Looks like Crapple is ditching IBM

[Huge]

and switching to Intel; should be announced Monday.

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

 

[Huge]

Well it's official.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/05/technology/wsj.apple.intel.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

[HomeLAN]

Dvorak says it's bad news for Linux.

He's got a point. If windows running on a Mac becomes common, and interoperability across the two systems is a reality, a lot of developer talent will move in that direction, largely at Linux expense. Rather than continuing a move into the mainstream, Linux may end up remaining strictly the pervue of the uber-geek and the hobbyist.

 

[Neo]

yea i dont see this as a good thing. mixing apples and oranges kinda thing. We will end up with a halfbreed system....

 

[Huge]

Agreed; this isn't good for Linux...

 

[Professur]

Do you think we'll be able to run OS X on an IBM?

 

[Neo]

nah i dont see that, but i see the mac side leaning more toward a win based development.

 

[Inkara1]

mixing apples and oranges

I thought it was mixing apples and intels.

 

[Neo]

hehe i thought about that after i typed it.

 

[Huge]

Thoughts from Mac game developers.

 

[HomeLAN]

Following the announcement that Apple will be switching to Intel in 2006, IMG contacted several Mac game developers to get their initial thoughts. As you might expect, the reaction has been one of shock and fear. What seems to be worrying Mac game developers the most is the possibility that Windows games will run at close to "full speed" on an Intel-based Mac.

After the keynote, Apple's Phil Schiller stated that 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."

Ya know, it might be time to buy some stock in top game development companies. They now have the ability to cut their production costs massively, since you no longer would have to support a staff for native Mac developing.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Considering that AMD has a lock on 64 bit for the next couple of months, I don't see why Apple didn't swing over to their side instead of Intel.

 

[Inkara1]

Intel probably offered Apple a sweet deal on the chips.

 

[HomeLAN]

Plus, Intel is also on the cusp with 64 bit (following AMD's model - gotta love it).

Chipzilla usually finds a way to get what they want, anti-monopoly laws be damned.

 

[Noite Escura]

One would think the natural way is going mainstream.

 

[Professur]

I heard this week of a Texas crew who's trying to rebuild the old Alpha technology and kick Intel's ass with it.

 

[fury]

I think Apple did pretty well off with the switch to Intel. Back then, there was all kinds of "No way! Now it'll be slow!" and now they've got every Mac fan eating out of the palm of their hands, especially with all of the banter about how Windows runs better on the Intel Mac than OSX does.

If this is the Alpha revival you're talking about, sure, it looks promising on paper, but I think I'll wait to put my foot in my mouth when I see it in mass production with all those significant advances over the existing stuff, kicking ass and taking names (the likes that very few thought AMD could do)

 

[Professur]

Unfortunately for Crapple, IBM just happened to come out with a tri-core chip while Itfel and AMD struggled with dual cores. They'd be well ahead if they'd stayed where they were.

 

[Inkara1]

I'm on an Intel-based Mac right now at work and it's pretty fast. The Intel chip also runs a lot cooler than the G5 chip, which frees up a lot of room in Apple's tower models for more drives, etc. because of the need for fewer fans.

 

[fury]

Quad-cores are just around the corner anyway, from both Intel and AMD. I'd be more concerned about what each core could do with what amount of juice (and spitting out what amount of heat), though. Quality over quantity and all...