[Salt Peanuts]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallijonn I remember paying $2500 for an SE Mac and 90 days later the price dropped 50%. I then went and upgraded to an SE/30 mobo. By then the SE was going for about $900.

Yeah, I remember how annoyingly expensive they were just few years back, the main reason I ended up with Windows system throughout college (and that my father had all the programs I needed in Windows version). I'm happy that their prices have come down significantly since then, being competitive with Windows machines, especially on laptop area. I'm probably going to end up with 12-inch iBook at some point this year.

 

[D-EJ915]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood IBM and Motorola have been failing to deliver for Apple, so this move was inevitable. -Ed

IBM's been focused on other things

 

[S_Dedalus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-EJ915 IBM's been focused on other things

Yeah, with the new gaming consoles, Apple's business will look utterly small time to IBM's accountants.

 

[AudioJunkie]

At first I thought this might not be such a good thing. But after thinking a bit and digesting my webcasts, it might not be so bad after all. I doubt the average user will even notice a difference. Anyway I think the OS is more important then the hardware and I'm sure that will continue to improve.

 

[3lusiv3]

I don't care what processor Apple uses. I use Macs because I like Mac OS X, I like the Apple hardware design and I like the OS & hardware integration. None of this changes by changing the processor. I'll be buying Intel macs. It's just a processor change so nothing else would be different. It doesn't mean anyone will be able to run Mac OS X on their generic PC hardware or run Windows on Mac Intel hardware. We'll just have Apple Macs running Mac OS X that happen to use Intel processors instead of IBM processors.

 

[Glassman]

Windows actually will run on Intel Macs, which is great! it will enable people using some windows-only software own a Mac and use MacOS X while still being able to run their Windows apps on the same mashine..

 

[IstariAsuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I like the Apple hardware design and I like the OS & hardware integration. None of this changes by changing the processor. It's just a processor change so nothing else would be different. We'll just have Apple Macs running Mac OS X that happen to use Intel processors instead of IBM processors.

Well, it actually is quite a large change, and has much further reacing effects than just the processor. For example, you now have a new processor, different RAM (DDR2), different chipsets, different FSB, different instruction set, different optimizations, different PCI devices, etc. It could affect hardware integration, quite easily. The question is "will it?" to any significant degree. That remains to be seen...

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IstariAsuka Well, it actually is quite a large change, and has much further reacing effects than just the processor. For example, you now have a new processor, different RAM (DDR2), different chipsets, different FSB, different instruction set, different optimizations, different PCI devices, etc. It could affect hardware integration, quite easily. The question is "will it?" to any significant degree. That remains to be seen...

Mac software/hardware integration is there because OS X only runs on Macs. That's not going to change (for the forseeable future). So "will it"?

No.

[size=xx-small]Someone somewhere will manage to install OS X on a Dell, probably. However the procedure for doing so will be so much of a pain that only a small percentage of highly computer literate people will be trying this.[/size]

 

[wallijonn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiddler Mac software/hardware integration is there because OS X only runs on Macs.

I would have said that is true from OS 6 to OS9. But now that OSX is layered on top of Unix I see no reason why it holds true any longer. That says to me that Linux OSX for Intels, or Unix OSX for Intels (much like BSD) should be easy to produce.

The big question is, does Apple want to open up their OS to non-Macs? In the case of Linux the problem is one of hardware support, some laptops don't always work correctly, some video cards are not supported in 3D, many non-Creative sound chips don't work all that well, if at all. So it would only necessitate Intel creating a mobo with standard hardware. All that would take would be propritary PCI connectors and presto... As we all know hyper-threading may be a bear to implement, just as it is only supported under WXP. Linux's SMP doesn't really do it, either. So all Intel has to do is create a chip just for Macs, like the Dolan M chip.

As for IBM not wanting to support it, I doubt that is the reason seeing as IBM pioneered their PPC chip and used it in some of their machines. It probably has more to do with IBM selling off all their PC hardware business to an overseas company. Maybe they're giving up on it in the same way Intel has given up on Itanium. Or maybe the Itanium chip will just be repackaged for Macs.

on a side note, my little iMac 233 can take 512MB of RAM. I tried it and it doesn't seem all that much faster than my 192MB. So just having 256MB may be enough for OSX and Ubuntu PPC.

 

[S_Dedalus]

The problem is vendor support. hardware and software companies aren't going to give drivers to the linux community, they will sell them to the mac community. There won't be any real limitations on mac hardware support, only artificial ones imposed by apple.

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-EJ915 No, it's the operating systems which viruses, trojans, etc. are written specifically for, it does not matter what hardware you're using.

Not quite true, since there are BIOS functions to perform most anything you would want to, depending of course, on just how compatible the hardware is. To know that I'd have to see a lot more detail...