Apple in Talks with Intel?

[Lacero]

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.

[iGary]

Is it WWDC yet?

Proves to be a very interesting conference.

[drison]

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.

I do like that idea. I only use my pc for gaming these days but if Apple could pull off a card with integrated cpu/video or cpu and integrate with existing video, that'd be worth a couple hundred to me to dump my pc. I'm afraid that would be prohibitively expensive for Apple though and may not have a high enough roi. I rather just have native games for Mac. :D

-Dave

[nomore]

I really don't think Apple would use x86 based CPU.

This is why:

Even if they used a different system archiecture, programs like PearPC will still enable generic PCs to emulate the differences, but the biggest difference, and the one with the most impact on performance is the CPU... and this would allow the system to run natively. Apple would turn essentially into a software company.. and this is bad because...

People would build their own PCs and run OS X on it. How many people that build PCs these days acutally purchase a Windows XP licence? I bet it's a very small percentage.

Apple would loose control of hardware... thus stability, and Apple would loose control of what hardware their OS and software runs on... thus high levels of piracy.

The reason for this is because x86 based components are much easier for individuals to source than PPC based components. So there would be a lot of home brew Macs running pirated OS X and pirated Apple software.

[frodicus]

There's absolutely no point in going to Intel for a 'third way'. The only benefit to going to them at all would be for cross compatibility and marketing thereof. Picking them would alienate the traditionalists but buy the mass-market. Locking out everyone initially simply in order to gain some marketing 'Mhz' numbers is an incredibly bad idea, and would fool no-one. People want OS X on their PC. Moving to x86 would only really enable easier games playing for Mac owners - an incredibly stupid idea at the birth of a new console generation.

It would be tantamount to splitting the market even further, maybe something Intel might like to do to what is possibly the current largest PowerPC customer, but of no benefit to Apple whatsoever.

[Fabio_gsilva]

" Standard & Poor's Equity Research reiterated a "hold" rating on Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) after a report stating that the company may start using chips from Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ). Apple has made statements in the past that it has considered a switch from IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ). "We think Apple could potentially benefit from Intel's economies of scale, which could lower its component costs," the research firm said. "We believe key considerations would be whether the switch includes all of Apple's computers and the timeframe involved." S&P Equity Research views Apple as fairly valued, citing its strong balance sheet and iPod success. "

Men, come on, this is only crap, only gossips spreaded for some wall street broker trying to make more money! This is only rumors. That's all. They don't even know about the diference from Apple products and Dell computers! It's only ******** and start talking about switching processor suplier. It's not so easy an you know that!

People here have posted that Apple could be talking about PCIe and other wi-fi solutions and this is very likely to be true! Forget about changing processors!!

[Platform]

Because no one wants to read 400 posts before they put theirs up :(

Well you should....if not every thread will just repeat everything ;) = No point in posting ;)

[Mitch1984]

Probably just in talks to develop OS X for PC's that's all.

[jouster]

Probably just in talks to develop OS X for PC's that's all.

"That's all?"

Nothing major, then?

[fluidinclusion]

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.


While your comment is technically valid, it isn't realistic. When is the last time you bought a brand name PC? No Windows CD comes with it. And, when they do come with machines, they are OEM only for that machine. I've dealt with IBM and SONY, and neither includes the Windows CD. The restore "CD" is a partition on the hard drive. IBM would not give us a Windows restore CD for any of the 9 computers we bought from them. After our warranty runs out this year, we're left buying a retail copy of Windows. Not right.

How are people who don't have Windows CD's going to install this on a new Mac if it could run Windows?

[iDrinkKoolAid]

The current Apple offerings are as good as anything you are going to get in the PC world.

Hi. First time posting. Left MacCentral since they've tended to censor many of my posts. No free speech on that web site.

This is not a personal attack towards you Sedulous, but I own a 12" PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz with 1.25GB RAM and I think its speed sucks big time. I am envious of my friend who owns a Sony Vaio with a 1.7GHz Pentium M with 2GB RAM. That computer runs circles around mine. Faster processor, lower heat dissipation, and awesome screen. But awful OS, of course. With Sony in its doldrums, I think Apple should buy Sony and incorporate some of their engineering prowess. The Sony design studio uses Macs anyway.

Apple, if you're gonna keep this awful G4 processor, at least give us better displays on the laptops. None of this non-XBrite 1024 x 768 crap on my 12-inch. I'll gladly pay more for a better display option - don't bite the hand that feeds it. But what else is new. Your latest G5 update is pathetic. If the processor update was so horrid, at least put PCIe and a modern graphics card in your machines to save face. I have no complaints about the pricing though. I understand that Macs need to cost more than Dull Dimensions.

I an research student in engineering and all, yes ALL my work is done on the WinBlowz dark side unfortunately since no software exists (except an unusable one or two) for the Mac. What are you doing Apple to port S.P.I.C.E., which has been axed since 1995 for people who need to do electrical engineering? Apples 'Made for science' campaign is a joke.

I have used and will always use Macs since generally 'they just work' and is a much less infuriating experience than WinDoze but there is much to be desired from someone with my needs. Yes, I like to rant. :mad:

[iGary]

That computer runs circles around mine.

Does it run OS X?

Next.

[kirk26]

Originally Posted by Sedulous
The current Apple offerings are as good as anything you are going to get in the PC world.

I almost spit my water out after reading that. Too funny.

[milano2004]

I could only feel pity for what they were talking.

----
The rumor originated at The Wall Street Journal:

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips. :(

[csubear]

I an research student in engineering and all, yes ALL my work is done on the WinBlowz dark side unfortunately since no software exists (except an unusable one or two) for the Mac. What are you doing Apple to port S.P.I.C.E., which has been axed since 1995 for people who need to do electrical engineering? Apples 'Made for science' campaign is a joke.



install fink
open terminal
type
fink install spice
.....
.....

No its not pspice, but it is spice.

[lotus87]

This really isn't a logical move for Apple across the line and I doubt that's what they're doing. Apple knows quite well that at the high-end they have the top processor and architecture, even if the clock speeds are lower. They wouldn't be investing in G5 computing clusters if that wasn't the case. If you need more proof, witness the similar (but not the same) IBM processor architecture being used in Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution game systems. (I smell G5 game development platforms around the corner -- and hopefully that leads to more games on MacOS X).

Where this does make sense is in two other areas. First, in motherboard components. Intel has within 5 years went from a bit player to a leader in motherboard controllers (mostly be leveraging their processor business, but that's another discussion). They also make a variety of other component chips. Second, the power & heat dissipation requirements of the latest PowerPC G5s has prevented Apple from improving laptop speeds as much as they want and need to. Intel definitely has the market cornered and dominated AMD with its Pentium M line, which is highly regarded for efficient performance at low power consumption and low heat dissipation. The recent tablet PC patent shows Apple wants to expand its portable offerings, so this may fit with that product as well.

[whooleytoo]

They shifted from Motorola to IBM and no one lost any sleep over it.

I'm not so sure, Motorola seemed to have a bigger emphasis on low power consumption (probably as most of their chips were destined for embedded use, whereas IBM designed primarily for workstations), which might explain why we haven't seen any moves from IBM towards a new G4 or mobile G5 for PowerBooks yet.

[Church]

Well you should....if not every thread will just repeat everything ;) = No ponit in posting ;)

I have read every post in this thread. I was just saying not everyone else did or was going to. ;) POST 342!

[rolandf]

Some general remarks:

Just to be cheaper in the sens of being cheap does not work: nobody so far was able to beat Dell
cf. HP Compaq merger

What keeps companies like IBM ahead, is inovation and research!

Putting OSX on Intel machines would hurt MS, and they would have to react!

You always want to have people who have something to distinguish themselves, e.g. many Mac users
with Intel you loose it. Then probably a new company would come up, to give that feeling back.

However, it is true, that Apple has to work on some issues hard.

The screens they are selling in their notebooks are outdated, and those of the iBook are really bad.
In science and education, there are still a lot of apps that are not available for Mac (just check it out on Amazon)
Further, many people in research have notebooks which are either from Dell or IBM.
The story of Apple in research and is highly overrated; Europe is PC based.

Sadly, in the last time Apple induced a lot of negative press and not many convincing solutions.

It would be better, they focus on core things, like
bringing a new OS, that represents the future. So far, that did not happen!

[Sunrunner]

Intel has consistently been ahead of IBM, and I see no reason to suspect this will change in the near future. Maybe it's a good idea?


X86 Architecture has reached the end of its useful life. It makes no sense for Apple to jump on a tired horse at the end of its game.

[Sunrunner]

Some general remarks:

Just to be cheaper in the sens of being cheap does not work: nobody so far was able to beat Dell
cf. HP Compaq merger

What keeps companies like IBM ahead, is inovation and research!

Putting OSX on Intel machines would hurt MS, and they would have to react!

You always want to have people who have something to distinguish themselves, e.g. many Mac users
with Intel you loose it. Then probably a new company would come up, to give that feeling back.

However, it is true, that Apple has to work on some issues hard.

The screens they are selling in their notebooks are outdated, and those of the iBook are really bad.
In science and education, there are still a lot of apps that are not available for Mac (just check it out on Amazon)
Further, many people in research have notebooks which are either from Dell or IBM.
The story of Apple in research and is highly overrated; Europe is PC based.

Sadly, in the last time Apple induced a lot of negative press and not many convincing solutions.

It would be better, they focus on core things, like
bringing a new OS, that represents the future. So far, that did not happen!


There is perhaps some creedence to the rumor if you think about it from a different angle. I have an idea that may perhaps be Apples optimum solution to slap down Bill Gates and gain marketshare, while maintaining their current PowerPC chipset: Integrate an Intel chip onto a secondary daughter-board inside the computer, and integrate that chipsets access to the main boards system rescources. Apple could offer this option as a BTO to PowerMac users for, say, $200. Users would then be able to use their legacy PC apps.In this way they (Apple) could blow the main reason stiffling migration to Mac out of the water.

[jouster]

X86 Architecture has reached the end of its useful life. It makes no sense for Apple to jump on a tired horse at the end of its game.

That has been said many times about X86, and it is still going strong. I suspect the upcoming (indeed, some are currently available, unlike PowerPC) dual core X86-based processors will go a long way to determining whether you're right.

Personally, I disagree. Market forces will keep X86 sales and development strong, irrespective of how dated people consider its architecture.

[CmdrLaForge]

The only means of regulating this would be by using dedicated bios/firmware on the cards themselves. This removes any possible price advantage by requiring bespoke hardware again, rendering the whole exercise pointless. If this route isn't taken, as with some third parties already providing hardware for the Mac with their own device drivers, as we can already see, with varying results. Multiply this by a few thousand, for instant beigebox PC reliability.

Maybe the price advantages wouldn't be that high (even so I see no impact on the lower Intel CPU costs) it would be a complete nightmare for Apple if their OS could run on any Dell or other PC.

This would mean a move from a hardware company to a software company. I don't see this coming.

Cheers

[JonMaker]

I have another idea. Maybe Intel will fab the next generation of the PPC. I doubt it though. :P

Hey, I wonder if this thread will get 1000 negatives :rolleyes:

[csubear]

Prehaps, just prehaps, Apple is talking to Intel about making CPUs and not some ARM processor, or motherboard component.

And prehaps they are talking to Intel about having Intel Fab PowerPC chips. Intel has nothing to lose from this. It does not affect their market x86, and it puts them in to several new markets (macs, gaming consoles, ect..)

I think that if Apple is talking to Intel about making CPUs then it is about Intel making powerPC. Apple will not and can not switch to x86, the G5 is a very strong preformer, and the altivec vector engine is one the the best vector unit implementations out there. What they need is a higer volume of faster processors at lower prices. What they need is more that one chip supplier.

[csubear]

I have another idea. Maybe Intel will fab the next generation of the PPC. I doubt it though. :P

Hey, I wonder if this thread will get 1000 negatives :rolleyes:

Damn same idea at the same time.

[iDrinkKoolAid]

Does it run OS X?

Next.

No it doesn't. I just wish my PowerBook was faster though. Why? So I could run Virtual PC faster, for one. All my work is done on a PC. I have one program that necessates use of an ISA card since the company refuses to update the card to PCI. I can't even run that program off of Virtual PC.

It sucks being in a heavily WinDoze-centric field. If I was in the life sciences, physics, or chemistry at least I would see some Macs...

[DWKlink]

Damn same idea at the same time.

Me too. I was just getting to the end of the posts and you guys beat me to it.

Intel & Power PC. Makes some sense, doesn't it.

Considering how all next-gen game consoles are now based around PowerPC technology (and the fact that microsoft is now creating content for a PowerPC chip), maybe Intel has realized that they need to manufacture alternates to x86 otherwise they are going to start losing out on a huge market. Apple is unhappy with IBM, and everyone else seems to be heading to IBM, seems to leave Intel and Apple on some sort of common ground.

Is there anyone here with real industry knowledge that could give us some input as to whether this may/may not happen???

[sedarby]

From my pespective, if this happened, it would have little effect on the end user, except making Apple computers cheaper. I would expect it would still be a closed archtiecture and you could not just install Mac OS X on any crappy x86 box. You would still need to buy a Mac to get OS X, just the 'guts' would be different.

If they did allow OS X on any x86 box, they would be better off just dropping computers all together and becoming a SW company.

Actually this is the very same path that Be, Inc. (BeOS) and NeXT, Inc. took and we know how that worked out. :(

Pray that this does not go down as Apple going software/iPod only.

[Jinorasa]

Simply possible if Intel able to offer the solution of heat produce by processor similar to G5 performance in order to build a next generation of PowerBook and PowerMac.

[MarcelV]

with the anti Intel bias here. Why does it matter what CPU it runs on? My Apple experience is a combination of hard- and software. Love OSX, love my multiple Macs. But for one, I don't care if it runs on 68000 series, PowerPC or Intel CPU. As long as OS/X is stable, as fast (or faster) as it is. If Apple could make it run on tomatoes or oranges inside, why would I care. Because Intel is also working with M$, doesn't necessarily mean it's has a bad product.

[Mord]

but switching to x86 is a stupid move, intel sucks their cpu's are way too hot and too slow, the only thing going for them is the pentium M and thats just because it can scale back when needed.

there is anti intel bias for a reason it's a stupid move to there architecture, it's like rumors ford reverting the model T back to steam power because it's more popular at the moment and complaining about people being steam biased.

[cube]

Is it so hard to understand that in the same way artists cannot stand bad industrial design, self-respecting computer scientists cannot stand bad microprocessor architecture?

Stop looking just at the outside of the computer!

[MarcelV]

but switching to x86 is a stupid move, intel dose suck there cpu's are way too hot and too slow, .....

Seems a very intelligent point of view. It just does suck.... hmmmmm. Benchmarks for now prove that they are faster, so what is really so bad about them? By the way, just learn to spell...... dose, there, 2 in 3... makes a very good statement. Grow up!
Oh, by the way, I am not stating Intel's CPU's are superior to the PowerPC, but currently they are making much more progress in multi-core and just plain speed than IBM at this time.

....self-respecting computer scientists cannot stand bad microprocessor architecture? Stop looking just at the outside of the computer!Oh my god, you really can't be serious? self-respecting computer scientist? So, just because I take usabilty over technical design, I am not self-respecting? Or a computer scientist? Please explain your academic degree... (if you have one)

[cube]

So, just because I take usabilty over technical design, I am not self-respecting?

Macs are very usable. Thank you.

[Mord]

Seems a very intelligent point of view. It just does suck.... hmmmmm. Benchmarks for now prove that they are faster, so what is really so bad about them? By the way, just learn to spell...... dose, there, 2 in 3... makes a very good statement. Grow up!
Oh, by the way, I am not stating Intel's CPU's are superior to the PowerPC, but currently they are making much more progress in multi-core and just plain speed than IBM at this time.

Oh my god, you really can't be serious? self-respecting computer scientist? So, just because I take useabilty over technical design, I am not self-respecting? Or a computer scientist?

benchmarks do not prove intels cpu's are faster the dual 2.5GHz G5 beats the dual 3.4GHz xeon in 4/6 tests (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html), if you dont like those benchmarks find me some better ones, I dare you.

multi core progress? dont make me laugh, the dual core 3.2GHz p4 gets hammered into the floor by the athlon X2 and neither of them will ship until august/september except for in one dell pc, intel cpu's are no faster they run hot and have very little future you'd be an idiot to think it would be a good idea for apple to switch to them, the only suitable cpu for apple with future would be the itanium and thats very very expensive (~$10k).

you clearly know nothing of cpu's and your on such thin ice you go so low as to attack my spelling/grammer, always a sign of weakness in opinion, some of us have better things to do than be an anal retentive over their spelling/grammer.

[jayscheuerle]

Whatever..

As long as it runs all my current software without modification.

As long as there's a performance boost.

As long as it's equally secure.

- then I couldn't care less about what chip is in my machine.

[Mord]

Whatever..

As long as it runs all my current software without modification.

which it wont

As long as there's a performance boost.

again no.

As long as it's equally secure.

no x86 is a sucker for buffer overruns

- then I couldn't care less about what chip is in my machine.

no, no and no

[nomore]

Whatever..

As long as it runs all my current software without modification.

As long as there's a performance boost.

As long as it's equally secure.

- then I couldn't care less about what chip is in my machine.

Maybe you do, but a lot of Mac users are more like cult users... and I'd guess that the majority are geeks... and geeks don't wan't another x86 bodge job computer... How about a modern architecture with huge parallel memory bandwidth and (to quote Steve Jobs) 'masive branch prediction logic... I don't know what that does... predicts branches...' :rolleyes:

Nice modern clean architecture should the future, not bolt-ons 'r' us x86... which I guess still have the 640KB RAM limit... and a patch to get around it.

We already have modern clean architecture in the G5... once the technical glitches are worked out, we can move up the speed ladder. Remember... it's the whole industry that has hit a wall... Intel, AMD and IBM all have the same problem... yet IBM have increased their CPU speed more than the others in the past 18 months.

Pentium 4 speed increases have pretty much stalled also... or is everyone forgetting that?

[revjay]

I have not taken the time to read all 22 or so pages posted here, but I did come across an interesting article which I'm sure has already been mentioned here, but check this out. (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+Intel+Some+advantage%2C+lots+of+risk/2100-1006_3-5716696.html?tag=nefd.ac)
Is it possible that Apple would "leak" for their own benefit...say it isn't so!

[oldjoec]

Well, we already ARE using the CELL processor - it is a variant of the PowerPC family. This one is a special case of the PowerPC and the partnership producing it is IBM, Sony and Toshiba. Also notice that Microsoft is using a PowerPC base for the next XBox. For Apple to go Intel now seems backwards. There are however heat problems with the G5 series especially for portable devices. The new MiniMac could double as a foot warmer.

[kirk26]

Hey, I wonder if this thread will get 1000 negatives :rolleyes:

Why not? It would show that we have 1000 stupid Mac users.

[iDrinkKoolAid]

install fink
open terminal
type
fink install spice
.....
.....

No its not pspice, but it is spice.

Thanks! I'll look into fink! I've just installed X11 for Tiger. Of course, a graphical interface would be nice to do circuit simulation. I can always run MicroSim DesignLab in a pinch...

[Mord]

Why not? It would show that we have 1000 stupid Mac users.

comming from the person who thinks a 5200 is better than the 9600 :rolleyes:

[macdong]

Why not? It would show that we have 1000 stupid Mac users.

that or one stupid bystander.

[alandail]

benchmarks do not prove intels cpu's are faster the dual 2.5GHz G5 beats the dual 3.4GHz xeon in 4/6 tests (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html), if you dont like those benchmarks find me some better ones, I dare you.

Apple has a broader product line than just the dual processer powermac. How does the whole line compare price/performance wise? Cutting $100 out of the cost of the mac mini while at the same time allowing it run their windows software in a window at full speeds makes it a lot easier for windows people to buy a macintosh and would mean a lot more for Apple's market share than getting the G5 desktop machine to 3 GHz.

Doing the same with the iBook gets them a lot more of these school contracts.

Also, it seems to me that while the PowerPC has always had architectural advantages, what continues to cause Apple problems is that building CPUs for personal computers is really a side business for IBM while it's Intel's entire reason for existing. PowerPC is supposed to be a competitive advantage for Apple, but it hasn't worked out that way - Motorolla failed to deliver time after time and now IBM is a year behind the 3GHz promise and doesn't yet have a notebook solution.

[Mord]

Apple has a broader product line than just the dual processer powermac. How does the whole line compare price/performance wise? Cutting $100 out of the cost of the mac mini while at the same time allowing it run their windows software in a window at full speeds makes it a lot easier for windows people to buy a macintosh and would mean a lot more for Apple's market share than getting the G5 desktop machine to 3 GHz.

Doing the same with the iBook gets them a lot more of these school contracts.


pretty well when you look at it matching every spec, only the single 1.8GHz PM and the 14" ibook are lagging.

the mini should be compared to micro/nano-ITX pc's and it beats the crap out of all VIA ones in cpu speed and graphical power, and is a hell of allot cheaper than the P-M ones. the ibook is plent fast for a low end laptop is small compact and dose not have a shared memory gpu which all sub £2k pc laptops do, the same go's for the 12" powerbook, also when you comapre the powerbooks to comparable pc laptops of size shape battery life cpu/gpu speed and weight nothing really compares, as for the emac, it's a solid AiO there is not really a comparible pc apart from a dell which when you configure one with near equal specs they cost about the same.

useing an x86 cpu would not magically let macs execute VB or use directX, those need API's API's which apple cant run on there OS, also to put an intel cpu in the mini would be plain silly, a pentium M would push the price up allot, a P4 would make it burst into flames and a celery is slow as crap.

[nomore]

All this talk of making OS X able to run Windows software isn't looking at a key fact.

Windows software GUIs have no consistency and work in a different way to OS X GUI applications. Can you imagine trying to use Expose with an MDI application?

Also, if OS X did have some Windows compatible API... would that not affect OS X software development... wouldn't developers just write Win32 software instead of Cocoa software if OS X will run Win32 applications?

IMO, making OS X able to run Windows applications natively has far too many bad points which outwiegh the good points.

[Jon the Heretic]

Just a few thoughts on the earlier discussion (haven't read all 10,000 responses yet):


It has been widely rumoured that Apple has had an Intel version of MacOS X that has been kept synced up with the latest PowerPC build for years. Given OpenStep, the core OS upon which X was built, was ported to PPC from Intel, making incremental changes to an existing x86 code base is a lot easier than starting from scratch. Jobs has been down this road before and keeping a parallel build of X for Intel would be a prudent move. The biggest changes Apple would need to do it: Optimize the heck out of it (the Intel version is unlikely to be as performance tuned as the actual commercial PPC product), provide a PPC-binary emulator like Apple did so successfully with 68K binaries, and use proprietary features that Wintel PCs don't use, like OpenFirmware and even going back to the Apple ROM. Migrating the developers to create x86 will be the hard part, but Apple has mastery in this area as well when it went from 68K to PPC. Can anyone say FAT binaries? And guess what? MacOS X supports them already.



Technically, this is feasible. Desirable? Not in my book. The jump from PPC to x86 may actually result in an overall slower system given that a slower PPC chip often has more computational power than an x86 at a faster clockspeed. Plus the G5's have amazing bandwidth, though the latest Pentiums are nothing to sneeze at in this department. Altivec is much better than MMX and its successors, too, though both are underutilized on both platforms. Proper use of FAT binaries involves context switches which are performance hogs, and a transition from optimized PPC software to optimized x86 can take years for consumer software, meaning end users won't see much of a benefit until they are running all new software. We have been done this path before, only the jump from 68K to PPC was much greater than going to x86, and that was the saving grace.



Yes, I think this is leverage against IBM which like Moto before it has hugely dropped the ball in delivering faster PPC chips. IBM hates losing money to it's competitors and this will light a fire under the semiconductor execs. Also, I think the Fab investment IBM will make to release new PPC processors for Sony and Microsoft will directly benefit ALL PPC development efforts, even for other PPC chiplines such as the G5 and the G6. Apple under Jobs is a shrewd bargainer (witness how Jobs has been bargaining with Disney under his Pixar helm). Jobs plays hard ball...and he has very hard balls. Jobs might quietly even show IBM a version of Tiger running deftly on a x86 box, just to set their balls on fire. (Throw in an alpha copy of Mac X Photoshop running natively on x86, and you'd have a powerful blow torch for those blue balls.)



Parting comment: I don't see Apple releasing an x86 box as an open system--unless it was essentially a server solution only running x86 Darwin. Apple has shown it couldn't compete with its carefully selected and licensed clones; it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in the bigger x86 pond where every computer is a commodity box with miniscule profit margins and higher risk, akin to commodity speculation on pork bellies. And NeXT, which provides the real leadership inside of Apple, has already gone down this path to a T---and with basically the same OS.

NeXT jumped from 68K to the openplatform x86 world with OpenStep and then...got bought by Apple in the bargain bin after it was clear they had failed. While MacOS X is arguably superior to its parent, OpenStep PPC, it is still basically BSD UNIX with a Mach kernel with a very similar API (Cocoa) and running a similar graphics framework (Quartz uses PDF, which is derived from PostScript; OpenStep used Display PostScript). Carbon and Classic are nothing more than transitional technologies and Apple has made it clear that it wants to wean its user base from enjoying the same level of backwards compatibility that XP users currently enjoy (I can even run 1983 DOS binaries on modern XP systems...and it is a good thing, boys and girls) by not even including MacOS 9 on new systems or even on a 5-cent CD. In a few years, those of who like software compatibility will be running Mac-on-Linux-on-Mac to fill the gap once Apple yanks Classic completely. Without the transitional stuff, you've got an OS that still closely resembles OpenStep, with a few improvements like the IOKit and a new look and feel (which many NeXTers still don't like as much as what OpenStep provided.)

But AppleNeXT has been down this path before and won't repeat the exact same, doomed to fail strategy. That doesn't mean they might not try OpenSource Darwin x86 servers or even totally locked-box x86 Mac systems, however, but as to the latter, I already gave a reason above why I find this unlikely.

[buggybear]

Nice modern clean architecture should the future, not bolt-ons 'r' us x86... which I guess still have the 640KB RAM limit... and a patch to get around it.

We already have modern clean architecture in the G5... once the technical glitches are worked out, we can move up the speed ladder. Remember... it's the whole industry that has hit a wall... Intel, AMD and IBM all have the same problem... yet IBM have increased their CPU speed more than the others in the past 18 months.

Pentium 4 speed increases have pretty much stalled also... or is everyone forgetting that?

The x86 never had a 640KB limit - it was the bonehead PC architechture that imposed that. The x86 (8086) had 20-bit address lines and 2^20 is 1MB - the memory limit was 1 Megabyte. But the PC reserved the upper 384KB for use by adapter cards.

The current x86 (586+) chips no longer use that idiotic segment+offset addressing, now having a flat memory space so no "patch" is needed. There is no 640KB limit.

That aside, x86 does still have loads of backwards-compatibility slag on it, and the PowerPC is just a better architechture. All this nonsense about it being "behind" because the x86 has faster clock speeds is just that ... utter nonesense. Intel also finds itself in the position that it must stop promoting clock speed as the measure of CPU speed.

The architecture of the machine outside of the CPU chip itself is also important to overall performance (which is partly why MHz/GHz as the sole measure is idiotic) and the Macintosh is, again, far superior to the "Industry Standard Architecture" that PCs must conform to in order to all be interoperable.

once the technical glitches are worked out, we can move up the speed ladder.

What technical glitches? There are technical reasons that need to be considered when increasing clock speeds, but it's not like there are G5 bugs that need to be fixed before working on higher clock speeds.

Intel can't take over making PPC chips unless licensed by IBM to do it, and what do you think the odds of that happening are?

Each version of Winblows grinds to a crawl and needs faster hardware and more memory etc. while each version of OS X has performed better than the last given the same hardware.

This whole thing is entirely absurd. There are plenty of reasons why Apple would be meeting with Intel that have nothing to do with CPUs for their computers, and it just goes to show how totally and incredibly stupid these allegedly knowledgeable analysts really are. Wall street and the mainstream press consistently gets tech stories all wrong; even "IT" magazines aimed at high-level CIO types (who are not tech-savvy) are constantly screwing up.

Forget it. It's not happening. Long Live PPC.

-bb

[MarcelV]

Macs are very usable. Thank you.

Eh, yeah, but that's not because I didn't look at the inside. You was the one who said, stop looking only at the outside. Or I must have really misunderstood you. I love my macs that I have, but that's not of the CPU inside that thing. It's the user experience, and that one is not CPU dependent.

[wdlove]

I can't decide whether I'll hang myself or swallow a bunch of pills if this happens.

I hope that your comment is just a musing. Nothing about this is worth loosing your life. Not even doing something to get sick.
:(

[Sun Baked]

This whole thing is entirely absurd. There are plenty of reasons why Apple would be meeting with Intel that have nothing to do with CPUs for their computers, and it just goes to show how totally and incredibly stupid these allegedly knowledgeable analysts really are. Wall street and the mainstream press consistently gets tech stories all wrong; even "IT" magazines aimed at high-level CIO types (who are not tech-savvy) are constantly screwing up.

Forget it. It's not happening. Long Live PPC.

-bbBasically is is absurd, for the first time in a long time -- Apple has too many PPC choices on what to use next.

Why would Apple walk away now, when there are soo many options?

PCI-Express and/or the next generation Wi-Fi would be the two things at the top of the list to make Apple walk into Intel's door and work with them.

Maybe somebody had some stock they wanted to dump. :rolleyes:

[csubear]

Intel can't take over making PPC chips unless licensed by IBM to do it, and what do you think the odds of that happening are?



Are you sure? I thought that Apple, IBM, and Moto (AIM) owned the ppc specs? And the Instruction set is a standard, just like x86 is a standard. AMD does not licences x86 from Intel (maybe mmx, sse). Nothing is stoping Intel from designing a ppc chip.

[minimax]

ok, summarizing this thread I think it is safe to say:

- IBM makes superior processors
- Intel sucks
- Steve likes blowjobs

[ogminlo]

Okay, I'm too disgusted to continue reading this thread, so this will be my last post. Many points (in no particular order):

:mad: Intel's Centrino is a marketing blanket, not a chip. It is just the brand name for the Pentium M + PRO/Wireless 802.11g paired up in a laptop. Centrino is not a CPU!

:mad: Intel is a company, not a platform. They already make chips that go into Xserve RAIDs, and they may also want to get into the PPC game now that there is real demand for it beyond Apple. It is smart for Apple to encourage this. Let me repeat, Intel is not one in the same with the x86 architecture. They make other products!

:mad: Dropping an x86 version of Tiger over a P4 would not yield WinXP software working on OS X. There's more to it than that and there's no smooth way to do it. Mac devotees and Windows migrants would both be left with a kludgey and slow hack of an OS that barely works and largely sucks. Yeah, great idea guys.

:mad: The WSJ, Reuters, Faux News, et al have very uninformed and bogus stories that speculate on new bad ideas and regurgitate old bad ideas. Their goal is not to inform but to inflame. It worked here.

:mad: Steve Jobs excused the GHz shortfall last year by saying everyone hit the wall. They did. Otherwise we'd have 5.5GHz P4s and Athlons by now. We don't. The whole CPU market has been basically stagnated since 2003. They can't go smaller so all of them are switching to a new approach, multi-core. So enough about how switching to x86 would be a boon for speed and economy. *********. There is WAY more to speed than clock cycles. Otherwise SGI would have faster chips in their Tezro.

Bottom line is this: Apple will not go x86 and Intel might start fabbing PPC chips. That's it. I assure you.

[nomore]

What technical glitches? There are technical reasons that need to be considered when increasing clock speeds, but it's not like there are G5 bugs that need to be fixed before working on higher clock speeds.

Not glitches with the CPU design... glitches with the fabrication process.

[poundsmack]

They can't go smaller so all of them are switching to a new approach, multi-core.[/b]

they can and are going smaller 65mn, thats where intels new notebook processors are going and eventualy where the processor market will go as well. and of course multi core. and for god sakes this thread is over. its for PCIe. there done thats the most likely by far, or possibly something to do with the new wireless stuff intel is behind. but almost surely PCIe.

[Mord]

Why would Intel invest (lets say) even a "puny" billion dollars to create a PPC clone, baring legal action from IBM and Freescale? Even if Apple sold (gasp!) ONE MILLION computers, it is not like Apple would pay $1000 for each processor


they are happy enough chargeing pc users that much :rolleyes:

[RichCoder]

...Bottom line is this: Apple will not go x86 and Intel might start fabbing PPC chips. That's it. I assure you.

I was totally with you until the last statement. How do you know they will not use the x86 chips or chips derived from the x86? It appears you know for a fact.

It is more likely that Intel would make x86 chips for Apple then it would be for them to make PPC chips. The only manufacturers that have made PPC chips are those that were part of the design on the PPC(IBM, Motorola). Intel has no rights to unless Apple limited rights allows them the right. I don't think so since the PPC is derived from IBM's POWER architecture.

How about some facts...

- Darwin(which OSX is build on) already runs on x86 processors
- Apple has experience moving to a totally different CPU architecture (68xxx -> PowerPC)

Before Intel panic overtakes everyone, I'm sure Apple will only come to a decision that makes thier stock rise, not fall. As I stated in an earlier post, I beleive that if Apple moves to the X86, the first generation IntelMacs will likely have a G4 processor on-board for legacy applications. I would be shocked if Apple came out with a Mac that couldn't run current software.

-rich

[Jmitch]

All I have to say about this is that I doubt it. I highly doubt it. Every time there's been rumors about this happening nothing has come out of it. Apple is going to take over the world with their amazing software and hardware. ;)

I just don't think Apple would give up their prized software to an inferior platform. I mean it doesn't make sense. If Apple wants to be a software company than sure. But I think Apple has bigger plans...

[fluidinclusion]

X86 Architecture has reached the end of its useful life. It makes no sense for Apple to jump on a tired horse at the end of its game.

Yeah, but it's better than walking on your own with no horse.

[B_Gates]

I think its a great idea. Intel processor are cheaper & faster. If Apple would do this they could sell their computers cheaper & get noticed. Most people have forgotten about Apple's, maybe they could finally compete with the big boys "Microsoft, Dell, HP & E-Machines.

I'm sure Apple would pocket the extra money they would save, since they like to rip off their customers.

[jiggie2g]

benchmarks do not prove intels cpu's are faster the dual 2.5GHz G5 beats the dual 3.4GHz xeon in 4/6 tests (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html), if you dont like those benchmarks find me some better ones, I dare you.

multi core progress? dont make me laugh, the dual core 3.2GHz p4 gets hammered into the floor by the athlon X2 and neither of them will ship until august/september except for in one dell pc, intel cpu's are no faster they run hot and have very little future you'd be an idiot to think it would be a good idea for apple to switch to them, the only suitable cpu for apple with future would be the itanium and thats very very expensive (~$10k).

you clearly know nothing of cpu's and your on such thin ice you go so low as to attack my spelling/grammer, always a sign of weakness in opinion, some of us have better things to do than be an anal retentive over their spelling/grammer.


You know I am sick of you Hector pulling these stupid onesided barefeats benchmarks out of your ass every time someone states the facts about x86 being faster. You quote barefeats like some religious nut quotes scripture.

If Apple is going x86 all I can say is about damn freakin time , as OSX would scream on my Athlon 64@2.4ghz , Geforce 6600GT , and NF4 PCIe MB ..none of which are available on the mac side.

Yes Intel desktop cpu's suck for now, but wasn't this the case 5yrs ago. AMD had the Athlon T-Bird vs. PIII , then Intel just made a new CPU(P4) and killed AMD all over again.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.

Intel is already at work on a 11-13 stage CPU , think of Pentium M with better Floating Points + 64bit processing. I am sure Apple knows about this CPU.

As for notebooks there is nothing to compete with the Pentium M, and to say otherwise is just being a plain hater , nothing not the Turion 64 , not the G4 or G5 can even touch this CPU. It matches the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock and at lower power consumption if it has a better FPU and 64 bit extensions it would be perfect .I may be an AMD fan but I am not so much a zealot or fan boy than I will not give the otherside it's due when it makes a fantastic product.

Intel right now doesne't have it's hands tied up like IBM does with all the console makers. It can out chip anyone when it comes to manufacturing. also since they are past the 90nm bump it should be smooth sailing from now on.

Lastly as for x86 being a dying platform , not if those Athlon X2 and Pentium EE 840 scores have anything to say about it. fact is x86 is holding all the cards , we have low power mobile cpu's now, Dual core now, PCIe now , SLI now , USB 3.0 soon and 802.11N soon then BTX. The G5 is still stuck in 2003. Every hardware site has a Pentium D or X2 right now for testing , no one has a Dual core PPC 970. Pentium Ds are on sale now in Japan , and will be here(US) by late June.

x86 Dead I think not.

[Mord]

You know I am sick of you Hector pulling these stupid onesided barefeats benchmarks out of your ass every time someone states the facts about x86 being faster. You quote barefeats like some religious nut quotes scripture.

If Apple is going x86 all I can say is about damn freakin time , as OSX would scream on my Athlon 64@2.4ghz , Geforce 6600GT , and NF4 PCIe MB ..none of which are available on the mac side.

Yes Intel desktop cpu's suck for now, but wasn't this the case 5yrs ago. AMD had the Athlon T-Bird vs. PIII , then Intel just made a new CPU(P4) and killed AMD all over again.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.

Intel is already at work on a 11-13 stage CPU , think of Pentium M with better Floating Points + 64bit processing. I am sure Apple knows about this CPU.

As for notebooks there is nothing to compete with the Pentium M, and to say otherwise is just being a plain hater , nothing not the Turion 64 , not the G4 or G5 can even touch this CPU. It matches the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock and at lower power consumption if it has a better FPU and 64 bit extensions it would be perfect .I may be an AMD fan but I am not so much a zealot or fan boy than I will not give the otherside it's due when it makes a fantastic product.

Intel right now doesne't have it's hands tied up like IBM does with all the console makers. It can out chip anyone when it comes to manufacturing. also since they are past the 90nm bump it should be smooth sailing from now on.

Lastly as for x86 being a dying platform , not if those Athlon X2 and Pentium EE 840 scores have anything to say about it. fact is x86 is holding all the cards , we have low power mobile cpu's now, Dual core now, PCIe now , SLI now , USB 3.0 soon and 802.11N soon then BTX. The G5 is still stuck in 2003. Every hardware site has a Pentium D or X2 right now for testing , no one has a Dual core PPC 970. Pentium Ds are on sale now in Japan , and will be here(US) by late June.

x86 Dead I think not.


Bar the apple benchmarks which i am sure you'd say are crap there is little else, last time i looked the opteron has not gone past 2.6GHz and xeon has not gone past 3.4GHz, so they are still pretty relevant, the dual core athlons wont ship until september and the pentium D will probably be delayed and is slow as **** anyway seeing as most pc apps are single threaded, apple is secretive they dont hand out engineering samples, x86 has won the race the the commercial (aka non POWER based) dual core, but so what? the 970MP cant be far behind and in the price range for a while yet the G5 is pretty competitive.

the only way a pc is defiantly way way faster is if you have a dual dual core opteron, and that is an extremely expensive rig.

smooth sailing for intel? hah dont make me laugh, they couldn't hit 4GHz so they are now doing the only thing left to increase speed, dual core, it's a desperate attempt at moving an aging architecture forward, PCIe is a non event for now as it's no faster in real world benchmarks and macs dont rely on gameing anyway, apple cant have a new logic board design every year.

you may think AMD and intel will own apple down the line and thats because they are not so damn secretive about there roadmaps, if you can find prof of apple being owned in some benchmakr post it in my thread here http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=128423&goto=newpost

[Flickta]

smooth sailing for intel? hah dont make me laugh, they couldn't hit 4GHz so they are now doing the only thing left to increase speed, dual core, it's a desperate attempt at moving an aging architecture forward, PCIe is a non event for now as it's no faster in real world benchmarks and macs dont rely on gameing anyway, apple cant have a new logic board design every year.

No, actually,everyone is working on dual core processors. IBM, Intel, AMD... This is because that "ageing technology" you are crying about is their common technology.

Get real, all processors of Intel and AMD, and IBM are on the same tech level. The results of benchmarks differ, but the difference (I mean real benchmarks) is 5-10%. And it actually means there is no difference at all. Few seconds here, few seconds there...

[Mord]

No, actually,everyone is working on dual core processors. IBM, Intel, AMD... This is because that "ageing technology" you are crying about is their common technology.

Get real, all processors of Intel and AMD, and IBM are on the same tech level. The results of benchmarks differ, but the difference (I mean real benchmarks) is 5-10%. And it actually means there is no difference at all. Few seconds here, few seconds there...


i'm not saying it's dead now x86 just dose not have much future and is no faster than ppc at the moment

[Flickta]

i'm not saying it's dead now x86 just dose not have much future and is no faster than ppc at the moment

It's not an x86 for a looong time. It's different. Various techs merged.

And why do you think it has no future, when all things they are doing are simultaneously done by all proc. manufacturers?

[cube]

It's not an x86 for a looong time. It's different. Various techs merged.


It's still x86. I don't want to have anything to do with that thing for low-level programming/debugging.

[Mord]

It's not an x86 for a looong time. It's different. Various techs merged.

And why do you think it has no future, when all things they are doing are simultaneously done by all proc. manufacturers?

look how much bigger intel and AMD are than IBM's 970 fab department, the fact that such a small venture can keep up with intel/AMD is proof that ppc is far superior, it's said that ppc gives you about a 6 month lead in cpu speed just IBM dose not have the R&D to push the cpu to the clock speeds that intel can push the p4, all thats holding x86 together are mad hacks and bodges to an old architecture that is only still used to keep wintel users backwards compatible, to move to x86 would be plain stupid as the powerpc is a fast chip with allot of future, compared to the bodge job that is the modern x86 cpu/

[iGary]

I hope that your comment is just a musing. Nothing about this is worth loosing your life. Not even doing something to get sick.
:(

I'm just a writer with a vivid imagination. ;)

[cube]

just IBM dose not have the R&D to push the cpu to the clock speeds that intel can push the p4

P4 is marketing-driven design. Made to get clock rates as high as possible, not performance.

[AidenShaw]

P4 is marketing-driven design. Made to get clock rates as high as possible, not performance.

But the high clock rates also give top performance, interesting....

Forget the MHz - the name of the game is whether the fastest chip from company A is faster than the fastest chip from company B.

It's not whether chip A is faster per MHz than chip B.

Despite the hype, the PPC970, Athlon and P4 are all about the same speed. Each will win some fair benchmarks, lose others. All are 64-bit.

On the mobile side, Pentium M is currently the king - the G4 and AMD mobile chips aren't even that close.

Do I care if x86 assembly code is ugly? Not at all - I never need to look at it from C++ or Java....

[Mord]

but the point is that x86 is no faster and to switch to it is stupid. and that the people calling the mac users who rate this thread negative are silly.

[CmdrLaForge]

but the point id that x86 is no faster and to switch to it is stupid.

We got your point. ;)

[behindthecamera]

Apple switching to Intel?

The rumor originated at The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us)

Wrong.

It originated with industry wag Paul Thurrott (http://internet-nexus.com/2005_05_22_archive.htm#111690362236228815), and I'm convinced he's on to something. If this is for the rumoured Tablet PC, bring it on, baby.

[greenfluke]

You know, it might be possible for Apple to run OS X apps on next gen Intel chips with little to no modification. Intel is ahead of AMD in CPU virtualization, but they both are working on it. Intel's multi OS virtualization should show up in desktops this year according to news.com. cnet virtualization (http://news.com.com/AMD+details+Pacifica+virtualization+plan/2100-1006_3-5720278.html?tag=nefd.top)

[DakotaGuy]

If Apple is going x86 all I can say is about damn freakin time , as OSX would scream on my Athlon 64@2.4ghz , Geforce 6600GT , and NF4 PCIe MB ..none of which are available on the mac side.


What makes you think that OSX won't scream on a new Dual 2.7Ghz PowerMac?

[law guy]

You know, it might be possible for Apple to run OS X apps on next gen Intel chips with little to no modification. Intel is ahead of AMD in CPU virtualization, but they both are working on it. Intel's multi OS virtualization should show up in desktops this year according to news.com. cnet virtualization (http://news.com.com/AMD+details+Pacifica+virtualization+plan/2100-1006_3-5720278.html?tag=nefd.top)

Interesting story - thanks for the link.
LG

[cube]

You know, it might be possible for Apple to run OS X apps on next gen Intel chips with little to no modification. Intel is ahead of AMD in CPU virtualization, but they both are working on it. Intel's multi OS virtualization should show up in desktops this year according to news.com. cnet virtualization (http://news.com.com/AMD+details+Pacifica+virtualization+plan/2100-1006_3-5720278.html?tag=nefd.top)

That's to virtualize multiple x86 computers on one, not to emulate other architectures.

[jiggie2g]

What makes you think that OSX won't scream on a new Dual 2.7Ghz PowerMac?


Because none of which i mentioned is available on mac , The G5 is a 2yr old computer being kept alive by incremental speed bumps. Not new Technology.
Like I said b4 the G5 is using technology from 2003.

Plus OSX dosen't scream on a dual 2hz or a dual 2.5ghz i still have seen that spinning beach ball.

[Mord]

thats entirely to do with ram, if you run out you beachball.

pci express and the faster types of ram are not that big a deal, it makes little real world performance gain it may have less of a 1337 factor to you but it dose not make much of a difference, all the fastest current gen cards are available and SLI has little use on a mac seeing as it's not a gameing platform.

i'd bet money that a G5 with a 6800GT the same amount of ram and a 2.5GHz cpu (one disabled with chud) would demolish your AMD in real world benchmarks.

apple cant afford to update the logic board designs every time a new technology comes allong, a (majorly) new logic board comes every 4 years or so and last i looked the g5's one is nearly 2 years old, it's always been this way and it cant really change stop bitching about it.

[HelloKitty]

You know, it might be possible for Apple to run OS X apps on next gen Intel chips with little to no modification. Intel is ahead of AMD in CPU virtualization, but they both are working on it. Intel's multi OS virtualization should show up in desktops this year according to news.com. cnet virtualization (http://news.com.com/AMD+details+Pacifica+virtualization+plan/2100-1006_3-5720278.html?tag=nefd.top)

Sorry..one question here..Is this "Virtualization" technology similar to the partitioning technology that IBM came up with at the beginning of the year?

[e-coli]

As much as I hate to read this flapdoodle, I see no reason why we cannot imagine the opposite, is it possible that Intel are dabbling with PowerPC architecture, as someone has already mentioned Microsoft and many other companies are moving to this architecture for games consoles, maybe Intel have seen the light.


They wouldn't be talking to Apple, then. They'd be talking to IBM. Apple doesn't manufacture their chips.

I think it's more likely that Apple is going to open up the Mac OS to the x86 platform, while still keeping the PPC. There are so many converts just waiting in the wings, and the Mac Mini just seems weak.

[GulGnu]

Because none of which i mentioned is available on mac , The G5 is a 2yr old computer being kept alive by incremental speed bumps. Not new Technology.
Like I said b4 the G5 is using technology from 2003.

Plus OSX dosen't scream on a dual 2hz or a dual 2.5ghz i still have seen that spinning beach ball.

Erm, and the AMD 64 architechture is from.... 2003! :P

[Lacero]

The PowerPC architecture was originally intended to be clonable. What was that company that was going to make some high end chips for Apple at one time? I forget their name - they ended up suing Apple when it was all done, but the G3 ended up being faster than their fastest chip and that killed them. But, Intel could make PowerPC chips. Maybe even make an x86/PowerPC hybrid chip.

[Object-X]

Intel's CEO is now kissing up to Apple.

A$$ Kissing (http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/intel_ceo_want_security_buy_a_mac/)

What's that mean? Sounds sort of friendly is you asked me.

[nomore]

Because none of which i mentioned is available on mac , The G5 is a 2yr old computer being kept alive by incremental speed bumps. Not new Technology.
Like I said b4 the G5 is using technology from 2003.

Plus OSX dosen't scream on a dual 2hz or a dual 2.5ghz i still have seen that spinning beach ball.

Pentium 4 is much older than 2 years.

OS X Tiger 'screams' on my Dual 2Ghz PowerMac G5 which has 2GB RAM.

[mac 2005]

Any relevance of this announcement to the rumor?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004058/

[tjatl]

Wow, I'm not about to read through 600 posts, but I think some are over reacting to Intel.

If Apple switched then it wouldn't be to P4's. They are dead. They would switch to the Pentium M (Centrino) chips. Overclocking this chip to 2.5Ghz it will outperform all high end Intel and AMD chips, yes including the FX series. It will also have low power consumption and all that good stuff.

Here's a link! (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html)

Conclusion: The Pentium 4 Must Go (alternatively: Kill The Pentium 4!)

Let us try to sum up the insights we have gained during the course of this little project.

With the help of a simple socket adapter card and a BIOS upgrade, certain mainboards using Intel's 865/875 chipsets can be upgraded to use a Pentium M instead of a Pentium 4. Such a system offers up-to-date performance paired with low power requirements.

Additionally, we were able to raise the FSB from 133 to 160 MHz without any trouble at all. The result was that our 2.13GHz Pentium M 770 ended up running at 2.56 GHz! At this clock speed, our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!

In all of the application benchmarks, the Pentium M really shows what it's made of. Even without an integrated memory controller, the Pentium III's heir is as fast as an Athlon 64 on a clock-for-clock basis - and eats the in-house competition for lunch. Only the low-level tests, the synthetic benchmarks and optimized applications continue to be dominated by the Pentium 4 - despite such advanced technologies as HyperThreading and/or SSE3. Encoding and rendering therefore remain the Pentium 4's forte.

After analyzing the benchmark results, it is easy to imagine what a Pentium M running at 2.8 GHz or more would be capable of, not to mention what DDR2 memory could do - if only the upper echelons at Intel were willing to take hold of the wheel and change course.

If we leave the Pentium M out of the picture for a moment, the Pentium 4 doesn't look half bad at first; without question, it offers excellent performance. But as soon as we begin to factor in the system's overall power consumption, our eyebrows begin their skyward ascent. When idle, a Pentium 4 system draws about a third more power than a Pentium M system. Once the Pentium 4 is put under a heavy CPU load, this disparity increases to a whopping 80%; the reason is that the Pentium M draws only a little more power under load, while the P4 system, on the other hand, devours twice as much power as when sitting idle. For all this extra power, the P4 runs not even a third faster than the Pentium M at its stock clock speed (2.13 GHz)! Quo vadis, Intel?

These results once again impressively demonstrate the dead end into which Intel has maneuvered itself with the Netburst architecture as far as efficiency is concerned. And quite unnecessarily, too, seeing as the company has a powerful and energy efficient alternative just waiting to be exploited.

However, very recently, Intel publicly confirmed it was about to make a move away from the Netburst architecture of the Pentium 4 - it seems the company is aware of the P4's crumbling acceptance. We can only hope that Intel will bring us more sensible products in the future.

Meanwhile, AMD should begin preparing a suitable answer to Intel's upcoming accelerated 65 nm dual-core processor, code named "Conroe." Care to guess upon which architecture this design will be based?

[DavidCar]

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

[rareflares]

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede






yeah, i just saw this. here's my facial expression in order of while i was reading:

:rolleyes: :eek: :cool: :confused: :mad:

[patrick0brien]

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

-DavidCar

Hmm, well, this is certainly news. But, for the afore-mentioned reasons spaken about ad-nauseum in this thread, I still have to wait and see. This is such a major move, I just still don't see the business case justifying it. Especially considering this story published today. (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436)

We'll just have to see what 'ol Uncle Steve says.

[Mord]

cnet needs mail bombing for allowing such utter BS posted on there site.

[eva01]

i believe it is BS as well, because then apple computers (if use x86) wouldn't be a computer company anymore, they would become the same thing that sega has become, almost non-existant (aside of course from two great movies, End of Evangelion and the Martian Sucessor Nadesico movie)

anywho, i hope this doesn't happen because if it does, there goes my market value for my powerbook when i sell it off :P, and i plan on getting an iBook and a Powermac in January/february, wouldn't that screw me over if they switch over right after i get my computers....

[Trekkie]

This will suck. News.com doesn't just publish rumor stuff with that much certainty.

Unreal. I'll stop being an Apple user with my next purchase if they really do this. Of all chips to pick, Intel. AMD would have been a much better choice if they really feel the need to switch.

I guess I'll be building my computers again in the future. :(

[DavidCar]

The article quotes several sources, and sounds credible but depressing. If it happened, I'd have to rethink my plans to buy a new computer, at least until I get more details about the expected implications.

[Mord]

This will suck. News.com doesn't just publish rumor stuff with that much certainty.

Unreal. I'll stop being an Apple user with my next purchase if they really do this. Of all chips to pick, Intel. AMD would have been a much better choice if they really feel the need to switch.

I guess I'll be building my computers again in the future. :(

dont count on it, they have no real sources, if this was real it would have been on a real rumor site like think secret.

as a personal guarrentee this is BS i will send you all my macs in the mail.

[DavidCar]

if this was real it would have been on a real rumor site like think secret.

Think Secret still thinks there is a 970MP on the way, last I heard. But it seems to me it is taking a long time to get here.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0504newg5.html

[obeygiant]

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news

update Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

[macdong]

if Apple do go down with this... i still can't understand.
will they become another Microsoft, or will they become another Dell?
no matter what they become, they don't have the same edge they do right now.
i hope they are aware that from then on they will attract a different crowd, if any at all.
and another Apple (this time, please, name it "T-Bone") will take its place.

[Edited] P.S. shall i change my signature? "If x86 Apple is the future, we are history."

[areyouwishing]

I always thought that it was going to happen sooner or later, but I was really shooting for later. Apple still is not quite in a position to be a software company only. With this move they are taking on the mothership... Microsoft.

How long do you think it will be before Microsoft stops developing Office once OS X on Intel comes out... my guess is that the Macintosh team have gone home early today with a severance package.

What happens when OS X is not as fast in benchmarks than the windows counterparts? Who will have the final laugh? They are nailing their coffin shut.

I can understand Apple's dilemma but I don't agree with their choice. Stick with Freescale on the portables, stick to IBM on the desktops... and be patient. When PowerPC is finally getting the respect it has deserved for so long it does not mean you should jump ship because you are jealous of others.

[Agathon]

I've heard from someone inside IBM that it's true. No idea personally, but something odd is up.

[bosrs1]

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

CNET just broke the story.

[Agathon]

It does add up. Consider all the nice things the Intel people have been saying lately.

[bosrs1]

It does add up. Consider all the nice things the Intel people have been saying lately.
Well now that a real news outlet has it... it's looking almost certain at this point.

[Agathon]

Well now that a real news outlet has it... it's looking almost certain at this point.

A guy I know at IBM told me that they will not be doing Apple support any more, and that the word is that Apple has switched. He's a bit of an anti-mac troll, but I think he may have been telling the truth about this one.

It doesn't bother me what processors Apple uses (well, I bought a new PowerBook and if it creates problems with that a couple of years from now, I'll be irritated and probably switch to a Linux distro in protest).

I wonder how hard the transition will be. Things must be really desperate with IBM if it will be a hard transition.

[patrick0brien]

Either this is the Scoop of the year, or C|NET will be chewing on their toes come Wednesday.

Personally, I really hope it isn't true just so that Paul Thurott can spend the weekend beating his chest, then be pounded back into his little corner of wrong.

[zap2]

i hope it's lie

[Toeknee]

:mad: God I hope this is totally not true.. but my gut feeling tells me that its not. Seeing as how IBM isn't able to keep up with the demand for the G5. Apple using Motorola and IBM chips is one of the reason why using an Apple was cool because you weren't conforming to the norms. Monday will be a sad and confusing day not knowing what lies ahead.

[wdlove]

It makes from the standpoint that IBM hasn't been supplying Apple a steady stream of chip. Apple needs reliability. All I can really do is that Steve Jobs knows what he's doing.

[macdong]

All I can really do is that Steve Jobs knows what he's doing.

haha, I am not so certain.

[Sun Baked]

All I can really do is that Steve Jobs knows what he's doing.haha, I am not so certain.Actually I think Al Gore was the board member behind this move.

This is after all something that stinks of politics. :p

[macdong]

well, i guess the ultimatae question is, how are we, as Mac users, going to differentiate ourselves from those we detest so much for so long?
Apple is punching us in the face and telling us, "you are not so special! and I'll show you!!"

damn it!

[Julian12]

As a twenty two year Mac Person, my first reaction was of shock, disbelief and almost a feeling of betrayal.

Then I stopped myself, and reminded myself that Steve Jobs is the most devoted Mac fan of all - would he do anything to jeopardize the future of this thing we love?

Of course not. He must know something we don't - possibly a different chip or a customized variance.

My main concern is the platform/software change - at best it sounds like a disaster.

Am going to try and not this ruin my weekend.

[alandail]

it still remains a mystery to me - mac user and developer since 1984 - why people really care who makes the chip inside. That is really such a minor aspect ot the overall gestalt that is macintosh. Macintosh already completely switched CPU families and still remained Macintosh. Shoot, Macintosh also completely switched underlying OSes, yet the soul of the machine is the same as the original 128k machine I bought in 1984.

[mpopkin]

I dont think it is a supply quantity issue or a mhz issue, but rather a size issue, IBM has been unable to provide a small enough processor to power a new powerbook with acceptable size, power, heat levels.
I would leave Apple if it did this, including leaving my ipod behind. I would lose all and any respect i had for Steve Jobs and it is true, Microsoft is moving to a powerpc platform and it would be a stupid decision

Can IBM keep up with Apple? I don't think it is a Mhz issue more than a demand issue.

[modestmelody]

I have a few questions. One, does using Intel as it's manufacturer mean that they have to use the x86? Is it possible that they will higher Intel to manufacture a custom designed chip as they have with Motorola and IBM? I am not sure about the logistics behind this, but it still is a possibility...

Using Intel doesn't have to mean using P4s...

Then again, the world just may get turned on it's head soon...

[maxvamp]

I have a few questions. One, does using Intel as it's manufacturer mean that they have to use the x86? Is it possible that they will higher Intel to manufacture a custom designed chip as they have with Motorola and IBM? I am not sure about the logistics behind this, but it still is a possibility...

Using Intel doesn't have to mean using P4s...

Then again, the world just may get turned on it's head soon...


I would hope this theory is true. I am a fan of Altivec over SSE.

One question...

Does anyone remember BEOS, and what happened when it switched to Intel? Anyone want to start a pool on how long Apple will be around once they start moving to x86. Now that Apple is moving onto Microsoft's, will they be pounded into AppleSauce?

One final rant....Why Intel, why not AMD and the Opteron? The next round where Apple get tromped will be people comparing an x86 PowerMac to an Opteron system..


Has the world gone mad???????!!!!!!!!

Max.

[El Fat]

They could be discussing the use of PCI-express in apple computers given intel controls that technology.

[jeffgtr]

The disturbing thing to me is...I just bought a powermac, have had it less than a week. Is this going to mean I won't be able to upgrade to OS11 when it comes out a year or two down the road? Will I still be able to run the latest version of Photoshop????

[patrick0brien]

Let's wait for WWDC.

Anything else is borrowing trouble against tomorrow.

Let's take a deep breath...

[mediababy]

Intel makes fast great chips & Apple designs a fantastic OS based on UNIX that doesnt have dlls spread all over the operating system that cause 98% of the unorganization of the Windows platform and BSOD's. If you run Linux on Intel it is as stable as you could ask for (Just like our favorite OS) | Apple fortunately designs a cohesive organized OS & fantastic apps that should run just fine even if the are emulated. I don't care if I get 80% of Windows speed if I am running the slickest, most stable platform. I would prefer AMD as a manufacturer though.

[Panoctopi]

Total shock and gut wrenching!!! I can only hope that when Monday comes around it will all make sense somehow. My hopeful wait for ibook revisions has been undermined by this, not so sure i'd want to further invest in the platform if this goes trough. It would only make sense if intel is making a 'custom' chip for apple, it still it stinks of betrayal. :(

[bammac]

I have a few questions. One, does using Intel as it's manufacturer mean that they have to use the x86? Is it possible that they will higher Intel to manufacture a custom designed chip as they have with Motorola and IBM? I am not sure about the logistics behind this, but it still is a possibility...

Using Intel doesn't have to mean using P4s...

Then again, the world just may get turned on it's head soon...


I agree, who's to say all Apple have done is to take the next gen chip requirements and asked Intel to produce it. I doubt we will see a pentium in a Powermac or Powebook.

If intel can produce chips (G5's or new G6's and mobile chips) to Apple's specifications and in consistent supply then a switch makes sense. Just because intel may soon become the chip maker does not automatically mean that Apple will switch from RISC to a CISC processors.

If it gives Apple more flexibality and room to innovate then I'm for it. I have read alot of threads stating that:
"The current G4 Powerbooks have 4 year old technology, whats up with that?"
"We need PCIe graphics support"
"Hardware updates take to long"

Well if a switch to intel helps with the intergration of those technologies and the production of more market leading products...then really, is that a bad thing?

My gut tells me that if intel are to be the new chip makers they will NOT be producing an x86 chip for Mac's. All they will be doing is producing chips to Apples requirements.

Do we really think Apple would throw away years of innovation (with Mac OS X) and competetitive advantage in terms of realiablity to switch to an x86 platform and compete head to head with Dell?

I guess we will all have to wait and see till the 6th of June though.

[mad jew]

Has the world gone mad???????!!!!!!!!


Ahem. You called?

[mediababy]

If I ask myself " Am I a bigger fan of Power PC or Apples OS X & Apple applications ? " To me it ends up being the easiest decision in the world. Apple is all about usability. Power PC performance is no better than AMD 64 bit or Intels. I run both platforms & prefer Intel |AMD performance on jobs like intensive video renders | Photoshop etc.,, but you cannot beat the stability of OS X which has nothing to do with PowerPC.

[macdong]

your post, again, brings out the foundamental question.
is Apple a hardware company or a software company?


Intel makes fast great chips & Apple designs a fantastic OS based on UNIX that doesnt have dlls spread all over the operating system that cause 98% of the unorganization of the Windows platform and BSOD's. If you run Linux on Intel it is as stable as you could ask for (Just like our favorite OS) | Apple fortunately designs a cohesive organized OS & fantastic apps that should run just fine even if the are emulated. I don't care if I get 80% of Windows speed if I am running the slickest, most stable platform. I would prefer AMD as a manufacturer though.

[macdong]

I agree, who's to say all Apple have done is to take the next gen chip requirements and asked Intel to produce it. I doubt we will see a pentium in a Powermac or Powebook.

that'd better be the case.
otherwise they better get some police cars and choppers down there at WWDC to prevent any commotion. :D

[MontyZ]

Some people are really attached to these chips. I think it's more the brand names you're attached to because Apple would probably just get Intel to make the next generation chip that could potentially be better than the PowerPC chip. Like the major shift from OS9 to OSX, maybe this will be the equivalent for the processor. Perhaps Apple has developed a completely new kind of processor chip?

Intel is no longer the sweetheart of Microsoft like it was years ago. I'm sure this is probably a way for Intel to put it's huge production and R&D capacity behind another company that has the potential to "blow out" over the next 5-10 years like Microsoft did, and which Apple seems poised to attempt. Maybe Intel is doing what it can to fatten up a new cash-cow because Microsoft is no longer a sure thing.

I wouldn't poo-poo the Intel alliance yet until we first know if it's true, and if it is, what it really means.

[mcdawson]

For this to be true, Apple would have to have some technology up its sleeve--I really don't think they can afford the speed hit of emulation like they went through with the 68K->PPC transition. Why would anyone buy a new Apple when a used one would run their favorite app faster? It takes time to optimize software for hardware; while OS X probably is kept "running" on x86 machines, there still would be some effort needed to convert all the Altivec code over to the Intel equivalent. There would have to be some compelling reason for developers to switch (or produce 2 pieces--one for the new platform and one for the old). I think it would be an even harder pitch for Apple to only switch part of its line--that would mean even fewer sales for developers (i.e., they'd have to do added development for only a small gain).

The only area I could see Apple switching to is servers, as there's not a lot of 3rd party sw that would be impacted.

I don't see how switching would gain Apple much, at least in the short term (18 months). IBM's products are still competitive with Intel's; from what I've heard, much of the difference bewteen programs at the high end is the optimization applied--the more applied to the Mac side, the more (or even better) the Mac shows. I don't see how Apple's optimization ability would suddenly get better with a switch (it should get worse, as much of their current development optimization is geared to the PPC, so moving to Intel would be a big shift for those groups). Companies (like Adobe for Photoshop) would still have to optimize differently for the Mac than Windows, even if it was the same processor. Those companies would still (short term) put more of those resoures into the Windows side, so the Mac would still come up short in a head to head. Unless there's some new, great technology, it seems that its still a better risk to bet on IBM, as they still ARE improving (not as much as anyone would like, but they still are), and have seem to have promise for delivering better (970MP, 980/Power5 derivative) in the future.

I just can't see Apple being able to afford the emulation speed hit and the developer unrest (there's enough work just keeping up with the OS changes between 10.2-10.4 much less an architecture change), unless they have some technology magic. Monday should be interesting…

[slooksterPSV]

Some people are really attached to these chips. I think it's more the brand names you're attached to because Apple would probably just get Intel to make the next generation chip that could potentially be better than the PowerPC chip. Like the major shift from OS9 to OSX, maybe this will be the equivalent for the processor. Perhaps Apple has developed a completely new kind of processor chip?

Intel is no longer the sweetheart of Microsoft like it was years ago. I'm sure this is probably a way for Intel to put it's huge production and R&D capacity behind another company that has the potential to "blow out" over the next 5-10 years like Microsoft did, and which Apple seems poised to attempt. Maybe Intel is doing what it can to fatten up a new cash-cow because Microsoft is no longer a sure thing.

I wouldn't poo-poo the Intel alliance yet until we first know if it's true, and if it is, what it really means.

If they do make the slip with x86 processors, they better talk with AMD. I refuse to buy Intel chips anymore. They have just proven slow and basically worthless. AMD is my chip along with IBM.

[mediababy]

your post, again, brings out the foundamental question.
is Apple a hardware company or a software company?

My thought is they are both & as weird as it sounds " A usability & esthetics design company "

It is obviously not uncommon for Mercedes & BMW not to design all of their hardware, why should that apply to Apple. Everybody subcontracts out to their design specs. I don't believe that commonality should be applied to all other companies except Apple.

For example, I just purchased a Sansdisk 1gb flash mp3 player which was pretty good (Has a backlit screen, works as a usb flash drive, loads songs easy & fast, good audio quality, battery life outstanding & great price ).

I thought for sure I would like it more than buying a shuffle (no screen, doesnt play as many formats). I liked the sansdisk player pretty well except for two glaring exceptions that the shuffle offers. What are they? It came down to how easy it was to create playlists in the shuffle & load one of them via iTunes when I am getting ready to exercise & the neck lanyard. The sansdisk player has no playlist feature (Alot of USB flash players don't offer this) & when it came to finding a specific song out of 240 some songs it became impossible to scroll through the backlit screen). At least with the shuffle I can load any playlist on the fly & it is easy to skip through that playlist & hear which song I am looking for. The neck lanyard is way nicer to use on the shuffle than the backwards contraption armband Sansdisks supplies. Apple is all about actual ease, performance & aesthetics. To say Apple is only one or the other couldn't be an accurate question to ask.

They outsource components just like everybody else. Nobody is designing & manufacturing every single part of their products.

[macdong]

no, you are right.
and i am not saying Apple makes every singal component inside their computer.
but think about this, if Apple switches to Intel, they are switching to x86 chips (unless, like someone so optimistically said, Intel plans to make PowerPC chips :D ).
this is unlike Mercedes-Benz & BMW, because if a BMW car has a different engine you still wouldn't see a Mercedes-Benz logo on it (ok, bad example).
anyway, it means we don't need to buy computers from Apple anymore.
so, if Apple were a software company, this probably wouldn't hurt them much, if any at all.
but if Apple were a hardware company, this is not only a switch of CPU, but also a change of company principle and direction.



My thought is they are both & as weird as it sounds " A usability & esthetics design company "

It is obviously not uncommon for Mercedes & BMW not to design all of their hardware, why should that apply to Apple. Everybody subcontracts out to their design specs. I don't believe that commonality should be applied to all other companies except Apple.

For example, I just purchased a Sansdisk 1gb flash mp3 player which was pretty good (Has a backlit screen, works as a usb flash drive, loads songs easy & fast, good audio quality, battery life outstanding & great price ).

I thought for sure I would like it more than buying a shuffle (no screen, doesnt play as many formats). I liked the sansdisk player pretty well except for two glaring exceptions that the shuffle offers. What are they? It came down to how easy it was to create playlists in the shuffle & load one of them via iTunes when I am getting ready to exercise & the neck lanyard. The sansdisk player has no playlist feature (Alot of USB flash players don't offer this) & when it came to finding a specific song out of 240 some songs it became impossible to scroll through the backlit screen). At least with the shuffle I can load any playlist on the fly & it is easy to skip through that playlist & hear which song I am looking for. The neck lanyard is way nicer to use on the shuffle than the backwards contraption armband Sansdisks supplies. Apple is all about actual ease, performance & aesthetics. To say Apple is only one or the other couldn't be an accurate question to ask.

They outsource components just like everybody else. Nobody is designing & manufacturing every single part of their products.

[neildmitchell]

Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050225022048.shtml)

Apple might be in talks with Intel for releasing OS X on Microsoft turf.
No rules stating that Apple cant compete with Windows on its own turf.

That would be sweet if Apple did, released the same day or the day after ?Leghorn? ?Longhorn?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/jellery/yosemite-sam.gif
(Steve Jobs)]Im a rooting tootin cowbow! Out to get that pesky vermit (Microsoft):)

[macdong]

well, again, is Apple a hardware company or software company?
of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?
just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.

Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050225022048.shtml)

Apple might be in talks with Intel for releasing OS X on Microsoft turf.
No rules stating that Apple cant compete with Windows on its own turf.

That would be sweet if Apple did, released the same day or the day after ?Leghorn? ?Longhorn?

(Steve Jobs)]Im a rooting tootin cowbow! Out to get that pesky vermit (Microsoft):)

[harveypooka]

Er, I really hope there's not a change. I know it's all rumour and speculation at the mo, but it's still a little disconcerting when these news sites come out
with stuff like that. Would anyone not use Mac's anymore if they switched to Intel? For some reason it put's me off. I think all the anti-Intel advertising from Apple and others has worked...

[Mord]

It makes from the standpoint that IBM hasn't been supplying Apple a steady stream of chip. Apple needs reliability. All I can really do is that Steve Jobs knows what he's doing.


IBM has been, apples inventorys are full and sales are strong, the G5 is not slower than any intel cpu's and apple posted the largest profit ever last quarter, if they were going to switch to intel they would have done so in the G4 days, the G5 is going well why everyone elce cant see that is beyond me.

this is probably misinterpreted as apple decides to put intel RAID chips in all powermacs or something, and someone hears intel and powermac in the same sentence and adds 2 and 2 to make 400.

it's not about weather we like the software or the hardware it's about apple making a stupid decision and this would be one, alienate all there users and break all compatibility for dual core cpu's which are around the corner anyway.

[macdong]

Er, I really hope there's not a change. I know it's all rumour and speculation at the mo, but it's still a little disconcerting when these news sites come out
with stuff like that. Would anyone not use Mac's anymore if they switched to Intel? For some reason it put's me off. I think all the anti-Intel advertising from Apple and others has worked...


well, to be honest with you, if Apple does switch to Intel the question becomes two fold.
because "using a Mac" will have different meaning.
will you still use Mac OS as your primary operating system? probably.
will you still buy computer from Apple? probably not.
and somebody mentioned that Apple could, even after switching to x86, make Mac OS run only on their computer.
i am not sure how true is that, but honestly if they switch to x86 and do that, they'll go down before you can say "bang".

[macdong]

IBM has been, apples inventorys are full and sales are strong, the G5 is not slower than any intel cpu's and apple posted the largest profit ever last quarter, if they were going to switch to intel they would have done so in the G4 days, the G5 is going well why everyone elce cant see that is beyond me.

this is probably misinterpreted as apple decides to put intel RAID chips in all powermacs or something, and someone hears intel and powermac in the same sentence and adds 2 and 2 to make 400.

it's not about weather we like the software or the hardware it's about apple making a stupid decision and this would be one, alienate all there users and break all compatibility for dual core cpu's which are around the corner anyway.

so true, so true :)
we'll hope this turns out to be false (dang, what kind of calendar you people got? plutonian? i didn't know it's still april! )
but as far as this being a stupid decision, let's hope there isn't anyone in the board that's stupid ;)

[rt_brained]

Is it too early to start a thread describing how to remove the "Intel Inside" stickers from new Powerbooks?

[Warbrain]

Maybe I have a bit more hope that Intel will be making PPC chips for Apple and it won't be an x86. I've read the posts of a few others and it just seems more likely than an x86 processor from Intel.

[eva01]

ok so IF they do make this move and will change the computers over between mid 06 - 07. What happens to their sales between monday and mid 06? If they change over to a different architecture they will have to change over all their programs, so anyone that buys a Mac between monday and the crossover will not be able to get updated software correct? since it will be for x86 or whatever apple uses from intel. Why tell about a switch so far in advance from when it happens, i think it will just kill sales from monday to 2006

[skibummer]

Is it too early to start a thread describing how to remove the "Intel Inside" stickers from new Powerbooks?

Who can imagine a "Built for OSX" sticker right next to that (That doesn't come off and is there long after OSX is replaced)

[slooksterPSV]

How to remove the Intel Inside sticker, it won't be a sticker, it'll be welded to the powerbooks lol. Seriously, this is just a rumor. If the Transitive Technology is released, then I think that may be what they're talking about. Its all still for PowerPC, but it'll work on x86 hardware, and vice versa. Boosting both companies sales. Unlelss *shivers* Bill Gates and Steve Jobs decide to do a...... m... merger AHHHHH!!!

[Calihafan]

I didn't check all 600-700 replies in this thread, but I was wondering about something that DaringFireball brought up.

So suppose Apple switches to Intel - they'd have to give their developers some time to change the software to work on x86 chips. They'd also have to alter OS X. In the time that that takes, how many people would be willing to buy an Apple computer based on an architecture that will in the future NOT BE SUPPORTED?

None. Its a little worrisome. But I still find myself worrying because I just ordered a G5.

Is there an option that Apple is switching to x64 Intel chips? Or Intel chips that wouldn't require a big change to the OS and third-party software? I'm hoping. Whenever I read Paul Thurrott I want to throw up, he makes me absolutely sick. He's so pompous. He brought this up, talking about how "sweet vindication is." Gimme a break.

I'm not really a rabid-Apple fan and I wouldn't "kill myself" if they switched to Intel but it raises serious questions about the future of the company and the hardware.

Maybe, this is all twisted, and the information actually said that Apple was writing OS X to work on x86 chips, but not putting x86 chips into their machines. Its a known fact that many vendors, like HP, Dell, and Sony have been courting Apple for a version of OS X to run on Intel or AMD chips.

And the rumors that Intel already has OS X running on chips in their labs? It only confirms the idea that Apple is making OS X for other chips. Wouldn't this make like three platforms in the market then? Mac, PC, and... OS X on Intel? Xintel? I dunno. Its very confusing.

Someone please reassure me this isn't really happening, its very worrisome because I just ordered a G5. So far, the rumors I've heard haven't addressed the issue of how no one would buy a PowerPC-based Mac in the amount of time it would take to move everything over to the x86 side of the fence.

Again, I don't know if this has been commented on before.

Calih

[maxvamp]

Apple will have to give developers time to port their programs. Will this be the WWDC where Tiger x86 is distributed to developers.

I would assume that Apple would want software available the day they release the new hardware.

Max.

[slooksterPSV]

Calihafan, your argument stands perfect, as far as I'm concerned. That would make sense. If Apple were to broaden their market, then they may be able to over take Microsoft. I think that your pose on the rumor may be the closest one to fact. I would rather have a recompiled OS X for x86 hardware than a complete move. This is just a rumor. I work on Monday so I'm gonna need the scoop after WWDC's first day is over. Then again MacRumors, should have a lot of the information on new announcements. This may be a great move for all computer industries, except Microsoft - which is perfect in my world. You're G5 will be the best $$$ you've spent on a computer ever.

EDIT: Here's something I just thought of, the iPod's have Intel Strong ARM processors in them: http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21277 there's the attachment I took from one of the iPod Linux video's. Now I know that it's iPod, but Apple already has Intel Processors in their iPods. So now what?

[macdong]

well, making an OS X for x86 IS switching to Intel.
think about it, if there is a version of OS X for x86, are you going to buy a computer from Apple that costs 3 grand?
that's why i said if a x86 version of OS X does turn out to be true, Apple will be a completely different company.
and we will not be the same Mac users.


Calihafan, your argument stands perfect, as far as I'm concerned. That would make sense. If Apple were to broaden their market, then they may be able to over take Microsoft. I think that your pose on the rumor may be the closest one to fact. I would rather have a recompiled OS X for x86 hardware than a complete move. This is just a rumor. I work on Monday so I'm gonna need the scoop after WWDC's first day is over. Then again MacRumors, should have a lot of the information on new announcements. This may be a great move for all computer industries, except Microsoft - which is perfect in my world. You're G5 will be the best $$$ you've spent on a computer ever.

EDIT: Here's something I just thought of, the iPod's have Intel Strong ARM processors in them: http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21277 there's the attachment I took from one of the iPod Linux video's. Now I know that it's iPod, but Apple already has Intel Processors in their iPods. So now what?

[eva01]

we wont be Mac users at all then, we would be OS X users.

[chicagdan]

I think the C|Net story is half right -- Apple will start using Intel x86 chips, but they'll also keep selling PPC-based systems too. In fact, I expect Jobs to tout the upcoming IBM upgrades just as much as the Intel possibilities ... remember, what Apple wants is the ability to provide a broad range of products and having three major chip suppliers gives Apple the flexibility it needs and lets it play one supplier against another to always get the best deal. (Note: this is the spin, not necessarily the reality.)

To sell this, Jobs is going to make QuickTransit sound like the greatest invention since the internal combustion engine. No need to recompile means OS X software written once will run anywhere. Perhaps that 80 percent speed has been tweaked to 90 percent. Run OS X apps on an x86 with only a 10 percent speed penalty and they'll run just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs announces that Apple has bought Transitive on Monday and that the company has even more interesting technology on the way that will make recompiling software a snap. The message: no need to recompile your software now, keep developing OS X for PPC, it's going to be with us for "a long, long time."

Of course, all of this is smoke and mirrors, Jobs has to keep PPC viable because it's going to be all Apple has in the hardware pipeline for the next 6 to 18 months. Two years from now, I'll bet that Apple sells 100% x86-based systems ... but we'll go along with the transition because of the Jobs QuickTransit gambit.

BTW, my dream is that Apple has a true trojan horse OS X 10.5 plan in mind ... run OS X and Windows simultaneously on the same computer. No need to emulate ... the trick is allowing an OS to run without booting into it. You boot into OS X and then run your (existing, full license) Windows programs in a window. Think of what it might be like to release such a product simultaneously with Longhorn -- you can install this entirely new MS OS or you can keep your current Windows installation while putting a fully-tested, stable OS X over top of it.

[Calihafan]

Good point... I hadn't thought about it that way. However, who do you think would buy a Mac that costs $3000 when they could just buy a OSx86 for less? Maybe the people who think aesthetics is a factor - hmm, a computer that will last me seven years... will it be the beautiful, strong G5 tower? Or the shoddy plastic Dell? Anyway, Mac OS X may run faster on PowerPC chips then on x86 anyway, of course I don't know about chip architectures or anything, but that could be an incentive for customers to buy from Apple. I mean -

OS X is virus free. Get it on your Intel-based PC today. If you want speed and beauty along with your virus protection, get an Apple-made OS X machine.

Maybe? I could see them crippling OS X for Intel to seduce users to buy from them. Maybe this version of OS X is a version for a tablet PC anyway? If the two rumors are linked, then it also works with the rumor that the version of OS X that would run on the tablets would be different from those that run on the other machines - even to the point of not running the same software. In that case, it wouldn't MATTER if they put Intel chips in the tablets.

Also, as I'm sure it has been previously mentioned, they might be using Intel chips for things OTHER then the processor. Maybe.

Thanks for the reassurement, I'm better now.

Calih

[Warbrain]

we wont be Mac users at all then, we would be OS X users.

I'll be a Linux user.

[ArizonaKid]

Many of the post here are from Apple's point of view that Steve Jobs wants to leave IBM because of slow growth.

...Perhaps IBM just doesn't want to support Apple anymore and has placed them down the line after their own chip fabrication needs, as well as those of Sony and Microsoft. If IBM is "trying" to loose Apple as a customer, Apple may just be out of options.

Also, remember that Apple is a software company. I have seen at least five interviews when Steve Jobs repeated this. When asked about the iPods success on CNBC, he stated its because of software. The iTunes software makes the iPod's success, both the software in the iPod and outside the iPod.

I see a lot of Mac people "freaking" out on this rumor. Why, Because of uncertainty? I think Mac user's need to admit the obvious. Microsoft scares the living sh** out of us, and when going after Microsoft's territory there ultimately is no shared winner. It's win or loose, and Bill won't have it any other way.

If this is true, it would be a huge change, and lead "possibly" to a big showdown. "Microsoft vs Apple" once again, but on much different terms. And that's a very scary, dirty battle.

I am going to be sticking with Apple if they make the switch.

[365]

I'll be a Linux user.

This thread is full of people throwing teddys out of their prams, telling us how that's it and they're off to Linux. The thing is perhaps one of you could answer me a question ...

Bearing in mind that if this rumor is true and Apple does go to Intel, the OS - Tiger - will still look and feel the same, the only difference being that it will have a more capable processor under the hood (I'm using the logic that Apple aren't going to make such a bold move without very real and obvious benefits that Intel chips would bring). As I say bearing this in mind, why would you move to Linux?

You can buy a x86 PC today for a few hundred Dollars and stick a free Linux distribution on there, run OpenOffice and Gimp etc.. all for free and all this without the major price overhead that buying a Mac brings, so why are't you whingers already doing this?

If you can so easily say you're off to Linux you obviosuly don't need any of the quality commercial applications that most OSX and Windows users enjoy so why pay the premium?

Linux has two things going for it, it's a great server/development OS and it isn't from Microsoft (if you're a M$ hater) but as far as being a desktop OS is concerned, it's disjointed, fragmented and quite frankly chaotic. You're very welcome to it.

[xnu]

Interesting, if OSX is installed on a PC and allows windows to run so people could use their old programs and have OSX programs it would almost be the same thing Apple did with OS9 in classic mode. Even if the underlying windows system gets crapped up, you would at least be able to check your email and still run programs in OSX. Your core system would be stable and secure. People would eventually just drop windows as they did classic... assimilation. Out system the system software giant?

[neildmitchell]

well, again, is Apple a hardware company or software company?
of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?
just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.
I agree. A good point for Microsoft is that it can run on just about any x86 compliant computer hardware configuration, where they try to make it the best OS for the widest range of possible hardware configurations. But that can also have drawbacks.
A good point for Apple is that they have developed the OS to be compatible with a only certain limited hardware configurations. So when you buy a mac product you know that it is quality, if you need to upgrade something only a few hardware components are available, keeping the quality assurance maxed. But that can also have drawbacks.

Price point should be considered too.
Microsoft XP Pro $300 Mac OS X $130
5 users license $1,500 $200

Well, It would at least be interesting to see Apple try and compete on Windows turf. Help/Hurt Apple if they were to do so....??? It would at least be interesting to see

[chicagdan]

Interesting, if OSX is installed on a PC and allows windows to run so people could use their old programs and have OSX programs it would almost be the same thing Apple did with OS9 in classic mode. Even if the underlying windows system gets crapped up, you would at least be able to check your email and still run programs in OSX. Your core system would be stable and secure. People would eventually just drop windows as they did classic... assimilation. Out system the system software giant?


Right -- it's exactly what IBM tried to do with OS/2 Warp before Windows 95 came out. The problem for IBM is that they had no installed based, they relied totally on switchers and since every Warp user was running Windows 3.1 software, 95 totally killed it.

An OS-X version of this strategy would be far less risky ... and it would give Apple a risk management "in" with corporate IT departments. The transition to an OS-X + Windows installation could be far less expensive and risky than a full-out corporate move to Longhorn.

[Trekkie]

Is it too early to start a thread describing how to remove the "Intel Inside" stickers from new Powerbooks?

Of all the things out there, that is one of the things I most hate. But it's big bucks for the computer vendor to put them on, along with the 'designed for Windows XP' ones.

[Trekkie]

Right -- it's exactly what IBM tried to do with OS/2 Warp before Windows 95 came out. The problem for IBM is that they had no installed based, they relied totally on switchers and since every Warp user was running Windows 3.1 software, 95 totally killed it.


Not exactly. IBM had full rights to Win32 which was part of Windows 3.11 as part of their cross licensing agreement. When MS developed Windows 95 they developed a new rev of Win32 that IBM had no rights to (Win32S I think) and then OS/2 would not work with any 95 software and THAT killed it.

What also killed it was lack of commercial software development, namely MS OFfice.

[MontyZ]

well, again, is Apple a hardware company or software company?
Simple. They are both.

of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?
How do you know it would be an x86 chip that Intel would make for Apple? Maybe they have something new up their sleeves.

just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.
I don't think OSX will make Microsoft much money. But it could make Apple a load of cash if they extend their OS to Intel-based computers.

[wdlove]

From reading all the above posts, this transition, that is if there is going to be one will certainly be very interesting. All we can do at this point is trust in Apple and Steve Jobs. Apple just needs to be more open with their plans.

[harveypooka]

Yeah, you're right about that. Apple really do need to give a roadmap. Most
other companies let their customer's know what's happening but that's probably because they can't keep their 'secrets' under wraps from size of operations and the variety of companies they use. Apple are selective and secretive...but yeah, perhaps they should open up a bit...

[macdong]

Also, remember that Apple is a software company. I have seen at least five interviews when Steve Jobs repeated this. When asked about the iPods success on CNBC, he stated its because of software. The iTunes software makes the iPod's success, both the software in the iPod and outside the iPod.

right, but there is a difference between "profitting by selling software" and "profitting by selling hardware because of the software".
which one is Apple?
and if you think by switching to x86 Apple can bring out computers cheaper than IBM or even Sony, that's probably not realistic.
so, here is the question again.
if Apple is a hardware company, are they prepared to take on all those x86 vendors?
or, are they prepared to become something like Microsoft and face the same problems they have?
i am asking questions, because i don't have the answer.

[macdong]

I don't think OSX will make Microsoft much money. But it could make Apple a load of cash if they extend their OS to Intel-based computers.

and you know that by how?

[MontyZ]

and you know that by how?
It's an opinion. That's all. No one knows what is really going to happen until the official word is released from Apple. Everyone is just speculating on rumors in this thread. Chill dude!

[Adurbe]

if apple wants the 'buisness market' they may have to conform to x86 (I know my company wouldnt buy all new hardware to switch to OSX)

now would be an ideal time. OSX is being seen as capable of replacing windows.. this good will may die when longhorn eventually comes along

Depends if you buy a mac for the os or the hardware (i know overly simplified, but still)

[bosrs1]

if apple wants the 'buisness market' they may have to conform to x86 (I know my company wouldnt buy all new hardware to switch to OSX)

now would be an ideal time. OSX is being seen as capable of replacing windows.. this good will may die when longhorn eventually comes along

Depends if you buy a mac for the os or the hardware (i know overly simplified, but still)
That is probably at the heart of their reasoning.

[macdong]

It's an opinion. That's all. No one knows what is really going to happen until the official word is released from Apple. Everyone is just speculating on rumors in this thread. Chill dude!

so true, so true :)

[slooksterPSV]

Ok, here's the deal, if Apple is in talks with Intel (I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, and I'm not going through the 700+ posts), and Apple is/was having a MHz issue, then maybe its only for servers. Intel Xeon on Mac OS X Server. That is what I'm strongly believing now. I don't think they'll give up PowerPC, but give up (since PowerPC doesn't have server processors) to Intel for server side CPU's. There how's that.
Also, IBM and Apple have the fastest FSB around (well... with exception to AMD). So why would they give up PPC for slow FSB Intels - except for server operation.

[macdong]

Ok, here's the deal, if Apple is in talks with Intel (I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, and I'm not going through the 700+ posts), and Apple is/was having a MHz issue, then maybe its only for servers. Intel Xeon on Mac OS X Server. That is what I'm strongly believing now. I don't think they'll give up PowerPC, but give up (since PowerPC doesn't have server processors) to Intel for server side CPU's. There how's that.
Also, IBM and Apple have the fastest FSB around (well... with exception to AMD). So why would they give up PPC for slow FSB Intels - except for server operation.

well, if they are moving OS X server to x86, it would only make sense to move everything else as well.

[slooksterPSV]

well, if they are moving OS X server to x86, it would only make sense to move everything else as well.
Not necessarily. My School is moving to where the Mac labs can connect to the Netware 6.5 servers. File access is not an issues, probably the only issue with x86 Mac Server (that name is so horrible) is that you couldn't run any Mac Only Apps.... so I guess an application server.... that would be out hmm.... striking point.....