Apple Drops IBM for Intel - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 06-06-2005, 05:14 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Beginning in 2006 apple will begin using intel processors in its computers.



http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/05/tech...ex.htm?cnn=yes
remilard is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 06-06-2005, 07:36 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

Beginning in 2006 apple will begin using intel processors in its computers.



http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/05/tech...ex.htm?cnn=yes



Positives:

Easier to compare hardware.



Might encourage better ports between MSWin and OSX, as well as improve the synnergy between OSX and Linux.



Negatives:

Direct competition with commodity boxes.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#3 Old 06-06-2005, 07:43 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

Positives:

Easier to compare hardware.



Might encourage better ports between MSWin and OSX, as well as improve the synnergy between OSX and Linux.



Negatives:

Direct competition with commodity boxes.



The other negative is that all the OSX software (at least the stuff that has sections written in assembly language) will need to be updated. The expense will presumably be passed to the consumer in the form of being required to repurchase the intel version.



I think I see this as being positive, on balance (sucks for IBM).
remilard is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 06-07-2005, 12:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Satyagraha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,042
How is competition a negetive?



It's a shame that they ditched IBM though... I thought they'd try stuff with the Cell.
Satyagraha is offline  
#5 Old 06-07-2005, 12:41 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
I don't think competition in and of itself is what kirk considers negative, but rather the change in how apple competes from a hardware POV. With Apple using the same chip architecture as their primary hardware competitors there will actually be less genuine competition in the marketplace. Consumers will have no choice with respect to which type of CPU they get in a desktop machine.
remilard is offline  
#6 Old 06-07-2005, 12:51 AM
Veggie Regular
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Well... AMD would still be around... and it'd be possible for those processors to be used also (basically... I'd think it'd turn "MAC" into an OS, not a computer).
JLRodgers is offline  
#7 Old 06-07-2005, 01:52 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
True but still x86 architecture which amd licenses from intel and the future of which is controlled by intel
remilard is offline  
#8 Old 06-07-2005, 01:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Satyagraha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,042
Well Apple are a hardware company... I think it's smart to assume that OSX will not be able to run on your typical x86 machine.
Satyagraha is offline  
#9 Old 06-07-2005, 02:02 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
It will be able to run on an x86 machine because that is what apple computers will be, according to their announcement yesterday.
remilard is offline  
#10 Old 06-07-2005, 02:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Satyagraha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,042
Well I mean your current machine... it's highly likely that you'll need specific hardware that apple will sell & only make drivers for.
Satyagraha is offline  
#11 Old 06-07-2005, 09:08 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyagraha View Post

Well I mean your current machine... it's highly likely that you'll need specific hardware that apple will sell & only make drivers for.



The linux project has has a lot of success reverse engineering hardware interfaces.
remilard is offline  
#12 Old 06-07-2005, 09:18 AM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

It will be able to run on an x86 machine because that is what apple computers will be, according to their announcement yesterday.



Ahem, "x86 machine" does not necessarily mean the same thing as other x86 whiteboxen.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#13 Old 06-07-2005, 09:34 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
I wasn't sure if typical x86 machine meant wintel box because that isn't the only type of x86 machine in usage today (several "supercomputers" use x86 processors).
remilard is offline  
#14 Old 06-07-2005, 09:55 AM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Well, just my impression is that the CPU is really only a part of Apple's hardware design, and one of their major strengths is in coming up with new ways to interface peripherals. So it wouldn't surprise me if the OSX x86 depended on Apple-Engineered motherboards, that would also make it difficult to run Linux or Microsoft. There actually is some precident for this. Laptops have historically included bunches of vendor-specific hooks and gimps.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#15 Old 06-07-2005, 01:35 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
So I have been assuming that apple will be using x86 processors (I think the timeline given is way too short for a new product). Anyone want to speculate that intel will develop a RISC processor for apple? I have read this elsewhere.
remilard is offline  
#16 Old 06-08-2005, 02:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
I'm very much hoping for a 64-bit Intel processor in the first Mactel machines.
epski is offline  
#17 Old 06-08-2005, 05:11 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Satyagraha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,042
Intel's 64bit chips are apparently very good, but unpopular because they don't have x86 compatibility. I would have liked to have seen Apple use the Cell which would have put it on machines that regular people could buy.
Satyagraha is offline  
#18 Old 06-08-2005, 07:16 PM
Veggie Regular
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
And regular people won't buy Mactel machines?
epski is offline  
#19 Old 06-08-2005, 07:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
http://tinyurl.com/dxqaj



There's also talk of the Pentium D, which will allow Apple to implement an industry-accepted DRM across a number of devices, further pushing them into the entertainment hub paradigm.





Dug this up:



http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67749,00.html
epski is offline  
#20 Old 06-08-2005, 07:34 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by epski View Post

http://tinyurl.com/dxqaj



There's also talk of the Pentium D, which will allow Apple to implement an industry-accepted DRM across a number of devices, further pushing them into the entertainment hub paradigm.





Dug this up:



http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67749,00.html



This seems most likely. The question is can apple rewrite OSX (large parts of which they didn't write from scratch in the first place) in a year?



ETA: I realize they don't have to rewrite the whole thing.
remilard is offline  
#21 Old 06-10-2005, 12:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Satyagraha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,042
Use the term DRR, it's more correct, digital rights restrictions. DRM, IP, it's all bull**** that society as a whole doesn't want & is being pushed on people by the opulent few only caring about their own personal gain. Apple has semi-shown that you can work with the people how they want & be profitable.
Satyagraha is offline  
#22 Old 06-10-2005, 01:15 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyagraha View Post

Use the term DRR, it's more correct, digital rights restrictions. DRM, IP, it's all bull**** that society as a whole doesn't want & is being pushed on people by the opulent few only caring about their own personal gain. Apple has semi-shown that you can work with the people how they want & be profitable.



I don't like it myself, but whatever you want to call it, DRM has been made necessary by selfish people. Media used to be licensed in a very fair way, people took advantage, now it sucks for everyone.
remilard is offline  
#23 Old 06-10-2005, 08:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Satyagraha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,042
Yup, unfortunately. Still though, iTunes has shown that if you give the people what the actually want instead of trying to punish them, that it can work. But I hear the quality of iTunes music isn't the greatest? What format does it come in?
Satyagraha is offline  
#24 Old 06-10-2005, 08:33 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyagraha View Post

Yup, unfortunately. Still though, iTunes has shown that if you give the people what the actually want instead of trying to punish them, that it can work. But I hear the quality of iTunes music isn't the greatest? What format does it come in?



AAC 128kbs, Redbook CD is 705.6kbs



you realize how itunes media is licensed don't you? Very restrictively and the license is enforced via software DRM.
remilard is offline  
#25 Old 06-10-2005, 09:25 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

I don't like it myself, but whatever you want to call it, DRM has been made necessary by selfish people. Media used to be licensed in a very fair way, people took advantage, now it sucks for everyone.



Um, I don't think that's really the case. The IP rights wars go all the way back to the 1900s, and much of it has been preemptive attempts to regulate or tax each new consumer media. For example, the critical betamax decision came before VCRs became common in households, based on a perceived threat to broadcast revenue.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#26 Old 06-10-2005, 09:46 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

Um, I don't think that's really the case. The IP rights wars go all the way back to the 1900s, and much of it has been preemptive attempts to regulate or tax each new consumer media. For example, the critical betamax decision came before VCRs became common in households, based on a perceived threat to broadcast revenue.



betamax used DRM? Learn something new every day.
remilard is offline  
#27 Old 06-10-2005, 10:54 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

betamax used DRM? Learn something new every day.



No, the betamax decision was an early court case in which Sony was sued because the betamax VCR could be used to make bootleg tapes of television programs for redistribution. The broadcast industry argued that the absence of "Rights Management" in Betamax technology made Sony a party to copyright infringement. Sony successfully argued that because their technology had legal uses, that they can assume no liability.



"DRM" is just another round in a continuing struggle over IP that has been going on for about 100 years. At one extreme, you have a collection of interests that wants control over any means of reproducing IP. At the other extreme, you have a collection of interests that want broader access to the ability to reproduce or create media. 30 years ago it was magnetic tape for audio and video. 100 years ago it was sheet music and player piano rolls.



To say that, "Media used to be licensed in a very fair way, people took advantage, now it sucks for everyone" is demonstrating a very naive view of why DRM is wanted.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#28 Old 06-10-2005, 10:56 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post


To say that, "Media used to be licensed in a very fair way, people took advantage, now it sucks for everyone" is demonstrating a very naive view of why DRM is wanted.



You actually believe that DRM (ITMS, DVD, SACD) is not a response to illegal distribution of media on the internet over the last ten years?
remilard is offline  
#29 Old 06-10-2005, 11:32 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

You actually believe that DRM (ITMS, DVD, SACD) is not a response to illegal distribution of media on the internet over the last ten years?



Yes. Perhaps its just because I remember running paperclip on a C64 with the hardware dongle back in '85 when filling up a floppy (they really were floppy in those days) required over an hour at 400 baud connected to a BBS with 1 phone line. (Usually the one shared by the fax after business hours.) "File sharing" meant showing up at the computer club with a floppy filled with code that you painstakingly entered from a magazine. Actually, I remember that paperclip required two hardware dongles, one for the word processor, and one for the spellchecker.



Back then, it was just called "copy protection." Your video tape may or may not have played on your VCR the 10th time you watched the film, depending on how low Macrovision had cut the signal to prevent copying. Dragon Riders of Pern used a special sector of the floppy to prevent copying (thankfully I was sick of the game by the time it wore out). Cassette tapes had the magic tones that could be used to identify a dub from the real thing. And does anybody else remember an entire episode of some 70s sitcom in which the Doobie Brothers gave a speech about illegal concert recordings? (I think it was "Good Times" or something like that.)



So heck yeah. "DRM" is not entirely a response to Napster or Kazaa, but a response to the development of consumer-grade magnetic media back in the 1970s. As soon as consumer video and audio tapes were invented, the MPAA and RIAA were seeking legal and technical methods for preventing unauthorized copies, distinguishing copies from originals, and getting their cut from what they saw as an epidemic of illegal dubs, mixtapes, and recordings of broadcast shows.



And it's really interesting that the rhetoric has not changed either. The MPAA argued about the time of the betamax decision that the VCR will kill both the movie industry, and television. That didn't happen then, and I don't think that digital media piracy is killing music, movies, radio or TV now.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#30 Old 06-10-2005, 11:40 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post




So heck yeah. "DRM" is not entirely a response to Napster or Kazaa, but a response to the development of consumer-grade magnetic media back in the 1970s. As soon as consumer video and audio tapes were invented, the MPAA and RIAA were seeking legal and technical methods for preventing unauthorized copies, distinguishing copies from originals, and getting their cut from what they saw as an epidemic of illegal dubs, mixtapes, and recordings of broadcast shows.



I think this was my original point, that means to prevent redistribution of media are developed because people illegally redistribute media.



If nobody did so, none of these changes would have been necessary.
remilard is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off