intel and apple (here we go again...)

[zenny]

I think the poor horse is beyond beaten to death by now.

[SwervingVector]

Stigmata: It hasn't been turned on since I checked in the CD tray for my Warcraft 2 install CD...

Plus, don't draw attention to it's dirty secrets...

Zenny: I think we made a crater. =/

Oh, 'dustpuppy': It's SwervingVector. At least spell my name right when you're making an arse of yourself.

[Keizuki]

this thread is called APPLE AND INTEL NOT "how much stuff can we rant, rave and talk about Intel's cpu's!"

[SwervingVector]

this thread is called APPLE AND INTEL NOT "how much stuff can we rant, rave and talk about Intel's cpu's!"

Despite this ranting being extremely relevant to the future of Apple...  :?

[Keizuki]

Not really. It's mainly Intel bashing or bashing other forum users.

For all we know Intel could make a brand new chip, even though Apple
dudes did get OS X to compile and run on a P4 machine.

[fujikura]

Has anyone even bothered to sit down and watch the WWDC 2005 Keynote? Or were you all alseep on that one. Because Jobs was running the thing on a Mac Tower with an Intel 3.5Ghz Processor. Yes that's right, they've already got a model running it. And according to Jobs they've been planning this merger since OS X first came out, and that they'd always made sure it could run on Intel chips - and that what they wanted to make sure was that the OS would run smoothly on an Intel chip.

Now I haven't been a Mac user for all that long, but I know that the OS is what make's Mac's so good, and the fact that we don't have an inane amount of updates every freakin' week. Sure its not all "apple-made" now but hey, if it makes Mac's cost less and perform better, I'm game.

[Shmi]

stigmata.. dude.. .go get laid or something, really.

you too rusty. and dustpuppy.

actually... everyone get laid. again.

[Hellmark]

Has anyone even bothered to sit down and watch the WWDC 2005 Keynote? Or were you all alseep on that one. Because Jobs was running the thing on a Mac Tower with an Intel 3.5Ghz Processor. Yes that's right, they've already got a model running it. And according to Jobs they've been planning this merger since OS X first came out, and that they'd always made sure it could run on Intel chips - and that what they wanted to make sure was that the OS would run smoothly on an Intel chip.

We've already covered that in several threads. Yes we know. Plus thats been rumored for a long time.

[Knightslugger]

Has anyone even bothered to sit down and watch the WWDC 2005 Keynote? Or were you all alseep on that one. Because Jobs was running the thing on a Mac Tower with an Intel 3.5Ghz Processor. Yes that's right, they've already got a model running it. And according to Jobs they've been planning this merger since OS X first came out, and that they'd always made sure it could run on Intel chips - and that what they wanted to make sure was that the OS would run smoothly on an Intel chip.

Now I haven't been a Mac user for all that long, but I know that the OS is what make's Mac's so good, and the fact that we don't have an inane amount of updates every freakin' week. Sure its not all "apple-made" now but hey, if it makes Mac's cost less and perform better, I'm game.

It wasn't designed to run on the Intel Chip specifically, it was designed to run on anything.  'Processor Independant' was the phrase he used I belive.  Meaning they could very well have gone with AMD, or Intel, or Motorola, or with a host of other manufactures.

[lg_alucard]

Has anyone even bothered to sit down and watch the WWDC 2005 Keynote? Or were you all alseep on that one. Because Jobs was running the thing on a Mac Tower with an Intel 3.5Ghz Processor. Yes that's right, they've already got a model running it. And according to Jobs they've been planning this merger since OS X first came out, and that they'd always made sure it could run on Intel chips - and that what they wanted to make sure was that the OS would run smoothly on an Intel chip.

We've already covered that in several threads. Yes we know. Plus thats been rumored for a long time.

MARKLAR!!!

Apple could always use IA-64, then windows wouldn't be able to run on it (easilly) which is also one of Job's goals

[stigmata]

Not really. It's mainly Intel bashing

For that, feel free to blame Rusty.

Apple could always use IA-64, then windows wouldn't be able to run on it (easilly) which is also one of Job's goals

Yeah, but I doubt OS X would run on it easily either. Further, the lag between OS support for the spec wouldn't last long.

There are other ways they could lock OS X to their own hardware.

stigmata.. dude.. .go get laid or something, really.

It's nice that people value substance in their own posts....  :roll:

For all we know Intel could make a brand new chip

Extremely unlikely - Intel's a publicly owned corporation, and people like to know where their money is going. As such, they have a detailed technology roadmap that they set for themselves and attempt to stick to, with the codenames of every new processor they'll be working with in the future.

And none of them is "entirely new" in the way you predicted.

[zenny]

There are other ways they could lock OS X to their own hardware.

It would prolly only delay hacking attempts till an emulation of some sort is found to get around it somewhere down the road.

[lg_alucard]

Apple isn't so much interested in locking their OS to their hardware as they are with locking windows out of their hardware...  :twisted:

[Thunderstruck]

lg, Phil Schiller called, he said Apple won't stop people from installing Windows on the Mac. :wink:

[lg_alucard]

blah, not what it said on wikipedia a few days ago :S

that's where I pull most of my info from