A little help here, please.
When Apple switches over to Intel chips next year, what does that mean for my existing iBook? Will Apple continue to make versions of OSX/XI/future implementations for previous hardware? And, in your opinion, how long will this older hardware be viable?
Also, what will be the difference in future in just buying OSX and installing it on an existing Intel-based PC? It'll be more than a bit of an ugly Mac experience, but is this what Apple is going for? I mean, it just seems that it'll be a lot cheaper and very similar to just buy the OS than the OS with the "official" Apple hardware to run it on.
Ideas?
When Apple switches over to Intel chips next year, what does that mean for my existing iBook? Will Apple continue to make versions of OSX/XI/future implementations for previous hardware? And, in your opinion, how long will this older hardware be viable?
Also, what will be the difference in future in just buying OSX and installing it on an existing Intel-based PC? It'll be more than a bit of an ugly Mac experience, but is this what Apple is going for? I mean, it just seems that it'll be a lot cheaper and very similar to just buy the OS than the OS with the "official" Apple hardware to run it on.
Ideas?
posted by:
|
Las Vegas
|
-
Re: Consequences of Intel move?
Sat, July 16, 2005 - 6:51 PMDevelopers will continue to release apps for PPC and Intel Macs. It will take a LONG TIME for that to not make financial sense. Same for Apple.
You will never be able to buy OS X and run it on a generic PC. You will only run it on Macs. Just because it has a Intel processor inside means little other than faster performance. -
-
Re: Consequences of Intel move?
Sun, August 7, 2005 - 10:40 PM"You will never be able to buy OS X and run it on a generic PC. You will only run it on Macs. Just because it has a Intel processor inside means little other than faster performance."
Im happy to hear this but at the same time i dont see how it makes much sense. I would think that if you could install it on PC as well it could be the "windows killer" moreso than Linux. I mean most apps for Windows are mirrored on mac sans gaming. I would think it would be a good idea to let it run on all Intel boxes.
That said im not really happy about the move. I like the idea that mac was totally seperate from PCs.Im also not a fan of intel at all. ID much rather hve an AMD when it comes to x86... but maybe thats jsut me... anyhow i plan on getting one o f the last g5 systems before the move and holding on to it for dear life.
Tis a sad day :-( -
-
Re: Consequences of Intel move?
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 6:23 AMGotta start somewhere and AMD didn't have the fabs nor the cash to support Apple's needs.
Apple makes its money on hardware, so while leaked/cracked copies of OS X will exist, in the current model, apple would go broke supporting all of those crazy PC configs. Also, they want the Mac experience to be better.
As for the processor, don't forget that many Intel chips are already in Macs USB, bridges, etc. -
-
Re: Consequences of Intel move?
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 9:34 AM"Gotta start somewhere and AMD didn't have the fabs nor the cash to support Apple's needs. "
YEah i assumed it was the technical/manufaturing/volume deal that was one of the reasons... aside from just mindshare.
"As for the processor, don't forget that many Intel chips are already in Macs USB, bridges, etc."
Its not so much the quality of Intel chips, its the quality vs. price vs. ideology thing that makes me dislike them. -
-
Re: Consequences of Intel move?
Sun, December 24, 2006 - 2:11 PMApple may also be going too AMD there was an article on yahoo and one of the mac sites about contract talks with AMD, thats not too say the chips would go into Macs,they might be interested in AMD for other purposes, ex: iPods, or iTv, or whatever else they are comming up with.
if i find the article again ill post the link.
-
-
-
-
