Apple in Talks with Intel?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

This Reuters story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=1&u=/nm/20050523/tc_nm/tech_apple_intel_dc) revives one of the oldest Mac rumors around... Apple switching to Intel?

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

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

Apple has seriously considered switching to Intel at least twice in its history. One previous project code-named Star Trek (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020511134130.shtml) actually ported Mac OS 7 to Intel based hardware in 1992. Most recently, internal IBM documents (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) noted that Apple considered switching to Intel but felt it would be too much trouble:

Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term.

[Orlando Furioso]

oh hellz no.

[Chaszmyr]

I find this impossible to believe. I think the recent announcements of Xbox 360 and PS3 (which both contain processors manufactured by IBM, though the latter wasn't developed solely by IBM) show that IBM has some major potential in being the future of the processor industry. Furthermore, even if Apple wasn't going to use IBM, it looks to me like Intel should be the last choice, as AMD has passed them up again in terms of performance.

Bottom line: The only way I think this can be true is if Intel has some big new thing coming out that Apple knows about and we do not.

[broken_keyboard]

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?

[rickmac2005]

If apple chose to switch to intel now they would be choosing the worst time in a decade- with evry other manufacturer making the move to powerpc- even microsoft, it would be stupid to move at a time when intel could eventually be left high and dry.

[macmax77]

I find this impossible to believe. I think the recent announcements of Xbox 360 and PS3 (which both contain processors manufactured by IBM, though the latter wasn't developed solely by IBM) show that IBM has some major potential in being the future of the processor industry. Furthermore, even if Apple wasn't going to use IBM, it looks to me like Intel should be the last choice, as AMD has passed them up again in terms of performance.

Bottom line: The only way I think this can be true is if Intel has some big new thing coming out that Apple knows about and we do not.

+1 . But i would hate it, hate the Intel music thingy at the end of the adds

[nomore]

Looking at recent Apple patents, maybe it's for a centrino processor for a PDA/Tablet type device. A huge platform shift from OS9 to OSX took quite some time. Imagine how long it would take to transition to a different HW architecture, not to mention the amount of time and cost to ALL OS X software developers. I find it highly unlikely that Apple would change to x86 on the Mac platform.

[fraggle]

+1 . But i would hate it, hate the Intel music thingy at the end of the adds

AFAIK you do not have to do this, it just gives you some money from Intels PR pool... I strongly doubt that Apple would do this :)

[dobbin]

Does this mean that Mac OS would be designed to run on any old POS intel box, or would Apple just be buying in intel chips to put in Macs?

I presume its the latter, but that this could be the first step towards the former.

I don't believe it, although I bet Steve is still mightily p1ssed off with whoever told him he'd have 3Ghz chips by LAST summer ;)

[BornAgainMac]

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

[harveypooka]

This has all came before - you'd think they'd go for Cell instead of Intel? They'd open up a wealth of applications and games, but they'd possibly lose
their devoted Mac fans. Can you imagine a neat little 'Intel Inside' on the front of your G5? Never! They'll stick with IBM.

[scottschor]

If they already have an OS ported to run on Intel, and it opens up new markets and/or offers opportunities for greater performance, why shouldn't they partner with significant others?

Manogomy? Humbug. They shifted from Motorola to IBM and no one lost any sleep over it. You think they're abandoning their core customers? Don't be silly. My trusty old G3/400 still works, still runs Tiger, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

If a partnership with Intel positions Apple for greater exposure and higher heights, then I have no problem with it.

In reading the previous post, it does seem more likely that this partnership may be for a PDA/Tablet type product, but whatever it is I hope it makes a tidal splash.

Go, baby, go.

[tamtam]

Glad Apple is sticking with their own architecture.

[darkmatter05]

Im a mac user for the PowerPC, if they switched to Intel, they loose me...

[Frisco]

I think Apple will have a response pretty quickly if this rumor is false, because this rumor will hurt Mac sales. Who would buy a Mac now if they are moving over to Intel--oh sorry Mactel :)

[animefan_1]

Manogomy? Humbug. They shifted from Motorola to IBM and no one lost any sleep over it. You think they're abandoning their core customers? Don't be silly. My trusty old G3/400 still works, still runs Tiger, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

You seem to be forgetting the little fact that both Motorola and IBM are part os the PowerPC 'AIM' alliance (the 'A' being Apple). That, and the fact that when Apple switched from Moto to IBM, they didn't change processor types - it remained PowerPC.

[animefan_1]

Im a mac user for the PowerPC, if they switched to Intel, they loose me...

You're not a Mac user for the Mac OS? wow.

[animefan_1]

I'm going to call this rumor *********. It's been the same way for years and we're still on PowerPC.

[Apple.Girl]

Imagine how long it would take to transition to a different HW architecture, not to mention the amount of time and cost to ALL OS X software developers. I find it highly unlikely that Apple would change to x86 on the Mac platform.

I agree, it seems unlikely and would probably stir up a lot of resentment, anger, and animosity. I switched from a PC for the PowerPC/OSX architecture. I'm running a 1.33GHz G4 in my PowerBook and I find that pretty fast for almost all tasks (except Photoshop edits), so I find it hard to believe that it's just a megahertz decision... and if Apple is considering a move, would strongly urge them to reconsider!

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.

[Evangelion]

Few problems with this:

1. Apple has for years told people how x86 sucks and how PPC is better. How would they rationale mving from that "superior" CPU to the "crappy" CPU?

2. Why Intel? AMD has the better CPU's. Their dual-core solutions are better and more elegant, their CPU's run cooler, have more bandwidth and generally are faster than Intel's CPU's.

3. Moving to x86 would make it very difficult for Apple to do those "Apple vs. Intel/Dell"-comparisons ;).

[abrooks]

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.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

First SCSI -> IDE, then ADC -> DVI, and now PPC -> Intel???
Are they aiming to make a Wintel clone? :eek:
I hope this rumor is false.

[Frisco]

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.

Good Point! That would make more sense. It's only a rumor so who knows.

I bet IBM would be pissed though.

[Uma888]

why intel? why not use sony's cell processor?

[scottschor]

You seem to be forgetting the little fact that both Motorola and IBM are part os the PowerPC 'AIM' alliance (the 'A' being Apple). That, and the fact that when Apple switched from Moto to IBM, they didn't change processor types - it remained PowerPC.

Yes, of course, you are correct. However, I buy Apple products because I like the ease with which I can use their software. I'm also an American who purchased a Honda and Hyundai for the value/performance ratio.

While I certainly don't think Apple would divest themselves from PPC, an endeavor to which they've no doubt devoted vast resources, I don't understand the hysteria (perhaps that's too strong a word) resulting from a possible Apple/Intel solution. I am open to education and pursuasion if you are inclined to school me, though.

[do_not]

What if apple is planning to bring the best of both worlds?
What about a multiplatform system out of the box, no SW emulation, a multi-system machine booting the different systems to make use of different processors?
May we won’t see a windows GUI, but we could have access natively to hundreds of applications and games.
I don’t know if this is technically possible…

[joeconvert]

Wow, Apple must have an obsession with pickingprocessors that can't compete. First, loyalty to the PowerPC experiment. Now going after the company that only a fanboy can defend.

Don't believe this to be true, but glad to see the rumor community can recycle them like the slashdot editors do stories.

[iGary]

I'll kill myself. :(

[fixyourthinking]

Apple no longer owns a stake in ARM (sold it all to Intel) but they do have experience and could easily hire/rehire programmers that worked on Apple/ARM devices (read as Newton)

My guess is that this will be for a new ARM processor for the iPod - the custom chip is probably too weak for advanced features.

[macorama]

Surely if this comes to be, it'll be a case of Intel producing a chip with the same architecture as the current G5/G4/G3. Ideally Apple could have two suppliers for the chips, IBM and Intel, which should help smooth out supply problems.

Either way I can't see the change happening to boost CPU speed, as Intel seems to have hit the same barrier as IBM on chip speeds.

[potofgold]

I'll kill myself. :(


A bit dramatic are we?

[slu]

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.

[musiclover137]

Im a mac user for the PowerPC, if they switched to Intel, they loose me...
to who?

[Roller]

I'm not surprised that Apple is talking to Intel, as I'm sure they did before the G5 move. It makes perfect sense for them to explore any opportunity that could move them forward.

People claim that they'll stop using Macs if this happens. Personally, I don't care that much what Apple puts inside the box, as long as it runs Mac OS and my apps. If there's a real advantage to going to Intel or AMD or whatever, I'm for it. Marketing would be challenging, though, given some of Apple's past ads.

However, I can't imagine Apple licensing Mac OS to run on non-Apple boxes again, so I don't think you'll be able to install OS X (or XI or whatever) on a Dell.

[BenRoethig]

Good Point! That would make more sense. It's only a rumor so who knows.

I bet IBM would be pissed though.

Unless IBM made the decision to stop 970 development. They're making CPUs for the all next generation consoles and two years later the 970 isn't the success they hoped it would be.

[BenRoethig]

I'm not surprised that Apple is talking to Intel, as I'm sure they did before the G5 move. It makes perfect sense for them to explore any opportunity that could move them forward.

People claim that they'll stop using Macs if this happens. Personally, I don't care that much what Apple puts inside the box, as long as it runs Mac OS and my apps. If there's a real advantage to going to Intel or AMD or whatever, I'm for it. Marketing would be challenging, though, given some of Apple's past ads.

However, I can't imagine Apple licensing Mac OS to run on non-Apple boxes again, so I don't think you'll be able to install OS X (or XI or whatever) on a Dell.

Not unless that Dell ran open firmware instead of BIOS.

[virividox]

i dont care whats runing my comp as long as it doesnt stop the current fucntionality i enjoy now

[fixyourthinking]

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.

This is another probable scenario- Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -

As I said in my previous post though, Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple) - this is the processor in the majority of PocketPCs, Palms, and GPS units. So - this Intel processor is most likely for a new device or even the iPod.

[Platform]

If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.

VERY good post.....this is so right....apple please don't fall into the trap of Intel....may look good now but what about next year :( ;)

Good with IBM or any other that can make good PPC ;)

[sparky76]

Apple already uses an Intel chip - it is a controller for the Xserve Raid box (I think Apple exhibited at a recent Intel conference with it). Why the concern that an Intel chip will be for the Mac? More likely for another as-yet unannounced device. Intel chips (ARM core) are very powerful in PDAs for example.
Anyway, we now know PowerPC can run at 3.2GHz (XBox 360) and IBM must have the supply problems sorted out, given the numbers they will have to supply for all 3 of the new consoles.

[BenRoethig]

why intel? why not use sony's cell processor?

The cell would probably require as many changes as moving to the x86. You could use just the PPE, but it wouldn't much faster than the 900mhz G3 in my iBook. The Cell and the X360 chips are simple and designed for multimedia work, not general computing purposes.

[Daveway]

I'll kill myself. :(
I wouldn't go that far myself, but I would be VERY disappointed in Apple. I'm praying the are smart and go with Cell.

[fixyourthinking]

The cell would probably require as many changes as moving to the x86. You could use just the PPE, but it wouldn't much faster than the 900mhz G3 in my iBook. The Cell and the X360 chips are simple and designed for multimedia work, not general computing purposes.

The SonyPS3 and XBox are using the same processor (said loosely) with custom tweaks - both processors are derivitives of the PowerPC and both are RISC - like the Apple/IBM G5 ...

[thatwendigo]

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

Apple, Motorola, and IBM are the core partners of the AIM consortium that originally laid out the common specification for the PowerPC standard. Both together and separately, they are responsible for the family of processors that we all know and, coincidentally, which are making enormous strides in many areas of computing - embedded solutions, big-iron servers, consumer machines (all three next generation game consoles are PowerPC).

Switching from Motorla to IBM made at least some sense, considering just how much of the PowerPC intellectual property belongs to Big Blue. For that matter, take a look at how much technology has originated with IBM and been licensed by the likes of Intel and AMD for their products. There's a reason that AMD is sharing fabrication space with them, not to mention the relative parity in performance and design specifications.

Jumping to an x86, and especially an Intel, solution is an awful lot more complicated. The whole operating system and every program on it would have to have some way to address the new hardware, which takes overhead, and that would suddenly cripple any performance advantage. So Apple loses any benefit from PowerPC and their code, being forced instead to hope that they can keep ahead on byte-code changes or a total recompile that would break everything that you like about third party software. It would make the change from 680xx to PowerPC look like a walk in the park for developers, especially the smaller ones.

You think they're abandoning their core customers? Don't be silly. My trusty old G3/400 still works, still runs Tiger, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

Great, good for you. What do you do when you need a new version of your software sometime in the future or when that machine dies? Do you honestly believe that developers that were forced through two enormous hoops so far - transition to PowerPC and then to OS X - would still be around?

My prediction is that most large developers would stop releasing OS X versions entirely and tell people they can run the Windows/Linux versions since they now have an x86 processor. That's a pretty handy definition of having your core customers abandoned...

[QUOTE=scottschor]Yes, of course, you are correct. However, I buy Apple products because I like the ease with which I can use their software. I'm also an American who purchased a Honda and Hyundai for the value/performance ratio.

You bought a Hyundai?

Well, that explains your attitude. They're crap and you might have bought cheaper, but just wait a few years. You'll be sorry.

[Eastend]

Kind of amazed at how many people in this thread really panicked. I think Apple regularly talks to all the manufacturers and I do not think we will see a Intel processor replacing the IBM one for awhile. Even in my business I talk to many manufacturers, but I usually just buy from those I have a relationship with.

Brian

[Lucky736]

It is probably an agreement to have them manufactur chips as clearly IBM cant keep up, then we will see down the road.

[springdaddy]

some of you guys act like little fanboys. if it gives me better performance, I'm all for it.

[potofgold]

some of you guys act like little fanboys. if it gives me better performance, I'm all for it.

I'm new to this forum and I'm kind of shocked by some of these statements! Seriously, who would care if performance was better and OSX wasn't changed? :confused:

[harveypooka]

Scottshor- for sure your 400mhz mac runs Tiger, but it'll run it badly, with no bells and whistles and no support for the major services. That's not the point! If Apple change to Intel it would mark a major shift in their strategy. It's weird, after years of being niche, the iPod dominates, it's just weird to see Apple doing so well. Would it take part of the magic of Mac away if they moved to Intel (all that anti-Intel advertising for nothing) and were adopted everywhere?

[springdaddy]

Apple, Motorola, and IBM are the core partners of the AIM consortium that originally laid out the common specification for the PowerPC standard. Both together and separately, they are responsible for the family of processors that we all know and, coincidentally, which are making enormous strides in many areas of computing - embedded solutions, big-iron servers, consumer machines (all three next generation game consoles are PowerPC).

Switching from Motorla to IBM made at least some sense, considering just how much of the PowerPC intellectual property belongs to Big Blue. For that matter, take a look at how much technology has originated with IBM and been licensed by the likes of Intel and AMD for their products. There's a reason that AMD is sharing fabrication space with them, not to mention the relative parity in performance and design specifications.

Jumping to an x86, and especially an Intel, solution is an awful lot more complicated. The whole operating system and every program on it would have to have some way to address the new hardware, which takes overhead, and that would suddenly cripple any performance advantage. So Apple loses any benefit from PowerPC and their code, being forced instead to hope that they can keep ahead on byte-code changes or a total recompile that would break everything that you like about third party software. It would make the change from 680xx to PowerPC look like a walk in the park for developers, especially the smaller ones.



Great, good for you. What do you do when you need a new version of your software sometime in the future or when that machine dies? Do you honestly believe that developers that were forced through two enormous hoops so far - transition to PowerPC and then to OS X - would still be around?

My prediction is that most large developers would stop releasing OS X versions entirely and tell people they can run the Windows/Linux versions since they now have an x86 processor. That's a pretty handy definition of having your core customers abandoned...

[QUOTE]

You bought a Hyundai?

Well, that explains your attitude. They're crap and you might have bought cheaper, but just wait a few years. You'll be sorry.


I'll tell you what. A Hyundai is better than most of the domestic crap I've been seeing lately. Have you seen GM's and Ford's stock recently?...

[DStaal]

People should remember that Intel makes more than just CPUs. They invented USB, among other things.

The fact that Apple and Intel are talking shouldn't be news. There are probably plenty of projects they work on together.

This just sounds like a re-run of the Mac-on-PC rumors that play every year.

[iGary]

A bit dramatic are we?

Perhaps.

[vollspacken]

read my lips: "ARM cpu for a small PDA/remote/video iPod"

vSpacken

[crap freakboy]

I don't care who makes the chips beit Intel, AMD, IBM etc. Just as long as OSX remains stable, secure, user friendly I really don't give a damn. I do think this is simply a case of upper middle management morons not understanding their chosen industry and blurting their nonsense to the first hack that'll buy them lunch.

[Object-X]

All I can say is I get goose bumps everytime I think about it. Wow. Running OS X on all my company's Dells...it boggles the mind. All I can say, if this turns out to be true, is it will change the entire computer industry. I have believed that the demise of Microsoft's empire was inevitable, and this would be the stone that brings Goliath down.

[wnurse]

why intel? why not use sony's cell processor?

Because the cell processor is optimized for games, not general purpose computing.

[Catt]

I think, as several people have said, that any intel processor that ends up in an Apple product in the near future will most likely be in the form of an iPod derivative or a PDA of some description.

I would not be entirely surprised if Apple wants to produce a portable media centre similar to Creative's, iRiver's and the like. For this they would need a much more powerful processor. Even if they wanted to endow the iPod with a modestly expanded feature set a better, faster, more efficient processor would be beneficial and Intel is the one manufacturer who probably has enough fabrication plants to meet high demand.

[Catt]

Because the cell processor is optimized for games, not general purpose computing.


Currently

[scottschor]

[QUOTE]

You bought a Hyundai?

Well, that explains your attitude. They're crap and you might have bought cheaper, but just wait a few years. You'll be sorry.


LOL !!!
The rest of your argument made sense to me, and I thank you for it. Your judgement on the Hyundai reference was a whole lot less convincing. I realize this isn't a Hyundai thread, but I have already had the car for many troublefree years and I'm certainly not sorry for my initial decision making prowess. <G> I'd buy it again, as I would an Apple product, Motorola, IBM, Intel, or AMD Inside, or otherwise.

[VicMacs]

why intel and not amd? dont they have the best processors for pc?

[Booga]

I personally would love it if Apple did this. Why not? Faster Macintoshes for less money. The PowerPC is a very elegant ABI-- the actual desktop CPUs are just not nearly as fast as the marketing would have you believe. MacOS X would SCREAM on modern Intel hardware.


That being said, we'll know in 2 weeks. If Apple doesn't get developers on board at WWDC, it simply can't happen this year. Without developer support, Apple will just be shooting themselves in the foot.

[muffler]

Lets go i386 !!!
Finally, that would put more nails in MSs cuffin.
Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows. Everybody is pissed about MS. But its not Linux, because its still not streamlined enough for the masses. PPCs are still too expensive and IBM is not very reliable delivering and Apple overdependent. Lots of chips inside a Mac come from Intel. Code translation is easy, in the meantime. Such systems could as well run translated Win code. Imagine Apple at 50 % market share in less than 3 years with such a decision.
LETS GO.

[iGary]

I personally would love it if Apple did this. Why not? Faster Macintoshes for less money. The PowerPC is a very elegant ABI-- the actual desktop CPUs are just not nearly as fast as the marketing would have you believe. MacOS X would SCREAM on modern Intel hardware.

Yeah, it would scream on a chip it was never intended to run on.

[ATRAX]

Unless IBM made the decision to stop 970 development. They're making CPUs for the all next generation consoles and two years later the 970 isn't the success they hoped it would be.

This is what I'm thinking may be happening. IBM's main focus is on consoles now and Apple is getting the shaft. If you think about it Apple sold around 3.2 million computers last year. Compare that to Microsoft selling 20 million Xbox's in the 2.5 years since it was released and then throw in Sony and Nintendo and suddenly Apple doesn't seem so important anymore.
:o

[fluidinclusion]

You're not a Mac user for the Mac OS? wow.

Exactly. Sometimes the whining is just sad by die hard Mac users. I use OS X for the OS. The hardware is nice, but if it had Intel chip in there how the hell would you know? If it runs OS X well (or better than PPC) why do you care? Being against Intel just for the sake of it is PLAIN CHILDISH!

[hcuar]

I originally bought my PB and PM for OS X... Well, I must say that I've continued using them for OS X and the PPC. I know it seems strange, but the PPC seems to be more efficient. I've programmed for years on projects that use embedded PPC processors. I always thought they seemed to do a nice job for performance. I was amazed when I bought my Macs how well they performed against "faster" PC systems. Needless to say, I'd be VERY disappointed to have an Intel based system.

In all fairness... Perhaps we are assuming that an Intel chips means a x86 variant.

[fluidinclusion]

Few problems with this:

1. Apple has for years told people how x86 sucks and how PPC is better. How would they rationale mving from that "superior" CPU to the "crappy" CPU?

2. Why Intel? AMD has the better CPU's. Their dual-core solutions are better and more elegant, their CPU's run cooler, have more bandwidth and generally are faster than Intel's CPU's.

3. Moving to x86 would make it very difficult for Apple to do those "Apple vs. Intel/Dell"-comparisons ;).

1. Because IBM and Motorola can't deliver. The best product in the world is CRAP if it's not produced.

2. Why not? AMD might be better now, but will they be in the future? Will they exist? Intel will always be there. They've got a huge part of the market.

3. Why does it have to be x86? Can't Intel make PPC chips? Maybe with the success of XBox 360, Microsoft is considering moving to PPC for Longhorn or whatever follows Longhorn. Maybe Intel wants a piece of the PPC game and isn't willing to let IBM walk away without a fight.

[Peace]

I can see this happening.Lets look at the stats here..

ALL three of the console game platforms are going to the PPC..This in itself is going to cause some mass-production issues with an already labor reduced IBM corp.

The Mac Mini comes out.This shows us Apple wants to enter the low price puter market..

If the rumour of a Tiger seed out somewhere for the Intel chip is true we could see a sub $1000 Mac for the Intel..It's not hard to do.I've played around with almost all flavors of Linux over the years and Linux seems to fit better with the Intel chip.If you can get Linux on an Intel theres a good chance you can get BSD/Aqua on one too..

So I see the possibility of a an Intel/Apple computer..

Who'da thunk 3 years ago Microsoft would be on the PPC bandwagon :)

So we could see the high-end Macs at quad 3.2 for the $4000 range and the X64 Tiger in the $1500 range..

Afterall these companies arn't out to do charity work..
It's business

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

some of you guys act like little fanboys. if it gives me better performance, I'm all for it.I'm new to this forum and I'm kind of shocked by some of these statements! Seriously, who would care if performance was better and OSX wasn't changed? :confused:
Here is a very good example why! (http://www.computing.co.uk/news/1155467) That case, of the so called first 64 bit virus running on a - wait for it - Intel architecture, is a year old. The PPC architecture has several features that prevent these kinds of exploits because malicious code (often introduces to a system using buffer overflows) cannot be executed directly in the CPU.

There just as many buffer overflows to exploit in BSD/Mac OS X that it is on the Widows platform, but since the processor demands more than some rouge executable code the holes cannot be exploited in the same way on a PPC that you see on the Intel platform.

So, if you want to trade a slight increase in speed with a very secure platform, you're welcome to it. But that will be without me...

[kirk26]

Im a mac user for the PowerPC, if they switched to Intel, they loose me...

Good. A narrow minded person like yourself won't be missed.

[petej]

Just wondering how possible a split dual core chip would be. 1 core PPC, 1 core x86. It would certainly speed up emulators. It would also be a much cheaper solution than adding an x86 chip like apple tried before.
Seriously though, if apple wasn't talking to Intel on a regular basis I would be shocked. It helps to keep IBM on their toes.

[rickag]

Using Intel cpu's wouldn't necessarily mean x86. Question becomes how much of the PPC ISA intellectual property may Apple use in a processor manufactured by a company outside of the original AIM Alliance?

Moving to x86 would have devastating effects on Apple. Why would major developers optimize and compile code for OS X when it would run natively on an Apple computer with an Intel x86 cpu under Windows?

Count me as one very sceptical of this rumor. :)

[KrysBaz]

Yeah, it would scream on a chip it was never intended to run on.

or cry insanley through the night for it's mother

[minimax]

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.

That doesnt seem unlikely at first sight. The SMT potential hyped by Intel hasnt lived-up with HT on the P4 as it is not able to free enough execution resources for a second thread but IBM's Power5 architecture makes fantastic use of SMT (read this (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2419&p=5)
There is more and more evidence Power is the way to move forward as x86 has hit the wall of wire delay, memory lag and power leakage. Intel needs to simplify their architecture to handle their massive power leakage problems (shorter pipeline!) which is the reason they are already moving away from the P4 and are defusing the GHz-myth they installed with that same P4.
But for apple to move to Intel, and intel to make a strategic move to PPC, this would impy a Power version of Windows as well (as I believe PPC is co-owned by Apple, correct me if I'm wrong). A power pentium and ppc derivative from Intel would still leave Apple with the side-product of a main product, just as is the situation now with IBM. A mainstream PPC Pentium would imply windows be ported to PPC as well and Apple going head to head with MS, not only on their own hardware, but also forcing Apple to license it to every other hardware manufacturer. In other words, a move to Intel would mean a head-to head confrontation with MS and a salesmodel that is based on software revenues, not hardware.
Doesnt sound very likely to happen, although I can imagine wintel to be interested in the PPC architecture.

[bbyrdhouse]

If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.


What would it be...a Dell?

If it's the x86 that you don't like then your options would very limited.

[scottschor]

Scottshor- for sure your 400mhz mac runs Tiger, but it'll run it badly, with no bells and whistles and no support for the major services. That's not the point! If Apple change to Intel it would mark a major shift in their strategy. It's weird, after years of being niche, the iPod dominates, it's just weird to see Apple doing so well. Would it take part of the magic of Mac away if they moved to Intel (all that anti-Intel advertising for nothing) and were adopted everywhere?

Tiger seems to run fine on my G3/400, but of course I wouldn't know what bells and whistles I'm missing if I were missing them.

Yes, it's weird that the iPod dominates, and yes, it's weird to see Apple doing so well. I'm not sure I agree that part of the magic would be lost if it were adopted EVERYWHERE. In fact, isn't mass adoption the lesson we've been so eager to preach to our win-afflicted breatheren? Isn't this the point of all our endless comparisons to Windows?

I hope I'm not being presumptuous, but doesn't every pawn want to be a queen? Good knight, and have a great day.

[fluidinclusion]

Lets go i386 !!!
Finally, that would put more nails in MSs cuffin.
Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows. Everybody is pissed about MS. But its not Linux, because its still not streamlined enough for the masses. PPCs are still too expensive and IBM is not very reliable delivering and Apple overdependent. Lots of chips inside a Mac come from Intel. Code translation is easy, in the meantime. Such systems could as well run translated Win code. Imagine Apple at 50 % market share in less than 3 years with such a decision.
LETS GO.

Just think objectively (if you can) about what you've written. First, MS is LONG from being in a "coffin". Why do you think Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows? Do you realize what would happen to them? First, MS would kill their OEM pricing for Windows/Office if they offered OS X on their machines. Dell and HP wouldn't be able to compete. As much as I love Apple, I doubt they would be able to produce enough OS X CD's to get to 50% market share in 3 years [/sarcasm]

[otter-boy]

why intel and not amd? dont they have the best processors for pc?

I don't mean to single anyone out, but a lot of people are asking why Apple is not talking to AMD. I think the answer is pretty clear here: they are not looking to put OS X on x86.

If they are in talks with Intel, they are going to want to work on something that Intel does best, like ARM processors or improvements to USB. These two companies are on many technology working groups together and they cooperate on many technologies that they currently use.

Intel has many business areas that are not tied directly to Windows. If Intel can sell more chips (ARM, USB controllers, Wi-Fi, or whatever else they are working on) they will, regardless of the buyer. Apple will buy the best chip for the job for their products: PPCs as the main processors for Macs, and other chips from various companies for supporting architecture and other products (such as the case already with the iPod).

[TreeHugger]

if it would mean moving to x86 I'd be very much against it unless Intel wants to / can produce a PowerPC. The x86 trade off is just not worth it.

[macridah]

Don't do it apple ... it would be a big mistake to switch to intel.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Good. A narrow minded person like yourself won't be missed.I don't consider myself narrow minded, either.

And remember the forum rules. No personal attacks. You may say someone's statement is idiotic, like yours is, but not accuse someone of being an idiot. You wouldn't want to be banned, would you...? :)

[ATRAX]

Why do you think Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows?

Where did you guys hear/read this? Sounds like it could be an interesting link to send to my Dell/Windows loving brother.

[ecsslo]

Apple will start selling dual lines: the PPC line that we all have and use; and starting in 2006: OS 11, a new OS running on Apple's new line of Intel based computers that are completely compatible with all Windows software..but doesn't use the Windows OS in any form...retains all the superior attributes of Apple's OS and enables current Windows users to not have to buy all new software.
And the big bonus: OS 11 and OS 10 are compatible with each other...just
on different platforms, both of which are made by Apple...
Future big leaps in OS development would have the PPC line on even numbered oerating systems ( 10, 12, 14 ) and the Intel line on odd numbers ( 11, 13, 15)

Just think of the all the Apple nuts who would now have a reason to buy
2 computers, a PPC/OS 10, and an Intel/OS 11...whether they really need
both or not...those folks you see at the conventions rapturously watching
Apple TV ads projected on large screens...

Plus, all those current Windows users completely sick of virii, update hassles, crashes, (god knows what else) now have a non-Linux option where all they have to do is re-install their fave stuff on a safe, stable platform.

and think of the businesses with a huge investment in Intel based software looking to upgrade to a better platform...

Apple could sell these machines for 70% of the PPC line prices...and ultimately bring down the price of the PPC line due to huge sales/projections

it's win/win, no?


heh heh heh...

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

What would it be...a Dell?

If it's the x86 that you don't like then your options would very limited.Shouldn't be that difficult finding a computer running a PPC from IBM or Freescale and install FreeBSD with some kind of GUI on top. (Which, in many ways, also describe Mac OS X right now.)

[muffler]

If you can get Linux on an Intel theres a good chance you can get BSD/Aqua on one too..


Its all there. Darwin does run on i386. Firmware and HW drivers are the only issues for Aqua, so some bigger vendor would have to start it, like HP.
HP is my best bet, because of tight relations with Apple due to iPod licenses.

[javiercr]

I like MacOsx and i don't care where it runs.
I like good quality hardware (not cheap dell plastic) and if it has an AMD inside i don't care.

of course everyone dreams of a powermac with 3 or 4 powerPC and some cell stuff, but normal processors will catch up soon.

[backdraft]

Well Intel could license the PowerPC architecture and manufacture it to help meet demand. I mean HP remanufactures the iPod.

X86 = buffer overflow

[the_mole1314]

*cough* WiMax (http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/) *cough*

[sigamy]

Yeah, Apple is switching to x86. And they'll be shipping all computers with floppy drives too.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

[BillHarrison]

Hey, to me its all about the software. I could care less if it ran on my toaster oven, OS X is the best OS hands down. If this makes it faster, or more available, or allows better speed upgrades in the future, then by all means, make it happen.

3.0Ghz delivery time has came and passed.... I think someone upstairs is feeling mighty unhappy about that....

I mean, lets be honest here, We all USE OS X. Very few of us JUST use the hardware.

I honestly still dont think it will happen, and chances are there is something in the works (arm processor sounds VERY possible) that noone is aware of yet.

[achmafooma]

This is another probable scenario- Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -

As I said in my previous post though, Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple) - this is the processor in the majority of PocketPCs, Palms, and GPS units. So - this Intel processor is most likely for a new device or even the iPod.
BINGO. Reading this thread, I kept thinking 'Intel' != 'x86'.

Intel makes other processors, and -- beyond that -- nothing stops them from licensing PPC and making those! If Intel can crank out PPC chips that are faster than what IBM can produce at the same price, Apple should switch.

I think a platform change (to x86 or elsewhere) would be a mistake. PPC is the right path, but I don't care if that PPC is made by IBM, Freescale, Intel, AMD, or somebody else.

Although I'm hoping for ARMs in a revived Newton/iPod(/cell phone?) fusion device. I miss my PDA, but the PDA/Phones are too expensive for what you get and carrying a phone, PDA, and iPod got to be a bit much. I want one device that does it all well!

[ijimk]

Pls say it ain't so steve....

Stay away from the darkside steve, come back to the light.

[crpchristian]

using Intel for something portable, why not? Its not as though the ipod or such devices is running on OS X.

Intel (x86) in a mac..HAHAHAHAH. The list of reasons why that would be a huge mistake completely engulfs the list of positives. EVERY piece of significant mac software would have to be rewritten just to work, then optimized, and how pissed would developers be for spending all this time/money to make softare they have to ditch and recode.

LOOK at the numbers apples post for the new Powermacs (G5 vs intel vs AMD). According to apple themselves their procs are much faster as is anyways, so apple would have to admit they have been lying to the public for years if they claim this would be a move towards faster machines.

Aside from portables, the only reason Apple would move to Intel Procs would be for some factor no one

[fluidinclusion]

*cough* WiMax (http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/) *cough*


[yoda voice] Hit on the head the nail was. [/yoda voice]

[BenRoethig]

It is probably an agreement to have them manufactur chips as clearly IBM cant keep up, then we will see down the road.

Apple doesn't own the PP970, IBM does. It would require a lot IBM intellecutal property to be transferred to intel. I doubt IBM would agree. Plus, whats in it for Intel? They're have to take space away from their x86 processor business.

[CmdrLaForge]

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?

It is definitly a good idea to have and keep options and alternatives as well as having some pressure on current supplieres aka IBM.

The recent upgrades for the Power lines were really tiny and IBM could do better if they weren't putting their resources on the consoles

my 2 cents

[SiliconAddict]

*shrugs* Its obviously Apple's way out scenario in the event that they get cornered which so far is heading that way.
Lets look at present. Apple is still on the G4 for its high-end laptop. Its low end can be forgiven but the high end has as much power is even its consumer grade offering which is down right pathetic. Theoretically there are several solutions down the road for the mobile line but the pace of updates always makes Apple second fiddle to the PC industry. Like it or not Intel's Pentium M changed everything. Even AMD is having a hard time finding a comparable solution. Unless Apple does something drastic quick by next summer we could be seeing dual core Pentium M's that make Apple's high end look even more pathetic which I didn't think was possible but there it is....

Then you have the desktop. Up til now it’s done a pretty good job of keeping up with the Joneses. In some cases surpassing the x86 architecture. However in the last 12 months there has been a lot of stagnation (Which goes beyond just the CPU by the way.) and now as both Intel and AMD launch their dual core solutions IBM and Apple are nowhere to be seen. Admittedly this could be due to Apple's secretive nature but unless a dual core CPU is announced at WWDC Apple is going to be once again playing second fiddle. The one good news is that a lot of software on the Mac is already tuned for multithreading. So once this happens I have to imagine you are going to see a bigger performance boost across the board then on x86 where benchmarks have shown that for the average app a dual core doesn’t do too much yet. (Obviously for Apps that are tuned for SMP it provides more of a kick.) Its great for true multitasking but that’s about it for now.
Personally I think all this is, if true, is Apple finally learning to see more then six months in front of their face. Up til now I considered this one of the more major issues with Apple. They get so focused on one aspect of the business that they loose sight of everything else. Moving to X86 solves one major problem – choices, and creates about several dozen more all of which can be overcome with the right amount of finesse which Apple has. To put it another way. Solving the problem of choices (hardware) on the PPC is a lot more difficult then solving the problems on a migration to x86. (software\money.)
But I personally think discussion of this is a moot point right now. Apple isn’t going anywhere if for no other reason then the cost of the transition. All this is, is Apple keeping their options open which any good business should do.

[SiliconAddict]

The recent upgrades for the Power lines were really tiny and IBM could do better if they weren't putting their resources on the consoles

my 2 cents

Bull. You are making assumption as to where IBM's resources are. Neither you nor anyone outside of Apple or IMB knows why we are seeing the stagnations we are seeing.

[jthrasher]

I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, maybe it was already reported.... I didn't take the time to read through all the pages... but this rumor was just reported on FOX news. That seems pretty strange to me. Seems like having it reported on a major network it might not be much of a rumor after all? They said neither company commented to the rumor.

[SiliconAddict]

Pls say it ain't so steve....

Stay away from the darkside steve, come back to the light.

Yah well in this case the dark side is stronger, more flexable, and provides more robust choices. Hell if x86 could give me the power to shoot lightening I’d be set.

[goatsniper]

For Apple to consider such a drastic move as to switch from IBM to Intel as their primary CPU supplier says one thing: Apple sees IBM/PowerPC as a hindrance or possibly even a dead end in their ability to innovate and compete with Powerbook and Powermac product lines going forward.

I think evidence certainly suggests hindrance: Steve Jobs personally promised 3Ghz Powermacs and had to retract that statement. The product line currently tops out at 2.7Ghz and has had yield issues since the original Powermac introduction. How many quarters now have Powermac and iMac sales been "constrained" by G5 chip yeilds?

I think statements from Cupertino also suggest a PPC dead end. It's been over 2 years since the introduction of G5 and we are still using G4 Powerbooks. Powerbook sales have been slipping since the proclaimed "year of the laptop" by Jobs, and the performance gap is widening again. Apple is on record stating that G5 in a Powerbook is the "mother of all thermal challenges" and not to expect one anytime soon.

Now we are starting to see the introduction of dual-core Intel and AMD designs. Where is the dual-core G5? Again, IBM is letting Apple down. Although a painful transition in the short term, it could be a strategic long term move to help Apple stay on equal footing price/performance wise with the Dell's and Gateway's.

[Peace]

Snippet
Hey, to me its all about the software. I could care less if it ran on my toaster oven, OS X is the best OS hands down.

That would be cool tho huh?
:p

I mean we wake up in the morning to get coffee and toast and VOILA! a screen shows us the morning news streaming via QT 9.0 :D

[mattyturner]

First of all, just cause a box has intel hardware in it doesn't make it a 'POS'.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, and what Apple got a long time ago, is that it's all about the software.

I think the Centrino idea someone struck is a possibility, P4's are not really currently where it's at architecture wise. Also, if Apple did that then people might actually have a clue what hardware is in the pipeline, which is not how Apple operate (witness the frenzied predictive posts on forums like this).

Um, yeah, that's all i can think of

[jbh001]

Apple and Intel talking has absolutely nothing to do with PowerPC vs. x86 and everything to do with Airport and WiMAX.

Other possiblilities:

Apple is finalizing CE-ATA chips/tech for use in future iPods.

Apple is trying to mend fences with Intel over the USB/Firewire mess that Apple created in the late 1990s.

If Apple really wants to switch to x86, AMD is the more intuitive choice at the moment.

[goatsniper]

why intel and not amd? dont they have the best processors for pc?

Because Intel Centrino chips are efficient and cool and kick ass for slim laptop designs.

By comparison, AMD laptop chips suck ass.

[Peace]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/apple_intel_dc

"Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said."

I'ma tellin ya..Look for OSX for the PC coming to a store near you!

[alandail]

some random thoughts

- Except for the loss of classic, this can be done pretty transparently. For most apps, it would be a compiler switch and a recompile. The MacOS X package format already supports having multiple binaries inside of an app, so you wouldn't have to buy the app based on the CPU it's going to run on - just buy the app, install it, and it'll run either place.

- in theory, a translator could run once on each app - translating the binary from PPC to x86 and storing the translated binary inside the package. Having the developer do a real compile to the other architecture would give better performance, though.

- MacOS X itself was built on cross platform technology - I'm sure they've kept cross platform support alive.

- IBM has let Apple down - Steve is nearly a year late on his promise of 3 GHz.

- IBM has let Apple down on the issue of bringing high performance chips to laptops

- IBM sells computers that use Intel processors and runs ads pointing this out. How upset could they really be if Apple does the same?

- supporting Intel chips doesn't have to mean no longer shipping PowerPC based machines.

- what do you think it'd do for Apple's market share if they had a version of the mini that not only ran OS X, but also ran windows in a window without the performance hit of an emulator. People coming to the mac from a windows machine don't need classic.

People today can largely buy servers and not care what CPU is inside. There's no real reason why the same can't be done with desktop computers. Let Intel and IBM (and AMD) fight head to head to get their chips into each model of the mac and let Apple have the flexibility to go either route with little impact on users.

[the_mole1314]

After studying the articles a bit, it seems that the folks who wrote the articles didn't look very far beyond Intel's chip production factories. The insiders just said "Intel Chips", not "Switch to Pentium", or even "Intel CPU", they said "Intel chips." As I have said before, WiMax is a chip, it's wireless, and Apple probably will adopt it. EVERYTHING that was said in the Retures article is hearsay and total speculation of a market analsys who is interested in the bottom line rather than Apple's interests. I'd say look at the insiders remarks more, and less into the remarks made by the market analsysts.

[Evangelion]

There is more and more evidence Power is the way to move forward as x86 has hit the wall of wire delay, memory lag and power leakage.

just because P4 has "hit a wall" (and it certainly has), it doesn't mean that x86 in general has done so. AMD seems to be doing just fine. Power-leakage is a problem with ALL major CPU's. Some CPU's have real problems with it (like P4), whereas others don't have as much (Athlon64, G5 etc.), but they all have it.

But for apple to move to Intel, and intel to make a strategic move to PPC, this would impy a Power version of Windows as well

How so? If Microsoft wanted to, they could make that version RIGHT NOW. They do not need Intel's blessing for it. And just because Intel made PPC-CPU's does not mean that Microsoft would be following them with Windows.

[capvideo]

People should remember that Intel makes more than just CPUs. They invented USB, among other things.

That was the first thing I thought of when I read this rumor, too. Apple and Intel can be "talking" about all sorts of chips other than the CPU.

But I'd like to add an "out-there" idea: what about *Windows* emulation? A card or other add-on that includes an Intel chip, that makes use of Mac OS X's ability to use multiple processors to specifically run Windows software?

They've already done this once, with 68k applications. (And somebody, it may even have been Apple, did this a long time ago already--an x86 card for the Mac, I mean.)

Jerry

[scem0]

I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, maybe it was already reported.... I didn't take the time to read through all the pages... but this rumor was just reported on FOX news. That seems pretty strange to me. Seems like having it reported on a major network it might not be much of a rumor after all? They said neither company commented to the rumor.

Phew... now I know it isn't true.

scem0

[minimax]

*shrugs* Its obviously Apple's way out scenario in the event that they get cornered which so far is heading that way.
Lets look at present. Apple is still on the G4 for its high-end laptop. Its low end can be forgiven but the high end has as much power is even its consumer grade offering which is down right pathetic.
Theoretically there are several solutions down the road for the mobile line but the pace of updates always makes Apple second fiddle to the PC industry. Like it or not Intel's Pentium M changed everything.


You are downright contradicting yourself here. So the Pentium M is fabulous whilst the G4 is pathetic? Let's look at the basics. WHY is the G4 exactly pathetic in your account and what exactly makes the Pentium M so great?
The operations per clock of a G4 are actually higher compared to the G5 due to it's shorter pipeline, just as a Pentium M performes better per clockcycle then the P4. and while it only has a slow 167 Mhz bus memory te Pentium operates on 4x100MHz, not 400 Mhz. Extra bandwith is nice but it doesnt solve the latency problem.Also in the G5 the memory latency seriously limits the fast FSB. Not much use to a fast bus when your memory is the real bottleneck.


To put it another way. Solving the problem of choices (hardware) on the PPC is a lot more difficult then solving the problems on a migration to x86. (software\money.)



This must be one of the most ridiculous and uninformed statements i have read on MR. Nowhere in your post did you come close to support such an opinion.

[joeboy_45101]

I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, maybe it was already reported.... I didn't take the time to read through all the pages... but this rumor was just reported on FOX news. That seems pretty strange to me. Seems like having it reported on a major network it might not be much of a rumor after all? They said neither company commented to the rumor.

FOX NEWS! If it's on TV then it must be true!

Seriously, you can't believe a word that you hear on FOX news or any of the other major news networks for that matter.

[Peace]

Phew... now I know it isn't true.

scem0

Ah but thats Faux news for ya! An Apple rep DID respond to the rumour.she said it was all rumour and speculation.

[muffler]

Intel makes more than just CPU, northbridge, and southbridge chips. Get out and look at the world around you every now and then. It's time to recalibrate that reality distortion field...again.

Take a deeper look into a Mac and you will discover that lets say half of the chipset already comes from Intel, or is licensed by them.

Intel makes quality motherboards. Apple could leave the whole board design to Intel and focus on design and software.

The Powerbook is an endangered species. The truth of the G4 is, that it is a still a G3. A G5 mobile is nowhere near. Centrino M is the only way out. Desktop sales are declining, still. Best market share is with the mobiles and they have to find a QUICK solution not to loose it. And that MEANS transition to i386 and if so, why not go all the way. It'll mean every choice for Apple and could only come out very positive. I've been waiting for that since years.

[Frobozz]

I take sick pleasure in watching Intel fans get their hopes up every time Apple talks to Intel about using a controller chip. Notice the quote. It says nothing of CPU's. There's absolutely NO advantage to going Intel, anyway.

Even if Apple was to go to an x86 architecture (which is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to happen) they would more likely use AMD chips. HyperTransport consortium, anyone?

Apple already uses Intel "chips" in their xServes. They're just not CPU's.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[bbyrdhouse]

How about a Dual Proc PowerMac.

1 - 3 Ghtz G5 and
1 - 4 Ghtz P4

You could run the best of both worlds.

[BenRoethig]

You are downright contradicting yourself here. So the Pentium M is fabulous whilst the G4 is pathetic? Let's look at the basics. WHY is the G4 exactly pathetic in your account and what exactly makes the Pentium M so great?
The operations per clock of a G4 are actually higher compared to the G5 due to it's shorter pipeline, just as a Pentium M performes better per clockcycle then the P4. and while it only has a slow 167 Mhz bus memory te Pentium operates on 4x100MHz, not 400 Mhz. Extra bandwith is nice but it doesnt solve the latency problem.Also in the G5 the memory latency seriously limits the fast FSB. Not much use to a fast bus when your memory is the real bottleneck.


It's a really sad day when you have to justify a seven year old CPU

[Peace]

How about a Dual Proc PowerMac.

1 - 3 Ghtz G5 and
1 - 4 Ghtz P4

You could run the best of both worlds.

How about an Intel Itanium2 1.6Ghz based OSX PC in the sub $2000 market and a duel core 3.2Ghz for the top of the line ?
Makes business sense to me..

[minimax]

just because P4 has "hit a wall" (and it certainly has), it doesn't mean that x86 in general has done so. AMD seems to be doing just fine. Power-leakage is a problem with ALL major CPU's. Some CPU's have real problems with it (like P4), whereas others don't have as much (Athlon64, G5 etc.), but they all have it.
I agree it's a problem with all major architectures but PowerPC is much better equipped to deal with leakage as it already has more emphasize on parallel processing with relatively short pipelines as opposed to the more serial type of x86 instruction architecture. Just read the three excellent articles on it at Anandtech by Johan de Gelas who is very sceptical about multi-threading and sees more fundamental opportunities still with an integrated ILP / SMT approach as in Power5, which leaves room for more flexibility, design enhancements and does not throw all burden of technological improvement on the software community. Only problem with it, is it isnt as easy to market, as opposed to the dualcore hype. x86 has turned the way of dualcore simply because they have no room for much improvement on a structural level. But both CELL and Power5 show there are many possibilities still to improve on Instruction level parallism.


How so? If Microsoft wanted to, they could make that version RIGHT NOW. They do not need Intel's blessing for it. And just because Intel made PPC-CPU's does not mean that Microsoft would be following them with Windows.

If Intel developes a PPC it WILL NOT be only for Apple, or Apple would be willing to accept an even higher premium then they are paying IBM right now.
The reason Apple would want to switch to Intel would be because Intel would be able to produce it cheaper then IBM, and that would only be possible if it is produced in high volumes. And high volumes are just not possible without Microsoft being onboard, those are just market fundamentals.

[Frobozz]

Centrino M is the only way out. Desktop sales are declining, still.

The Centrino M is not the only way out. Intel did the same thing with the Centrino Mobile that Apple is doing with the G3/G4 in the Powerbook. Neither company (IBM or Intel) can put a desktop CPU in a laptop anymore and make it reasonable.

Furthermore, Apple had it's strongest marketshare increase, in DESKTOPS, in years this past quarter. So let's not get all doom and gloom on Apple's situation. They're doing just fine.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php

[mad jew]

I've got enough faith in Apple to do the right thing. Whether that be using new Intel PPC chips, Intel x86 chips, Cell chips or just developing what they've got. It's not like Apple to take a step backwards (350MHz G4 Power Macs notwithstanding ;) ).

[atari1356]

Every time this rumor surfaces it's always the same thing:

a newspaper/magazine/website trying to stir things up just for the sake of getting increased readership so they can sell more ads.

Apple is not going to switch from PPC to Intel. This is just a rumor, there is nothing to see here, move along. :)

[Platform]

I wouldn't go that far myself, but I would be VERY disappointed in Apple. I'm praying the are smart and go with Cell.

Well for the moment the Cell chip is not a good option....only a multimedia chip....not for general CPU work ;)

[uhzoomzip]

I believe this rumor was leaked by Apple and it's purpose is to put pressure on IBM. Apple may have some reasons to be discouraged by IBM:

- Slow to deliver higher performance processors. (i.e. April 2005 Power Mac)
- Slow to deliver cooler-temperature operating processors. (i.e. no G5 Powerbook)
- Went behind Apple's back and developed some high end processors for Microsoft's Xbox. (i.e. tri-core 3.2Ghz PowerPC, 1MB L2 Cache)
- May have a deal with Microsoft which gives them favored treatment in terms of processor shipments/fab allocation/etc

The question is - are these enough reasons to dump PowerPC for Intel? Who's to say Intel can't get involved in PowerPC?

[proglife]

This thread has done one thing for me:

Make me lose complete respect for every single one of you :)

As long as it runs OS X reliably, I could care less about innards.

And didn't everyone just bitch and moan about the most recent G5 updates? They can't win with you people, can they?

[cgc]

Has anyone considered the option of having a dual processor or an Intel processor on a card to allow 100% compatibility with Windoze? There used to be an x86 PCI card for Mac. This is my angle.

[cgc]

Well for the moment the Cell chip is not a good option....only a multimedia chip....not for general CPU work ;)
Good coprocessor (aka DSP) ala Amiga blitter/copper.

[Hank_Reardon]

The SonyPS3 and XBox are using the same processor (said loosely) with custom tweaks - both processors are derivitives of the PowerPC and both are RISC - like the Apple/IBM G5 ...

With all due respect, the Plastation 3 and XBox are not even remotely using the same processor. The most important characteristic of the Cell that makes it unsuited (at least at present) for a PC implementation is that it is an in-order architecture. Current x86/PowerPC architectures have complex out-of-order hardware solutions that allow them to execute some operations while putting off other operations that require some input that is not yet ready. For instance, consider the following pseudocode:

X = 100
Y = X * 100
X = Y
Z = 50

The command to set z equal to 50 requires no input from the rest of the program. In current PC architectures, the CPU would take this code apart and rearrange it, so that setting Z equal to 50 could be executed independent of the X and Y manipulations. This may seem like a rather minute point, but imagine for a moment that the Y = X * 100 step instead a rather large, complicated computing task that will take a few moments to complete. Now Z is left waiting for Y to complete before it can complete, any free integer execution units go wasted.

Because of its in-line nature, the Cell architecture is actually far simpler in many regards than the current G5 or x86-64 architectures. The Cell has far shorter pipelines than your typical processor (as it does no reordering) and lack a significant around of hardware complexity that is generally needed for said reordering.

It is important to realize that these differences are not advantageous and were simply chosen to reduce size/complexity and increase yields. Even today they are having yield problems, as indicated by Sony's announcement that the Playstation 3's Cell's would contain one redundant SPE (read faulty). The ONLY similarly between the XBOX360's processor design and that of cell is the PPE (PowerPC Processing Element) is clearly based on the PowerPC (and is coincidentally more or less IBM's only significant contribution to Cell).

However, even Cell's PPE is highly modified. It is only a dual-issue core and, again, in-order. I suppose I better get to the point. Cell generally trades hardware complexity for software complexity. Cell has a tremendous amount of power at it's disposal, however, tapping into that power on a general-purpose desktop solution would be next to impossible. A purpose-built compiler could go a long way in compensating for the PPE's in-order nature (by reordering instructions in the code rather than in hardware); however, the SPE's would be next to impossible to make sufficient use of. They include no cache and have 256K of local memory. Unlike cache, this memory does not operate on it's own, which means the software must address the memory of an SPE it wants to utilize in order to send it it's instructions. So efficient use of a Cell processor would require software to be written to reorder instructions and keep track of the memory for 9 separate cores. This is a slightly ridiculous proposal for a flexible desktop solution, and one that the console market is largely immune to, as all console games are highly architecture specific, purpose built applications (though I still have my doubts as to the degree to which any software engineer will be willing to utilize Cell's power).

If you consider that many of the Apple's platform's popular apps are cross platform (Opera, AdiumX (libgaim), Skype, Limewire, Office, Adobe Creative Suite, and now even Quicktime and iTunes), it looks even more unlikely that anyone would be willing to optimize their software for an Apple Cell platform.

Now for the question of Intel over AMD. If Apple is seriously considering a switch to x86, I am not at all surprised to hear Intel. Without getting into why Intel makes sense from a corporate perspective, the Intel platform seems far more complimentary to Apple's. Intel's CPUs have consistently bested AMD's offerings over the past several years in multimedia tasks such as encoding/decoding video and audio. This is because despite AMD's hyper-efficient memory-controller-in-core design, there's simply no substitute for raw clock cycles when compressing or manipulating data. Indeed, Pentium D's would likely offer superior performance in Apple's self-defined market, the digital hub. iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, Quicktime and even most of Adobe's Creative Suite would more than likely perform better on an Intel solution. AMD's architecture, on the other hand, is far better suited for memory-bandwidth intensive tasks such as gaming, a niche where Apple is nearly nonexistent.

Moreover, AMD's price-advantage has purposely dried up. In fact, Athlon X2's look to be substantially more expensive than Pentium D's. Finally, Apple's mobile solutions represent a larger and larger portion of it's installed base. Intel's Centrino is the hands-down winner in this arena. AMD's Turion solution is a little half-baked. There are many characteristics of the Athlon 64 design which makes it better suited for a mobile platform than a desktop Pentium4. Turion exploits that fact, and tries to get away by simply sliding AMD's desktop processor into a notebook. I don't maintain that the Turion platform is bad. In many ways it is the near equal to Centrino, but in many ways it is not. This post is already too long for me to expound upon them.

I made this post for two reasons. First, please stop speculating about Cell's in Apples unless you have some technical solutions to Cell's shortcomings to offer. Cell was not designed as a desktop processor, and just because it has one small core with similar origins to Apple's current G5's says absolutely nothing about it's suitability for a desktop solution. Second, stop the hysteria over Apple-Intel rumors. If Apple was planning an x86-64 migration, I would fully expect it to be to Intel rather than AMD. And if Apple did migrate, it would be one of the best moves they have ever made. I can explain that further if anyone is interested. :)

-Hank Reardon

[alandail]

Has anyone considered the option of having a dual processor or an Intel processor on a card to allow 100% compatibility with Windoze? There used to be an x86 PCI card for Mac. This is my angle.


it makes more sense to run OS X on intel than it does to add the cost of an intel chip to the price of a macintosh. OS X is a cross platform capable OS.

Using Intel in some machines doesn't have to mean dropping PowerPC in others.

[mad jew]

Has anyone considered the option of having a dual processor or an Intel processor on a card to allow 100% compatibility with Windoze? There used to be an x86 PCI card for Mac. This is my angle.


Good point, that'd be really cool. I've still got one of those lying around, it was really useful. It'd be really cool if Apple somehow got it to run in a window like VPC so that it'd be like having the ultimate virtual computer, which is paradoxically not real. :)

[Iroganai]

This will be the LAST rumor of PPC to Intel switch !
As Apple has spent much money on Altivec, how can they
and other 3rd party developer move to SSE2 or MMX instruction set on x86 ? Things are not just recompiling, and there will also be endian issues
for Carbon apps !

BTW, I suppose that PPC/x86 difference has much to do with the
low number of virus and trojans on Mac.
Surely the buffer over-run code for x86 won't run on Macs.
So, even if OS X on Mac and Linux on x86 use the same
open source software and share the same vulnerability,
targeting OS X is somewhat difficult.

I don't want to lose this superiority to x86 Machines...

[nuckinfutz]

And if Apple did migrate, it would be one of the best moves they have ever made. I can explain that further if anyone is interested.

Hand I see no benefit of moving to X86 chips. They do not offer an appreciable increase in power nor price really.

Apple likes to have %20 gross margins and that's what keeps Macs expensive...not the hardware.

AMDs dual core procs are expensive but systems based on it will be cheaper because the PC companies will settle for %10 GM or less in cases.

I look for IBM to have the more elegant solutions. I think this rumor is either false or just here to gain some sort of leverage with IBM since Freescale isn't going to be a viable option.

[poundsmack]

i hope this isnt true. not that i dont like intel because i do, but because apple has prided itself on being difrent. and i like the fact that a mac is a mac, and not another pc.

[joeboy_45101]

Let's not rule out Freescale here. They are working on some very impressive designs. IBM just doesn't seem to be in Apple's corner any longer. As I mentioned in earlier threads it doesn't make sense that Sony and Microsoft can pressure IBM into making amazing PowerPC chips and then Apple just has to take whatever is lying around.

[cube]

How about an Intel Itanium2 1.6Ghz based OSX PC in the sub $2000 market and a duel core 3.2Ghz for the top of the line ?
Makes business sense to me..

Ha ha ha! Itanic == business sense, meaning it makes sense for MBAs.

[ogminlo]

- IBM sells computers that use Intel processors and runs ads pointing this out. How upset could they really be if Apple does the same?


IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo (http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100445), so even though you see Big Blue's logo on the ads, they do not make Intel-based PCs. They don't make any PCs. IBM is in the enterprise computing and chip fab business.

Would everyone please cease the crap shoveling? Apple is not leaving the PPC platform! As has been pointed out here several times, this rumor gets recycled all the time, and Apple has reason to talk to Intel for Intel's peripheral technologies like USB, WiMax, and so forth. Could be for a new device, could be for AirPort or iPod. But there is no plausible scenario in which Apple all of a sudden leaves the PPC platform. OS X may be able to be ported, but all the apps that run on it are a different story. Leaving PPC for x86 would be suicide.

If anything, the new next gen game consoles' demand for PPC chips will bolster IBM's fab division. You think they will be supplying that demand with current capacity? They need more factories, and for all we know these talks are because Intel wants to shift some of their formidable chip-fab capacity to PPC manufacturing now that there is demand for it beyond Apple!

C'mon guys, I thought Mac users were more savvy than this... :rolleyes:

[proglife]

i hope this isnt true. not that i dont like intel because i do, but because apple has prided itself on being difrent. and i like the fact that a mac is a mac, and not another pc.

great logic. apple should hire you.

[bodeh6]

Well WWDC is only 2 weeks away. So we might have some futher info then.

[Peace]

Ha ha ha! Itanic == business sense, meaning it makes sense for MBAs.

MBA's do the books for Apple :p

[alandail]

IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo (http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100445), so even though you see Big Blue's logo on the ads, they do not make Intel-based PCs. They don't make any PCs. IBM is in the enterprise computing and chip fab business.

I'm talking about the server ads IBM runs where the servers have Intel chips instead of IBM's own PowerPC chips.

And again, using Intel chips doesn't have to mean abandoning PowerPC. It can be done in a way where you don't have to care which CPU is inside the machine unless you need classic or need to run VirtualPC.

[swissmann]

All that needs to happen is for IBM to kick trash with their PPC chip and continue to do so. Apple wouldn't have to recompile anything and they would lead the market in performance. IBM looked promising with the G5, which coming this fall is already 2 years old. We still aren't at 3 GHz. I have faith that IBM can do it please don't let me down.

[Evangelion]

I agree it's a problem with all major architectures but PowerPC is much better equipped to deal with leakage as it already has more emphasize on parallel processing with relatively short pipelines as opposed to the more serial type of x86 instruction architecture.

AFAIK, the pipelines on G5 are roughly the same length as the pipelines on Athlon64 are.

Just read the three excellent articles on it at Anandtech by Johan de Gelas who is very sceptical about multi-threading

What does Multithreading have to do with x86? Seriously, your comments about long pipelines and multithreading make it apparent that you think x86 == Intel. Problems with Intel-CPU's == problems with x86. Reality is quite a bit different from that. Intel has problems with long pipelines. AMD has no such problems.

Only problem with it, is it isnt as easy to market, as opposed to the dualcore hype.

Dualcore is a Good Thing (tm). You basically get multiprocessing on a single CPU. Why is it that after years of having multiprocessing on Apple-machines, it's considered a great thing. But now that on x86-side of the fence you can get that same thing with just one CPU, it's just "hype"? Why do I get the feeling that when Apple moves to dual-core, we will have bunch of extatic fanboys telling how great Apple is. But now that it's available on x86, and not on Apple, it's dismissed.

x86 has turned the way of dualcore simply because they have no room for much improvement on a structural level.

And when Apple moves to dual-core, it proves.... What, exactly? And what "structural improvements" are you talking about here? Execution-units? Cache? Branch-prediction? All those things can be improved upon, and it has been done repeatedly over the lifespan of x86.

But both CELL and Power5 show there are many possibilities still to improve on Instruction level parallism.

Cell has nothing to do with Apple CPU's. And Power5 is only vaguely related to G5.

[cube]

Regarding the hardware, the Mac beauty is not only external. The innards are the really important thing.
It's bad enough the use of ATA, and non-ECC RAM. Put a disgusting x86 processor in there and I'm moving back to using a workstation as a home computer.

[minimax]

-Hank Reardon

Interesting post. But you forget to mention that programming for multicore, especially gaming will be even more complex compared to the CELL, where the independent cores are most likely used for graphical tasks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377

The power of the CELL lies in the opportunities it offers for certain, mostly rendering, applications. Sure, the PS3 cell is a stripped down core, but you can replace it with a complete PPC core with the APU's functioning as optional engines.

[poundsmack]

i can honestly say i wouldnt mind seeing a mac powerd by an Itanuim chip. not the current offerings, but the next gen one thats comming out later this year. if you have ever played around with an Itanium computer they are really powerfull, and since it is RISC based it would be a much smaller just of porting than to move to x86.

@proglife

i think apple sound hire me too. :)

[Trekkie]

What drives me nuts about all this is the 'processor' assumption.

Intel makes chips other than home computer CPUs and is very interested in growing that business.

They make RAID processors, Low power PDA/iPod chips, Networking Chips, core chipsets, and many other things besides core processors. It is not in Apple's best interest to shift to Intel. Contrary to what some have said already Intel chips are not at the technology forefront and are power intensive and getting worse.

Their PowerMac line would almost double in power consumption if they went to dual Xeon's compared to Dual G5s based on the specs that are out there on the web.

Plus Apple is a Hardware+software company. They use their software to sell their hardware at a nice margin. You run on Intel even with protection in the design to keep Mac OS X only running on Apple hardware you know someone is going to come along and figure out a way to make MAC OSX for Intel run on a non-Apple platform within a month or two and then the game is over for Apple and their nice 30% margins.

[ogminlo]

I'm talking about the server ads IBM runs where the servers have Intel chips instead of IBM's own PowerPC chips.

And again, using Intel chips doesn't have to mean abandoning PowerPC. It can be done in a way where you don't have to care which CPU is inside the machine unless you need classic or need to run VirtualPC.

Blade Centers (the ads I've been seeing recently) include both PPC and x86 CPUs, depending on the customer. In the enterprise world, offering an option like that just covers your bases. Just like Intel would be doing fabbing PPC wafers.

The point with Apple's CPU choice is that there's nothing in it for Apple on x86. Let's drop the nonsense that running Mac OS X on an x86 would mean Windows software would all of a sudden work on a Mac. Please. A transition in core CPU architecture for Apple would kill them just at a time when it looks like they are ready to make some inroads with their market share. Steve knows better. Macs will not be running on X86 CPUs, mark my words.

[Hank_Reardon]

Hand I see no benefit of moving to X86 chips. They do not offer an appreciable increase in power nor price really.

Apple likes to have %20 gross margins and that's what keeps Macs expensive...not the hardware.

AMDs dual core procs are expensive but systems based on it will be cheaper because the PC companies will settle for %10 GM or less in cases.

I look for IBM to have the more elegant solutions. I think this rumor is either false or just here to gain some sort of leverage with IBM since Freescale isn't going to be a viable option.

Intel offers a substantial performance advantage as a mobile platform. Comparing Centrino to the archaic .13 micron Freescale G4 I'm writing this using (iBook 1.33 GHz) is hard to do with a straight face. We are talking about a platform built from the ground up as a mobile solution by the biggest chip manufacturer on planet earth for what has become it's most important market vs. a now 6 year old architecture (G4) being kept alive by a small processor division spun off by Motorola for lack of interest.

If Apple is contemplating an x86-64 migration, I think the much more likely scenario is they have come to terms with how utterly unsuitable IBM's design is for a notebook. The truth is there is an awfully lot to gain here. Intel's in PowerMacs, iMacs and Mac minis would perform similar to G5's in processing tasks and likely close to twice as fast in gaming performance. Centrino's in Powerbooks and iBooks, however, would make them the iPod of mobile computing.

--Hank Reardon

[cube]

MBA's do the books for Apple :p

CPAs do the books. And doing the books is not strategy.

[Booga]

1. The news was reported by the Wall Street Journal, so cracks about FOX news are irrelevent.

2. Chips made by Intel are not necessarily x86 or x86-64's. As a full partner in the original PowerPC AIM alliance, Apple has a lot of rights to that chip design. In addition, Intel makes ARM and Itanium processors.

3. Likewise, even if they are x86's, a computer with an x86 processor doesn't necessarily look anything like a PC clone... it's just a processor. It executes instructions. It's not a soul. The soul of Macs lies elsewhere.

4. x86 does not automatically imply Windows compatibility, and an Intel version of MacOS X does not automatically imply compatibility with any of the other x86 machines out there.

5. Software will NOT have to be re-written. Altivec code, assuming it can't be recompiled into Intel's SIMD, would, but the bulk would be a re-COMPILE not a re-WRITE. It means work for QA teams, not engineering teams.

6. Intel processors are faster. Intel mobile processors are faster for the heat dissipation. Intel processors are cheaper. Intel processors are always available in large enough quantities so they will never be a gating factor for a new Apple release.

7. The real challenge is marketing. Macintosh users have been suckered into believing that PowerPC chips are good chips, and now it's an emotional issue. They would much rather have a slow, out-dated PowerPC Mac than admit they may be wrong about modern Intel CPUs.

8. Apple has to get developers on board. Thus, we'll know for sure at the WWDC next month. If it's not announced there, it's just hot air.

[Trekkie]

AFAIK, the pipelines on G5 are roughly the same length as the pipelines on Athlon64 are.

You are correct. Intel is the oddball with 20 stage pipelines but to win the GHz war they had to do that to manage the time of flight of an instruction.



What does Multithreading have to do with x86? Seriously, your comments about long pipelines and multithreading make it apparent that you think x86 == Intel. Problems with Intel-CPU's == problems with x86. Reality is quite a bit different from that. Intel has problems with long pipelines. AMD has no such problems.


Actually multi-threading has nothing to do with pipelines, threading is more of a software issue than hardware issue and Intel has figured this out with their recent discussions on dual core it is immediately followed by 'let us teach your programmers how to thread more'


Dualcore is a Good Thing (tm). You basically get multiprocessing on a single CPU. Why is it that after years of having multiprocessing on Apple-machines, it's considered a great thing. But now that on x86-side of the fence you can get that same thing with just one CPU, it's just "hype"? Why do I get the feeling that when Apple moves to dual-core, we will have bunch of extatic fanboys telling how great Apple is. But now that it's available on x86, and not on Apple, it's dismissed.


Dual core is going to be a huge pain in the ass for people with benchmarking tools. You're not going to see a 2.0x performance improvement when you swap out a single core proc with a dual core proc. Worst case it'll be 1.3x and best case it'll be 1.5x. You're putting two mouths on your dog and not giving it a bigger throat, stomach, or butt. Just cuz he could theoretically eat faster doesn't mean he'll be able to do more than choke on it. It's not going to be as bad as hyperthreading where in some instances it'll be slower than with it off, but the software guys


Cell has nothing to do with Apple CPU's. And Power5 is only vaguely related to G5.

Power5 is to G5 as Itainium2 is to Xeon. The G5 was based on the Power4 architecture. Power5 is a different monster.

[cube]

3. Likewise, even if they are x86's, a computer with an x86 processor doesn't necessarily look anything like a PC clone... it's just a processor. It executes instructions. It's not a soul. The soul of Macs lies elsewhere.


See previous post. x86 architecture == garbage. This goes against the soul of Apple.

[joshua_msu]

See previous post. x86 architecture == garbage. This goes against the soul of Apple.


Great arguement!

[Peace]

CPAs do the books. And doing the books is not strategy.

you're right and i'm wrong..Feel better? :)

The bottom line is Apple is a corporation that looks at the bottom line.When Steve Jobs re-took over Apple a few years ago Bill Gates chippped in money.

Apple's gonna do what's best for their bottom line and If adding OSX to an Itanium platform is what does it then so be it..
I wouldn't mind playing around with Tiger on a Itanium..

[admanimal]

Regarding the hardware, the Mac beauty is not only external. The innards are the really important thing.
It's bad enough the use of ATA, and non-ECC RAM. Put a disgusting x86 processor in there and I'm moving back to using a workstation as a home computer.

You do realize that ECC ram has almost no benefits for normal computing, right? I might pay more for a computer that looks better on the outside, but not one that has extra crap inside that doesn't do anything for me.

[Ti_Poussin]

It's surely not for the PowerMac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, eMac or Mac mini, forget this idea now. The xserve?! a PCIX card that could emulate X86 in XServer or PowerMac would be really cool, but I don't think it's that. There should be something Apple is building with ARM or centrino technology as mobility device (only CPU from Intel that worth any effort). But on the other hand it can be no CPU, but some bridge or like mention before, a hardware raid chip. So my mind is direct to iPod or Xserve, or a complete new device.

I would prefere see them use the Cell chip architecture. I know it's a hard task already to move to this, saying it's optimize only to do multimedia or game aren't that true. The main processor (a PPC) in Cell Chip can be change for an another one probably or use a Normal 970MP with a cell chip would be a killer machine no doubt, in floating point.

[alandail]

Blade Centers (the ads I've been seeing recently) include both PPC and x86 CPUs, depending on the customer. In the enterprise world, offering an option like that just covers your bases.

Why? If PowerPC is superior, why do they need to cover their bases. WHy is IBM running ads that end with "intel inside"? And if there is nothing wrong with IBM doing that, what would be wrong with Apple doing the same.

The point with Apple's CPU choice is that there's nothing in it for Apple on x86. Let's drop the nonsense that running Mac OS X on an x86 would mean Windows software would all of a sudden work on a Mac. Please. A transition in core CPU architecture for Apple would kill them just at a time when it looks like they are ready to make some inroads with their market share. Steve knows better. Macs will not be running on X86 CPUs, mark my words.

Windows software already does run on a mac. It's called Virtual PC. There is no technical reason you couldn't eliminate the processor emulation and do virtual PC like product on an x86 based mac and get better performance. It's already possible to do something like that to run one version of windows inside another version of windows with Virtual PC for Windows.

Who knows if this is really going to happen - MacOS X for intel processors - it's certainly technically feasible, though, to move everything except classic support to machines built on other processors. If a Mac Mini can be done that uses the x86 and runs the same OS and same software (minus classic) and has an Apple developed equivalent to VirtualPC so people could migrate to the Mac without having to replace all of their software right away, where is the problem?

[Hank_Reardon]

Interesting post. But you forget to mention that programming for multicore, especially gaming will be even more complex compared to the CELL, where the independent cores are most likely used for graphical tasks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377

The power of the CELL lies in the opportunities it offers for certain, mostly rendering, applications. Sure, the PS3 cell is a stripped down core, but you can replace it with a complete PPC core with the APU's functioning as optional engines.

Minimax, you should replace "especially gaming" above with "only gaming." There seems to be a general misunderstanding in this forum as to what the various platforms in the computing landscape today consist of. A dual core processor is essentially two single core processors that are conveniently located on the same chip. Intel's and AMD's solutions differ drastically in the way they address the two cores, so making any generalizations beyond that is impossible. Nonetheless, a PowerMac with a dual core G5 would be highly analogous to the dual-G5's sold today. And as Apple has long offered dual-processor machines, their operating system and apps are already highly threaded. Just launch Activity Monitor and take a look. Apple made the dual-core software migration 10 years ago.

[muffler]

Speaking of Carbon:

Most big name developers would kiss Apple's feet if they could get rid of their carbonized apps. With a transition to i386 it would become easy for them, they would just have to translate, which is done in days.

[cube]

you're right and i'm wrong..Feel better? :)

The bottom line is Apple is a corporation that looks at the bottom line.When Steve Jobs re-took over Apple a few years ago Bill Gates chippped in money.

Apple's gonna do what's best for their bottom line and If adding OSX to an Itanium platform is what does it then so be it..
I wouldn't mind playing around with Tiger on a Itanium..

The point is that non-techies think Itanic will be good to the bottom line, when it won't. Just look at SGI and HP.

[mac-er]

Few problems with this:

1. Apple has for years told people how x86 sucks and how PPC is better. How would they rationale mving from that "superior" CPU to the "crappy" CPU?


Because this is what Apple does.

1. When they intro'd the iMac G4, Steve said vertically mounting the optical drive sucks because it slows down the drive...then we have the iMac G5.

2. Steve said the CRT was dead at Apple...then we have the eMac.

Other sources I have read said this is the real deal this time...it's happening.

[alandail]

I talked about the mac mini earlier to gain market share. The perhaps easier place to switch CPUs is in the servers Apple sells. It really wouldn't matter AT ALL if apple put different CPUs in their servers. Take the best server chips in the world, no matter who makes them, and put Tiger Server on them.

[Peace]

The point is that non-techies think Itanic will be good to the bottom line, when it won't. Just look at SGI and HP.

you're right again!

However,80% of the users in the desktop market arn't techies
:)

[Hank_Reardon]

Because this is what Apple does.

1. When they intro'd the iMac G4, Steve said vertically mounting the optical drive sucks because it slows down the drive...then we have the iMac G5.

2. Steve said the CRT was dead at Apple...then we have the eMac.

Other sources I have read said this is the real deal this time...it's happening.

Haha, other sources you have read, huh? Sounds serious! Thanks for the heads up!

[scu]

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

This may be the issue. However, what I suspect it is more likely is the fact that like Motorolla, IBM has dropped the ball right on Apple's big toe. Apple is on the verge of kicking some real butt in gaining market share and IBM is holding them back with limited supplies of slow chips. The last PowerPC upgrade was a joke.

I hope this puts some real pressure on IBM to get its house in order and deliver what they promised.

[mcdawson]

One option is for Apple to port OS X SERVER to Intel. That would require a LOT fewer developer issues (as Apple produces the majority of the sw for that). In that case, Apple would be going after the LINUX/UNIX server market. I think that could be a viable market--corporations that don't want to use MS, but also want an easy-to-use variety (instead of the knowledge of UNIX that LINUX requires). Apple could have XServes and Intel servers. That would be a doable transition and an interesting market. That would also help Apple's desktop business--if IT buys an Apple (even if Intel underneath) server, they'd be much more likely to buy the boxes that connect to the server…

[muffler]

Its named OSX. Recently Project Builder was renamed X Code.
Doesn't that sound likeX 86 ?

[matznentosh]

Apple already uses an Intel chip - it is a controller for the Xserve Raid box (I think Apple exhibited at a recent Intel conference with it). Why the concern that an Intel chip will be for the Mac? More likely for another as-yet unannounced device. Intel chips (ARM core) are very powerful in PDAs for example.
Anyway, we now know PowerPC can run at 3.2GHz (XBox 360) and IBM must have the supply problems sorted out, given the numbers they will have to supply for all 3 of the new consoles.

That was my thought also, that this is a mis-rumor based on discussions with Intel on ancillary chips for various hardware management tasks.

Alternately, Apple could simply be maintaining its normal process of doing long range research (ref. various reports of products seen at Cupertino that were never actually released) which would allow a switch to a different processor if it ever became necessary. I'm sure Apple did this prior to making the decision to go with the IBM chip.

[Evangelion]

Actually multi-threading has nothing to do with pipelines

Where exactly did I claim that it has something to do with pipelines?

Dual core is going to be a huge pain in the ass for people with benchmarking tools.

It will be about as painful as multiprocessing is

You're not going to see a 2.0x performance improvement when you swap out a single core proc with a dual core proc.

Of course not! Same thing with "real" SMP!

Worst case it'll be 1.3x and best case it'll be 1.5x.

SMP can give you about 1.8x improvement. Dual-core can achieve the same

You're putting two mouths on your dog and not giving it a bigger throat, stomach, or butt.

If the system is bandwidth-starved (like Intel-CPU's are, due to their crappy FSB-design), perhaps. But AMD has no real problems there.

[siliconjones]

rumor reported on FOX news
I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, maybe it was already reported.... I didn't take the time to read through all the pages... but this rumor was just reported on FOX news. That seems pretty strange to me. Seems like having it reported on a major network it might not be much of a rumor after all? They said neither company commented to the rumor.
__________________
800mhz Tibook G4
40gb
768mb
80gb Ezquest external
30gb pocket drive

Well if its been reported on Fox News its officially rubbish.

[slb]

I only read the first three pages, so forgive me if these links have already been posted:

Apple Denies Intel Rumor (http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2005/05/23/apple_denies_intel_rumour)

Apple denies eyeing Intel chips (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/apple-denies-eyeing-intel-chips.html)

Apple denies the report (http://www.dvhardware.net/article5037.html)

[sarge]

[QUOTE=Booga]1. The news was reported by the Wall Street Journal, so cracks about FOX news are irrelevent.

Actually, this perfectly illustrates the nature of most Television News, they rely on other primary sources of reporting without actually doing much in the way of 'journalism'.

[matznentosh]

Apple will start selling dual lines: the PPC line that we all have and use; and starting in 2006: OS 11, a new OS running on Apple's new line of Intel based computers that are completely compatible with all Windows software..but doesn't use the Windows OS in any form...retains all the superior attributes of Apple's OS and enables current Windows users to not have to buy all new software.

heh heh heh...

I don't think so: Apple wants to control the hardware side for economic reasons but also because of the nightmare of supporting all those 3rd party products. I have a Hewlett Packard PC and it won't reliably use my Hewlett Packard printer. Routinely takes 3 hours to get support for the problems. Apple would be crazy to jump into that sea. I'm amazed they can handle iTunes for Windows.

Second: so much of Apple's software is now optimized for Altivec, and this doesn't exist to speak of on the Intel side. They would throw away all that work and advantage moving to intel (I know, I know, what about OpenDoc, etc...)

[Dont Hurt Me]

MSNBC has it on their business section, wow if this is true would it mean AMD based Macs? or just Intel? PowerPC makers have been kicking Apples butt for years,motostagnation or IBM's false promise to Steve. Perhaps Steve just said enough of this B.S. It makes sense when you think about it. No more spin games or waiting on suppliers who could give a .... Wouldnt it be easier to just release say OSX for Intels rather then building Intel Machines?

[Lancetx]

Well if its been reported on Fox News its officially ********

If we can leave your ultra left wing politics out of this discussion for a minute...the story originated in the Wall Street Journal and every news service on the planet practically had picked up on it by early this morning... :rolleyes:

[nslyax]

Unsure if it has been mentioned, but Apple already uses an Intel chip.
http://news.com.com/Apple+has+Intel+inside--sort+of/2100-1042_3-5598783.html
Seems talks regarding the controller in an upgraded XServe RAID are more likely than a total CPU shift are much more likely.

[Trout74]

MSNBC has it on their business section, wow if this is true would it mean AMD based Macs? or just Intel? PowerPC makers have been kicking Apples butt for years,motostagnation or IBM's false promise to Steve. Perhaps Steve just said enough of this B.S. It makes sense when you think about it. No more spin games or waiting on suppliers who could give a .... Wouldnt it be easier to just release say OSX for Intels rather then building Intel Machines?


My thoughts exactly, so if Apple computers run Intel chips, and also Run OS-X, how is that differnet than a Dell PC running OS-X. Will any PC be able to run OSX now?
Can someone explain the difference?

thanks
trout

[Hodapp]

What happened to the age-old time-tested tradition of posting to a discussion after you've done some research on a topic so you don't sound like an ignorant fanboy? Seriously, some of these replies in this thread are making me do a complete face->palm.

IBM going 'behind Apple's back' for the XBOX 360 is probably single-handedly the most retarded thing I have read this morning, and probably will hold that title for the rest of the day. Yeah, a global company worth 138 BILLION (For those of you playing at home that's a little over 5 times the value of Apple.) is going behind Apple's back by selling a product to another company. Give me a god damn break. THE REASON THEY ARE SO HUGE IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE CUSTOMER. Show me anything on an exclusivity agreement with Apple which keeps them from selling any other types of chips, please. Until then, shut up.

Centrino based chips on their way out? Tell me another one, I haven't laughed so hard all day. Compare even first generation Centrino based laptops to Apple's 'bleeding-edge' PowerBooks and get back to me.

And to you morons who claim to be jumping ship when Apple finally does make the switch to Intel manufactured chips, what are you going to buy instead? A Sun Blade workstation? An IBM Intellistation? I'm surprised so many people are so hopelessly devoted to PowerPC hardware... FUNNY, I THOUGHT THE ENTIRE REASON TO BUY APPLE'S ANTIQUATED HARDWARE WAS OSX?!? Perhaps switching to Intel will help Apple get out of the dark ages of behind the curve hardware, and allow them to finally compete with PC's on hardware specification sheets, and if they can drop some of the dead weight of Mac Rumors retards, I am ALL FOR IT. Maybe you guys will get x86 Linux boxes and can migrate to Slashdot, your posting style will fit in well.

I half wonder if the flamers against this are against it just for the sake of being against it, or if they suffer from this strange iteration of agoraphobia which manifests itself in being completely horrified of anything that is less than 3 degrees of separation in any way shape or form to the dreaded M-dollarsign.

I'll be jamming away on my Intel-powered PowerBook which isn't slow as dog-piss in comparison to anything else for the same price on the market... For you all, I recommend therapy and Xanax.

[DrNeroCF]

Bull, if there's any porting done, it will be for the cell processor. That thing may not be all that and a bag of chips as far as gaming goes, but the 3.2 core alone in a Powerbook is what we all need. Besides, AMD is kicking Intel's ass right now, they're not even worth negotiating with. Now, AMD branded PowerPCs, that would be nice...

[mdntcallr]

This is crazy. Macintoshes are great because of the hardware & software innovation.

It is about the CPU CHIPS!! ABOUT THE CHIPS, ABOUT THE CHIPS!

IBM has been horrible with their G5 Development cycle. The speed increases have not been coming. And what some people perceive as speed increases, is merely Apple over-clocking a cpu chip.

The CPU chips IBM is turning out for Apple are waaaaay behind schedule. And they are going to run into significant problems on the laptops.

I think alot of mac users are defining their experience from a cpu, rather instead of their user experience. If Apple can make computers work better than even microsoft can on similar chips, why not take advantage of that?

This reminds me of the negative thoughts any mac users have of Windows. Which stinks, but it is alot like a political party identity.
Republican or Democrat?

If Apple used a great chip from Intel as a CPU, alot of mac users would think it is treacherous. BUT WHAT IF IT IS A GREAT COMPUTER?

Do not forget Apple has been developing a version of 10.3 and 10.4 which can run on x86 machines. this is pretty cool.

Think of the possibilities. Apple can go from 4% OS/hardware marketshare to 20% OS and 6% hardware. within years.

This could actually help Apple alot.

[Peace]

Hey I know how everybody feels about this rumour.I'm a deadhead ;)

[Kato C.]

All I can say is I get goose bumps everytime I think about it. Wow. Running OS X on all my company's Dells...it boggles the mind. All I can say, if this turns out to be true, is it will change the entire computer industry. I have believed that the demise of Microsoft's empire was inevitable, and this would be the stone that brings Goliath down.

Never happen.

[Hodapp]

Bull, if there's any porting done, it will be for the cell processor. That thing may not be all that and a bag of chips as far as gaming goes, but the 3.2 core alone in a Powerbook is what we all need. Besides, AMD is kicking Intel's ass right now, they're not even worth negotiating with. Now, AMD branded PowerPCs, that would be nice...

Please read the thread.

[sinisterdesign]

My thoughts exactly, so if Apple computers run Intel chips, and also Run OS-X, how is that differnet than a Dell PC running OS-X. Will any PC be able to run OSX now?
Can someone explain the difference?

thanks
trout

exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??

they would KILL their computer business if they did this. Apple would be a software/iPod company. i just don't see how it would go down any different if they switch to Intel. not to MENTION thoroughly digust all the developers that are just now reaping the rewards for going through the OSX transition.

all for a few MHz speed bump? can anyone explain to me the benefit of this tradeoff? if they killed off most of their CPU sales, could they recoup THAT much in OSX sales?? i just don't see it happening. :confused:

[savar]

If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.

Buffer overflows generally don't have anything to do with the CPU, except that like most CPUs the stack can be overwritten.

Usually the problem is in the OS, and specifically is due to having been written in C without any precautions to check buffer boundaries when fetching input from the user. A C++ operating system isn't likely to have buffer overflow vulnerabilities.

[IJ Reilly]

If we can leave your ultra left wing politics out of this discussion for a minute...the story originated in the Wall Street Journal and every news service on the planet practically had picked up on it by early this morning... :rolleyes:

And you can save your eye-rolling. The WSJ is not necessarily a credible source, either. They are reporting an echo. They are speculating with little or no real information, and if you actually read the articles, they say nothing about Apple switching to x86. All they say in fact is that Apple is in talks to "use Intel chips." See how meaningful?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Willy S]

Don´t you feel it´s a waste that the best OS in the world has only about 1,5% market share of computer sales? (3 million out of 200)

Apple is not going to have the cake and eat it too. They have to decide to keep their margins or go PC. Their hardware business might not be destroyed with this. Lets face it, Apple´s unmatched design and low rate of failures is going to sell many computers at a reasonable margin. The price would decrese and the quantity increase, so their hardware profit might not change that much.

The software business would explode since people could go MacOs without throwing away their PCs. This would also lead to MacOS becoming mainstream and we would have more software and games to choose from. We would also get more variety of machines.

[Hodapp]

all for a few MHz speed bump? can anyone explain to me the benefit of this tradeoff? if they killed off most of their CPU sales, could they recoup THAT much in OSX sales?? i just don't see it happening. :confused:

Because Apple's marketing department can only dupe so many people in to buying PowerMacs with 'benchmarks' like these for so long:

http://img17.paintedover.com/uploads/17/osx_1.gif

Sooner or later people will get wise and figure out that they can spend 1/3 the money and have a faster computer without OSX.

[MrKahuna]

6. Intel processors are faster. Intel mobile processors are faster for the heat dissipation. Intel processors are cheaper. Intel processors are always available in large enough quantities so they will never be a gating factor for a new Apple release.


I have 2 questions for you:

1. What is the price difference between a comparable Intel processor and a PowerPC processor? I checked the new Intel dual-core and it's priced at $999 in lots of 1000, not exactly cheap in my book.

2. Where will Apple be in the pecking order for Intel supply? I'm sure they won't be in front of Dell. For this reason alone, moving to Intel could be a problem for Apple if they have to wait until Dell's orders are fulfilled and are always behind Dell in availability. You think people are screaming now about being "behind" the Mhz curve, wait until you are behind the Dell elephant in the parade!

[admanimal]

exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??


You have just identified the reason why this will never happen.

Of course, Intel could design another chip not compatible with the x86 architecture...but that probably won't happen either.

[Hodapp]

I have 2 questions for you:

1. What is the price difference between a comparable Intel processor and a PowerPC processor? I checked the new Intel dual-core and it's priced at $999 in lots of 1000, not exactly cheap in my book.

2. Where will Apple be in the pecking order for Intel supply? I'm sure they won't be in front of Dell. For this reason alone, moving to Intel could be a problem for Apple if they have to wait until Dell's orders are fulfilled and are always behind Dell in availability. You think people are screaming now about being "behind" the Mhz curve, wait until you are behind the Dell elephant in the parade!

1. In order for there to be an accurate comparison here we'd need someone to build a time machine and go ahead in time six or seven years to see what IBM's offering is selling for, to accurately compare chips which were equal in performance.

2. You'd be surprised how fast they can pump out chips... When was the last time you heard of a delay coming from Intel?

[Agathon]

I'd take this somewhat seriously.

A little bird told me that Apple and IBM are not getting along, and that Apple would very likely be switching processors.

I don't care. I buy macs for the software.

[Booga]

I talked about the mac mini earlier to gain market share. The perhaps easier place to switch CPUs is in the servers Apple sells. It really wouldn't matter AT ALL if apple put different CPUs in their servers. Take the best server chips in the world, no matter who makes them, and put Tiger Server on them.

Yes. This is what I was saying last time this rumor surfaced. MacOS X Server for Intel would make a LOT of sense. Orders of magnitude less stuff to recompile, and HUGE advantages when dealing with purchasing and IT departments.

[muffler]

Never happen.

WILL HAPPEN.

One morning, your Windows XP system will pop up a dialog, asking you whether you want to update to OS X.

If you reply "OK" , all of your applications will be translated to run under OS X.
Sounds unlikely ? Well, it would be possible to do so.

[admanimal]

A little bird told me that Apple and IBM are not getting along, and that Apple would very likely be switching processors.


Then that little bird probably started having a conversation with itself in a mirror.

[siliconjones]

And you can save your eye-rolling. The WSJ is not necessarily a credible source, either. They are reporting an echo. They are speculating with little or no real information, and if you actually read the articles, they say nothing about Apple switching to x86. All they say in fact is that Apple is in talks to "use Intel chips." See how meaningful?

Nothing to see here. Move along.


Exactly. Actual credible news is not done anymore. All the major networks are to lazy to any real reporting. IMNSHO Fox is the worst.

That being said. If in fact they Apple and Intel are speaking it is in regards to ARM. Apple will never go to x86.

[mac-er]

The WSJ is not necessarily a credible source, either. They are reporting an echo. They are speculating with little or no real information.

This is the most laughable statement I have ever heard. The WSJ is one of the most credible newspapers in the world. And their sources, or echos as you call them, tend to be pretty accurate. WSJ doesn't print echos.

If WSJ reports on a merger, talks between companies, or whatever...its true.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by sinisterdesign
exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??

You have just identified the reason why this will never happen.

Of course, Intel could design another chip not compatible with the x86 architecture...but that probably won't happen either.

Why would anyone pay top dollar today for a PowerMac right NOW, with a CPU slower than what you can buy today from Dell for half the price? Either Mac users have to start admitting that it's all about Apple's software, or Apple is doomed. I understand the argument that most of Apple's revenue comes from hardware, but, 1. the iPod can smooth the transition, and 2. Apple could be a top-tier Intel/AMD supplier as well, increasing revenue.

It's just a CPU, folks. It executes instructions. Intel and AMD have proved that there's nothing inherently worse about the x86 and x86-64 by consistently producing chips that outperform PowerPCs. You can't buy PowerPCs that match the performance of the latest x86 chips... such PowerPC chips don't exist. And you can't buy a laptop with the latest generation PowerPC chips because they're too hot. Why NOT Intel?

[Peace]

Snip

exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??



Currently the majority of casual computer users don't buy Apples.

Porting OSX to an Intel platform or conversly producing "low-end" Mac's using Intel chips would send the mainstream casual user to Apple..

[mdntcallr]

You guys who think Intel will just pump out the fastest chips they make in mega quantities?

not, they take alot of time, this is why you see chips at $600 each and up.

they cost alot because they dont make as many of them.

[jwhitnah]

So one guy from wsj uncovers a major strategy change at Apple before a single credible rumor site (thinksecret, appleinsider, or macrumors) get even a hint of a change to INTEL. Rumor site managers know which dressing Jobs used on his salad last night! Very improbable. Like very close to zero. Must be made up. Maybe Dan Rather found a new job at the WSJ. :p

[admanimal]

If you reply "OK" , all of your applications will be translated to run under OS X.
Sounds unlikely ? Well, it would be possible to do so.

The only way Windows applications could even possibly be run under OS X on an intel machine is if Windows itself was emulated by OS X. Virtual PC can already do this (slowly) now, so there's no big breakthrough you are predicting here, aside from OS X being released for the x86.

[alandail]

it amazes me that people think that by adopting an Intel processor that Apple will suddenly forget how do design machines. What it will give them is the economies of scale that results in lower priced chips, thus lower priced computers with the same strong design Apple is known for.

[admanimal]

credible rumor site

If they were that credible, they wouldn't be rumor sites.

[BlackLilyNinja]

We all know that apple will not change from PPC to x86. Even with the knowledge that there were workking ports. However, could it be possible that intel has developed a type of PPC or new kind of architecture that was needed to move past the recent speed hurdles. Something that they see as the future of processing? Its obvious that current methods have limitations. I would love to see what the future holds.

[jwhitnah]

Because this is what Apple does.

1. When they intro'd the iMac G4, Steve said vertically mounting the optical drive sucks because it slows down the drive...then we have the iMac G5.

2. Steve said the CRT was dead at Apple...then we have the eMac.

Other sources I have read said this is the real deal this time...it's happening.

please. Now everyone already knew?

[jwhitnah]

If they were that credible, they wouldn't be rumor sites.
Well at every major roll-out of a new product I am rarely surprised. Not because I'm smart, but because I already read it on a rumor site. I have yet to see wsj out scoop the big 3.

[macridah]

I don't understand this move. The new "cell" processor is coming out ... M$ even moved the XBOX to PowerPC ... PowerPC architecture is obviously better than Intel.

[calyxman]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was entertaining the idea of using Intel's chips.

I'll give you a hint as to why: Powerbook G4. Long overdue for a change, but we all know that the earth will crash into the sun before Apple will get a G5 chip inside a powerbook.

Pentium M's are the way to go for thin and light notebooks.

[jwhitnah]

I don't understand this move. The new "cell" processor is coming out ... M$ even moved the XBOX to PowerPC ... PowerPC architecture is obviously better than Intel.

Another reason I think this rumor is wrong.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

And to you morons who claim to be jumping ship when Apple finally does make the switch to Intel manufactured chips, what are you going to buy instead? A Sun Blade workstation? An IBM Intellistation? I'm surprised so many people are so hopelessly devoted to PowerPC hardware... FUNNY, I THOUGHT THE ENTIRE REASON TO BUY APPLE'S ANTIQUATED HARDWARE WAS OSX?!?I'm devoted to the platform, not the OS alone. Never claimed that. I've also stated, a couple pages ago, which alternatives I see if Apple switches platform, so that has already been answered, no need to shout... remember, research involves actually reading the posts in this thread... :rolleyes:

Also. I don't appreciate being called a moron. I might post silly things from time to time and you are welcome to attack those posts. But to generalize and plain out start name calling is not acceptable behavior... :mad:

[sigamy]

Apple has called this "rumor and speculation"...so, is Apple Legal going after The WSJ yet?

[Zigster]

Notice the stock is up 5% on the rumor.

I think it's a planted story to put additional pressure on IBM. However, Apple does see this as a time to take their computers to the masses... :cool:

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Buffer overflows generally don't have anything to do with the CPU, except that like most CPUs the stack can be overwritten.

Usually the problem is in the OS, and specifically is due to having been written in C without any precautions to check buffer boundaries when fetching input from the user. A C++ operating system isn't likely to have buffer overflow vulnerabilities.Yes, but those buffer overflows cannot be executed on a PPC, and I can give you thousands of examples of using this exploit to run code on an Intel architecture... ;)

Along with permissions set properly and root privileges protections, which is shared/inherited from the *nix world, this is the main reason why there are no, nill, nought, null, nada virus for Mac OS X, yet...

[jwhitnah]

Notice the stock is up 5% on the rumor.

I think it's a planted story to put additional pressure on IBM. However, Apple does see this as a time to take their computers to the masses... :cool:

Or is it up because of the phone, or the iTMS videos/possible movies, or is it new cool things for iPods...

[law guy]

This is another probable scenario- Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half.

I find this post by adzoox interesting - the partnership idea, e.g., production and development under license.

Alternatively, b/c Apple has wanted to keep Apple hardware exclusive (thus the demise of Power Computing, et al when Mr. Jobs returned to the helm), I would expect that there's some twist that keeps Apple from just being a pretty Dell in terms of the machine.

What if Intel is saying to Apple - we can make chips that run you code natively and do it faster? Certainly sounds like there would be some intellectual property issues there, but perhaps they can license bits and just reinterpret other parts?

I don't have so much of a problem believing the use of the intel product (recall S. Jobs at the event (which one was it) where the Intel CEO was in the front row, and then PIXAR went out and purchase all of those intel servers soon thereafter) - I think there are some business relationships there It's the notion that Apple would just use an x86 that has me wondering.

LG

[muffler]

The only way Windows applications could even possibly be run under OS X on an intel machine is if Windows itself was emulated by OS X. Virtual PC can already do this (slowly) now, so there's no big breakthrough you are predicting here, aside from OS X being released for the x86.

This is definetely complete BS. You could leave the executables as they are. You would only have to adopt the interface for Aqua, thats it.

Its not new, Code Weaver does that for several Windows apps already, adopting them to run NATIVE under Linux, meaning keeping the executables and knit them to an X11-Gnome/KDE interface.

[greenfluke]

I don't believe that Apple is really considering moving its desktop line to Intel. The cost to recompile, and the issue of legacy apps, plus the small, but vocal group still using classic, especially for custom science apps. That would be tough to run on x86.

I think this is for either some type of mobile chip, although the AMD mobile 64-bit chip might work better, or more probably for some palm / tablet PC Apple has in the works. As unhappy as I was with the *new* dual 2.7 GHz at the top of the line, Apple is only behind in dual-core, performance is comparable to a single P4. I think Jobs is still real pissed like someone said earlier, and IBM is dragging their feet on the dual-core 970MP. He is letting this rumor get out of hand to put some public pressure on IBM.

Isn't it conspicuous that this rumor comes out after Microsoft announced XBox 360 running on 3.2 GHz PPC. Whether it is as powerful as the desktop chip is irrelevant, it is the perception. If IBM can create those types of yields on dual-core PPC chips running at 500 MHz faster than the current single-core top-end of Apple's line, something is wrong, they are making Apple look marginal, this isn't acceptable to Mr Jobs, especially since they made him look like a fool with the 3 GHz announcement. If they wanna mess with Apple, Steve'll make 'em pay. Keep kickin' butt Steve!

[fluidinclusion]

IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo (http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100445), so even though you see Big Blue's logo on the ads, they do not make Intel-based PCs. They don't make any PCs. IBM is in the enterprise computing and chip fab business.

Would everyone please cease the crap shoveling? Apple is not leaving the PPC platform! As has been pointed out here several times, this rumor gets recycled all the time, and Apple has reason to talk to Intel for Intel's peripheral technologies like USB, WiMax, and so forth. Could be for a new device, could be for AirPort or iPod. But there is no plausible scenario in which Apple all of a sudden leaves the PPC platform. OS X may be able to be ported, but all the apps that run on it are a different story. Leaving PPC for x86 would be suicide.

If anything, the new next gen game consoles' demand for PPC chips will bolster IBM's fab division. You think they will be supplying that demand with current capacity? They need more factories, and for all we know these talks are because Intel wants to shift some of their formidable chip-fab capacity to PPC manufacturing now that there is demand for it beyond Apple!

C'mon guys, I thought Mac users were more savvy than this... :rolleyes:

Actually he said IBM computers, not PC's. I see ads for IBM computers all the time that advertise Intel CPUs. What planet are you on? Ever heard of Xeon?

[Chaz]

Never happen.

Not entirely true. I'm surprised that in 8 or so pages of discussion no one has ever stopped to consider if this rumor is even true at all. No one said that they're replacing IBM with Intel, they are reporting that Apple might be using Intel chips in its hardware. Apple couldn't abandon IBM's PowerPC partnership anytime soon; they'd destroy the user base they've spent years building up.

I'm not claiming to be an insider by any means, but in tech circles it's a well known (and I think reported on a few news sites) fact that several major PC vendors are openly in talks with Apple about bringing OSX Server to their hardware. They can offer Apple the kind of standardization that OSX needs on the PC side, and are very interested in having an alternative to Windows Server. Don't believe me? Well, do a little digging and see for yourself.

There is a huge market out there for better UNIX-based server software. Linux is currently becoming more and more popular against MS Windows Server, but is a real pain to install and maintain (and I do speak from personal experience here) for a lot of users. OSX Server is a fantastic product, but many companies (like mine) have gone Linux solely because for the price of an XServe, you can find x86 blade servers for about half the price.

So when you think about it this way, it makes perfect sense for Apple to release a server product on the PC side, there's a huge market there. If they build anything with Intel chips, it'll most likely be a new XServe.

[kangaroo]

You don't use your Mac <thinking> 'this is great because my machine is running off an IBM processor' any more than you think 'this is great because I'm using X brand power supply'. You want your machine to get from point A to point B, without crashes, as quickly as possible, within a OS/software environment you like and at a reasonable price. If Apple thinks it can do that by hitching its wagon to Intel--then so be it.

[Zigster]

Apple has a very loyal following. What happens if they switch? The fanboys won't go anywhere. What would they buy? Maybe 1% would buy a linux box in protest...the rest will go wherever Apple leads them.

I don't think Apple's above making the switch to a new chip manufacturer, though it might give their "switcher" campaign a little irony. :D

[Trout74]

The more I think about it, Ill bet that they are talking about just moving the Powerbooks to Intc. based processors. I bet they put Centrinos in them, and the rest of the line stays with the PowerPC derivitive.

hell what do I know, jsut a guess.

trout

[nylon]

Apple Explores Use
Of Chips From Intel
For Macintosh Line

By DON CLARK and NICK WINGFIELD
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 23, 2005; Page C1

Apple Computer Inc. has always blazed its own trail, a tack that has helped turn the company into a stock-market darling lately. But a pivotal step toward the mainstream could be in the offing.

The computer maker has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, industry executives say, a prospect that may shake up the world of computers and software.

The idea that Apple Computer might use Intel-based products, which provide processing power for personal computers that use Microsoft Corp. software, has long been the subject of industry speculation and off-and-on negotiations between Apple and Intel. Two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

Neither company would confirm any change in their relationship. Nor is it clear, if Apple does proceed with plans to work with Intel, whether it will make a large-scale shift away from chips made by International Business Machines Corp., its longtime supplier. Talks between Apple and Intel could founder, as they have before, or Apple could be engaging in negotiations with Intel to gain leverage over IBM.

Still, Apple's consideration of Intel chips reflects what others in Silicon Valley see as a crescendo of commercial considerations for both companies. For Apple, which has struggled to expand beyond a tiny sliver of the PC market, adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc.

Macintosh users, for example, could benefit by getting access to Intel's power-saving chips for laptop computers and other new chips that offer the equivalent of two electronic brains on a single piece of silicon. Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, also could be more competitive -- particularly if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers.
[iPod Boost]

Using Intel chips also makes it at least theoretically possible that users could install Windows on Macintosh systems, though it is not clear that Apple will support software other than its Mac OS X operating system.

For Intel, already the dominant supplier of the calculating engines inside computers, winning Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters. Under Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive officer and co-founder, Apple has consistently delivered innovative hardware designs and blazed a trail in digital music.

Apple sells only about three million computers a year -- a small portion of the 200 million or so machines sold globally -- so a new relationship with Intel wouldn't increase that company's sales much. But Intel, which has long courted Apple, could benefit by an association with Apple and its hit iPod device, which may be luring more Windows PC users to consider Apple computer products. It could also continue the perception of momentum that has made Apple shares nearly quadruple since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.

Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., has long used so-called PowerPC microprocessors that were jointly developed by IBM and Motorola Inc. and now primarily sold by IBM. Apple has also charted an independent path by creating and refining its critically acclaimed OS X operating system. The company often promotes that software's resistance to the computer viruses that have bedeviled Windows users, though some experts say Apple has mainly benefited because it is a smaller target for writers of malicious software.

The idea of creating a version of the Macintosh operating system for Intel chips -- a vital step in introducing Intel-based hardware -- goes back more than a decade. Engineers from software maker Novell Inc. and Apple collaborated on a secret effort, code-named Project Star Trek, that was designed to create a product that Apple could sell to rival PC makers. They completed a prototype in 1992, but Apple chose not to release it for fear of hurting its hardware business.

Apple has subsequently created, but not released, versions of its operating systems that work on Intel chips, former Apple engineers say. That work has been aided by the fact that Mac OS X descended from software that Apple purchased from Next Computer Inc., Mr. Jobs's former company, which had already created a version for Intel-based computers.

One of the two industry executives said Apple isn't likely to market OS X for other PCs. Besides hurting its own hardware business, such a path would put Apple in more direct competition with Microsoft, whose application programs are important to the success of the Macintosh. Instead, the company is likely to package its modified software with its own Intel-based hardware, though it is not clear how the company will prevent users from shifting the software to other machines, the executive said.

Assuming that plan goes forward, consumers would need to get new versions of their application programs for Intel-based Macs. Software companies would have to convert those products, though that procedure should be relatively simple for companies familiar with OS X, former Apple engineers say. The industry executive said Mr. Jobs could announce the new strategy as early as June 6 at its world-wide developers conference in San Francisco, a place the company typically informs software and hardware partners of future directions.

An Apple spokeswoman said she would characterize the possibility of adopting Intel chips "in the category of rumor and speculation."

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology. The latter would be a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, though the big computer maker has had success in convincing Microsoft, Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. to use PowerPC technology in their next-generation video machines. An IBM spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Jobs has often praised the performance of PowerPC chips versus products from Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif. But he hasn't been able to meet a public commitment he made in June 2003 to offer a Macintosh with a PowerPC chip operating at a speed of three gigahertz within 12 months. IBM hasn't delivered a chip that fast yet for the Macintosh; the fastest system in Apple's lineup now operates at 2.75 gigahertz. IBM's fastest chip, the G5, also consumes too much power to be added to Apple's portable computers.

Apple's bread-and-butter Mac business has shown signs of vigor lately. While growth in the broader PC industry remains sluggish, Apple last quarter sold 43% more Macs than it did in the year-earlier quarter, quadruple the pace of the industry as a whole.

Yet, in a sign of how small a player Apple remains in the PC market, the strong sales have translated into only minuscule market-share gains. Apple rose to 2.3% of new world-wide PC sales in the first three months of the year from 2% the prior quarter. Windows PCs account for the vast majority of the rest of the market.

[mccoma]

If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.

Viruses have nothing to do with the chip, they are a product of insecurity in the Operating System. Simply running on an Intel CPU does not generate this condition (Ask the OpenBSD people as their OS is more secure then OS X and runs on Intel chips). For the curious on these subjects, start with the OpenBSD website and look at their programming practices.

Some chips have added instructions to support security (The No Execute flag), but security starts with good programming practices.

---------------------

This rumors keeps popping up, but it makes sense if you consider the non-x86 chips Intel makes. Intel is a leader in WiMax, created USB, and has good WiFi chipsets. They have high production runs and some chips are already used in Apple products.

Heck, I do believe I saw news the Intel would start including FireWire on their motherboards. If Intel has some nice USB2 / FireWire 400/800 chips, I can see Apple wanting those.

The Xscale (Intel version of ARM) might be used in more Apple devices.

[nagromme]

The reasons not to go Intel right now are HUGE and obvious. I'm sure Apple won't.

The reasons to put a LOT of work into making sure that stays possible for the FUTURE are also obvious!

It's a backup plan that may one day be necessary. Apple shouldn't shut that door.

Besides:

* There WILL be other "difficult transitions" in the Mac's future. Like 680x0 to PPC, and OS 9 to OS X. It happens sometimes. Maybe Intel will be part of one of them. As long as it doesn't happen RIGHT on the tail of the OS X transition, devs and users alike will make the change.

* Apple could offer specialized OS X Intel machines for some new market they intend to enter. I can't think of one that makes sense, but Apple could "add" instead of "switching"--as long as that market could tolerate running certain ported apps and not need all the rest. Or Transitive makes it moot.

Now I will state firmly that my next Mac will be IBM Power5 based, and that I won't be touching the legacy bloat of Intel :) Nor the security risks of Intel chips (it's not JUST the OS that's a factor):

http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12100002EAEW

In the long term, I want whatever can run OS X best. I like the PPC architecture a lot better, but I don't want Apple to close any doors.

[Mord]

it's BS, the reason macs cost as much as they do is the case, the powerpc is not slower it has more of a future and all of apples software is optimised for it, it would be the greatest blunder in history if apple switched to x86 and if they did why the hell with intel AMD is a far better choice as sun Microsystems has proven. the powerpc is a strong architecture it's not slower than x86 and it's not more expensive, the most expensive part of the emac is the case.

intel has been doing worse than IBM the P4 has not moved in clock speed for eons the dual core p4 is slow as **** and wont ship to anyone but dell for yonks, the only thing they have going for them is the pentium M which is just a P3 with a giant cache and clock speed control, they are much slower on battery than they are when they are pluged in.

[Josh396]

I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but I haven't read through all the replies so I was wondering if someone could answer my questions.

Is it possible that Intel make PowerPC chips instead of x86?

If Intel was to do that would they have any problems with speed?

For example, is it possible that the speed problems are related specifically to the PowerPC chip, or is it all IBM's fault?

As a side question, why not use AMD?

[Zigster]

If Intel did make powerpc chips, Apple would surely want to use them.

[mrsebastian]

i'm guessing this is simply a political move by apple, to push the folks at ibm to upgrade and deliver chips much faster. think part of the problem, though may also be a solution, is ibm is bogged down with making chips for ps3 and xbox360 as well. with both of those respective companies pushing ibm i'm sure, as there will be insane demand for those consoles. which in the long term, i think will be the solution to making better, faster, cheaper, cooler chips for apples needs as well.

[Daveway]

using Intel for something portable, why not? Its not as though the ipod or such devices is running on OS X.

Intel (x86) in a mac..HAHAHAHAH. The list of reasons why that would be a huge mistake completely engulfs the list of positives. EVERY piece of significant mac software would have to be rewritten just to work, then optimized, and how pissed would developers be for spending all this time/money to make softare they have to ditch and recode.

LOOK at the numbers apples post for the new Powermacs (G5 vs intel vs AMD). According to apple themselves their procs are much faster as is anyways, so apple would have to admit they have been lying to the public for years if they claim this would be a move towards faster machines.

Aside from portables, the only reason Apple would move to Intel Procs would be for some factor no one

But this would mean competition within a company and thats bad. Intel could scale back development of a faster PPC to save its name sake the P4.

[mrsebastian]

I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but I haven't read through all the replies so I was wondering if someone could answer my questions.

Is it possible that Intel make PowerPC chips instead of x86?

If Intel was to do that would they have any problems with speed?

For example, is it possible that the speed problems are related specifically to the PowerPC chip, or is it all IBM's fault?

As a side question, why not use AMD?

i'm no engineer, but i'd assume it's very possible for intel or amd to make a powerpc chip. second, i doubt the speed issue is simply to blame on the powerpc architecture as it will be in ps3/xbox360 and from what i've read, they are gonna speed monsters with multiple processors.

[killjoy]

I just was thinking about the relationship Apple had with intel in the past. Could it be possible in this time of multi-processors that a return to something like the Quadra 610 (PC) might be in the works. Check out the everymac page for the specs (which I would be greatly updated of course:))http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/stats/mac_quadra_610.html

[Trekkie]

I believe this rumor was leaked by Apple and it's purpose is to put pressure on IBM. Apple may have some reasons to be discouraged by IBM:

- Slow to deliver higher performance processors. (i.e. April 2005 Power Mac)
- Slow to deliver cooler-temperature operating processors. (i.e. no G5 Powerbook)
- Went behind Apple's back and developed some high end processors for Microsoft's Xbox. (i.e. tri-core 3.2Ghz PowerPC, 1MB L2 Cache)
- May have a deal with Microsoft which gives them favored treatment in terms of processor shipments/fab allocation/etc

The question is - are these enough reasons to dump PowerPC for Intel? Who's to say Intel can't get involved in PowerPC?

This is just nuts.

1) Processor clock rate <> processor performance.
2) Have you looked at a non-laptop Intel chip in a while? You can cook yourself with a desktop if you get a >3.0GHz proc, let alone a dual. 110W a socket!! laptops are still at or around the speed of an iBook/PowerBook if you want long battery life.
3) That's just silly. If the 3.2GHz PowerPC was shipping today for the Xbox and not for Apple you might have a borderline leg to stand on but it's not shipping, and won't be for at least a year. And they're not the same chip at all.
4) The chip in the XBox <> PowerPC 970. IBM doesn't do 'favored nation' status for shipments at that level, you won't be a supplier long if you do that and the guvment might not take to keen of a view on it.

Who's to say Intel won't get involved with PowerPC? Intel... If they're not in on the ground floor with patents they're not going to get involved, See Infiniband vs. PCI-Express (AKA Future I/O and 3GIO) The first was IBM/Compaq/HP the Second was Intel and everyone who uses only Intel stuff (gateway/dell) before it got all hammered out in the late 90s early 2000s

[Peace]

i'm guessing this is simply a political move by apple, to push the folks at ibm to upgrade and deliver chips much faster. think part of the problem, though may also be a solution, is ibm is bogged down with making chips for ps3 and xbox360 as well. with both of those respective companies pushing ibm i'm sure, as there will be insane demand for those consoles. which in the long term, i think will be the solution to making better, faster, cheaper, cooler chips for apples needs as well.
In a different discussion here folks were saying that the PPC chip for the XBox were gonna be fabricated at different factories other than IBM so I cant see how IBM would be bogged down producing chips for the new XBox.That theroy doesnt fly..

[Trekkie]

Buffer overflows generally don't have anything to do with the CPU, except that like most CPUs the stack can be overwritten.

Usually the problem is in the OS, and specifically is due to having been written in C without any precautions to check buffer boundaries when fetching input from the user. A C++ operating system isn't likely to have buffer overflow vulnerabilities.

Uhm, actually there have been a recent articles (http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/04/29/2156236.shtml?tid=172&tid=118&tid=190&tid=4&tid=1) that it's inherent in the stack-order execution of the x86 architecture that more buffer overflows appear on Intel systems...The Execute disable features help but at the same time..

[Yvan256]

First SCSI -> IDE, then ADC -> DVI, and now PPC -> Intel???
Are they aiming to make a Wintel clone? :eek:
I hope this rumor is false.

That'd be more PPC->x86 instead of PPC->intel (as AMD and VIA both make x86 processors too).

If the rumor is true, I'd bet on intel going x86->PPC (not necessarily dumping x86, but starting to make PPC processors as well), as abrooks mentionned earlier.

And if that's true, with Microsoft entering the PPC arena with the Xbox 360, we get...

MIAMI

(Microsoft-Intel-Apple-Motorola-IBM) :D

[Frisco]

OS X for x86 is the best thing Apple can do, although they should have done it over 15 years ago! I just hope it's not too late.

Apple should get out of the computer hardware business and focus on the OS for x86. Please Apple don't make the same mistake by not licensing your OS. This really wouldn't fly in the PC world. "You can use OS X on x86, but only the ones made by Apple." That's not going to work. What will work is making OS X for those billion PCs already out there and Apple only making the OS.

Common guys Apple market-share is pathetic and this may be the only solution.

[Peace]

That'd be more PPC->x86 instead of PPC->intel (as AMD and VIA both make x86 processors too).

If the rumor is true, I'd bet on intel going x86->PPC (not necessarily dumping x86, but starting to make PPC processors as well), as abrooks mentionned earlier.

And if that's true, with Microsoft entering the PPC arena with the Xbox 360, we get...

MIAMI

(Microsoft-Intel-Apple-Motorola-IBM) :D

MAN! that sent scary goosebumps all over my body....

:eek:

[Trekkie]

I don't think Apple's above making the switch to a new chip manufacturer, though it might give their "switcher" campaign a little irony. :D

I'm not enough of a fanboy to have those all committed to memory but I don't remember Apple ever talking about how much the Intel processor sucked with that campaign, but just talked about how the Apple 'just works'

[SiliconAddict]

You are downright contradicting yourself here. So the Pentium M is fabulous whilst the G4 is pathetic? Let's look at the basics. WHY is the G4 exactly pathetic in your account and what exactly makes the Pentium M so great?
The operations per clock of a G4 are actually higher compared to the G5 due to it's shorter pipeline, just as a Pentium M performes better per clockcycle then the P4. and while it only has a slow 167 Mhz bus memory te Pentium operates on 4x100MHz, not 400 Mhz. Extra bandwith is nice but it doesnt solve the latency problem.Also in the G5 the memory latency seriously limits the fast FSB. Not much use to a fast bus when your memory is the real bottleneck.
This must be one of the most ridiculous and uninformed statements i have read on MR. Nowhere in your post did you come close to support such an opinion.


Dude grow a clue and take a look at benchmarks at barefeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html) comparing the M to the G4 PowerBook. The M smacks the living crap out of the G4. And that was before the M went 90nm and onboard 2MB cache, now with DDR2 RAM, PCI-Express, and an even faster FSB. If you extrapolate the benchmarks of the "increasing" speed of the G4 PowerBook with new Dothan Pentium M reviews you can see some disturbing results. Why do we have to extrapolate? Because strangely no further benchmarks happened after that first round. But lets not talk about that OK?

We are in G4 PowerMac mode right now for the PowerBooks:
-Its all about the OS.
-Anyone who states the obvious is an idiot.
-The system is fast "enough".
-If you don't support Apple you are an idiot.
-They dropped the price so everything is right in the world.
-They added feature x into the system which makes it so much better.
-Compared to a similarly speced laptop the PowerBook shines!

We've all heard it before. :rolleyes:

PS- Did I EVER mention a G5 in a PowerBook? Nope. I don't care if its a revamped G4 but the simple fact is at 1.67Ghz The PowerBook is getting soundly thrashed by a similarily speced Pentium M. But keep on talking trash because that is all you can do to support an aging platform.

[nomore]

This is definetely complete BS. You could leave the executables as they are. You would only have to adopt the interface for Aqua, thats it.

Its not new, Code Weaver does that for several Windows apps already, adopting them to run NATIVE under Linux, meaning keeping the executables and knit them to an X11-Gnome/KDE interface.

You're kind of right. A Win32 compatible API would have to exist within OS X... something like WINE.

[admanimal]

This is definetely complete BS. You could leave the executables as they are. You would only have to adopt the interface for Aqua, thats it.

Its not new, Code Weaver does that for several Windows apps already, adopting them to run NATIVE under Linux, meaning keeping the executables and knit them to an X11-Gnome/KDE interface.

You didn't say that a window would pop up asking if you wanted "several" of your windows apps ported to OS X, you said "all" of your windows apps.

The only practical way to perfectly emulate all Windows apps on OSX is to emulate Windows itself. Any other way, short of somehow porting all Windows libraries to OS X (this is what CodeWeaver/Wine does, on a small scale), is going to be a mess for many applications, especially ones that require access to specific hardware. Note I'm not saying the application's code needs to change...but there are tens of millions of lines of Windows code who's functionality has to somehow be reproduced in order for applications to all work perfectly. While certainly not impossible, it's a whole lot tougher than you think.

[~loserman~]

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.

I agree. They would make more money that way.

[alandail]

You didn't say that a window would pop up asking if you wanted "several" of your windows apps ported to OS X, you said "all" of your windows apps.

The only practical way to perfectly emulate all Windows apps on OSX is to emulate Windows itself. Any other way, short of somehow porting all Windows libraries to OS X, is going to be a mess for many applications, especially ones that require access to specific hardware. Note I'm not saying the application's code needs to change...but there are tens of millions of lines of Windows code who's functionality has to somehow be reproduced in order for applications to all work perfectly. While certainly not impossible, it's a whole lot tougher than you think.

you don't have to emulate windows, you can run windows in a window - like Virtual PC for Windows does.

[minimax]

AFAIK, the pipelines on G5 are roughly the same length as the pipelines on Athlon64 are.
Yes, but as I understand it, RISC is more suitable to pipelining compared to CISC as the instructions are roughly the same size with RISC. CISC was not designed for pipelining. My assumption was this will lead to more 'waste' with longer pipelines compared to RISC architecture but that's uninformed speculation from my hand.


Dualcore is a Good Thing (tm). You basically get multiprocessing on a single CPU. Why is it that after years of having multiprocessing on Apple-machines, it's considered a great thing. But now that on x86-side of the fence you can get that same thing with just one CPU, it's just "hype"? Why do I get the feeling that when Apple moves to dual-core, we will have bunch of extatic fanboys telling how great Apple is. But now that it's available on x86, and not on Apple, it's dismissed.

You won't hear that from my side. As I see it it's a crisis solution. No need for innovation if you can get almost twice the performance with hardly any effort. Just move responsibility over to software developers. But it is not the only option for better performance and it's possibile effect will run out for most applications after threads are split over two cores.




Cell has nothing to do with Apple CPU's. And Power5 is only vaguely related to G5.

As I said, there are good possibilities in these processors for Apple, and what do you mean with vagualy related? Is G5 also vaguely related to Power4? I'm just saying there are other options for PPC then multicore.

[FaasNat]

I'm not so concerned or caught up about the whole OS X on Intel thing. As long as it remains OS X.

Hmmm.... the one good thing I can see about the move to Intel is it may be easier to port those games over to OS X. If that's the case, I can do away with my Windows box.

[HelloKitty]

Few problems with this:

1. Apple has for years told people how x86 sucks and how PPC is better. How would they rationale mving from that "superior" CPU to the "crappy" CPU?

2. Why Intel? AMD has the better CPU's. Their dual-core solutions are better and more elegant, their CPU's run cooler, have more bandwidth and generally are faster than Intel's CPU's.

3. Moving to x86 would make it very difficult for Apple to do those "Apple vs. Intel/Dell"-comparisons ;).

Agree with you 100%. Apple won't be able to say that they're 200% (or whatever) faster than their PC rivals after they make the "switch", since there will be an AMD machine running faster.

Unless Intel is coming up with something big and is exclusively available to Apple, which really doesn't make sense to me. Who would sacrifice 95% of the market for the remaining 5%?..

Or..Intel is coming up with something VERY big that IBM won't be able to keep up, and Apple is forced to make the move.

Does anyone agree with me that if Apple can make Intel processors available on the iMac or Mini, it would actually be a good thing? I mean, in this case, Apple gets to provide higher performance in its consumer lineup with lower cost.