Wow, this is huge news. They've been talking about this for years but it was always seen as probably just a negotiating ploy to get Motorola or IBM to give more favorable terms for their chips....but with MacOS X now, it's not going to be that difficult to switch, everything just needs to be recompiled.

That's not the best move I think. Let's face it, Intel technology currently sucks and Power PC is much better design with much more place for improvement than the Intel x86. But if they wanted to go with x86 architecture they should choose AMD, they have much better design and lower prices.

Originally posted by longbow
That's not the best move I think. Let's face it, Intel technology currently sucks and Power PC is much better design with much more place for improvement than the Intel x86. But if they wanted to go with x86 architecture they should choose AMD, they have much better design and lower prices.

If they designed their OS for the x86 platform it should run on Intel or AMD CPUs. The Apple brand computers may start out with Intel for their reliability but it may lead to the use of AMD CPUs in the future.
This move to the x86 platform may open the door to other manufacturers like Dell to offer MacOS on their systems.

Looks like Apple is falling into the Hardware DRM trap. I am so glad AMD is not going this rout.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
If they designed their OS for the x86 platform it should run on Intel or AMD CPUs. The Apple brand computers may start out with Intel for their reliability but it may lead to the use of AMD CPUs in the future.
This move to the x86 platform may open the door to other manufacturers like Dell to offer MacOS on their systems.

But still, the x86 technology is terrible, it's development potential is very limited today. They should all go with Power PC, Cell or something new.

How about go with something that doesn't have Hardware DRM embedded withing the chip

I never understood IBM's marketing strategy. In spite of having such good processors they always used pentiums in their Laptops.

I think IBM uses Power PC processors only in its servers. Any one knows the reason behind this. Not that it matters now, after the deal with Lenovo.

Eric Cartman " Screw you Guys, Im going to intel"

This is great. Hopefully this will give microsoft an incentive to be innovative in their future software.

Originally posted by Mr.E
This is great. Hopefully this will give microsoft an incentive to be innovative in their future software.

OH NO Please!!!! I need my job. Since I work in the network security buissness, Microsoft keeps a paycheck coming due to all the holes in their software. Take that away, and My job will no longer be needed!

Just out of curiosity why doesn't IBM or Sony start selling a Cell based PC??
I would love to have a cell processor in my PC.

Apple has never shown a propensity for taking the high "intellgent" road. They get something good going then manage, in spite of their best efforts to mess it up. Otherwise we wouldn't have been stuck with Windows as the business rule.

Originally posted by thecry
Just out of curiosity why doesn't IBM or Sony start selling a Cell based PC??
I would love to have a cell processor in my PC.

Back when Cell tech was being touted as the next big PS3 thing, I had read somthing about this. Apparently Sony is going to intigrate these Cell chips into EVERYTHING. They want them in your TV's, Microwaves,Cell Phones, and eventually in PC's. Cell tech will enable you to link every piece of electronics in your house.

As for the move to Intell, well it is the best thing Apple could have done for there profits. People who use Macs arnt called 1%'rs for nothing. Only 1% of the home computer market is Apple. Or somthing like that. It is a very small slice of the pie overall. This move to something more people are familliar with can only increase their popularity more. They run the risk of loosing the diehard apple lovers, but only if those diehards have another choice. This could also have another benifit for Apple. Maybe, just maybe they can lower their prices to something a little more affordable for everyone. I can build a dream rig for 2 grand. When it comes to Apple, 2 grand just gets you a solitair game.

This is a good move, and I'm Mac user for 20 years..or more.
The blame can be placed squarely on IBM and Motorola who have guaranteed chip shortages in the last ten years.

Whats the top of the line Pentium 4.x Gigahertz, whats the top of the line Mac: 2.x Gigahertz.
Doom III plays great on a three year old xbox, plays like crap on brand new G5 Macs.

This annoucement makes me glad I spent only $840 on a fully loaded Mac Mini (Bluetooth, airport, 80Gb hard drive, 512MB ram (need more!)) instead of opting for a $3,600 tower G5. Becoming obsolete will be that much less painless when I see $700 x86 Macs in two years.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Legalizer]

Originally posted by Legalizer
Whats the top of the line Pentium 4.x Gigahertz, whats the top of the line Mac: 2.x Gigahertz.

A typical brainwashing from Intel... Just because they have higher frequencies doesn't mean they are faster. Actually, the Intel makes the worst procesors today. Their only use is for heat production in cold days.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Legalizer
Whats the top of the line Pentium 4.x Gigahertz, whats the top of the line Mac: 2.x Gigahertz.

A typical brainwashing from Intel... Just because they have higher frequencies doesn't mean they are faster. Actually, the Intel makes the worst procesors today. Their only use is for heat production in cold days.

Must agree so far the 64bit Intels been total failures compared to AMD, Intel used to be the choice that gave you little higher price tag, but more stable PC, i mean now heat problems and overall quality, none of my old Pentium have yet broke, while same time ive seen many AMD's broke, but now tides have turned and far as ive seen AMD not only sell cheaper but isnt anyway below Intel homePC processors. Also what read Intel Itanium server side processors were failures as well, and same time when looking market shares show much larger piece of pie on Intels side compared to AMD, so they really need to start invest on their R&D.

Current cell processor figures are based on running multiple processes on theoretical scenario and shouldnt be let blind you, saying its 2 teraflops, you really need skilled coders to make it use all that 2 teraflops while it runs 7 simultanious processors with all their own purposes, so we have to still wait that to happen. And by that PC architechture has moved ahead as now trend is to get multiprocessor PC's and who knows how many processors we will see in future, so how long it does take to run pass Cell again? Sure Cell seem to have good price tag compared to what it promises, but theres always people who invest that 2000€ to PC.