O/T... Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

[Marvel]

Fish,

Even with a system restore on the Sony, check to make sure the chipset drivers got reinstalled. If Sony doesn't have them, you can get them from Intel (just make sure you have the right one). Performance will increase greatly.

Bus speed, as m00n points out, is critical as well.

What is the difference between the DVD drives on the two computers? That can make a huge difference.

Marvel

[sfogg]

"Any idea if the chips supplied will be pure x86 and if the OSX port will run on any x86 machine? "

The actual base OS itself (Darwin... not the interface) is a type of open source software and others have already ported that to Intel hardware.

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

OSX is a microkernal OS. In *theory* what that means is if the core OS gets ported to new hardware all the higher level apps. (gui, and applications) should be able to be converted to the new hardware with just a recompile without really needing to do much more work then that. That is the theory anyway...

As far as a full OSX port running on *any* x86 machine I'd highly doubt it considering the vast number of drivers that would need to be written for that.

Shawn

[coda]

Methinks WiMAX is part of the equation.

[skeptic]

I'll believe this switch when I see it. I don't think Apple will (or can) switch to an X86 architecture, going from 32 general purpose registers on a CPU down to 8 I believe on x86 is a killer. Apple is not going to break backward compatibility, I mean, you can still run 0S 7-9 on your G4-G5 Mac os X box through emulation. Why go through all that trouble, and now drop support? So that leaves emulation to support the current set of Mac os X applications. It can not be done with any reasonable speed at the moment, with a lot of that going to the lack of registers. Emulation of an x86 box on a PowerPC is MUCH easier, as you can see with products like Virtual PC , that run Windows on a PowerPC box at a very usable speed (I'd say 80 percent speed of native or so). Look at emulation of Mac os X on X86, it runs at 5% native performance. Not going to be acceptable.

If Apple did switch to Intel, it would have to be to a new Intel chip, or a PPC chip that Intel makes. I don't see either of these things happening. This is right at a time when all 3 major game consoles are switching to using PowerPC chips (isn't the new X BOX going to be using THREE powerpc chips in it?) This means higher volume, and lowering price for PowerPC chips in general. This is the worst time possible for Apple to make the switch.

I see this as Apple trying to scare IBM and force them to pay attention, a scare tactic and nothing more. This is NOT an official Apple release, and is just a rumor. I'd put money on the fact that this won't be released at WDC , and not for a long time or ever after that.

-M

[skeptic]

Sfogg -

"OSX is a microkernel OS"

Not really. Mach is a microkernel, the Mac os X kernel is called XNU.

It contains code based on mach, it does not use Mach as a microkernel. The BSD Layer is actually a PART of the kernel, not run in user-space. Which breaks the idea that is a microkernel.

-M

[sfogg]

"Not really. Mach is a microkernel, the Mac os X kernel is called XNU.

It contains code based on mach, it does not use Mach as a microkernel."

OK, I was just going by what Apple says about OS X which is that:

"The most widely-sold UNIX-based operating system, Mac OS X offers a unique combination of technical elements to the discerning geek, such as fine-grained multithreading, Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services, tight hardware integration and SMP-safe drivers, as well as zero configuration networking. Tigers state-of-the-art kernel features improved SMP scalability and 64-bit virtual memory, while standards-based access control lists take UNIX permissions to the next level."

But I've never dug under the covers on OSX to see how it is really laid out internally.

Shawn

[fini]

I thought this was an English language forum. Why are you guys speaking Greek?

Does this mean m00n will be able to score Macs for cheap for all his forum buds?

[m00n]

Ha... We don't get discounts on ANY Intel products. I guess some time back there used to be employee discounts on Intel products but people were taking advantage of it by, buying products and turning around and selling to friends and what not. That's the rumor as I know it anyway.

They make up for it in other ways though so I'm not too worried about it. As much as everyone likes to dog Intel it is a fantastic company to work for.

[Marvel]

m00n,

One of our computer science professors just left to go back to work at Intel. He will probably double his salary, but knowing what the profs make at our school, I'm not suprised. Can't remember the division he will be in. He used to move to Oregon every summer, rent a house for the whole family and still clear more than he made teaching. We will miss him greatly.

Marvel

[dragonfyr]

First, please check out a great piece for setting the stage that many, if not most may be unaware of;

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/38633.html

Just a few observations without going into extreme depth regarding any one of them.

It is Ironic that after so many years of using Macs as the front end for volumetric imaging with the Cray, I was brought up from physics academia and directed research to work for IBM with the development of AIX (IBM's best of breed UNIX) and the worlds most powerful supercomputer, the RS6000SP (the latest incarnation of which is exemplified by BlueGene). All intimately connected to the path that the Mac would subsequently follow...

I think the debate between AMD and Intel misses the significance of moving to the X 86 platform, should it occur. Apple would have to align with Intel, simply because AMD is dependent upon IBM for its development and ONLY Intel has the clout for leverage the alignment. But this is all rather moot, as OSX would not be running on a proprietary platform, but on the X 86 platform! And nothing would preclude one from potentially using the AMD CPU - unless Jobs chooses to do the asinine and opt for another proprietary architecture!

So, first the Intel versus AMD issue:

Intel is not in danger of losing its CPU crown... but the fact that AMD can challenge Intel -even within the restrictive group of retail desktop sales- speaks volumes for the chip underdog.

As long as Intel continues to place more emphasis on the more lucrative and successful notebook market, it leaves the door open for AMD's desktop successes.

Equally, Intel continues to outsell AMD by a very healthy margin in the non-retail segments, primarily because of its strength in the corporate and business sectors - and, of course, by market leader Dell's current 'Intel only' policy.

Although desktops are certainly facing diminished share in light of accelerated notebook sales that will increasing dominate sales from here on out, desktops still represent a majority of total current retail PC sales and do not show signs of vanishing from the market any time soon. But their sales numbers will continue decline after this year as well.

Intel desktop sales have been trending downward throughout the year. Correspondingly, AMD desktop sales have been rising. But they are competing here in an increasingly smaller market niche that is not viewed as the future of computer sales!

And Intel easily owns the server and laptop markets. Despite the wishes and sales increases afforded by AMDs 64 bit offerings that, except for 64-bit SUSE Linux, cannot take advantage of the hardware capabilities!

Besides, it is a BIG mistake to imply some kind of necessary problem with running OSX on either Intel or AMD! Of the two, if Apple partners with Intel, it is simply in order to insure an adequate supply of cpus for the production of their machines with the only manufacturer capable of insuring such availability. And I think that Apple misses the boat if they keep their hardware design proprietary. Their real opportunity is to move the OS to the X86 platform allowing both Windows and Linux folks to migrate. And as such, nothing fundamental prevents AMD from running the ported OSX. As Apple would be moving to the X86 platform (and not creating another proprietary standard which is just what the world DOES NOT NEED!)

But lets see what Jobs does! As this has NEVER been his strong suite with regards to judgment! He has already blown it in the past by refusing to license the MacOS to MS in 1985, and by refusing to open the architecture that led to his ouster in 1989 (and the introduction of the Mac IIs), and his brain dead decision to limit CHRP compatibility when he returned in 1997! Lets hope he doesnt do it again!

Several critical factors differentiate AMD and Intel.

One, AMD does not possess the developmental capacity that Intel does. In fact, AMD has developed VERY little. Rather it is simply currently licensing technology from IBM, ranging from SOI to its approach to hyper threading. They do not possess the development capability to develop OSX compatibility. Nor should they! As the point should NOT be to develop a proprietary architecture! Apple's concern should simply be to insure a non restrictive chip supply which only Intel is capable of doing!

But again, as the X 86 platform is not dictated by either company, compatibility issues should not be based upon manufacturers. I foresee the potential to run OSX on either platform in the future should they choose to go the X86 route. As OSX is already 64 bit compliant and FreeBSD is already X 86 compliant, it will need to run on the 64 bit variants of both. Existing 32 bit chip versions are moot!

So the debate between Intel and AMD is moot as far as Apple is concerned.

And the reason Apple is looking away from the superior IBM Power technology is simple. (Refer back to the initially listed article link).

They are simply seeking to leverage the same economy of scale that has enabled Linux to become a market player... The commoditization of the X86 platform.

Linux is not a high end UNIX. In fact it is the least capable UNIX variant to surface. So why does anyone care, especially as it is nowhere near as capable as AIX, HP-UX, or any of the other Unixs tied to proprietary RISC platforms? Simple! It runs on the commoditized X86 platform.

One can easily argue that Linux is the simply the result of a lot of capable ex-Windows folks who have attempted to reinvent UNIX to run on the X86 platform. And while they have written some solid code, they have fallen over themselves to reinvent UNIX in the image of Windows! And rather then introducing innovation, they have simply looked backwards at Windows and modified what is essentially a monolithic directory layout shared by all the Unixs and attempted to recreate the desktop to be more Windows-like! Wow! So much for innovation and/or raising the bar!

So what characterizes Linux? Solid code but albeit very immature in capability; zero innovation; and it runs on commoditized hardware.

...Not to mention the fact that Linux has the same affinity for working with Windows that traditional Windows does with UNIX, despite Samba! Very little, if any! Linux looks at a Windows formatted file and simply wonders what the hell it is! And lets not even mention terminal emulation! Kludgy at best!

So, with Linux, you have a *NIX that neither the UNIX purists nor the Windows folks are crazy about. Yet its strength lies in its ability to run on cheap commoditized X86 hardware.

So what about OSX?

First, under the GUI, it is full blown FreeBSD UNIXthe most POSIX compliant version of UNIX. UNIX folks may be familiar with System V Unix, the last variant to come from Bell Labs, and BSD Unix, licensed by the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />University of California at Berkeley.

And FreeBSD ALREADY runs on X86 hardware. The drivers already existetc., etc., etc. You are free top download it now! And if you want a laugh, go to Slashdot and look up the FreeBSD links and look at the 'BSD for Linux' columns! The poor Linux folks cant understand why the UNIX folks shake their heads at it. But those Linux newbies are more then happy to tell the UNIX folks how UNIX should be and how to do it if they would only make their interface function like WindowsOh well...

So all Apple owns, is the abstracted GUI layer running on top of FreeBSD. As you will discover if you open a terminal session in OSX- you are in full command line FreeBSD UNIX!

And Apple has already shifted from a SCSI dominated hardware base to take advantage of the less capable, but more highly commoditized IDE and SATA hardware.

IBM's Power technology far outstrips anything that Intel or AMD are even working on. And the G5 is based on the downsizing of the IBM Power 970 the smallest Power4 chip IBM made that is a generation behind the current Power5 technology. IBMs task was simply to downsize the more capable Power chip and to incorporate some of its features into a smaller, cooler chip sufficient for desktop use. While maintaining the predictive failure analysis of the L2 and L3 cache, it downsized the IBM Power4 version from 4 cores to 1, and a front side bus from 8GB to 1.5GB, Apple has been dependent upon IBM developing the products that offer IBM little incentive. Likewise IBM has little incentive to undercut its own low end servers by bolstering Apple's already much less expensive and acclaimed OSX Servers!

Especially as IBMs 615 blade server runs a 1.25GHz CPU costing ~ $9K while Apple offers a dual 2.75GHz G5 desktop for $2999! One wonders just what IBMs incentive is to boost the Apple line at the expense of their own!

Thus up to this point, the predominate speculation has been of the potential symbiotic relationship between Apple and Suns needs regarding boosting the Sparc platform which would provide Apple with a motivated capable hardware developer. Especially now that IBM has restructured their Power line to offer user defined custom fabs rather then the heretofore predefined selection options defined by IBM. Compound this with the new cell architecture that would require Apple to retool some of its OS in order to accommodate yet another hardware change, and Apple is caught in the middle.

Thus, the relatively easy port of OSX over to the commoditized X86 platform is an easy step further positioning an OS that is, next to AIX and HP-UX, the most robust OS available puts it in a position to give the solid but awkward Linux and the heavily licensed Windows server products a run for their money!

Additionally, OSX blows the Linux distributed administrative functionality away, and only Novells SUSE provides the potential for a unified desktop development environment all still seriously lacking Windows compatibility that OSX enjoys.

So while OSX has been the UNIX that enjoys complete Windows server and desktop compatibility, as well as native UNIX interoperability, combined with world class ease of use both on the desktop and server platforms, the ability to run on the X86 platform would reduce the overhead necessary to effectively penetrate the market while providing a cutting edge hardware capability leveraging the communized hardware pricing.

Thus it would be positioned to out Linux Linux by cheaply providing superior functionality and providing a true unified desktop bridging both the Windows world and the UNIX world. Something no other platform can do.

This move allows the general user the option to move to another OS without the pain of abandoning their known tools. It also allows them to maintain desktop compatibility with the kludgy Windows world, whether one likes it or not. It also brings OSX under the ability to operate with VMWare virtualization a technology that while IBM is far more advanced, the Mac was much less well positioned to leverage.

So the obvious question is not whether the Mac folks are willing to deal with the X 86 platforms, but whether the Windows folks are ready to try OSX. And just as Linux offered enough Windows folks the option to leave Windows, OSX offers both camps a way to abandon both awkward platforms in exchange for an OS that offers true interoperability with Windows and UNIX with distributed administrative and desktop management elegance that each camp can only dream about.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[colterphoto1]

Got a PC on the credenza and iMac on the desk, feel just like Keith Emerson somedays!

Michael

[Marvel]

dragonfyr,

Great exposition of the situation. I think another solid player that many thought was down for the count is Sun. Let's face it, their hardware is solid, and the fact that they have a fairly robust version of Solaris 10 for x86 architecture can only help. I don't like Solaris, but once it is set up, it works.

I don't like any of them, but OSX is the most elegant front end.

We also tend to forget all of the smaller chips that Intel makes for controls (embedded systems). There are zillions of those in the world. Money, money, money....

Marvel

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 6/4/2005 10:05:04 AM skeptic wrote:

I'll believe this switch when I see it. I don't think Apple will (or can) switch to an X86 architecture, going from 32 general purpose registers on a CPU down to 8 I believe on x86 is a killer. Apple is not going to break backward compatibility, I mean, you can still run 0S 7-9 on your G4-G5 Mac os X box through emulation. Why go through all that trouble, and now drop support? So that leaves emulation to support the current set of Mac os X applications. It can not be done with any reasonable speed at the moment, with a lot of that going to the lack of registers. Emulation of an x86 box on a PowerPC is MUCH easier, as you can see with products like Virtual PC , that run Windows on a PowerPC box at a very usable speed (I'd say 80 percent speed of native or so). Look at emulation of Mac os X on X86, it runs at 5% native performance. Not going to be acceptable.

If Apple did switch to Intel, it would have to be to a new Intel chip, or a PPC chip that Intel makes. I don't see either of these things happening. This is right at a time when all 3 major game consoles are switching to using PowerPC chips (isn't the new X BOX going to be using THREE powerpc chips in it?) This means higher volume, and lowering price for PowerPC chips in general. This is the worst time possible for Apple to make the switch.

I see this as Apple trying to scare IBM and force them to pay attention, a scare tactic and nothing more. This is NOT an official Apple release, and is just a rumor. I'd put money on the fact that this won't be released at WDC , and not for a long time or ever after that.

-M----------------

The Power architecture is light years ahead of the X86 platform architecture, even if you simply ONLY look at the memory addressing!

But a couple of comments are worthwhile...

IBM has opened up their offerings to a 'we will build whatever you want' Power smorgasboard approach rather then the "we will make a choice of 5 chips that you can choose from", so it is now a Burger King, you can have it your way, fab shop.

And Apple scaring IBM??? Hardly! As mentioned earlier, the G5 is a downsized reverse engineered version of the smallest previous generation Power4 cpu.

And IBM is NOT motivated to push Apple's well being at the expense of their other 'low' power blades.

And Intel will not be licensing IBM's Power technology!

The current evolution of the low-end desktop processor is the cell processor - and adopting that, while a nice architecture, leaves Apple dependent upon a whiz bang niche platform that neither IBM nor anyone else have a critical interest in continuing. And it is still a proprietary architecture.

In fact, Sun would be an even better partner who who have more of a strategic interest in having Apple succeed, as their mid-level Sparc based servers are having their lunch eaten by the cheap comoditized X86 servers running Linux or Windows. And Solaris is a more robust OS then either of them! Check out: http://www.winface.com/inside/maccell.html for more on this topic!

Bottom line, what is selling in this space are cheap commoditized X86 boxes. NOT proprietary RISC architectures, despite their many performance advances! Face it, if Linux did not run on X86 no one would care about Linux!!

Personally, I do not like the X86 platform, and I love the Power technology! But if Apple is to move into the mainstream, they must address the X86 platform. And if I want a real high end enterprise OS with incredible robustness, ease of use, high-end funtionality such as incorporated LVM and High Availability, integrated logical partitioning and dynamically configured virtual machines, and computing power at the OS level, I will use AIX. Nothing on the market competes with the advanced aspects of AIX. But there is a premium to be incurred for requiring such capabilities - cost and proprietary architectures.

But I would like to use the OSX for anything less! And Apple must decide upon their market place. They cannot compete in the high end UNIX market as they lack fundamental advanced functionality, and it cannot effectively compete in the Windows and Linux space as it does not run on commoditized X86 hardware.

Oh, and as much as I like the Mac, to be fair, OSX is NOT the most secure version of UNIX! Not even close! But it does have substantial advantages over Windows and the horrors afforded by ActiveX and its inability to provide authentication!

For a good intro to the OSX kernal, check out this BSD look at it at: http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200010/darwin.html

The fact is, the Mac will not increase its market share substantially by riding on a proprietary platform, regardless of how elegant I think it is. And even Info World has featured editorials over the past 2 years featuring titles such as "It's not your father's Mac" and "If you haven't looked at the Mac lately, you need to take a look" aimed at enterprise CIOs and SysAdmin.

And I am tired of waiting for this long for a G5 Powerbook!

Changing to the cell processor will be a painful step that will present many compatibility headaches, despite the performance gains, and it will gain them little additional marketshare as they move to yet another proprietary platform.

Their best hope is to provide a reason for the Windows and Linux folks to move to a better compatible platform. And the X86 platform provides that opportunity whereas simply cannibalizing their own platform will not gain new converts.

But presenting a powerful UNIX and Windows compliant OS and desktop as a real alternative to kludgy Windows and Linux would provide a way to increase marketshare while the customers gain in functionality and in compatibility while potentially running the system on hardware they already possess. This will provide a real reason for a real market shift! Simply bolstering a new proprietary platform standard will not.

And Apple needs to provide a strategic positioning of OSX to compete with Windows and Linux and the now free Solaris. And if it expects to significantly increase market share against Windows and Linux, I suspect that it can only do so if it effectively leverages the X86 platform and provides a viable option to the larger market of those committed to it.

[Guest Anonymous]

I built my own computer and used it for a year before I gave the whole thing to my parents and I went out and bought an apple. I have never looked back, that apple has been the best computer I have ever owned. I don't think I will ever get anything else........

Best,

George

[formica]

I guess we'll find out Monday... as mentionned in this Cnet article

[dragonfyr]

It will be interesting indeed!!!!!

Frankly, I would be ecstatic if Apple would simply announce a G5 Powerbook!

That would satisfy my pent up anxiety quite nicely! A 64 bit UNIX/Windows capable server in a laptop!

[skeptic]

"And Apple scaring IBM??? Hardly! As mentioned earlier, the G5 is a downsized reverse engineered version of the smallest previous generation Power4 cpu.

And IBM is NOT motivated to push Apple's well being at the expense of their other 'low' power blades."

Yeah, I don't care who you are, losing a customer is losing a customer. They profit from having apple use powerPC chips, Apple leaving means losing some sort of profit. It may not be a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but its still losing money. By doing a "were gonna switch any day now!" kind of thing, Apple can keep some pressure on IBM for not being able to deliver the goods.

"Bottom line, what is selling in this space are cheap commoditized X86 boxes. NOT proprietary RISC architectures, despite their many performance advances! Face it, if Linux did not run on X86 no one would care about Linux!!"

I don't agree. I don't think anyone cares what architecture their home computer is running on, as long as it works. Linux on x86 was important because it was a homebrew effort to run an OS on a machine type that was available to the most people. Apple is not the same, they are a HARDWARE vendor first.

" But if Apple is to move into the mainstream, they must address the X86 platform."

I disagree, as I have said, I don't think anyone cares what platform they have, as long as it works (well home customers anyway, who represent a huge market)

", and it cannot effectively compete in the Windows and Linux space as it does not run on commoditized X86 hardware."

Again, Apple can not let mac os x run on "commoditized" hardware, as they are a hardware company, who makes Mac OS X to sell you the hardware. They could switch this approach, but I fail to see it happening. They need you locked into only using their hardware.

"The fact is, the Mac will not increase its market share substantially by riding on a proprietary platform, regardless of how elegant I think it is. "

And I think they can

"And I am tired of waiting for this long for a G5 Powerbook!"

I am in violent agreement.

[Marvel]

I'm suprised this didn't come back up after the announcment was made and we all find out that it is true.

If you are an Apple Developer, right now you can buy a P IV, 3+ Ghz system running OSX.

Seems like no one would want to buy one of the PPC models if they are going to be switching. I for one, might finally switch to one once they come out with them.

As further fuel for the fire, the same person who broke the news/rumor about the processor change is reportedly saying that Intel is going to buy Apple. That could really give Microsoft pause I would think.

I imagine that a specific bios or ROM will be required to boot OSX on an Intel platform. That is just MY prue speculation.

Marvel

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />6/5/2005 8:29:50 AM skeptic wrote: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Gee, so I get to comment on what I wrote and your comments! Some many aspects to ponder and speculate, along with some very real market forces!

This is a fascinating subject which still has far too many variables as yet unannounced! And I fear that Apple has done little to soothe the market, and they have simply introduced more apprehension then answers or vision!

"And Apple scaring IBM??? Hardly! As mentioned earlier, the G5 is a downsized reverse engineered version of the smallest previous generation Power4 cpu.

And IBM is NOT motivated to push Apple's well being at the expense of their other 'low' power blades."

Yeah, I don't care who you are, losing a customer is losing a customer. They profit from having apple use PowerPC chips, Apple leaving means losing some sort of profit. It may not be a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but its still losing money. By doing a "were gonna switch any day now!" kind of thing, Apple can keep some pressure on IBM for not being able to deliver the goods.

Nope! Apple is a diversionfor IBM Power development! The research and development has left the PowerPC as we know it! Active development has moved to the Power based cell processor (witness Toshiba and Sony) and to customized roll your own Power fabs. Apple has been faced with the prospect of porting their code to yet another incompatible variant of the Power architecture or to SPARC or to Intel (even the Itanic!) in any event! And I suspect the Linux folks are going to jump on the cell with a vengeance! And in the meantime, IBM has not delivered the G5 in a lower heat/current format for Powerbook, and they have not delivered the 3GHz desktop version which they committed to 2 years ago!!

Delivering those formats would have resulted in a great deal more sales and income! So PLEASE explain that strategy! Remember, IBM is in the market to sell the chips! If they wanted market volume and more sales, what convoluted logic provides the incentive to hold off developing this????

Because IBM cant!?!??! That is like saying that Ford is technologically incapable of making a 2 seat sedan! Hahaha! Have you perused the Power5 generation of CPUs!?!?!?!?! (And remember, the G5 is a baby version of the smallest 4 core, 8GHz FSB Power4 CPU that IBM makes!)

Q: And when is losing a customer not the end of the world? A: When the resources allocated to developing a niche derivative product, that does NOT further advance and contribute to the main goal, expends more resources and capital then it generates!

The G5 has NOT added to the development of the Power technology, rather it has taken resources away from it, and the volume of PowerPC sales compared to the revenue generated by the other Power series hardware is less then 3%! Whoopee!

"Bottom line, what is selling in this space are cheap commoditized X86 boxes. NOT proprietary RISC architectures, despite their many performance advances! Face it, if Linux did not run on X86 no one would care about Linux!!"

I don't agree. I don't think anyone cares what architecture their home computer is running on, as long as it works. Linux on x86 was important because it was a homebrew effort to run an OS on a machine type that was available to the most people. Apple is not the same; they are a HARDWARE vendor first.

The market is owned by commoditized X86 boxes! A MARKET FACT! And folks dont care because the X86 platform is cheap! You can build your own 64-bit dual core SLI box for ~$1000! They sell because of the perceived price! And now with blades and virtual machines, the trend is even greater!

You can get a Mac for $499! Or a real box for $799! Yet most still think the Mac is more expensive!!!! And the Mac is completely Windows file compliant out of the box! And with Virtual PC, you can load any version of Windows you want on the Mac and run them concurrently just like you can on the X 86 platform with VMWare! And why arent folks running to the Mac? Thats a good question! I think they should! But they are NOT!

So, your challenge now is not just to answer that, but to come up with a strategy to CHANGE that behavior! (Aside from the fact that Apple has always sold fancy artsy image rather then educating the mom and pop market about the old Mac with real plug and play, and integrated SCSI, advanced video and audio capabilities that the PC didnt offer! Or that a similarly configured PC, if it could be done, would cost SUBSTANTIALLY more! Or, heck, why hasnt Apple even let the geekier community know that under the covers is real full blown FreeBSD UNIX and that a terminal session put you in a command line environment featuring the most POSIX compliant UNIX available!? And that it is compatible with Linux and Windows software and files and that you can run Windows natively! Duh! Heck, most Mac users still dont know this!!!!!!!!! And its STILL a machine that you can give to you mom and not worry about! Apples marketing simply panders to the image crowd and ignores the Linux and geekier crowd! They miss the boat!

The only thing that has driven Linux adoption has been that the robust mini-UNIX runs on cheap hardware! And hardware that they already have! And Linux has relatively little advanced capabilities! (compare Linux to the architecture and capabilities of AIX!!! There is NO comparison in functionality!! Just look at IBMs PSSP capabilities and their HACMP/HA-Geo capabilities!) Heck, Linux barely has desktop management features, let alone powerful distributed capabilities! And applications that are user friendly? Please! And the primary reason Linux has what it does is because of the largest Linux developer, IBM, porting over UNIX code to the kludgy mouse that roared!) The ONLY comparison is that it runs on the lower cost X86 hardware and that the licensing fees are, OR WERE, less! But look at the current Red Hat enterprise licensing and support! Can we say Microsoft rates!

And to be a smart aleck, the only thing that Apple is making money from in the hardware market is the RAM that they sell for astronomically high rip off prices to the faithful!

But if Apple is to move into the mainstream, they must address the X86 platform."

I disagree, as I have said, I don't think anyone cares what platform they have, as long as it works (well home customers anyway, who represent a huge market)

Really? Why is Sun having trouble? Why are all of the more capable RISC platforms losing market share to the X86 platform? Lack of capability? What has happened to HPs PA-RISC that became the core for the Itanium that they co-developed and which as of last fall, HP has dropped in lieu of X86 hardware!? Why does the IBM 615 blade server with its wickedly fast (sic!!!) 1.25GHz G5 cost ~$9K!?!?! And its only a blade!!!!!

The commoditization the lowering of retail prices to near production cost has cut margins so that few can make money in the PC market! has led companies to invest in the platform for their computing uses! IT has experienced a bloodbath that will continue with Gartner predicting this year (February) that in 10 years, fully ½ of the existing IT jobs will be GONE! And the buyers are the beneficiary at the expense of many manufacturers! Even IBM has gotten out of the PC market! And HP, that bought Compaq on the reasoning that their economy of scale, combined with their superior SCM systems could shave pennies off production costs based upon the vastly enlarged economy of scale, has FAILED to work! Only their printer division is making money as their PC division continues to hemorrhage!

The market FACT is that the RISC platforms serve niche markets, and few are even managing to tread water! Even SGI has migrated to Intel and X86!

It doesnt matter how we feel! Market economics have already decided this! And the reason for the X 86 platform domination is well documented! This is not something that we are waiting to see! It has ALREADY transpired!

", and it cannot effectively compete in the Windows and Linux space as it does not run on commoditized X86 hardware."

Again, Apple can not let mac os x run on "commoditized" hardware, as they are a hardware company, who makes Mac OS X to sell you the hardware. They could switch this approach, but I fail to see it happening. They need you locked into only using their hardware.

Part of Apples dilemma is that they have never figured out what they are! Apple is actually THE PC clone! Every bit of the Mac hardware has been licensed directly from IBM! SCSI, the cpu, EVERYTHING! IBM even made the Powerbooks throughout the 80s and 90s! AIX was distributed on the Mac servers in the mid-90s (to the chagrin of the Mac folks who didnt know what to do with it!). And the Quadras were simply an IBM RS6000-43p with a Mac logo!!!!!!

And now the ONLY thing that Mac owns the rights to is their GUI interface! Not the Hardware, and Not the OS! So what IS Apple????? They need to figure it out!

And having the superior product has gotten them nowhere fast for 21 years! (Aided of course by some horrendously stupid market decisions!)

Again, if you have followed the IT trades for several years now, this is not open to debate! Heck, I was involved with advanced development in the AIX/Power world! And even I, a BIG fan of Power, acknowledge this! Power exists simply to drive the AIX advanced strategic initiative and even they are losing market share, despite having the best and most capable UNIX on the market! And SUN having the most secure version of UNIX available!

"The fact is, the Mac will not increase its market share substantially by riding on a proprietary platform, regardless of how elegant I think it is. "

And I think they can

Its been 21 years!! My God, What, prey tell, are they waiting for!? Is this a decoy to lull the Intel users into complacency???????

"And I am tired of waiting for this long for a G5 Powerbook!"

I am in violent agreement.

And this has been a critical failing!

We still have no idea of what shape the Apple Intel partnership will take! Intel is still reeling after its Itanic (Itanium) debacle. There is no indication that Apple will simply use the current or developing Pentium architecture. In fact, they made no mention of what Intel architecture they would use!!!! Intel has several fully mature designs sitting on the shelves. And Apple execs have already vowed that they will NOT let OSX run on any non-Apple platform!

And to quote (printed in MANY places, this from Slashdot):

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."

In my mind this is a major screw-up! Companies are not going top dump their X86 hardware that runs Windows and Linux! How much history do we need to review before we drop the crazy idea that they are all going to do this! But allowing PC users to run OSX on the PC, even in a non-optimized manner that lacks a few features, would allow users to switch to OSX on their hardware. Just as they have been able to do with kludgy Linux! But that is about ALL they can switch to currently! And despite Solaris kicking Linuxs posterior handily in the power and maturity department, it is not displacing Windows and Linux, although it is a superior UNIX!

We will have to see what form the Intel Mac will takeAs Apples announcement was woefully inadequate, introducing more apprehension then excitement. I know I have postponed my future purchase of a Mac indefinitely! And I have been holding out for G5 Powerbook for >2 years!!!! But if it remains just another proprietary platform, no matter how wiz bang, a strategy which Steve Jobs has always favored, it will be interesting! But if they do, the Mac and OSX will still remain a marginalized product that the faithful will be able to tout while the rest of the enterprise world that drives the computer market continues to debate Windows versus Linux! And that choice, to my way of thinking, sucks!

If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how everything develops! And a strategic marketing decision that will be fascinating to observe and ponder! So why do I wonder what Apple will do with the loaded gun that they have played with? The same one with which they have managed to wound themselves (with the sole exception of adopting FreeBSD!) so many times and that one wonders how they have managed to survive so long after do many near death experiences!? Well see! Cross your fingers!

[skeptic]

I was 100% wrong. I am eagerly awaiting what will happen in the future, I am currently trying to get my employer to get a Apple Intel development kit.

As a long time Mac user, I hope this move doesn't hurt them, as in my eyes with os x they were just picking up new users, who were mostly technically savvy as opposed to design.

My new Quad processor Opteron box arrives Monday, I'd love to have OS X running on that...ohwell.

-m