Talk:Mac transition to Intel processors

message: Shall we call this article "The PPC-x86 transition of Apple Macintosh"? Apple is more than Macintosh. Intel is more than x86. And how about "migration"? -- Toytoy 07:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
:"Macintosh x86 migration"? --Ihope127 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support renaming. It's the Macintosh, not Apple, that is moving to Intel. "Macintosh Intel migration". jamiemcc 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal 

message: This article's problem isn't POV.  The problem is the fact that it isn't an encyclopedia article; it's an essay full of opinion and analysis.  It needs major work. Tverbeek 17:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished up some heavy editing of the important bits, and I went ahead and deleted the whole Future section since it's not really relevant to the article, being mostly off-topic analysis. The Hurdles section could still use some rearranging, but most of the POV problems should be fixed now, hopefully. Let me know if there's anything I missed. -lee 05:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: "Virtual PC, a Windows emulation solution for Apple PowerPC sold by Microsoft, could now enjoy much more success with performance improved through virtualisation rather than emulation. For those customers wishing to achieve a more conventional environment, a dual, triple, or even quadruple boot solution would likely be possible on an x86 Apple device."
Not sure if thisbelongs in the article or not, but it's a fair bet that as soon as the official animal is on the market, a version of WINE will be built for the platform, too (in much the same way as there's a version built for Solaris x86) enabling direct use of Windows applications in OSX.
Unless, of course, that's included and makes WINE totally unnecessary. But I'll also bet anything that Microsoft'll do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.
Dodger 07:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that, this article is a lot of words and little content. I came here searching for compatibility questions and find an article about customer perception in hard times of change in the Jobs cult. Gotta love those Mac egomaniacs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.56.119 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulation/Virtualisation 

message: I added a note about how Macs will be protected from Windows viruses because it doesn't give users admin access by default but it was reverted. It's cited in the Windows XP article in the criticisms section, so I'm going to put it back in. 24.166.150.105 22:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also to note that even being an Administrator, to change something of the system, or install something with "System" privileges you MUST input the administrator password (unless you hack it, but you shouldn't do). However in Windows being an administrator allows any program you execute to get administrator or system privileges. — Claunia 22:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Impossible? Why? Heck, it isn't even impossible today. The PowerPC bc (branch conditional, using the "branch always" encoding) instruction can be made to act as a big fat nop (do nothing) instruction on x86. With an x86 Mac, you'd only need to look around in memory a bit to determine that the machine is indeed not running Windows. You could even share much of the exploit binary. You can hit other operating systems too while you're at it, as long as they all run similarly buggy apps. 24.110.60.225 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you’re saying that it would be theoretically possible to write a virus that affected both systems, provided that they had the same security flaws. That doesn’t mean that WIndows-only viruses would magically start affecting the Macintosh just because it has an x86 processor. David Arthur 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Mac / Windows 

message: Chris83 is incorrect. Viruses running in Wine can affect the host system. It would require additional work for a virus/trojan/etc to propagate under Wine, but any malware that recursively trawls available directories and attempts to modify/delete listed files would be able to do so (modulo Wine's permissions). Frankie 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that none of the viruses that Matt tried actually worked, even after he took extra efforts to help a couple of them.  So it is still purely speculation.  AlistairMcMillan 17:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your definition of "worked"? Most of them executed in some fashion, a few successfully wrote files (the important part), and one pegged the CPU. It is not speculation to say that Windows malware could arbitrarily alter any directories that are writeable under the virtualizer's permissions. Frankie 00:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Something that modifies files and directories on your own machine isn't a virus.  Isn't the main point of a virus to propagate?  Did any of these Windows viruses manage to do that in Wine?  Could any of the machines even be said to be infected after the viruses were run?  I'm not saying it isn't possible that it might happen in the future.  I'm just saying it isn't true now and we don't know whether it might be true in the future.  So it is speculation.  And we have rules about that.  AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viruses & Virtual Machines 

message: :See Talk:Apple-Intel architecture#New article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Does anyone have the video of Jobs announcing the Intel transition? McDonaldsGuy 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be the WWDC 2005 keynote?  (Found with a Google for "video wwdc 2005 site:apple.com".)  Guy Harris 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page seems to be down, but you can see a nice chunk here:  - Stormwatch 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of the announcement 

message: It appears that both Conroe and Merom have already started shipping. I was about to add this to the article right now, but for the sake of accuracy it can afford to wait two more days when Intel makes the official announcement. Frankie 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merom in July 

message: (This also represents the first time in the history of the platform that applications dating from 1984’s original 128k Mac have been unable to run on a stock Mac.)
I don't believe that this is correct... old programs from the 128k mac often have problems running due to unsupported resolutions and colors... I can think of several games that req'd 256 colors to run properly, and a lot of more recent macs simply couldn't be put in 256 color mode... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmorrisey (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure about this statement... 

message: I replaced fair use image with public domain one. I thought, that FU can be used, only when (citing)
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
but Stormwatch changed it back with message
Changed back to the fair use image. Try again when the free image is not a SHITTY BLURRED MESS.
I thought that if there is equivalent to copyrighted image, I should use it - but that one was shitty blurred mess. Which one should wikipedia use? I simply don't know --Have a nice day. Running 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use / free image 

message: The time line needs updated.
:Yes.  Everything after the Mac Pro needs to be removed, as that was the point at which the transition was complete.  That way, we don't end up uselessly listing every new Mac or update to existing Mac model (that belongs in the List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type article).  Guy Harris 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline Update

message: Why did Apple switch to EFI rather than using Open Firmware on x86? All the article says on the topic that EFI is better than the traditional PC BIOS, which seems pretty irrelevant. When I asked around, some people speculated licensing issues. But since Apple was already using Open Firmware, that doesn't seem like the problem. The most likely explanation seems to be simply that Intel was pushing it, and Apple is sleeping with Intel... Aij (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Firmware vs. EFI

message: There are several anti-windows barbs in this article. It could use a good cleansing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.159.15 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I imagine most of this was written in 2005-6 in response to contemporary press reports. It really should be rewritten from the ground-up to provide a more historical perspective. I removed the "Viruses" section because it was pretty much entirely an out-dated editorial. 71.134.252.36 (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wish I had more time. I did clean up the Reasons section a bit, due to the slight holy-war tilt in the edits there over AMD (trimmed both the uncited "industry standard" claim and the uncited "well-known fact that AMD chips are power-hungry" claim, but that para still needs cites). HelpnWP (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: do we have to wait 20 years for the official history to be released?
No, only until Motorola announces the G6  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  so why exactly did they switch? 

message: Apple is the only computer company to have successfully completed such a transition, as every other manufacturer who has tried - Commodore, Atari, Acorn Computers, Digital Equipment Corporation, SGI, Kaypro - have all failed.[1]
I believe this is wrong, for example DEC had a transition from various PDP models to VAX to being part of Compaq. SGI also changed the architecture of its workstations multiple times (RISC -> Itanium -> Xeon ). 
: Sure that's wrong but you have to understand that for the average iPhone-junkie, computer history starts with Steve Jobs and the knowledge horizon ends at the outlines of the iPad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.56.119 (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong statement 

message: I recall AMD having a CPU in that produced less heat at full speed than the Intel CPU Apple chose did at idle. That CPU was in production when the first Intel Mac developer systems were released, soAppl could have gone with AMD. Bizzybody (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD's lack of low power CPUs? 

message: Article says:
"June 11, 2012: Apple releases iTunes 10.6.3, their last application with support for PowerPC processors"
According to Safari version history, Safari through version 5.1.10 (released September 12, 2013) ran on OS X 10.6.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.5.23 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apple's transition to Intel processors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614170257/http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/07/liveupdate/ to http://macworld.com/news/2006/08/07/liveupdate/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. because the current title seems better  PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Mac transition to Intel processors →  – It also included Xserve, which is not part of the Mac series. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 December 2022