Macs to use Intel chips?

uberwolf

linkee

unlikely I'd a thought, it would require a complete rewrite of the OS. But would mean direct competition against MS and that would be interesting to watch - if nothing else

L1011

Eh, its pretty widely believed that Apple have had OSX running on Intel internally for years.

They also had System 7 running on Intel. Did they move then? Nope.

Also remember that Intel make a LOT more than processors. We could see Mac's using Intel 10GbE cards, Intel wireless cards, Intel flash memory, Intel modem chipsets, and so on - but still be PPC.

lomb

well linux runs on a pc so why not mac os. at the end of the day u will be able eventually to load microsoft windows on a mac, which is the best of both worlds in some ways

colm_c

Apple usually spread rumours about intel themselves to put pressure on IBM to produce the PowerPC (G5) processor quicker. They did this before when the G4 came out.

If it were true, with Apple's name for keeping everything under wraps until they can make a big splash, they'd be suing the people who leaked them...

Sarunas

Its most likely what MYOB said, use intels chips for embedded stuff.

falteringstar

Id say it would be more likely they'd start using this new "Cell" processor by IBM, said to be up to ten times faster then current chips, OS neutral and I think featuring in the new PLaystation.

Ruaidhri

falteringstar wrote:

Id say it would be more likely they'd start using this new "Cell" processor by IBM, said to be up to ten times faster then current chips,

that's a very generous estimation. i honestly dont think apple will be moving off to that platform

OS neutral and I think featuring in the new PLaystation.

how do you have an OS neutral chip?mebbe i'm just reading it wrong, that's like saying the x86 is windows only..and ppc is mac os only.

Maoltuile

"Also remember that Intel make a LOT more than processors. We could see Mac's using Intel 10GbE cards, Intel wireless cards, Intel flash memory, Intel modem chipsets, and so on - but still be PPC."

They use Intel for some internals of the Airport Base Station, IIRC...

L1011

Maoltuile wrote:

"Also remember that Intel make a LOT more than processors. We could see Mac's using Intel 10GbE cards, Intel wireless cards, Intel flash memory, Intel modem chipsets, and so on - but still be PPC."

They use Intel for some internals of the Airport Base Station, IIRC...

One of the older network cards Apple used - I think the Quiksilver might have had it - was an Intel also

Same way the first IBM machine used AMD components on the motherboard (before AMD made x86 clones); and the BeBox had AMD and Intel chips despite being a PPC. Apple could even be getting the Intel Extreme III for the G5 portables for all we know..

nutzboutstuff

How about apple just make RISC processors. As long as they support the same instruction set with a little tweaking, albeit BSD would run fine on it without problem. Before IBM was motorola, so there is no reason why intel could produce their newer chips. At the moment though its all about how much power the cpu dissipates, its the reason why we haven't seen G5 laptops as of yet. and its the reason we don't see quad xeon laptops too... I reckon when G5 processors have been developed and over developed into hybrids with maybe some other technology akin to the cell processor that we might see beyong 3Ghz ppc chips in mac laptops.
Plus who needs all this raw power when the machines of these days are all limited by their write to disk speed. Serial ATA just changes the bottle neck an inch or two into the harddrive. What we need is very high speed, drives with little power dissipation.

Hugh_C

lomb wrote:

well linux runs on a pc so why not mac os.

Lomb, it already does, pet.

ZENER

lomb wrote:

well linux runs on a pc so why not mac os. at the end of the day u will be able eventually to load microsoft windows on a mac, which is the best of both worlds in some ways

Linux for Mac.

Windows XP fo Mac !!!

ZEN

rsynnott

Ah, yep, this. I blogged about it here . CNet had a more specific article, which alleged they'd drop the IMB chips completely. It is not clear, however, whether they are looking at a 386 solution, the Itanium(IA-64), having Intel build PowerPCs (not completely impossible) or a completely custom chip. Will have to wait and see.

Yep, Linux has been running on the PowerPC for years, Windows NT 3.5 was available for PowerPC but later versions aren't; the above-linked thing is XP running on an emulator, probably Virtual PC.

L1011

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, yep, this. I blogged about it here . CNet had a more specific article, which alleged they'd drop the IMB chips completely. It is not clear, however, whether they are looking at a 386 solution, the Itanium(IA-64), having Intel build PowerPCs (not completely impossible) or a completely custom chip. Will have to wait and see.

Yep, Linux has been running on the PowerPC for years, Windows NT 3.5 was available for PowerPC but later versions aren't; the above-linked thing is XP running on an emulator, probably Virtual PC.

NT4 SP3 exists for PPC, as does the 'XBOX 360 Developers Kit' - Windows XP.

rsynnott

MYOB wrote:

NT4 SP3 exists for PPC, as does the 'XBOX 360 Developers Kit' - Windows XP.

Ah, yes, NT4 did it as well. Maybe it was MIPS they dropped at that point; they definitely dropped something in the transition. Are you sure the XBOX devkit is WinXP? All mentions of it I've seen so far have just said "a version of Windows NT"; a term which encompasses XP certainly.

Capt'n Midnight

MYOB wrote:

NT4 SP3 exists for PPC,

But not for Apple PPC - was it for IBM or HP ?

L1011

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, yes, NT4 did it as well. Maybe it was MIPS they dropped at that point; they definitely dropped something in the transition. Are you sure the XBOX devkit is WinXP? All mentions of it I've seen so far have just said "a version of Windows NT"; a term which encompasses XP certainly.

They didn't drop any architechture for NT4. The dropped MIPS instantly after NT4 came out, PPC at SP3, and Alpha at Windows 2000 Beta 3.

Everything I've read says the the XBOX dev kit is basically XP for the Powermac G5. Doesn't run on anything else, and doesn't have all the gubbins that the XP we know and despise does; but it has IE and it has Visual Studio...

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

But not for Apple PPC - was it for IBM or HP ?

3.5.x didn't run on Apple's either. NT for PPC ran on any CHRP compatible PPC machine (that it liked, thatis). Apple's used the PReP architechture, not CHRP

NT didn't, however, boot on the BeBox, which WAS CHRP and PowerPC. IDE controller issues I think.

(for reference, IBM made the only CHRP machines that it liked, so you are somewhat right)

Dizz

Confirmed - Mac to go all out x86
http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/apple_on_intel_confirmed/

64nDh1

unlikely I'd a thought, it would require a complete rewrite of the OS. But would mean direct competition against MS and that would be interesting to watch - if nothing else

Except they've been doing it for 5 years on Marklar in secret.

rsynnott wrote:

It is not clear, however, whether they are looking at a 386 solution, the Itanium(IA-64), having Intel build PowerPCs (not completely impossible) or a completely custom chip. Will have to wait and see.

Congrats on completely failing to RTFA. They're using Pentium 4s at the moment on a work in progress system called Rosetta. Jobs used it during the keynote, I'm not sure how tied to P4 only they are, the itanium rumours were all over the place, I think it's still to early to view this development reservedly. In 2 weeks developers can get hold of a copy of a Pentium 4 machine running Tiger 4.1. Some crossplatform programs were put on the new system in 2 hours (Wolfram Institute's Mathematica program). Development is forced away from CodeWarrior for the time being to XCode. This may pave the way for some form of advance from the G4 Powerbook as the G5 could never be put in such an environment due to energy use and heat requirements.

Nietzschean

who own's the patents on the current power pc chips? ibm or apple? my guess would be ibm, so apple may have to go x86 or itanium, either way potentially quite a substancial proformance drop for media applications, traditionally apple's core consumers....

Possibly releasing a cheaper line of mini-mac's to use x86 intel chips?

BSD can run on both, so there is no reason to suggest they couldn't go with both arch's

secret_squirrel

Darth Bobo wrote:

BSD can run on both, so there is no reason to suggest they couldn't go with both arch's

Its not OS compatability thats the issue - its Application compatabilty. Same as it was when they moved to OS X. Its pretty simple for a developer of a core product - in this case OS X (yes I know thats a gross simplification)- to move to a new chip/architechture - but they also have to factor in backwards compatability for a massive chunk of the installed applications out there. Thats the biggest thing that mitigates against a move to x86.

/edit just followed the linky - looks like its true! whoda thought it!! Presumably that means Tiger could also run on AMD too? Gives Job's a pair of cpu manufacturers to play off against each other - just like he did with Moto and IBM. Wonder if there is going to be some changes to the silicon to make the Mac86's run Tiger - seems a bit counter productive to go for a massively standard product (Intel x86 processors) then get it customised. Still probably still cheaper than IBM G5's.

L1011

Darth Bobo wrote:

who own's the patents on the current power pc chips? ibm or apple? my guess would be ibm, so apple may have to go x86 or itanium, either way potentially quite a substancial proformance drop for media applications, traditionally apple's core consumers....

Possibly releasing a cheaper line of mini-mac's to use x86 intel chips?

BSD can run on both, so there is no reason to suggest they couldn't go with both arch's

Apple own most of the IP on them now, actually.... Jointly held by Apple, IBM and Freescale Semi

secret_squirrel

Nother story here
and here

Zaph0d

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

wayne040576

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

I don't think so. I've read on other boards that they are just switching processors. They will probably keep the rest of the hardware as close as possible to what it is now. This way, they avoid having to deal with driver problems for multiple hardware set ups.

But it will make it easier to run another OS on apple hardware.

colm_c

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

tbh if that ever happened Apple would loose out so much, because their hardware would become redundant and since a copy of OS X is only about 129, their entire sales would have to depend on people buying the OS...

Zaph0d

wayne040576 wrote:

I don't think so. I've read on other boards that they are just switching processors. They will probably keep the rest of the hardware as close as possible to what it is now. This way, they avoid having to deal with driver problems for multiple hardware set ups.

But it will make it easier to run another OS on apple hardware.

Do you think you could buy an Intel-based Mac and install XP on a partition of the disk? Macs have great design so I think I'd like that.

Capt'n Midnight

In the future would there be something like WINE that would allow Windows apps to run natively on an i386 MAC ?

L1011

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In the future would there be something like WINE that would allow Windows apps to run natively on an i386 MAC ?

There already is - Darwine. Allows you to run Windows apps on Darwin; also allows you to currently recompile x86 Windows apps for OSX/X11 using Winelib in much the same way it does on Linux. I guess this will be ported to the x8 Mac's

Its not MAC, BTW - thats something totally different...

ZENER

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

I feel . . . . dirty !

I've just spent almost 2 f**king grand on a dual G5 only to be told it'll be obsolete next year !!!! Wonderful !! Absolutely f**king Wonderful !!!!

ZEN :mad:

Hugh_C

ZENER wrote:

I feel . . . . dirty !

I've just spent almost 2 f**king grand on a dual G5 only to be told it'll be obsolete next year !!!! Wonderful !! Absolutely f**king Wonderful !!!!

ZEN :mad:

Ehhhhh, what makes it any more obsolete in mid-2007 than it would already have been, if the Intel anouncement hadn't been made? Over-reacting a tad aren't you? It's still a dual G5, it'llstill run whatever software you're running today. Hopefully the processors won't have melted

hc

kevmac

I just spent nearly 3 grand on a PB 17 inch and I welcome the switch.

How does it change the fact that you have a cutting edge Mac to work and play on?

I always factor in a three year life span for every new computer before I get a new one - so by 2008 I will get whatever is out there from Apple and continue on.

And anyway its the OS that makes it all worthwhile: who cares what's under the hood?

rsynnott

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

Improbable. It will most likely not be a PC architecture, x86 or no.

kevmac

Must read article about the switch:

http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39202451,00.htm


Apple's tough year buys a bright future
Rupert Goodwins

ZDNet UK
June 07, 2005, 17:55 BST



Apple's transition to Intel will be tougher than it's letting on, but the prize will be worth it



There are a lot of people feeling betrayed by Steve Jobs today. The Mac faithful bought into every facet of the machine's special nature, including its non-Intel soul. Now, that key differentiator between the magic Macintosh and the evil Wintel has been lost: how can they look OS X in the eye again?

They should chill. Nobody buying a computer does so for the processor. This is a source of much sadness to those who appreciate good design: over the years, the Intel architecture has seen off any number of technically superior competitors. Even at birth the 8086 chip was something of a kludge, designed to work efficiently with small amounts of memory at the expense of making the systems software harder to write. Deep within the latest Pentiums, some of that legacy remains: in terms of aesthetics, this is the ugliest heart to beat within the Macintosh.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that Macintosh will be cheaper and faster than otherwise, and Apple now has the option of changing processor manufacturers again without any fuss whatsoever.

The effects on software — the stuff that people do buy computers for — will be subtle. As with the transition from the 68000 architecture to Power PC, there'll be a range of effects. Some software won't work well with Rosetta, the PowerPC translation program that will run old software on the new platform. It won't be updated and it will die with the old hardware. Some will work well enough, although there will be a performance hit. Some will be released in Intel form. By and large, although not without pain, the Apple world will move across.

Expect a slew of numbers. If there's one thing the technical press and its readers like, it's benchmarks — and in this case, there's no faffling ambiguity over what the figures mean and whether they're relevant to real life. Power PC versions will be run alongside Intel versions and the results endlessly descried for significance. Not that it matters: there's no going back.

One big problem isn't technical but commercial. Before the announcement, people were happy to buy Power PC Macs. After the announcement, all being well, they'll be happy to buy Intel Macs — when there are some to buy. Until that point, though, Apple may face a rapid collapse in sales as people wisely wait for the first of the new generation to come on stream in preference to buying the last of the old.

Grizzled veterans may remember this as the Osborne Effect, where a successful computer, 1981's Osborne 1, had a stake driven through its heart by the announcement of the much better Vixen, long before the latter was ready. CEO Adam Osborne had hoped for a ringing commitment to the future, but it was a fatal mistake. Nobody bought the Osborne 1, the cash dried up and the company died. That shouldn't happen to Apple — Osborne had other problems and no iPod — but expect the next six to twelve months to be lean.

Let's imagine that the transition happens perfectly, and we're in 2007 with OS X Intel boxes everywhere. What happens next? Although it is correct to point out that Intel compatibility is by no means the same as PC compatibility, the economic advantages of going Pentium are only fully realised if you also buy into the support chips, memory systems and interfaces of the standard PC. The five years of OS X Intel's secret life within Apple will have been spent on normal, off-the-shelf PC hardware. Apple's Intel designs may have extra bits to make sure you don't go running OS X on any old box, but at heart they'll be the same as anyone else's — and OS X will indeed run on any old box, given the will.

If Apple decides it wants to be primarily a software company, it can easily make it so. It's unlikely to carry on making high-end PCs once that decision's been made — it's tried that before, and it hurt — and shrink-wrapped OS X may be a while in coming, but any number of interesting bundling deals with PC manufacturers suggest themselves. Making sure that new peripherals come with the right software to work with OS X is difficult, but then drivers are always a problem. The same issue confronts 64-bit Windows, Longhorn and Linux. It's not fatal. PC manufacturers, well versed in the enlivening effects of proper competition through their experiences of AMD versus Intel, will be more than keen to acquire a new stick with which to beat Microsoft. The carpet in front of Job's desk will be worn smooth over the next year by supplicant suits.

But Apple wants to be a hardware company: now, it has new ways to play. Imagine a media centre backed by a video version of iTunes and running OS X — it's an immediately more attractive proposition than Microsoft's Windows idea. Moreover, OS X looks lovely and it doesn't come with an entire forest of bloodsucking parasites that have to be constantly beaten off with sticks.

Apple has dispensed with its biggest disadvantage, that of low-volume pricing in a high-volume world, and that other domestic bugbear — Macintosh doesn't do games — has also vanished. Nobody bothered porting high performance PC videogames to the Mac; the market was too small and the expense damning. Assuming Apple don't mess up their video card strategy, moving games from Microsoft PCs to OS X in the future will be infinitely easier.

So here's what will happen. There'll be twelve months in the wilderness, with developers weeping and analysts predicting doom. Then the first domestic Intel Mac minis will arrive, combining competitive pricing and performance with a major update in online media services, together with Powerbooks bundled with lots of productivity software — after its fast, Apple will be hungry for market share. Then will come the workers Macs, then the first of the full-blown media centres — heavily integrated with online services, ultrawideband iPods and digital imaging.

Freed for the first time from the Apple hardware premium, all of the above will be properly competitive with the Microsoft alternatives and much more attractive. Yes, the transition hurts. But if Apple isn't killed by the process, it will emerge a whole lot stronger — and that's good news for everyone. Even the Mac faithful.

ZENER

hughchal wrote:

Ehhhhh, what makes it any more obsolete in mid-2007 than it would already have been, if the Intel anouncement hadn't been made? Over-reacting a tad aren't you? It's still a dual G5, it'llstill run whatever software you're running today. Hopefully the processors won't have melted

hc

It's just that it's the bloody story of my life !! I bought an Amiga 600 which was promptly superceded by the Amiga 1200 with AG bloody A. I bought an Amiga 4000/040 and Commodore promptly went bust !!!

I bought an iBook 2 years ago !! What did the f**kers do? Oh they only went and upgraded the f**king thing 2 months later to a flippin' iBook G4 didn't they !!! And now !!!! . . . they've bloody well done it again haven't they !!! My shiney new G5 has hardly lost it's new smell nor the bits of wrapping still on the feet/handles left there to protect it from scratches and the 2 GB of spanking new special RAM winging it's way from the UK hasn't even been introduced to its new home !! What do you mean I'm over reacting ?! I'll flippin' well over react if I want to !!!

Maybe the Wintel regime have something going for them . . . at least no matter what feckin' one I buy it'll still have the same spyware and malware available to run on it.

I feel . . . dirtier !!!

ZEN

rsynnott

People who already have G5s are over-reacting. PPC support will be there for a long time; as Jobs says, it's now relatively easy to develop for both platforms at once (is new Xcode any good btw MYOB?) and the high-end machines will be PPC until 2007 AT THE EARLIEST. You've got a nicer machine than is really available in a Wintel desktop; don't complain

ZENER

A 2 grand PAPER WEIGHT !!

I'm jesting of course (not about the ibook or amiga though !) The G5 is a fantastic machine and I already have the apps I need. They're not suddenly going to stop functioning because of the new CPU in another machine !

In all seriousness though I wonder if Apples greater plan is to launch an attack on Microsoft Windows dominance in the descktop OS market once all the bugs have been ironed out and off the shelf Windows apps work directly with OS X. There goes our nice virus free life for ever when that happens !

ZEN

rsynnott

Erm, MacOS would surely remain fairly virus-free?

No, I doubt MacOS will ever run on standard PCs; it would destroy Mac's hardware business.

ZENER

Just watched the WWDC video. Intel will be supplying the CPU's by the end of 2006. Apple just announced Leopard OS X for that time. What do you think . . Leopard . . changing spots . . . Intel CPU ???? Anyone ?

ZEN

ZENER

After seeing that video of the WWDC 2005 I want Steve Jobs to be my daddy !!!

The guy is amazing, he has me looking forward to the Pentium powered Mac.

The iMac P4 he had on stage was impressive - much faster than I've seen a G5 work. Just goes to show how much Windows is holding it back !

What about software, is he waxing lyrical somewhat about the simplicity of the change over, sure Mathmatica looked impressive but is it that easy. Also what about all versions of OSX being developed for Intel since it's inception 5 years ago ? Hands up who knew about that !

Interesting times ahead for sure !

ZEN

PhantomBeaker

I know it's kinda already been said, but just because apple is choosing to go with an x86 CPU doesn't mean that Windows XP will automatically run on it.

Case in point: Remember the Sega Megadrive, the SNES and the Amiga (I forget which one) - they were all based around the same CPU (the motorolla 68000 if I remember correctly - I think the old macs were as well)... yet they were all incredibly different! You'd need to work very hard to get something designed for one to run on another.

Just remember: The CPU isn't everything.

My own opinion, though, is that it seems almost like a step down for them, in the name of saving money and power. I remember seeing a case study comparing the G5 and the Pentium 4 and I must say the G5 just looks SO much better on paper... and I'm not even a mac fan. There again, that's on paper.

Take care,
P.B.

wayne040576

PhantomBeaker wrote:

I know it's kinda already been said, but just because apple is choosing to go with an x86 CPU doesn't mean that Windows XP will automatically run on it.

Case in point: Remember the Sega Megadrive, the SNES and the Amiga (I forget which one) - they were all based around the same CPU (the motorolla 68000 if I remember correctly - I think the old macs were as well)... yet they were all incredibly different! You'd need to work very hard to get something designed for one to run on another.

Just remember: The CPU isn't everything.


Take care,
P.B.

XP won't run on it easily but it should make it easier to port more linux distributions to the mac.

amp

It was funny reading the older articles on various technews sites before and after the announcement. From - It'll never happen! to It was obviously going to happen! In fairness I didn't see it coming either, I was convinced they were going to eventually go with some version of the Cell cpu. Should've known from the lack of hype involving Apple and IBM.

As many have said, it doesn't really change much, just means Apple can take advantage of the AMD/Intel race like the rest of the PC Industry. I think they will release cheaper Macs (while still pimping the high end dream machines) probably in the Mini-Mac segment in order to strengthen them in the education market (get 'em young ).

I think this is good, I think Apple will get stronger in both the short and long term which in turn will put pressure on Microsoft which is already facing pressure at the other end from Linux. Pressure is good for innovation and competition. It's probably a relief to IBM as the deal with Apple wasn't hugely profitable.

amp: pc owner and Apple voyeur

rsynnott

PhantomBeaker wrote:

My own opinion, though, is that it seems almost like a step down for them, in the name of saving money and power. I remember seeing a case study comparing the G5 and the Pentium 4 and I must say the G5 just looks SO much better on paper... and I'm not even a mac fan. There again, that's on paper.


P.B.

Well, it won't BE the Pentium 4; Intel has scrapped NetBurst. It'll probably be dual-core Pentium Ms. But yep, not at all as nice an architecture and less future-proof. I'm wondering will they be looking at IA-64 as a third platform soon.

rsynnott

wayne040576 wrote:

XP won't run on it easily but it should make it easier to port more linux distributions to the mac.

Erm, I'm curious. What do you think the barriers to porting a Linux distribution to PowerPC are? Linux has been running on PowerPC for years.

L1011

rsynnott wrote:

Erm, I'm curious. What do you think the barriers to porting a Linux distribution to PowerPC are? Linux has been running on PowerPC for years.

True, I have a large blue OS box - not a Windows one mind - and a large white OS box, both with 'YellowDog Linux' written on the front... 3.0 and 4.0, both run on Macintosh PowerPC, 4.0 also runs on the Genesi Pegasos

BTW guys, Jobs said that while they won't ship Windows with a OSX86 machine, there is 'nothing to stop a user running it on it'. Current stuff on the Apple Developer Connect site show that its an Intel i915 motherboard, with a full IA32 BIOS, and hence capable of running Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and BeOS out-of-the-box....

Cabaal

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ Has alot of info on the Apple Dev machines and Rosetta

wayne040576

rsynnott wrote:

Erm, I'm curious. What do you think the barriers to porting a Linux distribution to PowerPC are? Linux has been running on PowerPC for years.

I said it would be easier to port them. There are several distributions (debian, yellowdog, gentoo etc) that have an x86 version and an ppc version. There have been other non official verstions (slackintosh - port of slackware) that have been released.
I'm assuming it should be easier to maintain an x86 version now that should run on both pc and mac with a few tweaks. From the distro maintainer's point of view, it could make life easier.

L1011

wayne040576 wrote:

I said it would be easier to port them. There are several distributions (debian, yellowdog, gentoo etc) that have an x86 version and an ppc version. There have been other non official verstions (slackintosh - port of slackware) that have been released.
I'm assuming it should be easier to maintain an x86 version now that should run on both pc and mac with a few tweaks. From the distro maintainer's point of view, it could make life easier.

Except the PPC distros will be maintained for a looooooooong time to come. m68k debian packages are still built, for instance. This just gives (potentially, but actually now looks unlikely) a second set of bootloaders to faff around with. Not as bad as the mipsel and mipsbe issues... (same CPU, one running in big endian mode, one running in little endian mode)

Snickers Man

Rupert Goodwins' article is a good one right enough.

Especially this paragraph.

Although it is correct to point out that Intel compatibility is by no means the same as PC compatibility, the economic advantages of going Pentium are only fully realised if you also buy into the support chips, memory systems and interfaces of the standard PC. .....Apple's Intel designs may have extra bits to make sure you don't go running OS X on any old box, but at heart they'll be the same as anyone else's — and OS X will indeed run on any old box, given the will.

Translation: Apple is getting out of the PC hardware industry; they won't be offering anything especially different from anybody else and if Sun can't make a living from selling slightly overpowered and hugely overpriced hardware in the enterprise server space, what chance does Apple have in the consumer space?

They don't have the volume to survive.

Do they still make PCs in Cork? Expect a rationalisation announcement from there fairly soon.

So Apple will be left as a company with:

an operating-system software business entrenched in niches in fashion conscious sectors like design, photography, music production etc.

a reputation for cool electronic devices like iPods.

Methinks it will morph into a design company playing mainly in the consumer electronics business. iPods super cool digital cameras, appliances with easy to use software allowing you to do all sorts of undreamable stuff with your digital content.

Macintosh (which is an OS not a computer) will probably be flogged off to a more appropriate company sooner rather than later.

Who could it be?

Microsoft 1/4
IBM 10/1
Novell 25/1
Sun 50/1
Red Hat/Mandrake or some other Linux developer 100/1

Maybe I'm mad. Better to be wrong than vague, though.

rsynnott

Well, first of all, there are computer manufacturers with far smaller volumes than Mac surviving (Alienware and such).

I find it implausible that they'll dro[ their operating system after 25 years developing it. They make ONE non-computer consumer product, and it's not dramatically profitable; one of its major functions is as a draw to the computers.