Mac OS X on x86 Hardware

Some quotes that struck me, for one reason or another, from around the ‘net:

Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s i wish i was there i would have bood

Maybe the gaming consoles have tied up all the high-end chips from IBM for the forseeable future. This is how our friend Bill is finally going to blow Apple out of the water – prevent them from building boxes. Apple sees this and instead of running back to Moto with their tail between their legs, they hedge their bets and go intel. I hope not, but you never know… 3 chips per box x 1 million Xboxen this XMAS – and Apple still stuck at 2.8 GHz 18 months after the 3 GHz promise? It’s a nightmare, but a possibility, knowing IBM’s penchant for promising the world and not always delivering…

I’m kind of shocked. Does this mean no new hardware until the intel stuff begins to ship by next year’s WWDC? That would be an insane business move. They should at least update the ibook and mac mini. I am disappointed

There won’t be news of non-Apple PCs that run Mac OS X at all. And Apple won’t take any steps to make that possible, at least in the short term. But clever hackers will work very, very hard to create homebrew Macs.

“We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit. “We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform.”

On x86, if Intel doesn’t delivers, Apple could always turn to AMD as their major supplier. Lots of options with x86, as oppose to PowerPC with Motorola (or Freescale) and IBM as their only options…

14 Responses to “Mac OS X on x86 Hardware”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I don’t like it Elliot. We have an iBook and a Powerbook. The battery life is far superior to the PCs. I believe the reason is because of the less resource hugging OS and better processor system. We are all shocked by this. There will no longer be an alternative! Getting like Tesco Food Stores… I am very worried that perhaps the standards of Apple will go down because they will not be good at what they have always been good at. I’m particularly worried about the laptop range because those processors were the strong points, IMO, of the Apple books. Time will tell…

  2. Anonymous says:

    I forgot to say, that was Alan writing above. :D

  3. Anonymous says:

    Im disappointed, but I guess it had to happen. i had always hoped that if Apple jumped ship, they would go with AMD, but apparently the Pentium M blows away anything they have to offer as far as mobile chips go. Im pretty sure laptops will be the first thing to shift to Intel. I bought my powerbook over a year and a half ago and its 1 GHz. The same model now is using the same processor model at 1.5 GHz, with no more than modest speed bumps in the forseeable future. Thats pretty poor.

    I haven’t seen any indication that Apple is tied exclusively to Intel. I think they could use AMD 64-bit processors in the high end machines if they want to, but no point in creating more confusion in the meantime. See where things stand when the G5s get closser to EOL.

    Im definitely sad to see the PowerPC platform abandoned (as far as desktops are concerned). Its such a better architecture, but unless somebody wants to throw research dollars at it at the same scale Intel does the x86, theres not much hope for it to stay competitive.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I agree fully.

    I am very pleased to read this:

    Analysis: Apple Eyes The Pentium M; IBM Looks To Game Consoles

    The first Apple systems to use Intel chips, in 2006, will rely on the
    Pentium M processor, according to sources familiar with the companies’
    plans. The Pentium M uses the same x86 architecture as the Pentium 4
    but consumes far less power.,4902,102322,00.html?nlid=HW

    That is a relief.

    I know that Apple were struggling to get the G5 cooling system sorted for the laptops. It was a real shame that it required so much cooling that it couldn’t go into the laptops yet. I should think you are correct, it is an alternative to help increase the speeds, as they obviously can’t get them any faster for the laptops at the moment because of the cooling.


  5. Anonymous says:


    What are you going to do about the Cydevr Forums? They’ve been down for about 2 weeks


  6. Anonymous says:

    I’m looking forward to running Mac OS X on my PC soon. This allows me, a Mac user since 1984, to measure how slow Mac OS X is as compared to Windows XP.

    I have several Macs but I prefer to work on my PC. The Mac was good until 10 years ago but today, Windows on Intel or AMD hardware is far superior to Mac OS X on Apple hardware.

  7. julien says:

    i think this move goes in the same direction as bringing the iPod and iTunes to MS Windows and by coming out with the Apple Mini where you just buy the Mini and plug your PC stuff to attract pc user to Mac.

    I suspect that Jobs ( smart as he is) has a long term action plan to regain more pc users: watch this, in 5 to 8 years from now, the new, maybe called, OS X “Giraffe” will work as well as on the future G6, G7 or G52 as on any pc.

    So i think this move may benefit Mac users on a short term action plan with greater speed and all but not at all on a long term one because of the increase of virus, trojan and other bugs; that are mostly inexistant from the Apple world.

    like Elton John said:”its a sad..sad…sad situation….”

  8. Ocean Breeze says:

    Looking at it pragmatically; it may be quite a brilliant move in Steve’s strategy to make Apple more mainstream. All you have to do is look at market share to understand from a business perspective how far behind Wintel the mac is. Linux growth has shown that people are looking for a non Windows solution to their needs – why not step in with Apple.

    Yes, many questions exist – can they still continue bringing out top class hardware if they are competing with Windows based machines – yes , they can. Why ? because today they are competing with windows machines anyway . Look at the powerbooks – they go head to head with all Win hardware in the same space.

    Also if Apple is restricted from developing on account of the chipmaker not being able to bring out a chip for the G5 laptop – kudos to apple for seeing the writing onthe wall and having the courage to do something about it

  9. Kenta says:

    “I’m looking forward to running Mac OS X on my PC soon. This allows me, a Mac user since 1984, to measure how slow Mac OS X is as compared to Windows XP.

    I have several Macs but I prefer to work on my PC. The Mac was good until 10 years ago but today, Windows on Intel or AMD hardware is far superior to Mac OS X on Apple hardware.”

    Sorry to burst your bubble but you can only use OS X on mac Hardware even if you run it on Intel.

  10. Bryan says:

    First of all, I think your a little mis-informed about how a mac runs in comparison to a pc. The reason that pentiums are blowing past the 4 ghz barrier is because they use little flakey apps like notepad and windows built in calculator to benchmark them, while both apple and amd use unreal tournament which pushes the loads the processors down to the max. So, as you can deduce, the numbers look a lot more impressive but who cares if you have a 4 ghz calculator. Also, in response to number six above, again another person who doesnt know what they are talking about. The PPC architecture has and always will be far superior to any other system because of its methods of handling large amounts of data at high speeds. It doesnt run into the bottle neck problem that x86’s do. Go do your homework. Personally I don’t know what to think. I know it will never run as well as it would on its native platform, but windows doesnt even do that.

  11. DeathTech says:

    Apple needs to pull their head out of their A$$. Its amazing to me how stupidly stuck up some people are, simply because their platform is more expensive. look at jaguar, not true now, mind you, they saw the light. but at one time jag was selling cars for an amazing amount of money, and the average every day ford would not only outlast it, but it was more efficient. Here we have the “I just paid a lot of money for this underprocessing pretty deskweight and now i have to justify that by putting down the companies that make better, faster hardware, because they dont cost as much, and because i paid more for it mines better” attitude. Now that Mac has taken the first step from coming out of its decrepid hole, it has held onto its last strand of individuality and by doing that, has only alienated itself to mass market. thats why M$ had to save their asses in the past. Bill wanted a good competitor, someone who was challening. it is lonely at the top. but once again steve is trying to change the world all at once, instead of a step at a time. i Think Macs are beautiful machines, beautiful architecture, beautiful OS and well built for what they are. Proprietary Over Priced Nerd Magnets, For Nerds Who Fear HAving to Set up security on Their Own. Please Steve, if you offer OSX for Other Types of Hardware, i will gladly contribute to taking down the man. Just do it already and quit goofing off. otherwise, go buy a linux box.

  12. GreyscaleFox says:

    I belive that shifting to x86 and x64 will be good for Apple as it would shift to more mainstream systems. Anything that screws Microsoft must be a good thing. I belive that at current Apples are the preserve of people who want to be different, people who buy them “to get on that interwhatsit thingy” (a fortuantly dieing breed) and “creatives”. By “creatives” I refer to webdesigners (such as myself), video editors and photographers, and everything else between. As Apple shifts x86, I hope to see them shift to AMD chips prefereably, but a £50 OEM box with an install disk and reg key would be a boon for all of them lovely people who have concidered linux, tried it and got swamped with anything more complex than a live disk (Like oneself. Albeit my issue is the giant downloads required!).

    In summery, I belive that going x86 and x64 is a great thing to draw in new MAC users, but they run the risk of alienating their current backing. I belive they should make an iMac lookalike with a x86 in it. That I would buy. Immediatly. Think about it. Put a TFT in the front and concider how roomy those things are. I have been concidering getting a broken iMac and doing just this.

    -Peace out

    From GreyscaleFox

  13. Hakimi says:

    I installed mac osx86 (hacked version) on my Pentium 4 1.9GHz and it works fine. It doesn’t recognized my soundcard though. But it’s a far faster than XP running on the same hardware.

  14. […] as I can remember, I began following Steve Jobs around 2005, when he announced that Apple would be switching to x86 hardware. He really impressed me in 2006, when he announced the MacBook Pro and […]

Leave a Reply