They stated that The OS will not be able to ruu on non Apple Intel machines so they are still having a closed market for everyone else, but by chance to take market share they could possibly make a release for the rest of the x86 world, but there is a difference between a machine that works perfect and one that might work.

http://www.gamespot.com/...06/09/news_6127219.html

>>>> SAY WHAT???? -

---
IPCW: So Linux can be run on the Cell?

KK: Linux is legacy, but it will be a start. In the case of the Cell, operation systems are applications. The kernel will be running on the Cell, and multiple OSes will be running on top of that as applications. Of course, the PS3 can run Linux. If Linux can run, so can Lindows. Other PC Operating Systems can run too, such as Windows and Tiger (Max OS X 10.4), if the publishers want [them] to do so. Maybe a new OS might come out.

IPCW: Does that mean that we can expect applications that take advantage of the Cell, aside from games?

KK: As an example, HD video-editing software is basically the same as the nonlinear editing system used in broadcasting stations. What we're trying to do on the PS3 is that level of software. Nonlinear editing systems are incredible, but if it was done on the Cell, it would be even more incredible... The difference will be obvious. I think other PC applications, like photo-retouching software, will also be able to be done on the PS3. The user interface will also get interesting. In the case of the PC, users will have to wait for years between XP's UI to Longhorn's. But the PS3's UI will evolve much faster. For example, if we had an interface where we could control applications using gestures and words using the EyeToy, it would be like Minority Report. Of course, that kind of an evolution will also reflect on games. This will be the first form that [the Cell] will be spread. It can connect a keyboard, and it has all the necessary interfaces. It can run media, and it can run on a network. It's got such an all-around purpose, and it's open. It will become completely open if we equip it with Linux, and programmers will be able to do anything with it. It's the same thing with the graphics, since it's got the shaders.

It's all about the drivers! The reason Mac's "just work" is because Apple have control the HW and OS. One set of drivers for one standard set of hardware. Anyone who has developed for PC/Win knows what a pain it is developing for the infinite combinations of PC hardware.

I think you miss some of the point.

Apple should make the OS available to ALL x86 chips and chipsets! Imagine the fortune Apple could make by selling their OS to us people unhappy with Windows.

If the new Mac OS will be compatable with my hardware, and I could play Windows games (HL2, Doom2, Guild Wars, etc) I'd buy the thing in a heartbeat!

I suspect that is what they are heading for, actually. This is probably their first step to competing with Microsoft, and I'm sure they're going to use all the profits they make off these computers to work on the next OS they design.

My guess is they're going to attempt to make the next OS truely Plug'N'Play, which knowing Apple will succeed a lot better than Microsoft.

Edit: By Plug'N'Play I mean put any hardware in and it works. I recently had to format my HD and lost everything, due to switching MOTHERBOARDS. Stupid microsoft OS & corrupted RAID.

Let me see if I have this straight.

We went from the Apple I and II to the MacIntosh, Motorola powered, and everybody had to go out and buy new software because the Mac was not backward compatible with the Apple I and II.

Then we went from the Mac, Motorola powered, to the Mac, Power PC powered, and everybody had to go out and buy new software because the Mac, Power PC powered, was not backward compatible with the Mac, Motorola powered.

Then we went from OS 9 and before, Apple proprietary, to OS X, Unix, and everybody had to go out and buy new software because the OS X, Unix, was not backward compatible with the OS 9 and before, Apple proprietary.

Now we are going to go from the Mac, Power PC powered, to the Mac, Intel powered, and everybody will have to go out and buy new software because the Mac, Intel powered, is not backward compatible with the Mac, Power PC powered.

Sounds like Steve Jobs is keeping the Mac software developers employed and their companies in business.

Have you been reading any of the coverage of this? The two platforms will be 100% compatible for many years. There should not be one single Mac user who HAS to go out and buy new software...that would be an issue of choice.

Rosetta will allow all programs from PPC to run on Intel. The slower speed by 'real-time' binary emulation will easily be made up for with the speed of the new intel CPUs they will be using.

Mac users have nothing to complain about...unless increased mind-share, faster speeds, and more options are things you don't particularly care for.

Let's see. You go out and buy a faster computer, but then have it slowed down to what you had before by an emulator. Real smart!!!

Jobs screwed you before and he will screw you again!!!

"Then we went from the Mac, Motorola powered, to the Mac, Power PC powered, and everybody had to go out and buy new software because the Mac, Power PC powered, was not backward compatible with the Mac, Motorola powered."

I don't know what PPC Mac *you* were using, but everyone else's included emulation that eventually actually ran 68K code *faster* on the PPC than the previous Motorola processors. (Some parts of the OS were actually still in 68k code when it was shipping with PPCs.)

As for 68ks not running PPC code, Apple allowed developers to create "fat binaries" that would run on either processor.

I don't see any problem here--it was a very smooth transition.

"Then we went from OS 9 and before, Apple proprietary, to OS X, Unix, and everybody had to go out and buy new software because the OS X, Unix, was not backward compatible with the OS 9 and before, Apple proprietary."

OS X can run OS 9-compatible apps using the Classic environment, and until recently you could actually dual-boot between OS 9 and OS X.

No, OS X apps won't run on OS 9, but Apple did make Carbon available to assit developers in easily creating apps that can run on either OS.

This was a big hurdle, but, let's face it, they had to do *something* to save their OS. The "classic" Mac OS was showing its age years before a replacement was finally available.

"Now we are going to go from the Mac, Power PC powered, to the Mac, Intel powered, and everybody will have to go out and buy new software because the Mac, Intel powered, is not backward compatible with the Mac, Power PC powered."

Steve Jobs assured developers (and users) that both platforms would be supported for a long time to come, and the new XCode IDE will make it easy to create "universal binaries" that can target either architecture. Or, similar to the 68k emulator of the last big transition, there's Rosetta, which will translate PPC code to x86 at a "fast enough" speed. Unfortunately this has a few more snags than before--namely, there are a few typs of PPC apps that won't run on Intel with Rosetta--but many major vendors have already pledged support, and most other apps should still work. But, again, PPC hardware isn't going anywhere for at least two years, and even then, it'll still be supported for the foreseeable future.

Okay.. I see you're just one of those folks who simply refuses to look at the bigger picture here.

Once you buy a NEW computer, most PPC apps will have been ported to Intel. The bigger issue with emulation will be with apps that are no longer being updated. Apps sold on a new PC will likely be Intel compiled and not PPC, so unless you're installing old(keep in miind, folks have a year to update them) apps, your NEW system should operate just fine WITHOUT te emulator.

Transitive Technology, the company that developed the technology for Rosetta, admits that apps will run at 70 to 80%.

>> Reply to Post Below

Dude...are you a moron or something? 70 or 80% for an EMULATOR is simply amazing! Go play a SNES ROM. The SNES apparently ran at 2.4mhz, but dude, you need a 2.4ghz computer to play a SNES game at full speed. :P

And yes, before some picky person points it out, I know Rosetta is a "cross-compiler", sorta like java is, except from PPC to x86 instead of Javabitcode to whatever.

Technically the SNES processor was an equivilent to the performance of a 80486 33MHz DX1 processor, but it handled processing AND graphics. Oh, and the DOS based-SNES emulaters run full speed on my 450MHz K6-2 system...runs at 7FPS in Windows 98 on it though!

Sorry, just that I was (and still am to some degree) a SNES freak at one time. Also the 2.4MHz is refering to Sega Master System (wow, remember that one?), and the 8-bit Nintendo processor was 4.77MHz :)

You mean all those spec sites were wrong? :/

Oh, I was off aswell, lol.

http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/snes/
http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/genesis/
http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/sms/

Did you actually read the article?

"A technology to translate PowerPC binaries into Intel-compatible code, known as "Rosetta," will also be available. The feature will be transparent to end users, who can open applications that have not been migrated to Intel."

I think this might be a great thing for Apple. As a Windows developer, I never before would have bought a Mac, but recognized they always had the coolest looking computers :)

If they make it easy to install dual-boot, and maybe down the road even installing Windows Whatever on it as an option at the factory...I'd buy one of those. Even if it's a little more than a comparable Dell or other PC...a few hundred more to be able to run Windows and OSX on one box, I bet a lot of people and businesses would buy that.

I would never see apple doing dual booting, why put the an enemy on your doorstep? They are very particular about their rom chip (aka) bios. As is there is never an evil C prompt, besides the terminal if you want to use that. The only way I forsee windows on the OS X intel apple computers is through VPC or another form of a virtual environment.

Apple already said that Windows will run on x86 Mac boxes... they're only preventing OSX from running on non-apple boxes.

Everyone is complaining about price about the apple, here is a comparison, for roughly $1,600 u can get a 32 bit Single Processor Computer from HP with similar specs to a G5 apple 64-bit Dual Processor machine which is only $1,999. OS X is built for multiprocessing which if after you pitch in quite a bit of money to get windows xp pro, and the hardware to get a multiprocessor machine, the price break is worth it from apple.

Desing is sleek for their desktop and laptops. There is definately a difference in 2 to 2 1/2 inch laptops from pc makers to a a rough 1 to 1 1/2 laptops from apple, the weight definately makes the difference and so does the ease of software from apple that is already included. No worries about spyware, or viruses on OS X, the only way is to authorize the virus to modify your system files and giving it your root password. If something would ever happen it would only hurt that current users account and not the whole system. Unfortunately with windows, to save or repair stuff you have reinstall windows again and back up stuff or wipe clean to get rid of spyware/viruses or any other OS problems. If something ever occured on OS X, you still have everything and just reinstall a new system folder and lose nothing. Sometimes simplicity is better, and Apple has that for the consumer.

Also for the future, why use dual boot on the forseeable Intel Apple Machines, when u can run virtual pc, whereas before it was emulating a PC processor, it should work beautifully and just as fast as a regular pc if Microsoft permits on updating Virtual PC which they acquired from buying the company Connectix. But there will always be another format to run windows with another emulating environment.

Another thought: They could just be using intel processors and not using the x86 instruction, this is also a possibility which could happen.

If apple did release OS X or someone ported it to work on other processors, then money would be well made, but they won't make the mistake of microsoft of having a huge environment and trying to have thousands of third party products, and wasting time and money on stuff that doesn't work very well and isn't always compatible with the Operating System. I would personally want something that works all the time then some of the time. Plus also without the hassle of worrying about spyware and viruses and that is why OS X is the choice for me and unfortunately I do have a PC and I don't own a mac but I service both windows and apple machines and by far apple blows away windows software hands down and plus with ease of use of software that comes with it and not having to buy seperate software. Itunes, Iphoto, garage band, ISync, Imovie whichs does HD video and then IDvd. Which if you try to get software similar that has the ease of use, it will cost you about anywhere from $40-120 per software title to just get for Windows and it might not even work with the hardware you have on a Windows Machine whereas you get all the software with the computer when you buy it from apple or if you want you can upgrade your old Ilife. Or if cost is an option for some customers, you can always get a mac mini and eliminate space problems which starting is only $499. So apple does have every bracket covered from low end to high end. Also ghz is no longer pushed and compared that more ghz is faster. All training from intel, amd, and apple state that higher ghz is better. Hench why Intel is switching to processor numbers and familys and AMD has gone to naming like the 4000+ or 3800+. Anyways the choice is yours, hopefully as a consumer everyone will make the right one and go with sleek, slim, and ease of use for operating systems.

With Apple going x86, VMware will no doubt jump into the emulator mix for the Mac platform. More competition is yummy.

Sad news. Apple is now the latest to join the forces of Evil. Jobs Co. hates their customers with shoddy iPods and only respond when they get sued. Now DRM cometh and cometh right soon to the Apple desktop so that Apple is just another platform that hates ownership.

Your all missing the point. Apple will use intel chips what does this mean ?

It means apple will have a clean slate to develop a Computer with no current Pc coundries like backwards compatibility and expansion adaptations. Take a PS3 or XBOX 3D any double the spec, stick one or more Intel chips to drive it and what you will have will be a machine that most software developers will love to program. It would be a standard spec machine that would be better than the situation with pcs where every machine is different.

I doubt a PC would ever emulate such a machine, and yet it would allow an easy port route to convert apps to the MAC standard.

Macs could be reborn as a elite PC, duel format computer.

It could for the consumer and is a posible way to get the competing companys like microsoft, intel and apple to work in the same direction.

Yeah. My question is who's gonna buy a PC once this is all set and you could get a Mac that'll run Windows, Mac, or Linux instead?

You can bet the Mac will be a fair deal more expensive than a comprable Dell or Gateway machine. So I'm sure a lot of people who see no need for OS X (or a slick looking computer) will just opt to save the money.

"Macs could be reborn as a elite PC, duel format computer."

Great.

More elitist Apple rubbish, steeped in "mystique", commanding a price premium and delivering...

...terrific coffee-table conversation.

I'll pass.

Even if / when they successfully port their OS to that platform, now they have to get devs behind the effort.

Oh, and in typical Apple fashion, they missed the grand opportunity to pick a real winner as the soul of the new machine:

AMD.

At the very least it will be fun to watch the follies though.

Pick a winner? Yeah, AMD...real inner there. They barely have the fab capability to keep up with demands for their own CPUs, let alone add Producing for apple as well.

Yes, AMD chips are better than Intel. But their fab isn't gonna cut it for them. Apple needs the ability to have access to whatever amount of chips they need, instantly. Intel can offer them that, AMD can not.

I wouldn't count on that, but we'll have to wait and see.

near as I can tell, there may be some chip on the mobo for DRM, but the CPU and other parts will have to be commodity chips. Intel isn't going to redo an entire fab just for Apple. Intel isn't that much of a betting company.

Perhaps in the future, if Apple shows they can go with this, but not in the near-term.

I would've thought Sony and IBM would've been able to sell Apple on their new "Cell" architecture. Especially since its main selling point is: "its for Digital Content Creation".

Yeah. that would've been good.

The problem, as Jobs pointed out in his keynote is long-term roadmap. IBM makes damn good chips, but it doesn't have the facility to keep them updated and fresh (which PCs require to keep selling) like Intel does. Consoles don't have the same problem - it's one chip that doesn't change. IBM's inability to keep the PowerPC fresh for PC uses is really the crux of the reason for switching.

UPDATE: 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."

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10765

and heres the CHIP apple wants and is going to get.. and WHY. end of story.

http://www.pcworld.com/n...cle/0,aid,121027,00.asp

later
Rexy Inc

My desire to own OSX for x86 was flushed down the toilet as I read that earlier today.

Really, they could make a fortune. It's the perfect time to open up to the Dells and HPs of the world.

Considering Darwin already runs on x86 platforms, how long do you think until this limitation is bypassed? At least for the geeks.

Why? They said you can run Windows on this new MacTel. Pretty sure you'd be able to run Linux on it as well... There ya go. What more do you want? One x86 machine, closed architecture, which means compatibility and more efficient programming, with your choice of Operating sytems.

Hell, soon as they get Windows on this thing, were I a developer, I'd develop for Windows on that platform.

One of the biggest problems with Intel PCs today is lack of standards. Third party hardware and drivers, made to varying degrees of quality make using, not to mention supporting these things a nightmare at best.

This new Mactel could be the answer we've all been dying for.

I was more interested in buying a non-apple hardware device and using MacOS on it than buying an Apple system.

We'll see how it progresses, but I'm not going to wait a year before buying my next PC so it's likely that Dell and HP will be carrying Mac compatable laptops by the time I purchase again. lol

"We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."

Let the typical restrictive closed Apple mentality BS begin.

And end.

Too funny...

I realize that Apple has a few superb niche video and audio editing tools, but don't they shoot themselves in the foot by doing this? Their machines will soon have basically the same guts as a Windows box.

*Want the OS X GUI? http://osx.portraitofakite.com

*Want Spotlight? While the beta release of MSN Desktop Search was clunky, their full release is really quite exceptional, with real-time indexing and optional web search engine, even Google.

*iPhoto? Picasa is quite nice, thanks

*Every ISV of any importance is going to get their software to run on Windows first and then the Mac.

*If you insist that your computer match your stylish decore, there are plenty of custom box makers like Alienware.

I just don't see what edge they have anymore unless they have a lot of secret software they've yet to unleash.

Only better. The 'guts' will be standardized and closed. Meaning that while they get all the benefits of x86 architecture, they get none of the drawbacks (3rd party quality issues).

Imagine if MS only had to make an OS for one platform instead of 30 processors, 180 motherboards, 200 video cards....etc.

So the rumours were true! Shame they went x86 and not to Itanium. Altho they say x86 which does leave it pretty vague. Does this mean that it won't be a Pentium but a custom Apple chip i wonder?

Theoretically, your Pentium I (or 286,386,486,586.. )maybe able to run a handicapped version of Tiger.

Nice... so a 2007 Mac will be capable (according to the announcement) of dual booting MacOS and Windows...

That's a huge selling point - especially since a 2007 PC won't be able to do the same.

I wouldn't be so sure. Both Intel and AMD have been touting hardware-level OS virtualization that will roll out long before 2007.

According to Apple, they'll be putting hooks into the new versions of x86 OSX that will prevent it from running on non-apple hardware... but they won't stop Windows from running on their hardware.

So without any sort of weird workaround garbage that tends to make everything slow, unstable, or both... Apple hardware will natively support Windows.

It'll make one heck of a nice development environment asset for companies developing software for both operating systems, being able to dual boot systems into both - buy one system, get everything you need (except maybe the windows licence).

I just bought a new iMac that cost almost $2000. Effective today Steve Jobs announced my machine is obsolete. Apple changes platforms more often than Bill Gates changes underwear.

No no, it's obsolete in 2 years. :P

Haha, I'm eatin an apple. Maybe Bill Bill never changes his cutie pant pant,,

At the rate of things these days, it would have been obsolete by then anyways...

Errm, you were foolish enough to buy a PPC based mac in the 1st place,,, Not our problem. There has been no compelling reason to own a mac sinc the late 80's (back when macs were genuinely the only decent DTP platform), since then PC's have ruled the roost, doing the DTP as well as a mac, and everything else better.

Todays mac is nothing more than a status symbol. I seem to recal some other Apple product being nothing more than a little white status symbol, forget what it's called thou...

LOL, I can't stop laughing.. TRY a Mac, and then think again. Please, don't be so arrogant/ignorant.
Mac Os is everything Windows wanted to be for 20 years (but still can't).
The hardware not really the point, but the software and design (which I don't really care). Though, I'm affraid that apple goes to Intel and not AMD, which is winning in terms of cost and performance, if apple make a big move now, they should choose the best and Pintel seems to be slowly losing in every point of the battle (desktop, low and high end, now servers, tomorrow notebooks...)

You mean intel with their 80 odd percent market share, are loosing the battle.

I think you need to open your eyes a bit, they seem to be blinkered.

More sales doesn't mean better products. McDonalds sell millons of burgers daily, but their food is not the best (in fact, is not good at all).
Intel have a really strong reputation, they made the best chips for a long time, but their latest products leave a lot to be desired. AMD tech is superior today... I really don't know If they are going to continue to lead, but Apple should think carefully about it.
IMHO If IBM chips lags, and Apple need to change, they should take the leader, not another lagging company.

They probably would have taklen AMD...but their fab isn't nearly at the capacity of Intel and Apple doesn't want the distribution limitations that go with that. Besides, AMD can barely keep up with it's own production demands, how would they do the same and take on Apple as well?

Don't get me wrong, AMD chips blow Intel out of the water in graphics and gaming, but that's not Apple's cup of tea...yet, anyway.

I have to agree. Apple needs processors that are low-heat, well known by most people, and 'appear' to be running very fast. Most people with macs use macs because they're simple. Trying to explain to them "why 1.8ghz AMD is faster than 2.8ghz Intel" is not something they can grasp, let alone all the Intel fanboys out there.(which I'm sure are playing games)

Although OS X is based on FreeBSD the GUI is developed soley by apple. If that uses code specific to intel chips then there is a chance that it won't be able to work with AMD chips or it could run much slower. However there isn't too much that the chips have in that great a difference. They could also impliment a CPU-ID check on boot.

My personal opinion is that the matter is moot. If I were apple and wanted to keep my high margins on PC's I would add a chip to the motherboard that the OS looks for on boot so that OS X will only load on Apple hardware. Of course because the OS is doing the check there is a chance that it can be emulated but if they use tru hardware random # generation (which intel has done) and a 128bit+ encryption it may make it near impossible to emulate.

I am glad apple switch but am more realistic then to think I will be able to buy OS X and put it on my PC at home.

"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," he said."

- http://news.com.com/Appl...33756.html?tag=nefd.top

Unfortunate. I would have got one if it ran on an AMD.

I have nothing against intel, but in all my personal experiences their processors have sucked for me, and all the ones I bought have been crappy and died.

Still got my good old AMD K6 though, lol.

Truthfully, the only companies I have something against are ATI(for Cheating)/Microsoft(for stupid bugs still around from 1993), but I'm not going to go into that.

So you can't run Mac on your windows system....bummer. Of course, on the flip-side, you CAN run Mac, Windows, Linux, etc on your new MacTel....

Hmmm...

Holy crappage it really, finally happened!

Thing is....will Apple FINALLY reduce their prices? They can no longer use the excuse to boost the price based on the costly PPC.

Sure they will find another reason...heh.

Now that Apple are moving away from PPC, does this mean the end for PearPC?

MOL just got a whole new audience. :-)

As far as I know, it could. I could be terribly wrong though...

Think about it.
The product is ready now!

Woah.

Lets be realistic now. ;-)

hah

I think Reality is on Holiday.

mmmmmmmm running a mac os on a amd powered clone ! that's future ! guess who'll have to shape up to meet apple's standards in design both soft and hardware...so whats next ? a winmac ? winsunmac ? a sunmacwin ? hail to the consumer !!! as to the bottomline stating that intel was always better then amd...well I guess anyone is entitled to their opinion and a private opinion that is !!! there are so much other realities...

Im lookin fwd to a Tiger (or Lion, Garfield, Snoppy, Mickey Mouse, Banana, Orange.. whatever) for PC. It would surely be atrractive if it's priced somewhere between 0.3 ~ 0.5 x iPod Shuffle 512MB

{surely running on an AMD DIY pc -- higher performace, lower $:p}

Dump the crappy mac OS emulators! It would be a face-to-face street fightin with M$ Windows XP / Longhorn (home), but dun think'll pose much threat to *nix / Solaris.

It stops me from considerin to buy the soon-to-be-released iBook / Powerbook G5, though..

===

UPDATE 1::: JUST REALIZED THE NEXT MAC OS WILL BE CALLED "LEOPARD" (OS 10.5)

UPDATE 2::: STEVE JOBS SAYS THERE WILL BE *NO* G5 POWERED LAPTOPS!!!, DUE TO LOW-POWER USAGE / PERFORMANCE ISSUES!!! {Dun even hv to konzida buyin'}

Why? They said a year before it *might* come out. 12 months is a long time man.

..in terms of continuity, expansionability..

If Mac OS X will run on x86 architecture, does that mean we will be able to install Mac OS X on our existing PCs? If so, this move won't hurt AMD at all.

Did you read the article?

Obviously he did not.

Well I'll be damned... they are going x86. Guess I was wrong, and I don't mind saying that, but this still seems more beneficial to Intel than Apple, despite Adobe's support for the move.

So what does this mean? Apple has gone CISC? That's taking a major RISC (pun intended). :)

Edited: Oops! My bad! lol (thank you!)

For the record, it's CISC and RISC...no pun intended :)

Yep AMD's in trouble...

I don't see any reason why AMD would be in trouble by this... Intel's processors still suck by comparison of performance and price.

Definitely not by price anymore. Check before you say. And btw, Intel was ALWAYS better then AMD in stability, heat, and overall compatibility.

I don't see why this won't work on AMD systems....perhaps even better on the dual-core ones.

Just remains to be seen weather they make it truely x86 compatible, or go proprietary, which would not suprise me, but would be a bad move IMHO.

According to who? I'd be inclined to agree concerning SOME business apps. But in terms of gaming, AMD by far outperforms Intel.

The only exception to the price rule is the new X2 processors that are being developed. Otherwise, I have yet to price out an AMD chip/motherboard combo that isn't cheaper than an Intel chip/motherboard combo. If you would prefer, I'll gladly post some NewEgg and TigerDirect (among others) offers.

In regards to heat, stability, and performance... I beg your pardon? I run my AMD AthlonXP 3200+ 24/7/365 with an acceptable power supply and appropriate cooling fans without any heat issues whatsoever. I pay attention to what I buy and use. I have never had any experience with hardware failure or other stability problem since moving to AMD Athlon 1.0GHZ 5 years ago, nor with my new 3200+ purchased in January.

As you said, check your facts before you post. At work, I use and order Intel-based systems all the time, and having seen the difference, I will continue to stick with AMD for my personal machines.

I think you need to start reading the thermal design specs on the latest Intel and AMD chips: the highest end Intel chips have ~20+ W more TDP than the highest end AMD chips. So, you tell me, who has "better" or "lower" heat output?

I agree... if they're going with x86 fully, there's no reason why OSX won't run on an AMD processor unless they go proprietary, which won't surprise me at all. I am stunned at the prospect of Apple "opening up" to all the hardware compatibility that Intel brings with it. Can't wait to see how long before Apple drops the "just works" slogan.

Hey, IT'S A CONTRACT PEOPLE. And correct me if I'm wrong, Intel's contracts usually include something saying that ONLY Intel can be used. Theoretically x86 is x86 but AMD would have to have a little OS support or none of the processor extensions could be used properly, resulting pretty much in an unusable OS with AMD. Very, very little code could be added to fix it but I'm sure intel has already put a stop to that.

AMD shouldn't be in trouble but it is. Business is business, even though superior products usually loose to the underdog. Intel has always had the advantage of support from the most vendors and it will always be close to impossible for AMD to come out ahead. Sad, but true. Intel got the market first, and are staying ahead on market share (unlike Apple who ignored Microsoft Windows back in the 90's and paid dearly for it).

The only true hope for AMD is for Intel to screw up--HORRIBLY. I for one would not like that--I want them to continue to be head-to-head so the cpu prices don't shoot through the roof. Think about it--you think Intel would have lowered the P4 pricing if it weren't for AMD? Or AMD would charge the prices it does if Intel didn't exist? Competition is a great thing, and that's why this is bad news for most consumers in the long run.

You should look at facts before you type and not just your opinion.

Not only that, but the performance difference with business apps is trivial - not any difference the average user, or even the average power user would ever notice... whereas the gaming difference is substancial.

I won't go into the heated discussion on which is better Intel/AMD, both have pros/cons.
Isn't OS X based from FreeBSD, which last time I checked has no problem running on either Intel nor AMD. So I'll agree with most on here, if Apple goes x86, running OS X on AMD should not be any problem at all. If they go proprietary, I'll give it maybe a month before someone out there will figure out how to port it ;-)

This should make the market more competitive, don't ya think? Lower prices for us??? I hope so!
cheers

OSX is a form of Unix. There already is an opensource version of OS X titled Darwin OS.

Although OS X is based on FreeBSD the GUI is developed soley by apple. If that uses code specific to intel chips then there is a chance that it won't be able to work with AMD chips or it could run much slower. However there isn't too much that the chips have in that great a difference. They could also impliment a CPU-ID check on boot.

My personal opinion is that the matter is moot. If I were apple and wanted to keep my high margins on PC's I would add a chip to the motherboard that the OS looks for on boot so that OS X will only load on Apple hardware. Of course because the OS is doing the check there is a chance that it can be emulated but if they use tru hardware random # generation (which intel has done) and a 128bit+ encryption it may make it near impossible to emulate.

I am glad apple switch but am more realistic then to think I will be able to buy OS X and put it on my PC at home.

No, Darwin, which runs on both PPC and x86, is the open-source core of OS X, but it includes none of the GUI or other things that make OS X be OS X.

It's also sponsored by Apple.

OS X apps won't run on Darwin, but Darwin apps can run on OS X, albeit in an ugly fashion.

the crazy thing is MS is using ibm chips in the xBox 360. I read this made intel mad

Great irony...

MS using Chips based on PPC, Apple using X86 chips... The worlds gone topsy-turvey.

"Jane!! Get me off this crazy thing!"

I fail to see any irony.