Jobs hints at a switch to x86?

[Zombie9920]

From the article,

-------------------------------------------------
Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. INTC.O from those made by Motorola Inc. MOT.N and International Business Machines Corp. IBM.N to cut costs.

Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year.

"Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.
------------------------------------------------

Whole article here,

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1214469

[psyjax]

I read a recent article somewhere talking about how OSX had already been ported to x86 but Job's canned the release of it. He wanted to make sure that the Mac community was using it.

Since OSX is based on NeXT it was actually easyer to port to x86 than anticipated and supposedly they had deals with Dell and Gateway to release a line of OSX x86 machines.

But for some reason or other this all fell thrugh and the x86 version of OSX went into moratorium.

I belive it had something to do with the OS runnuing faster on the x86 than the current PPC's. Apple wanted to recoop its money from Mac sales than loose out to PC sales.

In any case, making the OS multi-platform would be a great move and surely put a big dent into M$. Let's hope it happens.

[choasmaster]

not really, i would buy a mac to get away from x86. not to run osx on x86

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by choasmaster:
not really, i would buy a mac to get away from x86. not to run osx on x86

I think it would be great for Apple to start using x86. If that happened I'm sure we would end up seeing a good MacOSX port to PC(which wouldn't be hard to port if Macs were using x86 also). I would like to have a dual boot between Windows XP and OSX. That would be sweet. =0P

BTW, whats wrong with x86? The CISC architecture has alreaady proved to scale better than the RISC PPC chips. Obviously that statement is true because Intel is about to release a 2.8ghz Northwood. PPC isn't anywhere near the 3ghz barrier. They haven't even broke the 1ghz barrier yet have they?

[choasmaster]

macosx would be nice on x86, but i think that i have already discussed my feelings towards x86. gighertz, it doesn't matter how fast the processor is, its howmuch it gets done. and the ppc has been proven to do better. like many x86 fans like amd cuase a 1.5 gigahertz athlon, definitaly beats a 1.5 gigahertz pentium, same concept with the ppc. but, unfourtanatly, all my equipment is x86 also. but i have used other systems though

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
They haven't even broke the 1ghz barrier yet have they?

Mac PPC chips hit 1.5Ghz, and it is my understanding that IBM mainframe PPC chips hit 2Ghz and up.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by choasmaster:
macosx would be nice on x86, but i think that i have already discussed my feelings towards x86. gighertz, it doesn't matter how fast the processor is, its howmuch it gets done. and the ppc has been proven to do better. like many x86 fans like amd cuase a 1.5 gigahertz athlon, definitaly beats a 1.5 gigahertz pentium, same concept with the ppc. but, unfourtanatly, all my equipment is x86 also. but i have used other systems though

The PPC may get more done per cycle in some tasks(like video encoding, audio compression, etc.) but in the real world mhz do matter. The average joe blow consumer out looking for a new computer is more likely to buy a 2.8ghz PC than a 900mhz Mac that is priced the same as the 2,800mhz PC. When looking at the numbers the consumer believes that the higher the number the better the computer. That is the reason why Macs don't sell like hot cakes.

There is no way that you are going to tell me that a 900mhz PPC outperforms a 2.8ghz Northwood. There is no way(unless the apps being used to benchmark are optimized for Alti-Vec and not SSE2). If x86 was such a dog of a performer then explain why PC's get better framerates than macs with the very same video card and same CPU mhz in games. If PPC is so superior then why does x86 run OSX better than on the PPC(as stated in the end of psyjax's first reply?).

Jobs may be able to fool some people, but he does not have me fooled. I know there is no way that a 900mhz G4 is going to kill a 2+ghz Northwood or a high speed Athlon XP.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[psyjax]

"If PPC is so superior then why does x86 run OSX better than on the PPC(as stated in the end of psyjax's first reply?)."

Let me clarify this, back in those days it was Rhapsody, the core of OSX. The time this was all done the fastest PPC was the 601, some 75Mhz to 150Mhz I think. The G3 hadn't even come out yet.

By the time the G3 premered it did indeed smoke the PII.

Anyway,

the full story is on http://www.oreillynet.com/

Ill post it as soon as I find it. So check back

EDIT:

ok here it is:

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/05/03/cocoa_history_one.html

Read part one and go on to part two. Its pretty long, but very interesting.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]

[cahult]

There may be personal problems, at least if you talk about Apple and Dell. As far as I understand, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell can

[choasmaster]

i was readding the article, i personaly think tht next hardware is pretty damned sweet. but at 10k, hadd'nt jobs made the 10k computer mistake with the lisa?