy "product dumped" processors used by dell - its laughable.)

Yes but Motorola/IBM couldn't produce the mobile chips that Apple needed let alone high end desktop chips due to extreme heat.  These are areas that AMD/Intel has proven that they can do.  Being different doesn't always means being the best, this case IMHO exemplifies it.  And because Apple's difference will be solely software based now doesn't mean that Apple no longer has anything to offer.  The Mac OS is still a year or two ahead of anything Microsoft will bring to the table with Longhorn, and a decade ahead of anything Linux has in what ever convoluted 31 flavors they can come up with.

Apple's problem is that they take great pride in shooting themselves in the foot then showing the world their accomplishments.  Either Apple is going to realize that shooting themselves in the foot hurts like he|| and will stop or they will fall flat on their face when their support comes out from under them.  Apple is at a crossroads right now, one path leads to redemption with Michel Dell pointing in that direction and the other path leads to masochism.  We'll have to wait and see which path Apple takes.  Ok the second metaphor probably wasn’t needed but… *shrugs*.   

I agree that Dell makes first-rate crap, and I can say that from personal experience.  For some reason people like buying that junk.  But Dell also has the largest PC market share in the U.S right now.  The thing is that if Apple gave Dell the go ahead to build Mac loaded PC's, IMHO Apple's market share would double within the first month.  This I suspect will be what pushes game makers over the edge and produce mainstream games for the Mac OS.  As much as I hate to say it, Dell can only bring Apple up at this point IMHO.