[X-Unix] Apple dumping IBM, moving to Intel

[Cloyce D. Spradling]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:16:22AM -0700, James Bucanek wrote:

: I'd be really (and I mean *really*) surprised if Apple changed their
: fundamental motherboard and BIOS.

Then be really surprised, because the motherboard is going to totally change.

As for the BIOS, I think it'd be technically the right thing to do to make
it OpenFirmware.  I also think Beta was technically better, but VHS won
anyway.

Anyway, doing OpenFirmware on their Intel boxes would be a lot more work for
Apple.  The execs have probably asked themselves if they can make more money
selling Intel-based systems with good technology that costs more, or by
selling Intel-based systems that they can get off a shelf.  Since they're
probably not crazy (note: I am not a doctor), I bet they chose the way that
will make them more money.

: After all, Apple has to maintain both platforms for years to come, which
: means maintaining OS X, drivers, and friends for both architectures.

Right.  They're already totally different (and totally working), so no big
deal there.

: Apple likes hardware consistency.

Which is why they've said that OS X will only run on an Intel-based Mac,
not a generic PC.

: >Based on
: >comments from an Apple exec stating that they wouldn't do anything to
: >prevent Windows from running on an Intel Mac, I'm afraid that we're going
: >to get the same crappy PC (from the inside) as everyone else.

: I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion.  It's essentially the same
: situation we have now with PPC Macs.  Apple doesn't "prevent" you from
: installing FreeBDS or Gentoo Linux.

Hardware-wise, it's exactly the same.  You're right about that.  Software-wise,
it couldn't be more different.

Sure, Apple doesn't prevent you from running Linux on your Mac (though they
did make it hard for a while).  The difference is that the Linux guys were
willing to do the work to make Linux work on the Mac.  Why would Microsoft
do that?  Extra work for negligible market share?  Why bother?

So my conclusion was based on the statement that Windows will run on an
Intel-based Mac and my supposition that Microsoft won't bother to go to
ANY extra trouble to make Windows work on one.  Ergo, if Windows works on
it, it's a generic PC.

: It means that they're not going to try and do anything in hardware or
: software that would *prevent* Microsoft from developing an IIMac (Intel
: Inside Mac) version of Windows.  Anymore than they "prevent" Linux or
: Virtual PC from running on a Mac today.

I guess where we disagree is that I would consider a completely different
bootup environment to be definite prevention.  I wish I could find the
reference to the thing I read... the exec said that they wouldn't prevent
Windows from running, not that they wouldn't prevent Microsoft from
developing a version of Windows that would work on a Mac.  Those are pretty
different things.

Anyway, I HOPE you're right.  I hate PCs (!= hate Intel), and I'd like to
be able to get a nice fast system with decent firmware.

--
Cloyce