Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
| User | Post |
VL-Tone
Posts: 48/200 |
Originally posted by ||bass
Originally posted by Ailure
Originally posted by neotransotaku
An interesting quote from an article I read was there are some Apple users have grown to hate Intel... I wonder what is going to happen to them 
SUICIDE!
(...I really hope there won't be any such cases of fanboys thought.  )
And oh, PowerPC emulation on X86 is possible as PearPC have shown but it's very slow. Infact a PowerPC have easier time to emulate X86 than what a X86 have with emulating PowerPC.
And bleh, it was becuse of the IBM PC clones that the PC did get succefull...
Ding ding ding ding ding!
Yes! It's true! The number 1 reason for x86's success is because IBM permitted other manufacturers to create clone systems. Had Jobs not been such a selfish idealist, Apple computers could have been in a larger market then the extreme minority market share they have now.
Anyone think I'm wrong? Try this on for size then.
There was a period when even Alphas were outselling Macs.
I really don't feel like bumping this thread, but seriously, some of you here don't seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to Apple and computer history. I really don't want to insult anyone here, I just think you assume to many things and don't know enough about the situation. ||bass please, if you gonna get aggressive while arguing about this, I suggest reading a book about computer history. (not just some snippets on the web or some guy on slashdot)
IBM never "permitted" cloning . When do you think the word "reverse-engineering" was first used in the media? When Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS. They had to do that because IBM didn't allow cloning. IBM saw what happened to Apple where they saw some of their profit fly into the hands of Apple ][ clone makers, and didn't want cloning either. MS was only there at the right time at the right moment, and being a software only company they could only profit from cloning. At the time when Apple was going after cloners simply to keep their profits high just like a company should do, it was really not clear that cloning would help MS take control of the market. Also, Apple had more legal ground there because most of the Apple ][ clones had copies of the Apple ROM. (it was not reverse-engineered) IBM was that reputed big computers company, and MS was lucky enough to be able to make others "IBM compatibles" and use the IBM reputation as a vector to sell many licenses.
Apple did allow cloning Macs some years ago but Steve Jobs stopped the licensing because they were losing too much money at the time, as people stopped buying Apple machines. Jobs wasn't even at Apple when they switched to PPC, and unlike what many may think, maybe he would have switched to intel instead. Jobs returned to Apple because he was head of NeXT computers at the time and Apple bought NeXT and used it's OS OpenStep as a basis to build what is now Mac OS X. Now OpenStep had been ported to the x86 a long time before and it was sold as an OS that could run on just about any x86 box, and this was Jobs company remember. This OS was much more robust and powerful than Windows and the Mac at the time, but it had a problem: there was not much software for it, and even if the first Web Browser was designed on a NeXT, most apps were specialized workstation level programs. It was a chicken-and-egg situation and OpenStep failed by any measure to capture the media attention and market share.
Now that literally 10,000+ apps including many consumer level apps have been ported to Mac OS X, Apple can afford to first switch to intel, because OpenStep now OS X and XCode makes it much easier to port apps than it would have been in the Mac OS 8-9 days. Once they transition to intel and have most of the apps ported, they can decide to open the floodgates and release OS X intel for a good part of the x86 boxes. They have to be ready to fight MS directly when they do that. In the meantime, I can see HP branded x86 machines running OS X (and Windows) somewhere in the future just like there are HP's iPod.
Ailure (hey I'm not angry about you, even with your over-the-line suggestion), I would like to point out that Apple bought technology from a company called Transitive which is a very fast live code translator, so they could run Mac PPC apps on OS X for intel at a reasonable speed. It is much faster than PearPC and is integrated transparently to the OS, just double-click the app like normal and it starts. Transitive say they don't call it an emulator because it's more than that. They say it could bring 60-80% of the speed and considering that it will run on faster/cheaper intel CPUs it will be good enough for most users. One reason it's much faster than PearPC is that any call to the OS API's run natively on x86. And no CherryOS wasn't running at 80% the speed...CherryOS is cancelled and the company is now suing a blogger that proved that a part of their code was stolen from PearPC. (and just to cover my ass, the blogger said it, not me!  ) Incidently, CherryOS was the name of the Mac parody OS on Skinner's computer in the old CD-ROM game "Virtual Springfield".
As for me being out of my mind for doing ROM hacking on the Mac, first I can run all those Win32 ROM hacking apps in VirtualPC, albeit the thing is too slow at time for my modest comp. VirtualPC will run at almost full speed on an intel Mac, so I could have all these apps running and do things like a VirtualPC "savestate" so that I can get them almost instantly without having to boot Windows in VPC. Also Tile Molester runs natively on the Mac (thanks SnoBrow  ) and there are some (rare) GBA dev tools for OS X.
Anyhow, I started to do ROM hacking at a time when Windows ROM utilities were rare, and just like I have fond memories of old primitive games, I like to do ROM hacking, the old-school way, with an hex editor, an emulator cheat finder, some disassemblers and sometimes even Photoshop(!) I also build myself little programs to help my find or display things in ROMs. If some people are more inclined to do ROM hacking by using those admittedly powerful things like emulators with integrated tracers, I don't mind working with them if they show interest If some people don't like the tools I'm using then just too bad, do what you want with what I found about F-Zero and StarFox, I wouldn't be insulted at all if some group of people started to build a Windows only F-Zero or StarFox level editor by themselves based on some data I found.
Now don't expect me to do any other rants in this board in the future, I never post in the Hardware/Software forum anyway (for obvious reasons). Also please don't reply to me listing all mistakes that Apple did over the years Some of them are myths, some of them are disinformation, but yes there are some bad things Apple did over time, I won't argue against that.
Anyway you can either see this post as a rant from a crazy Mac zealot, or simply a way to learn more about that crazy VL-Tone ROM hacker and to try to guess why his ROM hacks are so crappy! (or both )
Yes that's why I'm so weird, because my entire head is made up of an old Casio synth called the Casio VL-Tone (aka VL-1) see http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail72.swf for more details about it. (and by the way, this flash cartoon was not made on a Mac) |
kitty
Posts: 1422/2449 |
Yup, it is true. I have OLD magazines showing Apple II clones - they sucked (at best) but Apple forced them to stop due to copyright infringement and other BS. IBM made a killing because other companies used the same technology and the market expanded, where Apple just stayed in a small "Niche-market" that shortly will have nowhere to go.
Don't forget, Intel did copy AMD64 so there's a chance that Apple computers will be x86-64. You can bet that Windows will install on Apple x86(-64?) machines, Billy will make sure of it. However, Jobs will make sure OS-X WON'T install on PCs. Be it a special string needed in the processor, to refusing to support drivers for PC components (in other words, you can't install the OS if it won't run on that nifty new nForce4 board you bought).
PowerPCs, clock-for-clock, beat out AMD and Intel processors. However, Intel and AMD processors can run much faster speeds, which neutralizes that advantage, and makes the AMD and Intel chips faster overall. Especially the AMD chips, they run slower than Intel chips MHz-wise, but anihilate them! |
||bass
Posts: 453/817 |
Originally posted by Ailure
Originally posted by neotransotaku
An interesting quote from an article I read was there are some Apple users have grown to hate Intel... I wonder what is going to happen to them
SUICIDE!
(...I really hope there won't be any such cases of fanboys thought. )
And oh, PowerPC emulation on X86 is possible as PearPC have shown but it's very slow. Infact a PowerPC have easier time to emulate X86 than what a X86 have with emulating PowerPC.
And bleh, it was becuse of the IBM PC clones that the PC did get succefull...
Ding ding ding ding ding!
Yes! It's true! The number 1 reason for x86's success is because IBM permitted other manufacturers to create clone systems. Had Jobs not been such a selfish idealist, Apple computers could have been in a larger market then the extreme minority market share they have now.
Anyone think I'm wrong? Try this on for size then.
There was a period when even Alphas were outselling Macs. |
Ailure
Posts: 9868/11162 |
Originally posted by neotransotaku
An interesting quote from an article I read was there are some Apple users have grown to hate Intel... I wonder what is going to happen to them
SUICIDE!
(...I really hope there won't be any such cases of fanboys thought. )
And oh, PowerPC emulation on X86 is possible as PearPC have shown but it's very slow. Infact a PowerPC have easier time to emulate X86 than what a X86 have with emulating PowerPC.
And bleh, it was becuse of the IBM PC clones that the PC did get succefull... |
neotransotaku
Posts: 3151/4016 |
Originally posted by Tarale
I wonder how many idiots will try to install OS X on their x86's now and complain it doesn't run right
and it never will for as long as Jobs is still alive. Jobs is ruthless when it comes to Apple clones and will do what it takes to stiffle them. Supposedly, there will be something in the P4 processors that needs to be present for Apple OSes to run. Otherwise, the OS will not install (or not run at all).
Apple left IBM because IBM wasn't offering the processing speeds they wanted--they lagged behind both Intel and AMD.
An interesting quote from an article I read was there are some Apple users have grown to hate Intel... I wonder what is going to happen to them |
iamhiro1112
Posts: 458/487 |
I think I heard about this on the radio. Apple is making some big changes. Hopefully it will attract more for them, not that I use apple but I like to support the underdog. |
Tarale
Posts: 2042/2720 |
Originally posted by VL-Tone
I don't feel like debating about any of this, but here are some facts.
Apple will switch to x86 chips from intel.....
Bleh, that disappoints me for some reason. Not that I have a problem with x86, I guess I was just hoping to see Intel and Apple innovate like Intel and IBM did back with PowerPC. I was dreaming of a nice collab 
I wonder how many idiots will try to install OS X on their x86's now and complain it doesn't run right |
||bass
Posts: 446/817 |
Originally posted by VL-Tone
Anyway since I remember reading here that "nobody in his right mind would do ROM hacking on a Mac", I wont get deeper into the implications of it since I already feel estranged enough here.
It would still apply since most of the tools, etc are still written to work against the Windows API. Emulating windows (such as with WINE) would be easier given the similar hardware. Performance in general would be similar to running WINE at best, VMWare at worst. Good, not great though. |
VL-Tone
Posts: 47/200 |
I don't feel like debating about any of this, but here are some facts.
Apple will switch to x86 chips from intel, it's confirmed in the documentation, and developers systems are 3.6 GHz P4s. Consumers Mac intel machines will ship in one year (06/06/06?)
Many current apps will work on OS X intel with very little changes in the source code and simply a recompile. A simple checkbox enables compiling for PowerPC, intel x86, or both. No need to "rewrite" the apps. Some, like Dashboard "widgets" or Java-based programs will run as is with no recompiling. Others will require more changes, but its doable, in a few weeks/ months. Microsoft (well the MBU spokesperson, Macintosh Business Unit) and Adobe were on stage to show their support for the transition. Office and other MS apps will be ported to OS X on intel (much to my own amazement)
As for apps that wont be recompiled, Apple has a good track record regarding emulation of previously used processors. The 68k emulator during the 68k->PPC transition was very compatible and relatively fast. Apple has bought some technology from Transitive for their Rosetta code translator that will run a great percentage of non recompiled PowerPC programs transparently and at usable speed on intel processors (much faster than PearPC).
Every release of Mac OS X since 5 years has been tested in secret on x86, that includes all the "iApps", iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD. The OS was designed from the start to be CPU independent, so it should be stable. Mac OS X is based on NeXT's OpenStep OS that ran on intel processors when Apple bought the company. OpenStep already had mechanisms for dealing with CPU transitions ("Fat binaries").
Apple has stated that they wont allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. I guess alot of you guys are pissed off about this, but they have reasons not to do it for now. Once the transition is over, they can decide to make it available for all x86 machines at any moment if they feel they can do it. Maybe some hack will make it possible before, we'll see.
They said though that they won't stop anyone from doing a program that runs Win32 apps on the Mac. So we'll probably see VMware and VirtualPC types solution appearing, that will run Windows programs at 80-90% speed. Much an improvement from current Windows emulation on PPC Macs.
Anyway since I remember reading here that "nobody in his right mind would do ROM hacking on a Mac", I wont get deeper into the implications of it since I already feel estranged enough here. |
Ramsus
Posts: 83/162 |
Originally posted by Ailure
We get to know, sooner or later. If they made a mode there must be a good reason for, whatever it's cost or power...
And hell, what other processors does Intel Produce?
Xscale, which is an ARM derivative. I doubt they'd put it in a desktop machine -- they've done little work on it speed-wise.
I don't have a problem with using Pentium 4's in Macs, since then Apple could more easily expand into the low-end market with high-quality software and well-designed computers. In addition, they could more easily negotiate better graphics cards for their iBooks and PowerBooks with nVidia and ATI.
And the possibilities with x86 virtual machines and compatibility layers like WINE are great.
EDIT: Oh, and Steve Jobs may be more cautious about the whole hardware thing after experiencing failures in sales with NextStep and the G4 Cube. Moving to a more widespread platform might be an issue of comfort and security than anything else, especially since Intel can guarantee big supplies. |
Ailure
Posts: 9852/11162 |
Well, yeah. If they switch to X86 a port of Wine would be on it's way.
And it's expected that someone make Wine easy to use... now people can stop making fun about how many games that are avaible on Macintosh computers.
Still, that the Mac's was based on PowerPC was a reason why I was considering buying it...
Thought there was a X86 version of one of the Mac OS's near the end of the 90's. I heard it was very unstable... |
neotransotaku
Posts: 3143/4016 |
Originally posted by Colin
Article I saw used "rewritten" although if an application is REALLY dependent on PowerPC assembly... :\
There likely will be a few compatibility nightmares resulting from this come this time next year, I bet.
the compatibility issues will arise from Apple's Rosetta Stone thingy--which is the software emulation later that allows old apple programs to be used in OSX I think.
Anyways, converting programs into x86 isn't the problem--it's just testing them all over again is the issue here to ensure they do work correctly like they did in PowerPC. |
Mercury
Posts: 54/88 |
Yeah, for me its also a good thing.
I don't buy a Mac because it has an IBM processor in it, I buy it because of the OS and well, the design  .
If moving to Intel means even faster processors, it's only a good thing right?
Also, this sounds VERY good for Mac gaming, maybe we'll eventually have Half-Life and all those other games that didn't make it (although most games today are luckily ported!).
A few interesting things related to Mac gaming and switch to Intel ! |
KsoftFusion
Posts: 55/71 |
This is soft of neat. I'll be able to boot my 3 favorite OS's on one computer.
Also, the programs will not have to be rewritten. Apple has a technology called "Rosetta" that will allow the PPC apps to run on the Intel Mac. Rumors are going around that they're also going to drop Classic. That would make me sad. |
Colin
Posts: 8510/11302 |
Article I saw used "rewritten" although if an application is REALLY dependent on PowerPC assembly... :\
There likely will be a few compatibility nightmares resulting from this come this time next year, I bet. |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1479/1657 |
Originally posted by Colin
it's pretty much a given that a lot of applications are going to have to be rewritten now for the new processor.
Not rewritten usually, but only recompiled for x86. And that won't be a problem if you use free software (but if you do, why are you running Mac OS X?)... |
windwaker
Posts: 1642/1797 |
X86! We're dependant on it, and it would mean more people using the Mac OS. |
Ailure
Posts: 9846/11162 |
We get to know, sooner or later. If they made a mode there must be a good reason for, whatever it's cost or power...
And hell, what other processors does Intel Produce? |
Colin
Posts: 8507/11302 |
This is going to be sooooo headache-inducing... it's pretty much a given that a lot of applications are going to have to be rewritten now for the new processor. Plus the articles I've read (media, not rumor hounds) say that one challenge will be for Apple to ensure that OS X... well... runs on Apple computers only. God forbid Mac clones start popping up on the market.  |
Tarale
Posts: 2035/2720 |
Originally posted by HyperHacker
They're moving from PPC to x86? ...I can't think of an analogy, but PPC > x86. Hell, quite a bit > x86. 
No, they're moving from PPC (IBM) to Intel, not necessarily x86. They haven't said on Apple's website what they're moving to, architecture wise.... and frankly, I'm not trusting any other website in regards to this... |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
