Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel PowerBook Rumor Mill

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Portables (Apple) 362

catdriver writes "AppleInsider has an article guessing about Apple's new Intel portable offerings in early 2006. 'With the initiation of the Intel Power Mac project last month, all five of Apple's Intel Macintosh projects are now said to be underway and moving at an exhaustive, yet fruitful pace. It should come as no surprise that Apple chief executive Steve Jobs is reportedly leading the charge, with his heart set on making 2006 the next 1984.' With Mac OS X for x86 now catching up to its PPC sibling, is Apple ready to take the plunge?"

cancel ×

362 comments

Apple Intel Switch (4, Informative)

BWJones (18351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963113)

I am sure that there have been some issues, that I have written [utah.edu] about before, notably the porting of hand coded Altivec instruction sets to equivalent Intel specific instructions. However, the code bases between Intel and PPC have been pretty close to one another going back to the NeXTstep days. You do remember that NeXTstep ran on Intel, right? At any rate, the next step, no pun intended :-), should be interesting indeed. I am hoping for additional professional plans that Intel specific chips should allow, particularly at the subnotebook (or even Newton formfactor) level. I have been travelling more and even the 12in Powerbook, which has been the best laptop I've ever owned, is starting to be cumbersome.

Re:Apple Intel Switch (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963152)

i'm sure you read TFA, but maybe you missed the part where the the powerbook line will only have 15 and 17 inch models?

Re:Apple Intel Switch (1)

Desecrater82 (796374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963154)

I can't wait. I have been trying to decide to purchase a G4 Powerbook or wait for an intel. I think I am going to hold out.

Altivec (5, Informative)

0xC0FFEE (763100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963244)

"Altivec programs" really aren't coded against Altivec instructions directly. For example, for doing a vector add, you'd use vec_madd() which, if you have Altivec, maps to the vmaddfp altivec instruction. If you move to SSE, you'd probably code against the same vec_madd() but the compiler would generate the correct instruction for SSE. So, if you've followed Apple's instructions, conversion should be relatively easy. Furthermore, most people simply use Apple's higher level libraries (ie, vecLib, etc) that embeds most of what numerical people would need (like blas or lapack).

Most importantly, Altivec, while really fast, only support single precision computations. This is sufficient for improving multimedia playback, applying image filters on photos or compressing music, but lacking for high-precision computations. SSE supports double precision, a big improvement for the scientific market.

Re:Altivec (4, Informative)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963645)

That's very very dependant on your actual code. The gcc intrinsics mostly cover stuff that is also nicely optimized in Accelerate.framework: vector operations. But there are a few Altivec instructions which are impossible to map to SSE, yet they are widely used (IIRC, shifting by a variable amount is one of them). If you heavily depended on such instructions, you're basically SOL.

And Altivec is really fast. Keep in mind that OSX86 still uses the brain-damaged 32-bit mode, so the algorithms will be totally register-starved. That may be less relevant if you've designed for the architecture in the first place, but porting specialized assembly from an architecture with, what, >64 registers (r0-r31, f0-f31, plus Altivec), to one with 8 sounds like pure hell to me. Good thing I always used the frameworks (actually I just figured that Apple would be better at optimizing than me :-) ).

Re:Apple Intel Switch (4, Funny)

mattkime (8466) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963479)

>>I have been travelling more and even the 12in Powerbook, which has been the best laptop I've ever owned, is starting to be cumbersome.

You must be a true geek...most people get STRONGER as they lug something around.

Re:Apple Intel Switch (1)

yppiz (574466) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963587)

One of the things that keeps me from going with the Powerbook is the lack of a very small notebook in the lineup. Apple at one point did have an ultraportable (for its time) -- the Powerbook 2400 [lowendmac.com] . I wish they had something like this now. I don't mean something that's the same size, I mean a notebook that fills the same spot -- just big enough to be usable, small enough that I don't mind carrying it everywhere.

I'm currently using the Fujitsu P7010D, an ultraportable with very good battery life. If Mac OS X ran on this system, I would switch.

--Pat

Re:Apple Intel Switch (1)

be_kul (718053) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963493)

I'missing any hints on a possible new LED-driven display technique like in the Toshiba Libretto U100 and the Sony Vaio TX. THAT would be great - having an 12'' PowerBook running for 7-8 hours, with a higher screen resolution ... of course, for 15'' and 17'' this would make sense, too.
be_kul

Re:Apple Intel Switch (1)

EntropyEngine (890880) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963527)

So are Apple just going to walk away from Altivec?

A lot of the stuff I read tells me that Intel don't have anything anywhere near as good as Altivec.

Let's face it, Apple have pinned quite a lot the Velocity Engine and most if not all of their Pro applications make extensive use of it.

Given that Apple are part of the PowerPC triumvirate, I would have thought that Apple might have taken Altivec to Intel as a possible sweetener for the deal.

But I'm not up on the technical aspects of how Intel might achieve that and keep Altivec for Apple and Apple alone...

1984? (4, Funny)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963116)

with his heart set on making 2006 the next 1984.'

Hmm, I wonder what Orwell would think about that.

Re:1984? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963129)

What they meant was that 2006 will be like 1984 but won't be like 1984.

Re:1984? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963164)

with his heart set on making 2006 the next 1984.'

Hmm, I wonder what Orwell would think about that.


Taken out of context I wonder whether that sounds like Homeland security and MPAA/RIAA being over zealous? ;)

It's a reference to the Mac commercial. (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963174)

You know, the girl with the sledgehammer breaking that giant screen with Big Brother in it. (I wonder if they'll make a similar commercial now. Hmmmm.... )

It's a reference to the classic book. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963263)

You know, Big Brother, Emmanuel Goldstein, Oceania, etc.

Re:It's a reference to the Mac commercial. (5, Funny)

MooseByte (751829) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963487)


"You know, the girl with the sledgehammer breaking that giant screen with Big Brother in it.

Only this time around the girl is the stoner chick [ellenfeiss.net] from the Switch campaign.

She wanders into the room looking dazed, sees the giant talking face on the screen, then cocks her head like a confused cocker spaniel while trying to use her iPod as a remote to change the channel.

Eventually she wanders out a side exit.

Re:1984? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963267)

He would learn about trusted computing [trustedcom...ggroup.org] and the trend towards pervasive computing [wikipedia.org] , make the connection, and regret he hadn't patented Big Brother.

BTW, some say TCPA was indeed a factor in the Apple switch to Intel.

Re:1984? (2, Funny)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963368)

This is funny? who mods this stuff? The analogy they are mis-useing in the sysnopis is to the apple ad of 1984 that launched the Macintosh, which reference the book. SO besides the fact that apple is not even hyping it like the 1984 Mac launch ad, has made no references to that launch or ad. Who writes these synopsis? What's worse then a fanboy? The hater.

Re:1984? (4, Funny)

3770 (560838) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963576)

Hmm, I wonder what Orwell would think about that.

My guess is "double plus good"!

Yes... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963123)

but will it run linux?

As long as it's faster than my P-P-P-Powerbook (2, Funny)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963143)

http://www.zug.com/pranks/powerbook/ [zug.com]
I've been considering a laptop as my next upgrade, since it will use less power, have wireless built in, and be quieter than my desktop with 3 hard drives in it. It will work better as my entertainment center, if it has a TV capture device in it. And I need to upgrade my P-P-P-Powerbook anyway, the screen is cracked.

Re:As long as it's faster than my P-P-P-Powerbook (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963253)

Why do you currently have 3 drives in your PC?

Maybe It'll be better to have 3 drives in a box than one huge (and usually slower) laptop drive.

If noise is an issue, consider buying some pcpowercooling fans.
www.pcpowercooling.com

IMHO I wouldn't give up the desktop, no laptop will ever have 3 HDs and 2 optical drives, plus its always in the same spot

Re:As long as it's faster than my P-P-P-Powerbook (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963317)

The 3 drives came about as a bit of poor planning. I was intending to set up RAID, using two identical 80GB drives, but found out too late that one drive has to be SATA for my RAID to work, and both are IDE. And then the Ghost I had wouldn't copy my system from my 40GB drive to an 80GB properly, so I ended up leaving the 40 in there too. So I have 200GB of HD, on 3 drives, which is ok for backup as long as I don't get nailed by a virus, power surge [I have a UPS] or fire.

Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (3, Insightful)

pv2b (231846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963146)

So what does this article say really? Apple's Intel based laptops "may" come out in April-May next year? Yawn.

It's not even a wild-ass guess that may become true, nor rampant speculation on something unlikely and unannounced. We all know Intel Powerbooks are coming, just not precisely when. This is just another educated guess within that timeframe.

Wake me when they have something substantive. Though by the time they have anything substantive, it'll be just a few days before the release or at the release anyway.

MOD PARENT DOWN (5, Funny)

pv2b (231846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963232)

Insightful?! Wtf! How about bleeding-frigging-obvious. Don't waste your mod points on this crap I wrote.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (OT) (1)

fohat (168135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963283)

Um, you do realize that you said you didn't want mods to waste their points, and yet you call for your own post to be modded down, therefore wasting the mods points. I thought your post was perfectly fine meself ;)

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (OT) (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963401)

Drat, you meddling cad! You uncovered my dastardly plot you did. ;-)

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (OT) (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963676)

hell, if i had mod points, i would mod up your 'mod parent down' post. so there, ha-ha!

Thank you, Paul Harvey ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963340)

for the 'rest' of the story ....

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (1)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963558)

If I hadn't just run out of mod points I would have modded this comment up just for the humor.

Re:Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963277)

Wake me when they have something substantive. Though by the time they have anything substantive, it'll be just a few days before the release or at the release anyway.

I believe you answered your own question there cap'n. Welcome aboard the USSFn Troll.

If you want hard data, perhaps you would be more comfortable at oldcomputers.net (or .com choice is wonderful!) instead of a weblog that caters to people who are excited about emerging technology.

For those of us who care, the article serves to indicate that the transition is going much better than expected.

Re:Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963436)

I believe you answered your own question there cap'n. Welcome aboard the USSFn Troll.


If you knew or suspected I was trolling, why did you bite?

Of course, you're a troll yourself, but I just felt I had to respond to a detail in your post. "Welcome aboard the USSFn Troll." More specifically "USSFn".

Due to your unintentional bright shining ray of inspirons [dell.com] (inspirational particles), I just found a nice way to refer to the Fn key on laptop keyboards. Call it the "Friggin key". That's nice and pronouncable isn't it.

Thank you for boosing my incredibly jocular [slashdot.org] complexion today.

(Ftw: All spelling mistakes in this post are intenational.)

Re:Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963552)

You are welcome.

Re:Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963411)

This is just another educated guess within that timeframe.

And you expected something else from a post entitled "Intel Powerbook Rumor Mill"?

Not to self, whine about speculation in a rumor mill thread and you will recieve +5 insightful. It doesn't make any sense, but that's the way it is.

Re:Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963483)

Not to self, whine about speculation in a rumor mill thread and you will recieve +5 insightful. It doesn't make any sense, but that's the way it is.


I'm as surprised as you are. [slashdot.org]

Re:Yawn - more unsubstantiated speculation (4, Funny)

bradbeattie (908320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963673)

Tell me about it. Next thing you know, people will be spreading rumours about some kind of video iPod. Pfft. Lunatics.

So THAT'S the reason? (0, Redundant)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963159)

Could this possibly be the reason that we have no G5 Powerbooks yet?

Re:So THAT'S the reason? (1, Funny)

pv2b (231846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963175)

No shit, Spotlight.

Re:So THAT'S the reason? (3, Informative)

lababidi (879163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963191)

No, wrong logic. The fact that IBM could not pump out enough PPCs and could not keep down the G5 power consumption (getting too hot) was what prompted Jobs to switch to intel.

Re:So THAT'S the reason? (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963214)

No, the reason there are no G5 Powerbooks is that the mobile G5s came out too late and are too slow. Keep in mind that any G5 based laptop computer would max out at nearly 1GHz slower than the fastest Pentium-M and Turion 64 laptops, yet have similar IPC.

"exhaustive, yet fruitful pace" (0, Flamebait)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963160)

What does that mean? Contrary to popular belief, good writing doesn't just require you to sprinkle adjectives liberally through your writing. They have to mean something too.

Re:"exhaustive, yet fruitful pace" (2, Funny)

jftitan (736933) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963262)

I think it means...

"We're tired, but guess what... I got Quake3 to run at 120fps"

More than a month (0, Redundant)

neuro.slug (628600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963188)

IIRC, Apple's been working on Macintels and OS X86 for years now. They just managed to keep it really, really quiet.

Apple wants to use the dual-core "Yonah", not... (5, Informative)

Harry Balls (799916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963190)

...the current "Pentium M Dothan".
Yonah is scheduled to arrive in January 2006, and will be followed in Q3/2006 by "Merom".
Most "Yonah" models are dual core, but a low-end model with only one core will be available. Apple will most likely opt to use the dual core "Yonah".

Merom will add 64 bits - yes, Yonah is 32 bits only.

A fatal exception 0D has occoured.. Error parsing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963271)

My CPU asplode.

Re:Apple wants to use the dual-core "Yonah", not.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963535)

This was exactly my thought. Add in the fact that Yonah will support SSE3 (Rosetta anyone ?), and the odds are pretty good to see one of these babies inside the PowerMacs.

Should anyone be surprised? (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963195)

"With OS X86 10.4.3 now catching up to its PPC sibling, is Apple ready to take the plunge?"

It has been speculated in many places that one of the main reasons Intel was chosen over AMD was mobile CPUs. Notebooks is one area where Apple is far behind PCs in terms of perceived performance. While servers and desktops have received new generations of PowerPC chips, the notebooks still use G4s. Although they've been updated, they're still G4s. It would stand to reason that this would be a main area of focus for Steve Jobs and Apple once the change had been made.

Re:Should anyone be surprised? (4, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963533)

Not to mention supply problems. Its one thing to go on newegg and order the latest and greatest AMD CPU. It's another thing entirely to use over a million per quarter. I just don't think AMD has the production capacity to keep Apple as well as it's current customers happy. Intel has much more production capacity than AMD does right now...

could backfire (3, Interesting)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963205)

I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it. I odn't believe I'm alone with that opinion either.

First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.

I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.

Re:could backfire (1)

Hackeron (704093) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963279)

>> I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it.

Go ahead! -- Beginner friendly Linux for Mac [yellowdoglinux.com]

Re:could backfire (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963287)

I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it.

Blasphemer!...

Ok, sort of kidding, but also wondering if you've really given it a chance. Beyond that, you know... hey, whatever floats your boat.

First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.

I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.

Somehow I doubt Apple is too worried about this. They're not trying to compete with Microsoft. I think Apple's business model is already aimed more at being a premium hardware supplier, competing with Dell, than being an OS vendor.

The scarier prospect for them is probably the threat of people hacking OSX to work on their Dells. OSX availability is typically one of the big selling points for Apple hardware.

Re:could backfire (1)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963295)

Yes, but included in the price of that laptop is the cost of OSX already. While Apple's upgrade revenue may be hit, they could even take care of that my moving to a subscription model for OS upgrades that is tied to the extended hardware warranty. If you want Applecare, you will also be paying for the OS upgrades for the warranty period, and warranty service will only be provided to systems with OSX on them. Such tying would not trip government watchdogs for two reasons: Apple's market share is too low for them to be considered a monopoly, and the current administration has replaced the watchdogs with lapdogs anyway.

I don't understand (5, Insightful)

jtdubs (61885) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963309)

So, we have a few groups of people here:

1. Current OS X users.

They will almost invariable switch to the new Intel-based macs. I would say that most of them don't even know or care what chipset they are running on.

2. New OS X users.

These are people who will now be enticed to switch, because of the Intel move, that otherwise wouldn't have been. Perhaps they were waiting for the extra performance that Apple can offer in a laptop now that they have Intel processors. Perhaps they like that they can recompile their x86 specific programs on Macs now. (Yay! SBCL w/ Threading on OS X!? Dare I dream!?!?)

3. New Mac Hardware users (but not OS X)

This is the group you seem to be in. You want the Mac hardware, but don't care for the OS. I can't say I agree with you, but that's beside the point.

So, Apple will have all the people they have now (group 1), some new folks (group 2) and some additional hardware sales to people who are going to install Linux or Windows or BSD or something on the box (group 3).

Do you seiously believe that group 3 is big enough compared to the combined sizes of groups 1 and 2 that it will do anything other than add more to Apple's bottom-line? You aren't going to affect Apple's image unless group 3 is BIG or astonishingly well publisized.

Besides, even if group 3 were very large, we are talking about people who are buying the Hardware for the Hardware's sake. Because it's high-quality, attractive hardware. This could NEVER put them into direct competition with Dell. Dell is all about volumes. High volumes at low prices. Apple is EXACTLY the opposite. If Apple were buying the cheapest parts at the highest volumes to crank out machines as quickly and cheaply as possible, then group 3 wouldn't exist.

Well, those are my thoughts. You know the drill. Grain of sand and what-not.

Justin Dubs

Re:I don't understand (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963410)

So, Apple will have all the people they have now (group 1), some new folks (group 2) and some additional hardware sales to people who are going to install Linux or Windows or BSD or something on the box (group 3).

There's also group 4: people who have already installed Linux or BSD to their Macs. The additional hardware sales from switching to x86 will only come from the small number of individuals who want Apple hardware and want to run Windows without running Virtual PC (and that's assuming x86 Macs are supported by Microsoft). Anyone who wants Apple hardware and Linux have had that freedom for an awfully long time now.

Re:I don't understand (1)

ipjohnson (580042) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963664)

I'd say 95% of those people are running old hardware that doesn't support OSX well. I think you're over estimating the size of the group of people that buy a Mac and then dump OSX for linux or BSD.

I mean seriously how many people are going to dump OSX for a less supported linux or BSD. If you don't like aqua run it in just X mode (personally I like running them side by side). I just see no point in switching.

This is coming from someone who really likes linux but owns 2 Macs.

Why on Earth would you want to do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963335)

It'll be short order until WINE runs in OSx86, natively. VMWare will probably be easy enough to port over, too. Your Linux apps will run natively, pretty much just like they do NOW if you're interested in that aspect, and it's easy enough to run an X11 VM over OSX NOW. All of the Unixy chewy caramel center you can want, the polished Apple(tm) milk chocolate coating on the outside that makes it look shiny, AND it's obtainable at WallMart, just like Winders and Milk Duds!

That's a triple play, buddy.

Re:could backfire (bwa ha ha ha ha) (2, Insightful)

inchhigh (730252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963357)

I really don't think there are many who are considering buying a mac just to install windows or linux on it. Anyway if it were linux that you want on your mac, it's already readily available, in a number of distros.

And your argument that this will "move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier." Doesn't really make much sense either, because if apple does manage to gain mindshare as a premium hardware vendor, they would happily go up against Dell, as apple has much better profit margins than dell. (Remember, your argument is people already are ok with spending more for apple hardware... why would that change if over time if the mindshare that they are a premium hardware maker is growing?)

Anyway in this day of many cheap linux boxen replacing 1 expensive Sun or any of the older 'premium hardware' vendors, I don't think apple really expects to be increasing it's profit margins on the computer hardware side, the handwriting is on the wall, profit margins for computers will continue to slide. By switching to intel they will gain some economy of scale, but more importantly, if and when the profit margins on computer hardware become too slim, Apple will will already have the safety net option of just licensing OS X to Dell or HP to build boxes for them, or they could just release OS X as software only and sell it to anyone with the right x86 box.

This move to intel could hurt apple for a number of reasons, but not because people might buy the hardware to install something besides OS X on it.

Re:could backfire - but it probably won't (3, Insightful)

motulist (901974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963364)

There is a flaw in that logic as far as I can see. People who are going to buy Apple hardware just to run another OS on it are going to be in addition to the people who are are going to buy it just for the OS, not instead of. It doesn't really matter why you buy a Mac, it only matters that you buy a Mac. That way the company will say "we'll keep doing what we're doing with the OS and the other people will still buy our products anyway." Also, I think there will only be a small number of people who will do this as most people are not geeks like us. Also, there will be a percent of that number who will buy a Mac thinking they will probably buy it just to replace the Mac OS but then use it for a little while and decide to stick with it. Overall I can only see the move to x86 growing the Mac OS mindshare, not reducing it. The only real way I can see the move reducing the Mac OS mindshare is if programmers say to themselves "both mac and windows users can now run our program as as a windows only program since Mac users will be able to dual boot or run windows programs natively some other way now, so we are no longer going to release our programs for Mac." But I doubt that will happen either.

no, they just won't offer supp (4, Insightful)

intmainvoid (109559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963365)

The problem with that scenario is that Apple won't offer support for Windows on Macs, or Linux on Macs. So that rules out any users who might want support, e.g. business and educational institutions. I can't see many normal home users either forking out for a mac, then forking out again for a copy of windows XP, downloading drivers if needed etc. It might be 1% of users (i.e. you if you're reading this) who have got the time and interest for that. And are you really going to go to all that trouble to install windows???

Don't forget as well, that virtual PC will truely *fly* under OS X on intel - it takes away most of the requirements for emulation, so if you need windows stuff, that'll be the way to do it, it won't suck performance wise like it does now.

Re:could backfire (1)

sockonafish (228678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963435)

You can't love Apple hardware that much if you think they're still making PowerBooks out of Titanium.

Re:could backfire (5, Insightful)

iamnotanumber6 (755703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963456)

very good points, but i disagree with the "backfire & hurt OSX" conclusion.

I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it. I odn't believe I'm alone with that opinion either.

First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.

I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.


apple has a much much better chance at competing with dell and gaining market share than they do against microsoft. selling hardware to windows users is a damned good business plan for apple - can you say iPod? profits from OS X are minimal, they give it away with their machines. so, suddenly that other, oh, 95% of computer users are potential apple hardware customers. windows users will switch hardware vendors (eg. dell to hp to apple) at the drop of a hat. but switching operating systems, even if it costs nothing, is a huge investment of one's time in relearning everything and repurchasing applications. so among committed windows users (eg. 80% or more of all computer users), "mindshare for apple" is already zero. this will change that. dramatically.

now, literally millions of windows users will pick up apple powerbooks and imacs because the hardware is so #%#$%#$% awesome. at the same time, that gives them free access to OS X, while not forcing them to use it. so that massively opens up the potential market for (higher-margin) apple software products like FinalCut, DVD Studio Pro, etc., which are really top-of-the-line in their class.

remember in the 90's, apple headed down that road of trying to compete with microsoft, licencing clone manufacturers of apple hardware. it was suicidal. jobs is smarter than that. look for apple to triple their hardware sales (where they make most of their profit) in the next few years...

Fire (0)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963492)

I'm sure that Apple would love nothing more than to have Windows, OS X, and Linux running side by side on their hardware. I'd be willing to bet that just like Virtual PC is sold, Apple will bundle Windows with the machines and their OS. Pre-loaded and ready to roll... Supporting Yellow Dog would be nice too.

The first taste is free.

Re:could backfire (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963497)

I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.

I really doubt it. Most people aren't going to want to pay the premium for Apple hardware just to run Windows and/or Linux. Sure, there will be a few, but not many - especially when the Dell is going to cost hundreds less and come with Windows pre-installed. If anything Apple may hurt sales of more premium brands like the Thinkpad, since Thinkpads already cost more than Dells, Toshibas, and Compaqs. But even then, the Thinkpad is probably still going to be the better deal for someone not interested in OSX (and besides, Thinkpads are a much better looking computer IMHO).

Re:could backfire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963593)

That's funny, I'm selling my Athlon XP 2800+ with 512mb ddrram, geforce 6600GT 128mb and terratec 24/96 pro soundcard for approximately 500 USD just so that I will be able to afford a Mac Mini.

I do this because I want OSX, even though I sacrafice alot of performance.
The rotten graphics chipset on the Mac Mini (32mb radeon 9200) is awful and is most certainly the bottleneck in the system, yet I plan to use it to develop a FPS game using the now GPL'd Quake 3 engine.

The chipset doesn't even support GLSL.

Re:could backfire (1)

localman (111171) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963618)

I personally don't like OSX

Care to give a brief explanation as to why? Lots of people don't like Apple, or bemoan the lack of certain bits of software, but I don't think I've ever spoken to anyone who didn't like OSX itself.

Cheers.

Re:could backfire (1)

deared (928960) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963669)

Many persons here do not think that anyone will purchase an Apple box to put Windows or Linux on, but that is precisely what I intend to do. I will purchase an Apple Intel based notebook and immediately install both Windows and Linux. I have heard good things about OS X but cannot afford to learn a new OS and be unproductive for any extended period of time. By using Windows or Linux on the notebook when I need to be productive and learning to be proficient in OS X when I don't I will have the best of both worlds. And like an earlier poster mentioned I would love to have the option of moving to Final Cut Pro some day. P.S. I also love Apple's hardware, but have not used OS X so have not yet been able to form an opinion on it one way or the other.

Acquisition plans on hold... (2, Interesting)

DrTime (838124) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963225)

I've no plans to buy PC or Mac hardware until I see the value proposition Apple offers in its future products. I am all Mac PowerPC now, but I keep eyeing those cheap Wintel boxes (today it is $299.00 after mail in rebate for an HP with 15" LCD). Hard to resist a bargain.

I don't need new hardware, but if the Mactels allow me to run PC application via Wine or some other software, I'll go for it real fast.

What I would really like to is have one drive boot into MacOS and another with an alternative OS. I would like the Apple computer to boot any PC OS. I don't care if Mac OS X never boots on standard PC hardware.

Mostly I am just curios as to how Apple will engineer these machines.

Change is good.

Re:Acquisition plans on hold... (1)

be_kul (718053) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963408)

299 - ever when people point to those low prices comparing them with Apple's, I ask them: "What is your life-time worth? If you agree that a lost day (of work or full with horror/anger about your Windows not working or problems with hardware not supportet anymore after 1 year or so..) is at least worth $10, Apple's are far more worth the price. - And if you also count usability and security into that - at a price level as low as you can imagine - buying an Apple instead of a Wintel machine is always like a win in a lottery." No, I'm not completely joking!

Booting two OS? - No problem with a PowerPC Linux and "Mac On Linux" on it: OSX 10.3 parallel with Yellow Dog 4 is running very fast* and without major problems. The only problem is lacking hardware support especially for WLAN - but that is (as in all over cases with Linux) the manufacturer's fault who don't develop drivers.

If you can live with a 'normal' dual-boot on PowerPC, there is a bunch of free/OSS operating systems running on Macs.

be_kul

*I never tried to run Virtual PC inside an OSX running on Mac-on-Linux, but it should be possible and not remarkable slower than in "native" OSX - which is, indeed, at maximum a few percent (10 or so?) running in MoL than native.

Re:Acquisition plans on hold... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963672)

I don't need new hardware, but if the Mactels allow me to run PC application via Wine or some other software, I'll go for it real fast.
Exactly. I'm really looking forward to getting a Mac that's capable of running Windows-only games like Half-Life (via Wine or otherwise).

Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (0, Troll)

max born (739948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963243)

sources familiar with Apple's Macintosh hardware roadmap say the company is striving to unveil a completely redesigned set of Intel iBook laptops ...

Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.

I've often heard it said that Apple has priced itself out of the market. If they want a bigger market share they'll need to take advantage of cheaper prices that come through competition. My guess is that if Apple is allowing only specific hardware to run their OS it'll envitably be more expensive.

I could be completely wrong.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (2, Informative)

treerex (743007) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963302)

Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.

Because they then control the drivers and save themselves from the driver compatibility hell that Microsoft has been going through for years. One crappy driver reduces the "experience of Macintosh," and that is not something Jobs would want to do.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963427)

Except we're talking about laptops, and not many people I know add internal hardware to their laptops. The vendor is unlikely to sell a laptop that doesn't "just work".

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (1)

treerex (743007) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963460)

Point taken. Nevertheless Jobs will want to keep control of the total experience, which he can't do on Dell's crappy laptops. You still end up having to maintain drivers and compatibility across mutliple vendors and what not, and it just isn't worth it.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963315)

Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.

Because they're largely a hardware company? I mean, why does Dell still want control over their hardware? Why don't they just package their Dell restore CD to work on other vendor's machines? It'll be cheaper, right?

Only cheaper != more profit. In order to sell their OS as their primary business, they'd need to make it support an ungodly number of weird hardware configurations, and probably raise the price of OSX a whole lot just to stay profitable. Plus, then they'd need to worry much more about piracy. When you're a hardware company, you don't need to worry too much about people downloading your product.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963327)

"If they want a bigger market share..."

That's the thing, they don't want a bigger market share. They want to be profitable, and they are.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (5, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963381)

1) Where is the profit in letting vendors sell Intel machines with Mac OS X?
Right now for a $1k system they might get $100 profit. If they license OS X for $30, they might get $20 profit (being optimistic here). So if they sold $1.6b Macs last quarter, and have 10% margins (they actually have reported 9.6%), they made $160m; if they license overnight, they'll have to sell 80m copies to make the same amount of profit. Only 177m PCs were shipped last year, so they'd have to take HUGE chunks of the market in order to make a transition profitable.
News [com.com] article about shipment last year.

So it's not good enough that shipping OS X for Intel is cheaper; it has to be profitable. Microsoft is profitable because they got $30 or so for every PC shipped last year, or $5b in OS licenses last year.

2) Why do they want a bigger share? They only need to make more money, and that doesn't necessarily equate to bigger share. As I outlined about, $100 per PC vs $20 per PC requires an overnight 5x increase in shipment.

If Apple wants to lower prices, they still have lots of things they can do:
a) strip out components: Compare a Mac mini to an XBox 360 or PS3
b) use cheaper components
c) increase process efficiencies

None of those things have anything to do with adopting OS X for Intel en masse.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963490)

1) Where is the profit in letting vendors sell Intel machines with Mac OS X? ... Right now for a $1k system they might get $100 profit

Yes, but when the price of a 'premium' computer falls to $500 (and it will soon), then they are looking at a $50 profit, then a $30 profit, etc etc. [I remember the days when Apple cleared $1000 profit on each Mac sold.]

If they license OS X for $30, they might get $20 profit

And they might sell two OS upgrades for $100 profit each, plus iLife upgrades, plus a higher potential in iPod and other "digital lifestyle" sales.

I think your numbers make sense now, but within a year or two I could easily see software overtaking hardware as the profit center for Apple, and that means they'll probably start licencing the OS in a limited fashion.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (2, Insightful)

nursegirl (914509) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963415)

Apple has consistently positioned itself as a "boutique" computer manufacturer rather than a low-end manufacturer. It has always been graphic designers, digital sound/video editors, and technology aficionados that have bought Macs. Steve Jobs has no real interest in that changing, although he has touched on the mid-range market with the mini. Dell sells a lot of cheap computers with a small profit margin on each (focus on quantity for profitability). Apple sells fewer high end computers, with a high profit margin on each. I really don't think of them as competing for many of the same people.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (4, Informative)

zwilliams07 (840650) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963416)

> Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.

1. Because Apple is a Hardware and Software Business, unlike Microsoft. 80% of Apple's profits come from their hardware.
2. Increased development and debugging time to try and make it run on a vast selection of hardware which in turns makes it buggier, slower, and more driver failure prone.
3. Apple doesn't like the idea of Mac OS X, which is beautiful, running on ugly ass hardware.
4. Apple doesn't want to have to try and support everything under the sun, which is what Microsoft tries to do, but often never goes well.
5. Apple doesn't have any form of anti-piracy software in any of their current builds of the consumer level OS. Only the Server editions get that.
6. People would pirate OS X and take a huge chunk out of that measily 20% of their profit intake, take into consideration that already 80% of their profits would be gone, because of supporting other computers.

> I've often heard it said that Apple has priced itself out of the market. If they want a bigger market share they'll need to take advantage of cheaper prices that come through competition. My guess is that if Apple is allowing only specific hardware to run their OS it'll envitably be more expensive.

And those people that say such stuff are about as bright as a lightbulb in a closed fridge. Steve has repeatly said they have no interest in garnering a huge marketshare. They are happy with what they want. Take into consideration what would happen if all of a sudden they had a huge marketshare.

1. Suddenly troubleshooting and technical help services would have to multiply in their size exponentially to keep up with the market mass.
2. Suddenly they'd have to start supporting every piece of hardware under the sun that Windows does, because customers will whine.
3. Suddenly the OS will have a lot more attention from the cracker community, yeah cracker, not hacker. While OS X and all *nix systems are far superior in their security model than Windows, its still not crackproof.
I'd also like to point out if you looked at any of Sony, VoodooPC, Alienware, or other vendors... outside of that discount bargin crap stuff like Dell. You'll see that Apple's hardware is more than reasonable pricing.

I doubt that prices will rise. One of the biggest reasons Apple went with Intel is because Intel is the 800lb gorilla of the market. They can give HUGE discounts on their CPUs that AMD and IBM/MOTOROLA/FREESCALE just can't match. Not because of some "performance lead on the competition." Anyone that can put 1 and 1 together knows AMD clobbers Intel in the gaming, 64-bit, server, and price market.

Right now there is virtually no difference in hardware between OS X and the average run of the mill PC. Outside of the processor and motherboard, which will soon not be there at all. I'm pretty confident that the prices will either stay at their current level or drop down a bit.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963570)

3. Apple doesn't like the idea of Mac OS X, which is beautiful, running on ugly ass hardware.

I always laugh at people who say things like this. Apple is out to make money, and they have been successful in carving out a niche market where they sell an OS tied to their hardware, so that's the way it's going to continue. But if tomorrow the winds changed and it would be more profitable to license their OS to other vendors, they would do it. Just like how they switched from PPC to x86.

Besides, if they didn't want their OS running on "ugly ass" hardware, how do you explain the eMac?

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963638)

1. Because Apple is a Hardware and Software Business, unlike Microsoft. 80% of Apple's profits come from their hardware.

6. People would pirate OS X and take a huge chunk out of that measily 20% of their profit intake, take into consideration that already 80% of their profits would be gone, because of supporting other computers.


Did you just make those percentages up? Specifically the first one? If not do you have a source?

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (3, Informative)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963423)

Why does Apple still want to control the hardware?

Off the top of my head: One, because they make a good profit on the hardware. Two, because the limited hardware choices simplify OS development, and allow them to make the overall package more reliable.

I've often heard it said that Apple has priced itself out of the market.

This is business, not sports. Just because you're not the top dog doesn't mean you "lost the game". Apple is a niche company in the PC market, and they seem pretty comfortable in that position. 3% marketshare (or whatever it is) doesn't sound like much, but don't forget, it's 3% of a very large number. Apple has been making shitloads of money for the last five years, and will continue to do so in the near future.

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (3, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963496)

> Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows?
Probably, but how much time can I save by using a Mac instead, and how much is that time worth?

Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows? (1)

lelkes (884952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963580)

Apple is a hardware vendor. Apple only makes OS X because it makes easier to sell Apple hardware.

Trickle Down Bea$t-nomics (0)

lotusleaf (928941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963254)

"is Apple ready to take the plunge?"

The plunge into selling Wintendo products on Apple x86? Oh yay! While a lot of propeller heads may rejoice, it's still not FOSS/Linux, in fact the timing may be perfect to benefit both Apple/Microsoft all at once in countering Linux on the desktop for the masses. Of course, the claws come out when mentioning this and while I'm not naming names, forced to compete with free, corporations will band together to ride out the storm of competition.

Well of course (2, Insightful)

intmainvoid (109559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963270)

The Intel Powerbooks [macpredict.com] have to be first, they've gone from being top of the line to average, performance wise, relative to PCs, though their design and build quality is still the best. eg. my C laptop has had a high res screen for well over two years, and Apple has only just caught up on that.

It's the flagship line for Apple, the most visible (non iPod) member of it's product range, and is probably the driver for most iBook sales as well (for the people who can't afford the real thing). So of course it'll be the first to go Intel. iBooks follow, naturally. Powermacs and xServes will be last - Pro users have a much bigger investment in software and peripherials so will be slower to move anyway. And the mini? Probably somewhere inbetween, and not far behind the iBooks.

It's so obvious when you put it like that (2, Insightful)

stewby18 (594952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963510)

The Intel Powerbooks have to be first [...] Powermacs and xServes will be last - Pro users have a much bigger investment in software and peripherials so will be slower to move anyway.

So, pro users will be slowest to move, and thus the last targeted for transition, and the first thing to change will be the PowerBooks, which are targeted at pro users? Your logic has some internal consistency issues.

The next 1984? Not quite. (2, Insightful)

frenchgates (531731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963313)

Breathless journalists are always demaning another "1984" from Apple. Well I've got news for you: there won't be any more 1984a in the computer industry. it's too mature And especially not this. Apple changes the guts (to Intel) in a way that has no actual effect on the user interface and this is supposed to be like 1984 how? Idiot.

WHO SAID Another 1984????? (4, Funny)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963321)

I have NEVER seen that kind of emphasis put on this transition. Way more emphasis was placed on the 68k to PPC transition and the OS 9 to OS X transition. I don't recall reading anywhere that this transition would be the evolutionary step the synopsis makes it out to be.

Ready to take the plunge? (2, Insightful)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963383)

Not sure where the "Is Apple ready to take the plunge?" tag came from. Of *course* Apple is ready to take the plunge. They've already announced the switch to x86 processors, and they even gave a specific time frame (2006). It's not like there's any real question here.

No more 12"? (3, Informative)

intmainvoid (109559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963386)

Looks like the 12 inch Powerbook is disappearing from the lineup as well (and the 12" ibook is set to become a 13"). It hasn't had a proper update in ages, so the writing's on the wall, but it's a shame, and leaves Apple without a mini-notebook style product. Unless they've got something under wraps...

Re:No more 12"? (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963485)

"...leaves Apple without a mini-notebook style product" apart from the 13" ibook you mean?

Re:No more 12"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963665)

There's always been an overlap between the 12" Powerbook and 12" iBook, and Apple has removed features from the iBook to artificially maintain that distinction (eg no dual-video support in the iBook, and no SuperDrive).

What I expect them to do this time is to release a substantially different "pro" subnotebook - something substantially thinner and lighter than anything they've offered before - no optical drive, and storage technology borrowed from the iPod (presumably a hard drive now, maybe flash in future generations). Call it the "PowerBook Nano".

What about applications? (3, Insightful)

kitzilla (266382) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963469)

Apple getting its new laptops in the field early is less meaningful if Adobe and Microsoft aren't ready.

In particular, there's no point getting pro-level Mactels into the wild unless Office and Creative Suite are ready to go Intel-native. Maybe MS and Adobe have quietly moved into high gear on the conversion. But last I read, Adobe was thinking late 2006 to get its Carbon-based apps ready for market.

No pro user will rely on Rosetta. On the other hand, one would assume Apple with have its iWork and iLife suites flipped, along with the applications which come with OS X. That will allow home users to make the switch in fairly short order. I'm sure the rumored widescreen iBooks will sell well right out of the box.

But a Mactel Powerbook makes no sense without pro applications. If Apple is really pushing advance release, they must have convinced their major software partners to get a move on.

Re:What about applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963598)

There is absolutely no reason not to rely on Rosetta for Microsoft Office. It runs fine. As for Adobe, they better get their butt in gear before Apple comes out with a Pro tool that kills their whole company. In the mean time, Pro users can console themselves with a Quad G5 for their Photoshop jobs.

Granny Smith Applez is teh l33t! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13963544)

OMFGWTF!!!??? Applz iz TEH Haxxor L33T!!! Noobtard windoze is the M$ SUXXORRRR!!!!!!!!!!! Fuckshitz

And I just ordered a 12" powerbook.... (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963551)

Oh well....I suppose it will be a good thing to NOT buy the first generation of Intel Mac's, there is bound to be some minor engineering issues to be worked out.

My next laptop (4, Interesting)

Flounder (42112) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963579)

Powerbook x86 (15 or 17inch, haven't decided)
Craploads of RAM and HD space

Running the latest version of OSX
Running any version of Windows and Linux in VM spaces

Just reduced my development test machines from four to one

I've currently got six separate machines. My main development box (Suse 9.3), my game box (WinXP), and my four test machines for compatability testing ( WinXP, Win2k on cheap beige boxen, Suse9.3 on a decent IBM Thinkpad, OSX on a MacMini ). Reduce my test machines down to one machine that's also my portable. Lowers my power bill, more desk space, and a portable I can do ANYTHING on (from development, to BF2/Civ4)

Ugh (1)

Slashdiddly (917720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963595)

I love Apple and OS X but forced to run Windows because I consider anything above 3 lbs a brick destined to stay behind at home. Are subnotebooks THAT unpopular that they are almost completely ignored by American manufacturers? Do I really need a 12" screen to run 1024x768 when 10.4 will do just fine. Oh well, I may have to end up installing a cracked copy on a vaio.

Thinking... (1)

Whatchamacallit (21721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13963602)

I suppose Apple will want to have the "1st Dual Core Laptop" and the only way that's gonna happen is with Intel.
AMD is knocking the socks off the current Intel dual core chips but the second generation of those chips is ready for imminent release. The first generation of those Intel Dual Core chips are not keeping with the power usage that Apple wants and needs. Apple would most likely be going for the second generation of Intel Dual Core chips. Until then they are running Quad PowerMac G5's which will hold over the die-hards until they can do the same with Intel chips. I've seen a screenshot showing a Quad Intel box running OS X so they are probably already prototyping the next generation of Intel chips. We've also got Quad Intel 1U XServes to look forward to. Fantastic for Application Servers and Database Clusters. Then we've got SATA-II Disk Arrays most likely in the works as well.

If Apple pulls this switch-over off the right way, and slams the competition in the process, then it will change a great many minds. FreeBSD 6 just shipped and the next iteration of Mac OS X will most likely ship with it and the kernel will be optimized for the Intel dual core chips. An exciting time for Apple and a worrying time for Microsoft and Dell.

VMWare will most likely be able to run natively under an Intel chipset and you will finally be able to run WinXP or dare I say even Win2k3 in a virtual machine as well as you can run it under Linux today. It's an exciting time to be an Apple true believer...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...