Really switching to Intel!!?? [Archive]

mklos

Jun 3, 2005, 08:39 PM

I don't see any significant proof of this anywhere. It does make any sense for Apple to make the switch. Apple has really pushed developers to make OSX PPC apps. Now that that they've done this, they have to turn around and re-make Mac apps for an X86 processor?

Now, consider this....

What if Intel made a PPC chip? Rumors if true, are usually only partially true. In other words, they were correct, but didn't quite get the rumor 100% correct. So if Intel designed a PPC processor for Apple (and possibly Sony and Microsoft down the road for their video game boxes) then this wouldn't be so much of a problem.

I'm pretty damn sure that Apple has a version Mac OS X.3 and probably Mac OS X.4 for an x86 processor. They might just need cleaning up, but I'm they're already to go and could probably even ship within the next month or two if absolutely needed.

I still think this is purely a rumor, and one that most likely isn't true. But, never underestimate Steve Jobs if you piss him off.....

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 08:46 PM

Yeah, I subscribe to C|Net and just got this article in my email. It's really scary that a relatively reputable site is posting stuff like this.

Now, consider this....

What if Intel made a PPC chip?

This is much more likely. I wouldn't mind at all if Apple did this. The competition might give IBM the nudge it needs to start developing faster.

brap

Jun 3, 2005, 08:54 PM

One can only hope that, if he is to announce an x86-based Mac at WWDC, Steve has a kevlar vest underneath that black sweater.

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 08:57 PM

Yes, it's true... :rolleyes:

That moron Dvorak announced Apple should do it 10 years ago, and I think he wrote tons of articles on it.

If you are this gullible... can I interest you in some genuine alien artifacts that I have morphed into rocks to hide them from the govt?

Only $100 and include a certificate of authenticity signed by Mork.

Tamer Brad

Jun 3, 2005, 08:58 PM

Yes, it's true... :rolleyes:

That moron Dvorak announced Apple should do it 10 years ago, and I think he wrote tons of articles on it.

If you are this gullible... can I interest you in some genuine alien artifacts that I have morphed into rocks to hide them from the govt?

This is completely uncalled for ... do you not realize what site this is? X_X

CubaTBird

Jun 3, 2005, 09:05 PM

yeah but it'll be customized x86 proc.. or at least i hope.. its not like u will be able to put tiger on ur chepo dell.. yet... :(

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 09:06 PM

This is completely uncalled for ... do you not realize what site this is? X_X

Chill. Life is sweet.

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 09:07 PM

This is completely uncalled for ... do you not realize what site this is? X_XYes, a site that often posts a bunch of crappy speculative Apple articles along with everyone else.

Doesn't make it true.

We got these same articles when Apple started purchasing a bunch of AMD MIPS chips.

There are a lot more likely reasons for Apple to buy Intel chips or to even work with Intel, including a switch from the current AMD MIPS units they have been using in Apple products for a number of years.

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 09:08 PM

There are a lot more likely reasons for Apple to buy Intel chips or to even work with Intel, including a switch from the current AMD x86 units the have been using in Apple products for a number of years.

I didn't know this. What do they use AMDs for?

Tamer Brad

Jun 3, 2005, 09:08 PM

Yes, a site that often posts a bunch of crappy speculative Apple articles along with everyone else.

Doesn't make it true.

We got these same articles when Apple started purchasing a bunch of AMD x86 chips.

There are a lot more likely reasons for Apple to buy Intel chips or to even work with Intel, including a switch from the current AMD x86 units the have been using in Apple products for a number of years.

I completely understand that the news could be fake, but I think acting like someone's an idiot for believing something from news.com is a bit too far ...

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 09:12 PM

I completely understand that the news could be fake, but I think acting like someone's an idiot for believing something from news.com is a bit too far ...Who did I call that...

I called people who fall for this gullible.

BTW, Dvorak is a moron (which is the general feeling around here about this scum sucking apple bashing writer).

Nermal

Jun 3, 2005, 09:13 PM

I didn't know this. What do they use AMDs for?

AirPort bases. I don't know whether they still do, but there are Extreme base stations out there with AMD chips in them.

*Y*

Jun 3, 2005, 09:13 PM

One can only hope that, if he is to announce an x86-based Mac at WWDC, Steve has a kevlar vest underneath that black sweater.

Thank you for making my day! :D

LimeiBook86

Jun 3, 2005, 09:14 PM

*holds pillow tight*

Is this really happening?!?! :eek:

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 09:15 PM

AirPort bases. I don't know whether they still do, but there are Extreme base stations out there with AMD chips in them.

Wow, cool thanks. So Intels in the Xserves and AMDs in the Airports.

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 09:18 PM

Now if they switched, would Macs be able to run any x86 app? If they could, then there's no need to optimize anything (except the OS itself) on the software side, right?

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 09:20 PM

Wow, cool thanks. So Intels in the Xserves and AMDs in the Airports.Looked again, it's a AMD 200/333 MHz MIPS risc unit in the base stations, some of the sites recently kept saying x86 -- so that stuck in my mind, I looked at the teardown to double check.

In general Intel would probably like to get Apple to switch to their competing unit.

dodonutter

Jun 3, 2005, 09:21 PM

Have a feeling there would be an uprising against jobs if he wanted to run OSX on x86 chips...correct me if im wrong but wouldn't that mean and tom dick or harry could slap OSX straight into there cheap dell box effectively bypassing the decision jobs made to not license Mac OS to other manufacturers?

emaja

Jun 3, 2005, 09:24 PM

Not to start an argument, but if is it all about the software, as we have told PC users for years, does it really matter if it runs on a Intel CPU?

I am not fan of Intel as I use only AMDs in my PCs, but if the rumors are true, then Apple will have a better supplier with more fab plants, more production capacity - and hopefully better prices. That should make Macs more affordable for everyone - and that is a good thing.

Really.

Daveway

Jun 3, 2005, 09:25 PM

At least I'll be on vacation Monday if this really does come to life.

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 09:44 PM

Not to start an argument, but if is it all about the software, as we have told PC users for years, does it really matter if it runs on a Intel CPU?Actually it isn't about the CPU, it's about development dollars and MicroSoft. Two things Apple doesn't want to mess with.

OS/2 died because it was darn easy for people in charge to cut OS/2 from development and put the money into Wintel, and not lose a customer -- at the time you could run Window apps in OS/2.

If Apple switches to Intel, they may find a mass exodus of development dollars... unless they announce a Cocoa-only for x86 initiative.

Heck they could even make it run Cocoa inside Windows, and not shoot themselves in the foot.

Moving the full Mac OS to Intel, will put them into direct competition with Windows -- which is a bad thing.

---

We'll see Monday, but these guys aren't generally the most accurate in the world when it comes to Apple scoops. :rolleyes:

nylon

Jun 3, 2005, 09:44 PM

I'm sorry for those who think this is a bad decision but unless IBM can deliver Apple needs to do this for its long term viability.

If (and a big 'IF') Apple migrates to Intel before Longhorn is released this would pose serious compteition to MS for the desktop platform. I think, as far as workstations are concerned, OSX is by far the superior product.

Going Intel does not mean that any x86 system will be able to Install OSX

Imagine Apple no longer a niche player but a real force with a Kick Ass OS that no one else has access to paying the same price for processors as Dell, HP etc.

Hmm what would I pick, Windows on Intel or OSX on Intel....!!!! (sarcasm intended).

I also see powerbook revisions being more likely to switch to centrino type platforms, there is no way that G5 is getting in a powerbook anytime soon.

This is going to be a long weekend for Mac fans.

Agathon

Jun 3, 2005, 09:49 PM

There's good reason to believe this. Someone from IBM basically confirmed to me a few weeks back that something like this was up.

Good riddance if it is true. IBM suck.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 3, 2005, 09:51 PM

I don't see the switch the Intel chips as a negative. Everyone complains of the lack of speed in the PPC chips. Apple could/should/would make an x86 box that is as closed as the PPC box is now, for the sake of system stability. They could do some sort of special chip that would not allow OS X to be bootable on anything other then an Apple box.

This may help also bridge the concerns switchers have about not being able to run Win apps. Plug-in a second drive, with Win Xp - and have a dual boot system.

A win-win if I ever heard of one.

absolut_mac

Jun 3, 2005, 09:52 PM

Found this ARTICLE (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=html.alert) claming they have recieved information stating Apple will announce a switch to intel on monday. I thought this was a rumor that was going to blow over like they have done before...are they really switching??

:eek: :confused: :confused: :confused: :eek:

If it was true it would have been posted by AppleInsider or Think Secret ages ago, especially considering their pretty accurate track record of late ;)

bosrs1

Jun 3, 2005, 09:52 PM

bosrs1

Jun 3, 2005, 09:52 PM

If it was true it would have been posted by AppleInsider or Think Secret ages ago, especially considering their pretty accurate track record of late ;)
You've got to be kidding me. Because Apple Insider doesn't have it you don't believe it?

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 09:53 PM

Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

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

OK, we knew what PowerPC CPUs were in the next gen (603/604) after the 601 -- but Apple has been tight lipped since then and has avoided public announcements.

If they were really doing it, they'd dump a x86 machine on the market and make it emulate a PowerPC until the developers recompile.

They wouldn't tell us they'll be switching to x86 next year, and kill sales for the next 2 years.

Phatpat

Jun 3, 2005, 09:55 PM

I'd be all up for Apple going with AMD, but Intel? They're just too much of a behemoth of a company.

bosrs1

Jun 3, 2005, 09:57 PM

bosrs1

Jun 3, 2005, 09:58 PM

I'd be all up for Apple going with AMD, but Intel? They're just too much of a behemoth of a company.
And IBM isn't :confused:

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 09:58 PM

I'd be all up for Apple going with AMD, but Intel? They're just too much of a behemoth of a company.
If Intel will be manufacturing PowerPC chips, then why not go with the 87% share holder? Sure beats risking partnering with AMD and having it go down the drain like IBM.

CubaTBird

Jun 3, 2005, 10:01 PM

hell must have really frozen over now...

jeremy.king

Jun 3, 2005, 10:01 PM

What if Intel made a PPC chip?

This seems more plausible than x86 and intriguing. If Apple can go from Moto to IBM (or more acurately AIM), why not from IBM/AIM to Intel?

Now imagine the debate if it truly was an x86 conversion - no more Mhz myth - wouldn't that be weird? I wouldn't mind if in the end it means faster machines over a shorter period of time with no additional cost, but I wish it was AMD winning out instead...

absolut_mac

Jun 3, 2005, 10:02 PM

You've got to be kidding me. Because Apple Insider doesn't have it you don't believe it?

Hey, don't take the rumor sites too seriously. I don't :)

As for the switch itself, it doesn't seem to make sense to my limited knowledge of these things for two reasons.

1) IBM has some very exciting developments coming down the pike - cell processors, 45 nano wafers, Sony, MS and Nintendo all using IBM for their game boxes etc.

2) Intel seems to have hit a wall, both in terms of more gigs (read speed) and new and improved CPU architecture.

Just my 2c's worth.

runninmac

Jun 3, 2005, 10:03 PM

Dahh... I can't belive it... OMG

Frisco

Jun 3, 2005, 10:04 PM

It's 100% true. Get used to it!

sonyrules

Jun 3, 2005, 10:04 PM

I dont like this idea at all...

So they do go to intel, Whats going to happen to all the PPC pased macs now?? Apple and all the other devolpers are not going to write 2 verisions of code for out dating and current machines. I HOPE TO GOD INTEL IS GOT PPC IN MIND.

greenfluke

Jun 3, 2005, 10:04 PM

It's True, even Otellini the new Intel CEO said to buy Macs the other day, no one could understand what he was saying, but now we do.

This is a good thing really :)

Otellini Says to Buy Apple (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26/otellini_buy_apple/)

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 10:06 PM

And I just bought a iMac. I knew I shouldn't have chosen an all-in-one. :(

stubeeef

Jun 3, 2005, 10:06 PM

The only constant is change.
I really couldn't care less who makes the parts, as long as it is not prison or child labor, it is secure, reliable, and cost effecient.

riversky

Jun 3, 2005, 10:07 PM

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 10:07 PM

And I just bought a iMac. I knew I shouldn't have chosen an all-in-one. :(
Well, I just got a PM. How am I better off than you? :(

VanNess

Jun 3, 2005, 10:07 PM

One thing upon skimming Cnet's article that strikes me as a little (no pun intended) odd is the reference to the Mac mini being Apple's first "Intel inside" box.

If there are insurmountable performance issues that exist for the G5 compared to an Intel variant (by and large imperceptible for most installations as of now) then why wouldn't high end Powermacs be the first to get the alleged "power?" Or for that matter, what about the G5 challenged laptop line?

And if there are insurmountable supply issues that exist, the Mac mini uses Freescale's G4, which hasn't been cited for supply issues and has more than enough power for it's intended users.

And Apple is just emerging from the "major" OS "transition" as Jobs likes to point out. A rare event in the computing world, and Apple has publicly kissed the developers for sticking by them through the the ups and downs of software development coding and updating to get OS X to where it is today. The just released Tiger throws in a few more curves (core technologies; image, video, data) for developers to digest. Now it's do it all over again soon for the new CPU's?

I smell...something fishy lol.

Sirus The Virus

Jun 3, 2005, 10:08 PM

This could be true. I bet that Intel is making a mobile PPC chip for new Apple Powerbooks. This makes perfect sense to me, because Intel makes probably the best mobile chips... or the most efficient chips. But, I dunno. Thats my best guess, there is no way that Apple would move to x86. But the Eagles said that they would never get back together until "Hell freezes over", and they did get back together. Apparently, hell has frozen over before. This is going to be an interesting week to say the least.

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 10:09 PM

Well, I just got a PM. How am I better off than you? :(

My screen is now redundant too. Wo is me! :(

I think I'll just throw it out the window now and save me some time later.

~Shard~

Jun 3, 2005, 10:10 PM

I honestly didn't think anything would come out of this Intel-Apple rumor, but now it seems to be more credible. If an announcement is going to be mad eon the subject, it'll be at WWDC on Monday so we won't have long to wait to find out....

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 10:10 PM

My screen is now redundant too. Wo is me! :(

I think I'll just throw it out the window now and save me some time later.
And my monitor is a Dell, oh how ironic :(

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 10:11 PM

Can see Cocoa x86 -- which was announced for Mac OS X, but never delivered.

Monday would be a good time to do it.

But Cocoa isn't Mac OS X, but it's a lot farther towards that goal than Darwin for x86.

But to switch to x86 when MS and Sony are heavily into PowerPC, and the future of the PowerPC architecture looks awsome -- is insane.

Of course it's would be the first time cnets sources were articles from other papers.

magi.sys

Jun 3, 2005, 10:11 PM

Well, it this is true it's a sad day for Apple. I'll be making the move to OpenSolaris or Linux.

daveL

Jun 3, 2005, 10:11 PM

You have to ask yourself when the last time Apple made an announcement this far in advance.

OK, we knew what PowerPC CPUs were in the next gen (603/604) after the 601 -- but Apple has been tight lipped since then and has avoided public announcements.

If they were really doing it, they'd dump a x86 machine on the market and make it emulate a PowerPC until the developers recompile.

They wouldn't tell us they'll be switching to x86 next year, and kill sales for the next 2 years.
I'm sitting here, with my DP G5, thinking my investment just became worth zero. With this announced so far in advance, and the uncertainty of what it would mean for application support going forward, who would want to buy a PPC Mac? You could be spending a lot of money on a white elephant. As far as the x86 based machines in the future, how do you know developers will want to port their apps? I just don't think Apple has the market share to pull something like this off. I really can't see this being a good move for Apple for the sake of a minor performance penalty with PPC currently (most obvious with the laptop line, IMO). I just don't see the risk/reward here, at all. Apple has bumped up their Mac shipments some 40% or so in recent quarters and then to go out and do something like switching to x86? It does not make business sense. The only thing that *might* make sense is if Apple goes x86 on the consumer line, where nearly 100% of the apps come from Apple themselves, but even that's a big maybe. I really don't want this to be true.

kirk26

Jun 3, 2005, 10:12 PM

Oh please, oh please let it be true! I'm getting goose bumps thinking about it!

cbcarbaj

Jun 3, 2005, 10:13 PM

I just spoke to a friend that works at Intel. Intel does not have the IP not IP licensing to make PPC.

Apple is going to Intel x86

kirk26

Jun 3, 2005, 10:13 PM

Well, it this is true it's a sad day for Apple. I'll be making the move to OpenSolaris or Linux.

Goodbye, you won't be missed. :D

obeygiant

Jun 3, 2005, 10:13 PM

does this mean we have to listen to the infamous "dun dun dan dun"
at the end of every Apple commercial?

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 10:13 PM

Well, one thing's for sure, Steve's got a lot of explaining to do on Monday..

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 10:14 PM

Steve Jobs hates the reds (communists) thats why he made the video 1984. IBM is in bed with them. They are partners with Lenovo which is owned partly by the chinese govt. Steve will be damned if he is going to let the new Russia (China) make chips for his systems. He is going all american here and going with intel.

Now Jobs can kick out systems with Dothan chips that run for 9 hrs and cool as ice in the powerbooks and with dual core too. On top of that if IT staff could put osx on their existing server and workstation boxes they would do it in a heartbeat. The world is about to change here folks, and it will be overnight.

This will be exciting.....

samh004

Jun 3, 2005, 10:14 PM

As others have mentioned, how would this not kill sales for the next few years ? and what happens to support for older computers, sure some of them need little cracks to get tiger running now, but when the OS is recompiled I don't think anything will be able to get them to run.

I think this is too much myself, but I'll wait eagerly till Tuesday (Monday in the US) to find out what's happening.

berkleeboy210

Jun 3, 2005, 10:14 PM

This is when I wish we had Time Machines

BWhaler

Jun 3, 2005, 10:14 PM

For some reason, I don't want this to be true. I don't know why, I just don't like or trust Intel. (Not that IBM is a bunch of good guys.)

I suspect the problem is the laptops. 50% of Apple's line has nowhere to go. Intel announced dual core laptop chips by next year.

It would be great if Steve negated the rumor on Monday for no other reason than to embarrass C|Net. Those assbags have hammered Apple forever since they are a shill for Dell/HP/Microsoft. And like a true, fair weather friend, they got all nice and cozy with Apple after the iPod success.

Apple doesn't need friends like that. And I hope C|Net gets massive egg on their face.

Of course, if it is true, IBM brought it on themselves. No one messes with Jobs.

BWhaler

Jun 3, 2005, 10:16 PM

I wonder...

if there is a ton of negotiating with IBM going on over the weekend, CEO to CEO, and Apple used C|Net to put real heat on IBM.

It would make sense to use C|Net. Slightly credible, but because they are not a friend to Apple, Jobs would have no problem screwing them over.

stubeeef

Jun 3, 2005, 10:17 PM

Now should I stop buying software?

Cause I don't want to buy any that won't port over, or I won't get a voucher for the change over.

mj_1903

Jun 3, 2005, 10:17 PM

It wont happen.

For a start it will be a developer nightmare. Picture this: "which version of the Mac mini are you running? the PPC or the x86?". How many users can answer that question let alone tell me what type of Mac they have?

Secondly Apple have spent millions working on GCC to make Altivec and PPC code generation better. They have also spent millions making FCP, Motion and other high end apps work really well with the PPC processors. To force entire teams to rework their applications and potentially slow them down while of course introducing bugs is not a way of keeping your applications ahead of the market.

Finally they would need to give developers a large lead time before they release the machines. Mac sales however will plummet until the x86 version is released which would really hurt Apple, more than slow G5 clock speeds are doing now.

Monday will come and go. There will be a few announcements but the Mac world will still be the same.

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 3, 2005, 10:18 PM

Mac People need to wake up and look at the ppc history, its sucked the past 5 years and apple has had to use two cpu's when the otherguys use one. The G5 is nice but it has a few hiccups and it hasnt really matched Intel or AMD unless again you use two vs one. Now that Dual core Intel and AMDs are coming what is apple going to do try to push 4 cpu's vs 2? Look at Imac, does anyone think that the single G5 can come close to a Intel or my Fav the AMD?? PPC has been overblown and hasnt matched the otherside for years. This could be true but would still get a WOW out of me. Id rather see OSX for Pc's rather then a Intel inside a Mac but like others have said perhaps Apple is looking for someone else to make those stale PPC chips. Anyways one thing is very clear and that is lots of problems with qty and lots of problems making them go faster. Going to Liquid cooling couldnt have been what steve wanted.

Hiroshige

Jun 3, 2005, 10:18 PM

samh004

Jun 3, 2005, 10:19 PM

But to switch to x86 when MS and Sony are heavily into PowerPC, and the future of the PowerPC architecture looks awsome -- is insane.

There's a good point, if M$ and sony are both using the PPC or a chip based on the PPC in their upcoming consoles then it can't be all that bad.

BWhaler

Jun 3, 2005, 10:19 PM

Josh396

Jun 3, 2005, 10:19 PM

What if Intel made a PPC chip? Rumors if true, are usually only partially true. In other words, they were correct, but didn't quite get the rumor 100% correct. So if Intel designed a PPC processor for Apple (and possibly Sony and Microsoft down the road for their video game boxes) then this wouldn't be so much of a problem.

I'm pretty damn sure that Apple has a version Mac OS X.3 and probably Mac OS X.4 for an x86 processor. They might just need cleaning up, but I'm they're already to go and could probably even ship within the next month or two if absolutely needed.

I still think this is purely a rumor, and one that most likely isn't true. But, never underestimate Steve Jobs if you piss him off.....
I couldn't agree anymore. When I first heard the rumor of Apple switching to Intel chips this is what I thought of. Switching to x86 chips would cause mass chaos, while staying with PowerPC chips from a different manufacturer wouldn't be a big deal especially if they were faster.

Another thing is how quiet the rumor mill has been for WWDC up until now. An announcement such as this would be huge for Apple, Microsoft, Intel and software developers. My guess is that if this is indeed true Apple has made sure to keep it quiet for the surprise it would bring. Although I would think if IBM had heard this they would try to make it public.

One question that comes to mind is what about the 970MP? IBM had published reports on it saying it had been developed. Either Apple likes Intel's dual core chip more (possible), the 970MP is not as good as first thought (unlikely), or this rumor is just way off (possible).

Then what about switching to Mac mini's first? I would think that Apple would introduce them into Pro lines first because the whole reason for switching to Intel would be for faster chips.

The more I think about it the more unlikely it seems.

DHagan4755

Jun 3, 2005, 10:20 PM

Here's the flip side of the coin... Read this story just out.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp

Sirus The Virus

Jun 3, 2005, 10:22 PM

Well, it this is true it's a sad day for Apple. I'll be making the move to OpenSolaris or Linux.
So would choose OpenSolaris or Linux over OS X? Are you serious?

Josh396

Jun 3, 2005, 10:22 PM

I suspect the problem is the laptops. 50% of Apple's line has nowhere to go. Intel announced dual core laptop chips by next year.

While this is true the dual core chip from Freescale could possibly be ready by the same time. It's still possible but I would think Apple would just wait even a few months longer for Freescale's chips.

aussie_geek

Jun 3, 2005, 10:23 PM

Maybe intel & Apple are thinking of a new processor for a new type of Mac. The story from CNET says that Apple is going to move 'low end' computers to the intel platform. A tablet Mac would be a 'low end' computer wouldn't it? ;)

The OS on a tablet Mac would not be be a fully fledged version of OSX - more of a cut down version like Windows CE. The tablet PC market is a niche market with specific software, optimized for a tablet situation.

If Apple was to make a tablet Mac, fair enough it would look better than everything else out there but what programs would be available for it at release date - none.

A tablet Mac with a modified version of the OSX GUI than can run PPC apps and the existing Windows CE programs would sell like hotcakes.

aussie_geek

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 10:24 PM

Here's the flip side of the coin... Read this story just out.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp
WOW, this is turning into the battle of the century!!

calyxman

Jun 3, 2005, 10:24 PM

This is why. Intel's new dual core mobiles will allow 8 hours of battery on the same hardware as today, will be wickedly fast and have WiFi built in. 2mb cache on the cores....Look IBM doesn't even have a G5 roadmap. Everything is speculation. They can't even get Apple to G5 at 3ghz in two years!!!! but can get MS Xbox to 3.2ghz. I think Jobs is both pissed and wants to move OS X to a global platform for growth and focus on software and media and NOT the hardware.....

Well see but it will be big news, and the fact that IBM hasn't denied it for stock moves purposes is the tell tale sign that they know what's up....

OS X software will be easy to port because FreeBSD runs on X86 anyways so it is very, very, easy to port and older software with the Intel Dual Cores can run an emulator program very effectively!

It will be a good move long term.

You're right on.

People need to realize, if IBM can't deliver, Apple can't deliver. Not a good scenario to have to deal with.

I say this will be happening because of the overall support Apple will be getting from Intel, dual core technology, and as a way to finally boost the performance of the Powerbooks without worrying about power consumption and heat issues.

It's coming guys. Don't wait around denying it.

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 10:25 PM

Lenovo is not capable of making current G4 or G5 class chips. No Chinese company is or is even within striking distance.

Maybe you should read my post again. IBM makes the chips, IBM is partners with Lenovo, Lenovo is partly owned by the chinese govt.

IBM=Lenovo=China=ENEMY

so

IBM=ENEMY

But heah thats not my personal view, its just what I read so no bombs at my house please. :)

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:25 PM

Hey, don't take the rumor sites too seriously. I don't :)

As for the switch itself, it doesn't seem to make sense to my limited knowledge of these things for two reasons.

1) IBM has some very exciting developments coming down the pike - cell processors, 45 nano wafers, Sony, MS and Nintendo all using IBM for their game boxes etc.

2) Intel seems to have hit a wall, both in terms of more gigs (read speed) and new and improved CPU architecture.

Just my 2c's worth.

I expect Steve Jobs has thrown a massive tantrum that the Xbox and PS3 will be gettting far, far better chips far earlier than Apple.

Intel hasn't hit a wall at all. Their Pentium-M architecture is absolutely incredible.

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 10:26 PM

ummm...maybe you didn't notice, but Apple products are made in China.

Nice try, though.

BLAST... Thats right! :p

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 10:27 PM

Apple could also be contracting Intel to supply the service processors and SMUs.

Since the PowerMac G5s are so complex they require a third CPU to perform a POR.

njmac

Jun 3, 2005, 10:28 PM

I know market share is important to attract developers to OS X but I like Apple being a niche market. It would be great if Apple had 6% market share.

wnurse

Jun 3, 2005, 10:28 PM

There's good reason to believe this. Someone from IBM basically confirmed to me a few weeks back that something like this was up.

Good riddance if it is true. IBM suck.

Curious, First motorola, then IBM had problems rapidly increasing the speed of RISC chips. Has anyone ever thought of the complexity of RISC chips means that development times are longer. Secondly, Apple is a small customer. It's extremely difficult for them to dictate the pace of innovation from a chip company. The faster the pace of innovation, the costlier it is. Intel can afford rapid innovation because of volume.

Hiroshige

Jun 3, 2005, 10:29 PM

That eWeek article says,

"Apple could also adopt a multicore G4 derivative from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., once the chip arm of Motorola Inc., for its portables, Krewell said.

"That's still a 2006 thing … and it's designed for the network world," he said. "It would require some modifications. But it's doable."" :mad:

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 3, 2005, 10:30 PM

I know market share is important to attract developers to OS X but I like Apple being a niche market. It would be great if Apple had 6% market share.I can remember when it was closer to 20% :eek:

shadowx

Jun 3, 2005, 10:30 PM

Lenovo is not capable of making current G4 or G5 class chips. No Chinese company is or is even within striking distance.

Your right... but Lenovo bought IBM's PC business, NOT it's chip business!

-Jeff

Jun 3, 2005, 10:31 PM

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:31 PM

Here's the flip side of the coin... Read this story just out.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp

Doesn't make sense at all. We would of heard about dual-core CPUs from IBM by now if it'd been true.

Not only that, it's by 'analysts' (read: Wall St slickers who really don't have a clue and publish stuff like this and reap the profits off the stock price moves that occur because of this).

CNet is an extremely credible source. They would not publish this without either being hacked or being extremely mislead. You don't put 'Apple will be dropping IBM and replacing it with Intel' if you are not 99.5% confident it will happen -- you'd word it much more eloquently.

You guys need to remember you all booed the screenshots of Tiger and they turned out to be 100% true.

Considering that there has been absolutely nothing from ThinkSecret or AppleInsider really about WWDC (usually a hotbed of rumors about now), I think it's likely that at least ThinkSecret has been paid off on this one, or scared ****less.

vouder17

Jun 3, 2005, 10:31 PM

look my opinion is that i truly want apple to be the best computer company that it is...If IBM and Motorola cant help well then F$£@ them. i have no problem with Apple taking Intel...in My opinion it is a good move...Go apple!!

evolutioneight

Jun 3, 2005, 10:31 PM

Does anyone here actually want that crummy "intel inside" sticker on their mac?

I DIDN'T THINK SO

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 10:32 PM

You know what I think of that makes me laugh my ass off is when Apple first anounced the G5 they showed IBM's multi-Billion dollar fab facility that is there to just make G5 chips for Apple. It was so hi-tech. So after all that construction all they can kick out 2 yrs later is a 2.7ghz G5? That is sooo funny.

I can see the lead Scientist at the IBM fab plant sitting in his chair at home watching the G5 introduction and the camera shots of the fab plant and just shaking his head at their stupidity. No company ever listens to the smartest guy in the office, they are usually anti-social and weird.

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 3, 2005, 10:33 PM

I remember seeing the Intel executive talking and he was saying he and Jobs had been friends for years and where golf buddies. A lot of business gets done on the golf course. ;)

Hiroshige

Jun 3, 2005, 10:33 PM

Maybe you should read my post again. IBM makes the chips, IBM is partners with Lenovo, Lenovo is partly owned by the chinese govt.

IBM=Lenovo=China=ENEMY

so

IBM=ENEMY

But heah thats not my personal view, its just what I read so no bombs at my house please. :)

It is my understanding that Lenovo bought IBM's PC business.
They are going to be producing low-priced commodity PCs.
This is not really hi-tech stuff. It is high volume, low margin.

Anyway, the more they participate in the capitalist economy, the less Red they become.

areyouwishing

Jun 3, 2005, 10:34 PM

mapple_snac

Jun 3, 2005, 10:35 PM

daveL

Jun 3, 2005, 10:36 PM

Here's the flip side of the coin... Read this story just out.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp
I think the C|Net story is just smoke and mirrors. I guess that's one way to control the rumor mill: leak multiple, contradicting streams of information.

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 10:36 PM

Doesn't make sense at all. We would of heard about dual-core CPUs from IBM by now if it'd been true.

Not only that, it's by 'analysts' (read: Wall St slickers who really don't have a clue and publish stuff like this and reap the profits off the stock price moves that occur because of this).

CNet is an extremely credible source. They would not publish this without either being hacked or being extremely mislead. You don't put 'Apple will be dropping IBM and replacing it with Intel' if you are not 99.5% confident it will happen -- you'd word it much more eloquently.

You guys need to remember you all booed the screenshots of Tiger and they turned out to be 100% true.

Considering that there has been absolutely nothing from ThinkSecret or AppleInsider really about WWDC (usually a hotbed of rumors about now), I think it's likely that at least ThinkSecret has been paid off on this one, or scared ********.CNet has been know to keep up with the speculation -- it's all part of the Wallstreet game.

However Apple has been pulling 180s recently.

They've shaken up years of entrenched momentum lately with the shuffle and mini.

It's possible, and also unlikely at the same time considering what stuff IBM and Freescale are working on in the PPC arena.

---

But at least this story will either come true or create a yolky substance on the writers face as early as next week.

So it's not like we are looking at months of torture.

zakatov

Jun 3, 2005, 10:36 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a way of finding out about a mole. There are just way too many drawbacks to this news item. The only way I could see it is if Steve has a REALLY hurt ego by all this PowerPC for games business.
That could explain why noone else (read: people who know Apple) is running this story: it's just too far-fetched.

Yes, i'm in denial

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 3, 2005, 10:38 PM

Has anyone thought about how this would affect Apple's machine based sales? If Apple did make an OSX for Intel boxes wouldn't that be shooting itself in the foot as far as hardware based sales are concerned? With Intel boxes being a hec of a lot cheaper than most Apple boxes, why would someone spend considerable money on an Apple machine when you can get the same functionality on a cheaper Intel box?

I hope this rumour isn't true. If it is, do we stand to lose that love/hate relationship we have with Windows users? I like being part of a semi-elite clan! ;-)Fact of the matter is 3% marketshare, anyone else would have been out of business but not Apple. Steve has had it with Crappy Cpu makers like IBM and Motorola. Apple could double marketshare in a year just by offering alternatives to Windows for the Pc. 3% is 3% :(

Wonder Boy

Jun 3, 2005, 10:38 PM

does this mean we have to listen to the infamous "dun dun dan dun"
at the end of every Apple commercial?

HA! what apple commercials!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Daveway

Jun 3, 2005, 10:39 PM

Does anyone here actually want that crummy "intel inside" sticker on their mac?

I DIDN'T THINK SO

It's NOT about the company who makes the chip. You would not see an Intel sticker on your Mac.

Face it. You use a Mac...as in Macintosh the software. When you use your computer do honestly ponder on what company made the CPU?

I'm just as upset as the next guy on this news, but if it means do or die for Apple I'm all for it.
If you are so damn stubburn about a CPU company then maybe your interests are not in the well being of Apple.

zv470

Jun 3, 2005, 10:39 PM

ok...

ready...

steady...

go...

Let the Powerbook Itanium5 rumours commence ;)

blumie607

Jun 3, 2005, 10:39 PM

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994

Is it just me, or is there something wrong here? Didn't Apple get most of the PPC processors from Motorola (now Freescale)? Wasn't the G5 the first chip that was from IBM?

If that is true, then maybe it partially discredits the source. CNET always likes trying to find "iPod killers" and the like so maybe they are just having a little fun. Well, I guess we'll all have to wait 2-3 more days to find out from el Steve.

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:40 PM

MacNeXT

Jun 3, 2005, 10:40 PM

Great, I hope it's true. Defending PowerPC becomes more difficult every day. I think it's brave of Apple to take the plunge. I don't care for PPC, I support the move.

It's becoming evident that Jobs pushes Apple to the direction he wanted and hoped to go with NeXT. He has pulled of a huge and very similar CPU transition before (Motorola 680x0 > Intel, Sun, HPPA), and it was technically flawless. If it weren't for a huge pile of legacy Carbon apps (Office!), I'd say kill Carbon while you're at it. Carbon will significalty complicate the transition, but we have seen that emulation can work.

Exciting :D

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 10:40 PM

You know its not out of the question for apple to make OSX for RISC and INTEL at the same time. Microsoft did it for NT, they dropped it because nobody bought the RISC version. If apple made OSX for INTEL it would sell like hotcakes. Lets face it, there is 1000 times more money in software sales than there are in Computer sales. Computer sales require helpdesk, warranty repair, research, etc etc etc... Hell IBM sold their PC business because it was a money making LOSER.

Personally I have done both businesses myself. I lost my ass in the computer business but made a killing in the software business. Its simple math.

zv470

Jun 3, 2005, 10:41 PM

Is it just me, or is there something wrong here? Didn't Apple get most of the PPC processors from Motorola (now Freescale)? Wasn't the G5 the first chip that was from IBM?

I noticed that too. :rolleyes: :D

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:41 PM

I think the C|Net story is just smoke and mirrors. I guess that's one way to control the rumor mill: leak multiple, contradicting streams of information.
"Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned."

How on earth is that smoke and mirrors?!?!?!

Seriously, get a grip -- it's only a damn computer. Which will be better with Intel under the hood vs IBM.

areyouwishing

Jun 3, 2005, 10:41 PM

In other news, Lord Voldemort and Anikan Skywalker have decided to take over the universe.

daveL

Jun 3, 2005, 10:41 PM

Is it just me, or is there something wrong here? Didn't Apple get most of the PPC processors from Motorola (now Freescale)? Wasn't the G5 the first chip that was from IBM?

If that is true, then maybe it partially discredits the source. CNET always likes trying to find "iPod killers" and the like so maybe they are just having a little fun. Well, I guess we'll all have to wait 2-3 more days to find out from el Steve.
IBM=G3

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:44 PM

rendezvouscp

Jun 3, 2005, 10:45 PM

daveL

Jun 3, 2005, 10:46 PM

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

How on earth is that smoke and mirrors?!?!?!

Seriously, get a grip -- it's only a damn computer. Which will be better with Intel under the hood vs IBM.
I'm thinking of software investment and support, as well as what the uncertainty will do to Apple during the transition. So, why don't *you* get a grip -- it's only damn *money*. And, BTW, Intel CPUs suck. I guess you haven't noticed that all the next gen game consoles went with IBM/PPC, not Intel. Cat got your tongue?

iMeowbot

Jun 3, 2005, 10:50 PM

*holds pillow tight*

Is this really happening?!?! :eek:

I did happen to notice that the session descriptions for WWDC this year seem different. I don't see the usual glowing mentions (or really any mentions) of PowerPC, G5, Velocity Engine and so on. Even the 64 bit migration tracks don't mention G5. It's odd.

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 10:51 PM

The Pentium M, it was just announced this week, is going dual-core this year. Could this mean a 2+GHz, G5-class, dual-core PowerBook? Am I the only one who really loves the idea of Apple moving to Intel?

I've been a Mac user since the Mac Plus in the late 80's, and haven't looked forward to a new machine this much since the last processor switch with the (now obviously failed) promise of the PowerPC.

Apple+Intel=Powerful Simplicity.

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 10:51 PM

Laurent

Jun 3, 2005, 10:51 PM

I KNEW IT! IN YOUR FACE! :eek:

jcgerm

Jun 3, 2005, 10:51 PM

What Mac-only applications are out there? I know Apple has a ton of them, but I can't think of any third-party apps that are Mac-only. If they move to x86 processor architecture, the PC versions (x86) of existing applications would be easy to run because they are compiled for x86, correct?

If that were the case, Apple would not loose their own software developers because of the transition, so no Mac-only applications would be in jeopardy.

...And it could open up the PC only apps (and viruses, unfortunately) to the Mac platform.

There are a lot of people on these boards that are smarter than I am. Does this theory hold water?

I think you're a little confused. Moving to x86 means a change at the assembly level as far as code goes. The executable format would most likely still stay the same. It's just that existing OS X apps would have to be recompiled because of the architecture change.

Windows, Linux, and OS X all have different executable formats and that is what really matters when it comes to "Mac-only" apps. So, it wouldn't open up the system to any new viruses. It really wouldn't mean much of a change to the average consumer besides having to get x86 versions of all of your apps.

So what really makes the difference is the OS. The switch would also mean that many, many more Linux distros would run on Macs and possibly windows as well. I think it would be a very positive switch.

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:52 PM

I'm thinking of software investment and support, as well as what the uncertainty will do to Apple during the transition. So, why don't *you* get a grip -- it's only damn *money*. And, BTW, Intel CPUs suck. I guess you haven't noticed that all the next gen game consoles went with IBM/PPC, not Intel. Cat got your tongue?

Sorry, that's ridiculous. Choosing PowerPC for the games consoles vs Intel is a no-brainer because a games console simply plays games, it doesn't need many of the features that a full, normal CPU would use.

And most importantly, IBM/Toshiba etc are willing to _license_ their CPU design and let MS and Sony fab it themselves. Intel weren't, so IBM won.

Intel's CPUs are very good because they are mass produced, cheap in volume, and not only that they come with a proverbial ******** of motherboard chipsets, compatible graphics cards, sound chipsets, North and Southbridges.

Not only that the Pentium-M CPU is incredibly good in terms of power consumption, which means 10 hour laptops are being made now.

swissmann

Jun 3, 2005, 10:52 PM

So if they switched to an intel chip in it's current form wouldn't every bit of software from all companies have to be rewritten? This sounds like a nightmare transition.

funkywhat2

Jun 3, 2005, 10:54 PM

A lot of people here are complaining about things like recompiling software and making current hardware obsolete and such, but you all have to go back in time and remember the original transition to the PowerPC platform.

Back in the glory days of beige boxes and six-color apples, Mac users has a nifty little series of processors based on the 68000. And Mac users loved their old LCIIs and PowerbookDuos based on these great processors.

Seeing the end of the 68K, Apple switched to the PowerPC class of porcessors. They were in some of the fastest desktop computers in the world at the time and could give Apple the performance boost it needed to continue riding to early 90s PC revolution. The only problem was that developers were going to have to port their software over in order for it to run on the new system natively. This would require a significant investment in new software by all customers and the last thing Apple wanted to do was screw every loyal Mac user. So a compatiblity layer was done in (what I believe was mostly) software, allowing apps for the 68K and PPC systems to sun side by side seamlessly with no special configuration by the user. Things still ran perfectly, as they do today on PowerPC based systems running even MacOS 9.

Now something tells me that Apple isn't looking to screw everyone. It's a company, it's not there to screw customers, employees and shareholders. Apple needs to make money. This would be a seamless transition thanks to the wonderful emulation software that Apple always seems to be able to come up with (such as in the 68K case and the colored boxes in all the Rhapsody developer releases).

This can only be a good thing for Apple. The x86 platform has just as much up on PPC as PPC has on x86. Granted, Apple won't be as cool as it was since all of us Mac freaks won't be able to argue the advantages we have in architecture and we won't be able the pull the copy of Jon Rubenstein's speech at MacWorld about the megahertz myth, but it's a wonderful way to expand the use of the platform in business circles as well as to lower prices (great for everyone, a bigger userbase can only be good as long as Apple maintains software and hardware configuration control).

We all need to calm down and look at this from a historical prospective. It's a transition Apple has made before and can easily make again. Intel isn't the great satan - it's actually a very good company with a lot of backing in the industry. The only thing better for Apple would be if Microsoft killed Windows and took them over.

DavidCar

Jun 3, 2005, 10:54 PM

My main concern is what such an announcement would do to Apple PowerPC hardware prices in the near term. I may be weeks away from buying a new computer I can't really afford.

Rocksaurus

Jun 3, 2005, 10:55 PM

First off I'm mixed about this report... I don't think it will happen but I haven't decided whether or not I want it to. The thing that puts me in favor of it is picturing myself handing my OS X CD to one of my friends and having him install it on his PC that just died due to Windows' ineptitude...

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:55 PM

pop quiz...

What runs fast on an intel box?
a.) Windows
b.) Linux

Answer: b. Linux

OSX is going to smoke the hell out of Microsoft on an intel box. Also it puts Microsofts Virtual PC for mac out of business.

I think its a great move as long as we are not subjected to PC viruses. If we are I say it then SUCKS.

I guess you didn't read the Anandtech article which shows how poor OSX is in terms of speed for many things? It was so bad they had to put Linux on the G5's they were testing to get a good comparision vs x86...

-Jeff

Jun 3, 2005, 10:55 PM

No. The problem isn't the fact that they are x86, it's because they use all the Windows APIs.

Thanks for the reply, aldo.

So, would it be any easier to port a windows application to OS X on x86 vs. porting it to OSX on PPC?

codecrafter

Jun 3, 2005, 10:56 PM

I don't know if this is true, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. I don't understand why so many folks think this would be such a hardship on developers. I doubt many MacOS X applications are written in PPC assembly or have some dependence on the PPC ISA. In fact, MacOS X application bundles can contain executables for multiple ISAs. Developers can easily distribute executables for both PPC and Intel in their application bundles. I assume Xcode is designed to allow multiple plug-in compilers. Furthermore, just think how fast Virtual PC will run if the application's instructions don't have to be emulated. There will be no reason for anyone to have a PC. :-)

There is so much investment behind Intel. Their compilers, vector libraries (Intel Performance Primitives), etc. are all better. IMHO, the HP-designed Itanium architecture also has greater future performance potential than PPC. I think PPC, like 68K, will eventually be relagated to the embedded market.

vouder17

Jun 3, 2005, 10:56 PM

So if they switched to an intel chip in it's current form wouldn't every bit of software from all companies have to be rewritten? This sounds like a nightmare transition.

It might be a nightmare software transition...but for once..we could always be in-front with all the latest hardware..etc...And if something new comes up...apple aswell as windows will get it, i see no problem here...apple will keep its originality with OS X and its hardware will just get a boost!!

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 10:57 PM

Thanks for the reply, aldo.

So, would it be any easier to port a windows application to OS X on x86 vs. porting it to OSX on PPC?

Slightly. But in reality the main problem porting is all the graphical elements - menus, buttons, dialog boxes etc. They all need _competely_ rewritten.

evolutioneight

Jun 3, 2005, 10:58 PM

Assuming this is real, why would Apple wait until mid 2006 and 2007 to make the switch...? Obviously they would need give developers time to redo everything for x86, but what happens until then? If they have hit the wall with the PowerPC chip then where are they going to push it? Are we going to be stuck with 2.7ghz Powermacs for the next 2 years? G4 Powerbooks at 1.7 for that long when by that time the dells and lenovos are running at much higher speeds? Also why would they put the consumer computers on the intels first? The consumer computers like the iMac and the Mac Mini have more room to go with the PowerPC in terms of speed than the pro machines.

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:00 PM

It might be a nightmare software transition...but for once..we could always be in-front with all the latest hardware..etc...And if something new comes up...apple aswell as windows will get it, i see no problem here...apple will keep its originality with OS X and its hardware will just get a boost!!

I don't think it'll be a nightmare at all.

All of Cocoa, Quartz, Mach, and the FreeBSD kernel will be recompiled to x86. 75-95% of your standard application spends all of its time in here. The other 5%-25% would have to be emulated, which wouldn't be too slow thanks to the speed of Intel's chips.

The only problem will be things that us a lot of assembly-execution time. For example video editing software or games. These will have to be somewhat rewritten and recompiled to be bearable at all.

GrannySmith_G5

Jun 3, 2005, 11:00 PM

How much does IBM care about developing chips for Apple? How much money does IBM make from the chips they supply to apple? Now that they will be developing all 3 console chips (co-developing for sony), where does that leave Apple on their priority list?

If IBM isn't on full throttle in the development of PPC chips for Apple, then who do they have to turn to if sticking with PPC. Freescale?

varmit

Jun 3, 2005, 11:01 PM

um, this switch is coming just as IBM is about to introduce a dualcore PPC chip made specifically for Apple, and some of the development software is showing this dualcore ability. I don't see this switch happening, not after making the jump from the G4 to the G5. Everyone knows that IBM didn't produce the best chip, but I'm sure IBM will more than make up for it in the future. As for the speed, and the benchmarks, the kernel is still a baby and has yet to mature to great system kernel. So the speed of the PPC that IBM delivers has yet to come out yet. As soon as Apple can add more to kernel, which breaks backwards compatability and causes problems for developers (happened with Ciscos VPN software), the speed will show.

daveL

Jun 3, 2005, 11:01 PM

Sorry, that's ridiculous. Choosing PowerPC for the games consoles vs Intel is a no-brainer because a games console simply plays games, it doesn't need many of the features that a full, normal CPU would use.

And most importantly, IBM/Toshiba etc are willing to _license_ their CPU design and let MS and Sony fab it themselves. Intel weren't, so IBM won.

Intel's CPUs are very good because they are mass produced, cheap in volume, and not only that they come with a proverbial ******** of motherboard chipsets, compatible graphics cards, sound chipsets, North and Southbridges.

Not only that the Pentium-M CPU is incredibly good in terms of power consumption, which means 10 hour laptops are being made now.
Yes, you're right, IBM's Power CPUs for servers aren't "full featured" either, right? The G5 was derived from the Power 4. The fact is PPC scales from embedded applications to super computing. Believe what you like. As a Mac owner, a forced transition to x86 would cost me a bunch of money and application support. It would also bring into question whether Apple can actually pull it off without committing suicide in the process. Maybe that doesn't matter to you; that's fine, but it matters to me.

VanNess

Jun 3, 2005, 11:01 PM

I'm sitting here, with my DP G5, thinking my investment just became worth zero. With this announced so far in advance, and the uncertainty of what it would mean for application support going forward, who would want to buy a PPC Mac?

Bingo.

There would be near zero motivation for anyone to buy from the existing Mac Line after Monday and until at least 2006, if that. As hardware sales go, so goes sales (and installations) of the brand new OS (Tiger). It makes absolutely no sense unless there is a huge (and not very good) story - as yet untold - concerning IBM. And if such a story existed, there would be clues leading up to this, but there's nothing except retelling old G5 shortage stories from last year. The current refresh of the iMac line hasn't been hampered with new G5 shortages.

On a positive note, probably most of the free world is going to be watching Job's keynote on Monday because of this. Well, maybe not quite that many, but this keynote will get more attention now due to this "story" than any other before it. You can't buy publicity like that.

DavidCar

Jun 3, 2005, 11:02 PM

Slightly. But in reality the main problem porting is all the graphical elements - menus, buttons, dialog boxes etc. They all need _competely_ rewritten.

I think it would be a confidence builder if I could see Tiger running on a PC at WWDC.

mduser63

Jun 3, 2005, 11:02 PM

I don't know whether I really believe this or not, but if it's true, the biggest problem I see will be lack of compatibility with older applications for which developer support is gone. I don't worry about really old applications as emulation should be OK, but not so old applications won't run well under emulation until computers get significantly faster.

lostboy85

Jun 3, 2005, 11:02 PM

Well make sure to bring your rotten fruit to the keynote just incase.
Wow this had better be just a rumor.

mad jew

Jun 3, 2005, 11:03 PM

We're gonna look back at this thread after WWDC and think "Oh my god, what were we thinking!" :rolleyes:

...hopefully...

daveL

Jun 3, 2005, 11:04 PM

I don't think it'll be a nightmare at all.

All of Cocoa, Quartz, Mach, and the FreeBSD kernel will be recompiled to x86. 75-95% of your standard application spends all of its time in here. The other 5%-25% would have to be emulated, which wouldn't be too slow thanks to the speed of Intel's chips.

The only problem will be things that us a lot of assembly-execution time. For example video editing software or games. These will have to be somewhat rewritten and recompiled to be bearable at all.
Oh, like all the Altivec code?

ericdano

Jun 3, 2005, 11:05 PM

Bingo.

There would be near zero motivation for anyone to buy from the existing Mac Line after Monday and until at least 2006, if that. As hardware sales go, so goes sales (and installations) of the brand new OS (Tiger). It makes absolutely no sense unless there is a huge (and not very good) story - as yet untold - concerning IBM. And if such a story existed, there would be clues leading up to this, but there's nothing except retelling old G5 shortage stories from last year. The current refresh of the iMac line hasn't been hampered with new G5 shortages.

I think that Apple will buy the rights to the chip (or something like that), the G5, and have it produced and modified by Intel. Intel might be able to tweak it (faster, better, etc), and might be able to get more processors out for cheaper.

Yvan256

Jun 3, 2005, 11:05 PM

IBM=Lenovo=China=ENEMY

You did, of course, check were Apple computers were made.... right? :rolleyes:

Laurent

Jun 3, 2005, 11:05 PM

I don't understand this. Intel makes RISC chips that aren't x86. Why should we think Apple isn't going to be supplied with somehow PowerPC-like chips?

TorbX

Jun 3, 2005, 11:06 PM

No, no, no, you guys got it all wrong. This is whats up:

Its a personal thing between Steve and Bill. Steve will enter MSs market - operating system for peeecees. Oh yes, its true. OS X on your dell, next month.

Only by doing this, can Steve kill MS. He can't sell Macs to the whole world, I'm sure...

Edit:
MARKLAR!
(there, I said it)

HAViK

Jun 3, 2005, 11:06 PM

You have to ask yourself when the last time Apple made an announcement this far in advance.

OK, we knew what PowerPC CPUs were in the next gen (603/604) after the 601 -- but Apple has been tight lipped since then and has avoided public announcements.

If they were really doing it, they'd dump a x86 machine on the market and make it emulate a PowerPC until the developers recompile.

They wouldn't tell us they'll be switching to x86 next year, and kill sales for the next 2 years.

I agree on this. If they announced something like this so far ahead of time wouldn't sales be killed on their machines? I for one would not purchase a new mac until this new machine was out, and secondly, I think I would just purchase an amazing PC rig since they will be so similar no? Lower price, more performance. A mac only wins me over with the great feeling it gives you by owning and using it. But then again, an announcement so far ahead of time would be good for developers for sure. I just hope they don't pull a Longhorn type thing if they do decide to go this way, so many promises, so little return.

SiliconAddict

Jun 3, 2005, 11:06 PM

wow.... If true we are talking the biggest event in the history of Apple. Admittedly until it passes Jobs's lips its all rumor but still. Wow.

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:07 PM

Intel has just released then new Pentium 6, which can go blazing speeds of 10+ghz, while machines running Windows using IBM's PowerPC will go very slow at only 8ghz. Because Apple had a good reputation of managing its software to maintain optimal speed, it became the new Microsoft, while Microsoft died away because no one wanted to switch to a slower computer that isnt compatible with anything...hehe.

How do I know Microsoft will switch to IBM? lets just say xbox 360.

mvc

Jun 3, 2005, 11:07 PM

IF this happens, it's really just a logical conclusion to the process that Apple started years ago when it got rid of things like ADB ports and SCSI drives and moved increasingly toward the generally cheaper contemporary PC equipment and tech standards.

It has never stopped them from making superior hardware, and superior software. And this won't either.

It may also be a precursor, long term, to licensing OSX as a competing OS to Windows on the PC platform.

The people with most to lose from this are IBM and particularly Microsoft.

And to go along with this announcement, it would be the perfect time for Steve to introduce an Apple Two Button mouse. :p

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 11:08 PM

So if they switched to an intel chip in it's current form wouldn't every bit of software from all companies have to be rewritten? This sounds like a nightmare transition.

Not at all. ReCOMPILED. It's the equivalent of clicking a radio button for which CPU you want to target, then doing a QA regression. It will mean changes for some of the SIMD stuff (maybe Apple will do a cross-compiler,) but in general it should be fairly painless for developers. MUCH more so than the 680x0 transition, and that one went fairly well.

SiliconAddict

Jun 3, 2005, 11:08 PM

How do I know Microsoft will switch to IBM? lets just say xbox 360.

You really don't get the gaming industry do you?

vitaboy

Jun 3, 2005, 11:09 PM

I think Apple has a secret weapon up its sleeve. If this rumor is true, I think the Intel-based Mac we will see will be a low-end machine. A $399 basic machine for the corporate market.

It will come with OS X for Intel as well as all the iLife apps and Safari ported to it, meaning the machine will be totally functional out of the box for 90% of users.

The secret ingredient is that OS X for Intel will have the ability to run existing Windows apps. Performance and compatibility will be on par with the perfomance of Classic Mac apps in OS X, or Motorola 68K apps on the first PPC 601-based Macs.

Such a machine would have GREAT appeal to corporations. It runs their existing Office suite for Windows as well as other Windows-only apps. Except that unlike Windows, there are no viruses or adware.

At the same time, because of the low-end nature of the machine (limited expandability, lower-end CPU, slight performance hit for Windows apps), it will protect Apple's core markets while forcing IBM to pay attention and perform better.

In essence, a low-end Intel Mac that comes with iLife and Safari, which can run exisiting Windows app at 80% native performance is the equivalent of Apple b****-slapping IBM. It's one thing to show IBM a technology demo of OS X running on an Intel chip in the labs, but another thing to annouce a real product. This gives Apple options on choosing the best route for the future, based on sales, developer interest, and IBM's response.

I would love to see IBM suddenly announce that it has a 3 GHz dual-core PPC in production, and Apple is finally able to announce a dual dual-core PowerMac at 3 GHz and a dual-core PowerBook with an HD screen in a month's time.

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:10 PM

Yes, you're right, IBM's Power CPUs for servers aren't "full featured" either, right? The G5 was derived from the Power 4. The fact is PPC scales from embedded applications to super computing. Believe what you like. As a Mac owner, a forced transition to x86 would cost me a bunch of money and application support. It would also bring into question whether Apple can actually pull it off without committing suicide in the process. Maybe that doesn't matter to you; that's fine, but it matters to me.

Well firstly, neither Microsoft's or Sony are using IBM Power CPUs. They are using PPC -- yes, but they are vastly customised and the Cell CPU that Sony sells is very, very different.

The fact is that noone cares about CPU scaling. On an embedded device you use an XScale from Intel and change your GCC or other compiler flags to output to XScale. You want it on a larger embedded device? Do the same, but use MIPS. Hell, AMDs Geode CPUs are x86 and they only need 0.9W of power.

What people care about is power output, performance and price. IBM is losing all of these. It's 970FX Power Output rivals the worst Prescott days. It's performance is nothing special anymore and pales in comparision to a dual core from Intel/AMD. The prices are not great compared to Intel and AMD.

TorbX

Jun 3, 2005, 11:10 PM

You really don't get the gaming industry do you?

ROFL!

r0xx0rxx!!!!!1

jhujhiti

Jun 3, 2005, 11:11 PM

If this isn't a hoax, I will never buy another Apple product again. Sorry guys, I like OS X, but I'm not going to pay to run it on Intel-grade hardware.

Edit: On second thought, if it turns out they only use Intel in super low-end machines designed to make the transition to Apple easier, I might be cool with it.

Bradley W

Jun 3, 2005, 11:11 PM

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 11:12 PM

Oh, like all the Altivec code?Most likely, but one the GCC programming groups had asked Apple to help support automatic conversion of Intel/PowerPC SIMD assembly code -- all in an effort to help Apple convince people to port their Wintel Apps to Mac OS X without a huge need for redoing huge chunks of hand-tuned code.

Don't think Apple took the guy up on it.

aldo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:12 PM

Oh, like all the Altivec code?

Altivec can be emulated via SEE2.

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 11:12 PM

I guess you didn't read the Anandtech article which shows how poor OSX is in terms of speed for many things? It was so bad they had to put Linux on the G5's they were testing to get a good comparision vs x86...

That was for transactional server response. As they mentioned in the article, workstation and desktop use really shows MacOS X's strength. And I'm sure the core OS will continue to improve dramatically... if history is any guide, Apple still has ANOTHER MacOS release coming up before Longhorn ships, after all.

(And I wish they HAD tried Linux on the G5's. They didn't, which was a major problem with their conclusion to the article, where they recommended a product they never tried.)

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:13 PM

Folks,

Here is your evidence that the story is TRUE.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_vs_mini/

This is not a mac mini ripoff, it is the NEW mac mini!

jhujhiti

Jun 3, 2005, 11:13 PM

So Windows is what you'll run?

Hi, there are more than two operating systems in the world. I've been running Linux for over six years.

StarGazer

Jun 3, 2005, 11:13 PM

I'm sorry for those who think this is a bad decision but unless IBM can deliver Apple needs to do this for its long term viability.
<snip>

I think you should start by heading over to the latest review and head-to-head at AnandTech on the G5/Mac OS X vs. Intel/Windows for a few items Anandtech Review (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436). The main reason Apple should stay put is that the chip IS competitive, but the OS as a whole needs work, and now that they've gotten game companies and their OS crew used to optimizing on the Altivec and PPC system, moving over to intel (likely AMD-64 instruction chips, so it all goes 64 bit at least I would bet) would set them back another series of optimization rounds.

I actually think they could make it work just fine, as NeXT did the exact same thing going from 68040 chips to Intel, which put the groundwork for OS X/Cocoa down. They can get there, but is there an advantage? I actually don't think the chip prices are that different, and the performance for certain aspects are better on PPC and others are better on Intel. They're flipping the advantage over at that point, and I don't think it's worth it. Now, adding in some Intel into things like iPods, Airport base and express stations, and possibly any new media device as the rumors continue to infer, as well as possibly other consumer embedded devices, that totally makes sense. Especially if some Newton-like device emerges from the ashes around the XScale processor.

Moving the desktop though, that's pretty questionable. They could however use BOTH. As NeXT did with the fat binary distros, although that was a mixed success/failure event as well as most old NeXT hacks will tell you in excruciating detail.

Unless Intel is getting desperate as AMD is mopping the floor with much of their systems (again, look at the AnandTech review) and giving the chips at very deep discounts, it's not worth the time and effort and PR black-eye(s) for Apple IMHO. If you're going there, go with the leader and go AMD. But to sacrifice that much, I just can't see why. Could they make proprietary Intel Apple systems? Sure. Is there some huge leap in capability forward as there was from 68k to PPC? No. I just don't see the advantages.

Mind you, if they did go there, as long as it was a closed, fully engineered system as the Apple systems are now (no cheap beige vanilla ***** with no-name brand bits) I'm pretty sure it would be as reliable (and proprietary and closed) as the systems are now, so I don't know if I'd care. It's the business benefits and the sheer price to the development community that needs to be recouped in spades, and I don't see that happening.

jstrickland

Jun 3, 2005, 11:13 PM

This is why. Intel's new dual core mobiles will allow 8 hours of battery on the same hardware as today, will be wickedly fast and have WiFi built in. 2mb cache on the cores....Look IBM doesn't even have a G5 roadmap. Everything is speculation. They can't even get Apple to G5 at 3ghz in two years!!!! but can get MS Xbox to 3.2ghz. I think Jobs is both pissed and wants to move OS X to a global platform for growth and focus on software and media and NOT the hardware.....

Well see but it will be big news, and the fact that IBM hasn't denied it for stock moves purposes is the tell tale sign that they know what's up....

OS X software will be easy to port because FreeBSD runs on X86 anyways so it is very, very, easy to port and older software with the Intel Dual Cores can run an emulator program very effectively!

It will be a good move long term.

"can get MS Xbox to 3.2ghz"?!?!? Last time I checked the Xbox is still months away from shipping. PowerMac with dual cores could be announced Monday and shipping in weeks (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp). Xbox is still months away!! Did you miss the articles on how Microsoft had to use Power Mac's to run their Xbox game demos at E3!! (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2420&p=5)

Why should Apple move away from the PowerPC when the major players in console gaming are shifting to the Power platform? Wouldn't it make sense to stay on Power to make it easier for console games to be ported to Mac? IBM and the Power architecture can't be that flawed if Microsoft AND Sony are putting Power based chips in their next consoles.

Folks you're taking stock in a "news" site that on the day Tiger was released had a front page article comparing it to the vaporware OS that is still a year from shipping.

SiliconAddict

Jun 3, 2005, 11:13 PM

Ack. Maybe this is why everything was release early and there isn't anything apparent for Steve to announce?!? I mean this could easily fill the entire speech. Outlining the conversion, the reasoning, the tools to help developers recompile and optimize their code, etc, etc. :eek:

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 11:14 PM

If this isn't a hoax, I will never buy another Apple product again. Sorry guys, I like OS X, but I'm not going to pay to run it on Intel-grade hardware.

Bwaaahahahahaha... this is the funniest thing I've ever read.

Ok... go run Windows. Or try to figure out how to admin your Linux system.... on your Intel-grade computer. Or stop using computers altogether.

Seriously, what's your objection to a faster CPU that happens to use a different instruction set?

Object-X

Jun 3, 2005, 11:14 PM

This is happening because they can't get a G5 in a Powerbook and it's not in IBMs interest to create a special chip for a small market. But the million dollar question is whether OS X will eventually run on computer hardware other than Apple.

I have been saying it all along, Microsoft is toast! Apple will be fully transitioned in 2007 by the time Longhorn sees the light of day. I think OS X is mature enough now to make this a reality.

I'll be sure to be sitting down during the keynote. :eek:

leftbanke7

Jun 3, 2005, 11:14 PM

I am mixed about the whole thing.

I am totally cool with Apple making moves that will help it in the short/long run.

However, because of the marketing of computers nowadays, Intel is synonymous with Windows (ie. at the end of almost every PC commercial, you hear the famous chime and get the Intel Inside logo).

We all gripe about how Microsoft's dominance sways the computing industry and plead for people to "Think Different". With Apple possibly switching to Intel, this essentually leaves 2 chip makers as PPC for computers will essentually die. With Intel's even larger market share lead, should we not be as wary of them as we are of Microsoft? Or is it cool because we are finally on the "winning team"? Kind of hypocritical?

whooleytoo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:14 PM

does this mean we have to listen to the infamous "dun dun dan dun" at the end of every Apple commercial?

God, that hadn't even crossed my mind!

I'd be willing to use an Intel OSX box, but if I have to hear that jingle one more time, I'm switching to Linux on AMD.

bignumbers

Jun 3, 2005, 11:15 PM

If true I would really not like the move one bit. It would be bad technically, and bad PR-wise.

The only real benefit I can think of is with the Mac OS running on Intel hardware is a VirtualPC engine would run much faster - making for an easier transition for switchers. I don't think that comes close to justifying this kind of radical change but if Apple is going after Microsoft's throat this is one way to go about it. Microsoft is the evil empire; Intel is just their best pal.

A possible reason for this might be if IBM doesn't want the business any more. They certainly haven't met their part of the bargain (a 3GHz G5 by last summer!?). They must be happy with the business they've picked up from the gaming biz, and may have told Apple they've stopped investing in G5-specific chip design. Who knows.

I guess Monday will be interesting...

vitaboy

Jun 3, 2005, 11:16 PM

I have been saying it all along, Microsoft is toast! Apple will be fully transitioned in 2007 by the time Longhorn sees the light of day. I think OS X is mature enough now to make this a reality.

I think you hit the nail on this. Despite the challenges posed by an architecture shift to Intel, Steve might be thinking, "Hey, if we can get this Intel thing to work, this could be a real Longhorn-killer and the end of Microsoft."

jhujhiti

Jun 3, 2005, 11:16 PM

Bwaaahahahahaha... this is the funniest thing I've ever read.

Ok... go run Windows. Or try to figure out how to admin your Linux system.... on your Intel-grade computer. Or stop using computers altogether.

Seriously, what's your objection to a faster CPU that happens to use a different instruction set?

1) I know how to admin a Linux system. I know how to hack the kernel, thanks.

2) Intel CPUs are not just a different instruction set. The pipeline design is an [explitive deleted] mess, and they're so attached to Microsoft it makes me sick. Also, Intel's new Hardware DRM is going to change computing as we know it for the worse if they succeed. I'm not comfortable giving them money.

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:17 PM

just as long as they dont have those ugly-ass stickers put on all the apple computers.

nbaker756

Jun 3, 2005, 11:17 PM

i love the power mac chips but if switching to intel will get us better laptop chips faster, then im all for it. except, i dont want a stupid, "Intel Inside" sticker on the front of my computer. it ruins the look.

TorbX

Jun 3, 2005, 11:18 PM

You guys, will we be able to watch this keynote on te web?

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 11:18 PM

beatle888

Jun 3, 2005, 11:20 PM

BTW, Dvorak is a moron (which is the general feeling around here about this scum sucking apple bashing writer).

your on fire tonight. i like the first comment about making the rocks to hide from the government. excellent.

immac

Jun 3, 2005, 11:20 PM

While I don't believe that they are going to use Intel chips for Macs, I can see them using Intel chips for other projects. It's been said a billion times, but I'll say it again: the PPC chip has more room to grow than x86, so in the "end," the PPC chip will be faster. Perhaps Apple's using it for a separate project (like they use other chips in AirPort and Xserve), but it's not for the Mac. WWDC 2005 is about helping developers optimize their apps for Tiger. Apple is not going to make a chip-switch.
-Chase

"the PPC chip has more room to grow than x86"
"Apple is not going to make a chip-switch."

Absoloutely right.

Timely article here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

I'll save you some reading and post the conclusions ,though the rest of the article is a really enlightening comparison and you really need to read the whole thing for perspective.

Last page of anandtech article by Johan De Gelas

"The G5 is a gigantic improvement over the previous CPU in the PowerMac, the G4e. The G5 is one of the most superscalar CPUs ever, and has all the characteristics that could give Apple the edge, especially now that the clock speed race between AMD and Intel is over. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.

First of all, the G5 needs a lower latency access to the memory because right now, the integer performance of the G5 leaves a lot to be desired. The Opteron and Xeon have a better integer engine, and especially the Pentium 4/Xeon has a better Branch predictor too. The Opteron's memory subsystem runs circles around the G5's.

Secondly, it is clear that the G5 FP performance, despite its access to 32 architectural registers, needs good optimisation. Only one of our flops tests was " Altivectorized", which means that the GCC compiler needs to improve quite a bit before it can turn those many open source programs into super fast applications on the Mac. In contrast, the Intel compiler can vectorize all 8 tests.

Altivec or the velocity engine can make the G5 shine in workstation applications. A good example is Lightwave where the G5 takes on the best x86 competition in some situations, and remains behind in others.

The future looks promising in the workstation market for Apple, as the G5 has a lot of unused potential and the increasing market share of the Power Mac should tempt developers to put a little more effort in Mac optimisation.

The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.

Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine. I am no operating system expert, but with the data that we have today, I think that a PowerPC optimised Linux such as Yellow Dog is a better idea for the Xserve than Mac OS X server."

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 11:21 PM

1) I know how to admin a Linux system. I know how to hack the kernel, thanks.

2) Intel CPUs are not just a different instruction set. The pipeline design is an [explitive deleted] mess, and they're so attached to Microsoft it makes me sick. Also, Intel's new Hardware DRM is going to change computing as we know it for the worse if they succeed. I'm not comfortable giving them money.

1) Great. What are you going to run it on? And will your experience beat that of MacOS X?

2) Nonetheless, their chips are faster. And their laptop chips are faster while using less power at the same time. And as for DRM, it's as useful as the OS makes it... you'll have to either trust or distrust Apple on that one. [Edit: and attached to Microsoft? Are you joking? They are a major funder for linux work.]

Superhob

Jun 3, 2005, 11:22 PM

If this isn't a hoax, I will never buy another Apple product again. Sorry guys, I like OS X, but I'm not going to pay to run it on Intel-grade hardware.

I really don't understand why some mac fans are so opposed to change. I am a recent mac convert and I can honestly tell you that there are definite advantages to having intel chips inside macs. First, people like intel and trust the name. Having the "intel inside" logo on a mac can only help increase sales. Second, competition is great because this will force IBM/Freescale to innovate and meet demand at a faster pace.

I personally think the Pentium M is an excellent chip for laptops. I've used several laptops running on Pentium M processors and they ran great.

One important factor that is overlooked in this equation is Intel's ability to meet market demands at a very fast pace. Ibm/Motorola/Freescale have all left Apple screaming at times because they were unable to meet Apple's rapidly increasing demand. I am positive that Apple lost many possible sales just because they couldn't make the stuff fast enough. Intel can provide Apple with rapid response to changing supply and demand conditions.

I think this move, if true, would be a boon for Apple and I don't understand why this story is receiving a disproportional number of negatives ratings and responses. The Apple community should welcome change because change can open many doors for Apple and the entire OS X community.

SiliconAddict

Jun 3, 2005, 11:24 PM

Folks,

Here is your evidence that the story is TRUE.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_vs_mini/

This is not a mac mini ripoff, it is the NEW mac mini!

Ummm no. If Apple moves over to x86 they will still make their own hardware. Guaranteed. You can't say many things about what would happen in the event of a move but you can say that. Apple isn't going to let X reside on cheap (quality wise) hardware.

amac4me

Jun 3, 2005, 11:26 PM

I think it would be wise for all of us to chill out and wait to see what comes of this at WWDC. No need to get into a discussion of what this is until we get some concrete evidence and validation from Apple.

Enjoy your weekend!

Bradley W

Jun 3, 2005, 11:26 PM

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:26 PM

this isnt the first time apple has teamed with an enemy.

1) in the 1980's wasn't apple competing with IBM?
2) Didn't apple already switch to intel in the early 90's for a short period of time? I know it was unsuccessful, but maybe they found what was wrong and will fix it this time. maybe it'll be a special intel chip that can be the only intel chip that will run on a mac.

age234

Jun 3, 2005, 11:27 PM

I don't care, so long as my software still works. Otherwise, I guess I'll be using this G4 iMac until Kingdom come. I have too much invested, software-wise, to just throw it all away.

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:27 PM

Ummm no. If Apple moves over to x86 they will still make their own hardware. Guaranteed.

Ummm no. Apple doesn't make their own hardware now. Its all farmed out.

Trekkie

Jun 3, 2005, 11:27 PM

You did, of course, check were Apple computers were made.... right? :rolleyes:

Yeah not to mention every other computer on the planet just about.

jhujhiti

Jun 3, 2005, 11:28 PM

IBM doesn't need to be forced to innovate. They do it every day. Intel are the ones who need to be pushed. Why else are we stuck with i386-based processors today? Oh, that's right, their attachment to Microsoft.

Not that I want this to descend into a Linux flamefest, but there is a serious misconception about software not running on Linux. Most Linux software is as good as, if not better than, its Windows counterpart and it's "free as in freedom." Adobe needs to get with it, but other than that I defy you to name a useful piece of software you can't get to run on native Linux. Plus Linux emulates everyone's favorite platform at near-full speed. Check out Xen.

Gyroscope

Jun 3, 2005, 11:28 PM

This must have been very difficult decision for Apple to make!

To die of a slow death(by staying with PPC) or
to commit suicide(by moving over to Intel). :(

Nermal

Jun 3, 2005, 11:28 PM

The secret ingredient is that OS X for Intel will have the ability to run existing Windows apps.

And then there will be no incentive for developers to make Mac apps. Remember OS/2? It could run Windows apps. What happened? Developers made Windows apps, which didn't take advantage of OS/2's unique features, so nobody bothered to use OS/2.

Bradley W

Jun 3, 2005, 11:29 PM

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:29 PM

Yeah not to mention every other computer on the planet just about.

Yes. China has already taken over the world. We just down't know it.

SiliconAddict

Jun 3, 2005, 11:29 PM

Ummm no. Apple doesn't make their own hardware now. Its all farmed out.

They sure as hell design it and that's what I'm talking about. :rolleyes: Of course someone else is going to actually BUILD the hardware. The difference is Asus or ABIT or some other no name isn't going to just build a computer and slap OS X in the thing.

Booga

Jun 3, 2005, 11:29 PM

Please stop quoting the Anandtech article if we're discussing desktop systems. The article itself pointed out that MacOS X's performance is solidly competitive at workstation tasks, it just lags severely on server tasks. And that appears to be an OS issue, not a chip issue, so is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

It does point out the need for some kernel rework in the next major revision of the OS, but 10.4 and its APIs set up the groundwork for exactly that.

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:31 PM

They sure as hell design it and that's what I'm talking about. :rolleyes: Of course someone else is going to actually BUILD the hardware.

I hear ya, but Aopen didn't design that mini either, intel did. Sooo its the new mac mini. :)

Mechcozmo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:32 PM

What if... this is all being blown out of proportion?

Apple and Intel (and others) designed the ARM processor. Yes, the ARM processor that is in the Nintendo GameBoy and DS series of handheld doohickies. The ARM is a RISC-based processor, extremely low power, and is fairly common.

I seriously doubt that OS X will run on the x86 or the x86-64 platform. I'm just finding it hard to believe. The number of registers that the PowerPC has over the x86 is amazing, and is one reason why the Mac can beat the x86 in a number of tasks.

One can only hope that, if he is to announce an x86-based Mac at WWDC, Steve has a kevlar vest underneath that black sweater.
Steve would also need to hold the keynote via satelite from some 3rd world country so that he wouldn't be found, beaten, and murderously killed.
:rolleyes:

Can I interest you in some genuine alien artifacts that I have morphed into rocks to hide them from the govt?

Only $100 and include a certificate of authenticity signed by Mork.
You've got a PM! Are you local?
:p

entropik

Jun 3, 2005, 11:32 PM

Shoot, and I was looking forward to buying a Powerbook on Monday. If this is true, this will kill sales of their current line dead. I was looking forward to the hotness that is OS X and the freedom from Intel's DRM crapola, too.

I don't know what I'll do if this is true; I need a laptop for college, and I don't want to get a piece of hardware that is destined for the scrapheap ever quicker than most hardware and I don't want Intel to own my machine. :(

Trekkie

Jun 3, 2005, 11:32 PM

I voted positive. YEAH!

Come on... two years and the PowerMacs are still in the 2 GHz range... PowerBooks still in the 1 GHz range... Apple has no other option! I do feel bad for developers though....

Why feel bad for developers?

If Apple whole-heartedly goes to Intel architecture and you've written in Objective-C and Cocoa and Mac OS X runs ontop of intel you've written to Cocoa, not PowerPC 970/G5.

If apple handles the translation of Altivec with a few libraries, whats to stop a recompile with the new intel flags/optimizations and off you go?

Not that I'd like to see this happen. I think Intel would be the wrong path because their Xeon DP chips are huge power monsters. AMD is at 95W with their dual core processors.

AMD also has a 35W line of chips that'd work great in laptops as well.

Bradley W

Jun 3, 2005, 11:32 PM

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:33 PM

Well, Apple doesn't make their own hardware... who cares who makes it... unless it is slaves in China (which I hope it isn't)

"Designed by Apple in CA."

That reminds me of when I went to NYC like two months ago. there was like an exhibit on chinese slavery next to the CBS building. It was kinda sad. But, on the other hand, if you had americans making this we'd be paying like triple. Just think: New iPod 80GB Photo: now available, only $999.

It's still sad though either way.

vitaboy

Jun 3, 2005, 11:33 PM

Why should Apple move away from the PowerPC when the major players in console gaming are shifting to the Power platform? Wouldn't it make sense to stay on Power to make it easier for console games to be ported to Mac? IBM and the Power architecture can't be that flawed if Microsoft AND Sony are putting Power based chips in their next consoles.

I don't think you read the post you were replying to. Basically, IBM is going all-out for customers like Microsoft and Sony for their specialized PowerPC chips, but won't even bother to put out a LOW-POWER PowerPC chip for Apple that it can use in the PowerBook.

The reason why IBM is going all-out for MS and Sony is that both chips will sell by the tens of millions per year. IBM sells only 4-5 million CPUs to Apple each year, and that's better than it has been since, well, IBM started making PowerPC chips.

Take a look at the business. 50% of Mac sales are notebooks and increasing, yet IBM has NOTHING that Apple can use in a notebook. IBM furthermore is telling Apple that it isn't worth the investment to develop a notebook chip.

Where do you think Apple will be in January 2006 when the high-end PowerBook is running a 2.0 GHz G4 chip (maybe) with 3 hours of battery life while PC makers have dual-core Pentium notebooks that get 8 hours of battery? The future is the notebook business, not the desktop market.

This issue is much more serious than "IBM still can't get to 3.0 GHz after 2 years." It has to do with the fact that in 2006, Apple iBook and PowerBook segment will be majorly screwed up the wazoo because IBM has no mobile-friendly chip for Apple, and apparently doesn't care.

MacHarne

Jun 3, 2005, 11:34 PM

Frankly, while this has major implications for the business approaches of Apple, I am still going to buy whatever the smallest PowerBook is the afternoon following the Keynote on Monday. People will still need to buy computers between now and 2006-2007 or whenever this supposed transition will occur. And people who still want sleek designs will still turn to Apple. Many of them will never even know when a processor switch takes place, if it does in fact.

There's no way that I would suddenly cease to support a company I have admired for their tact and aggressive stances against the virus-infested Windows world.

Ok, that may sound exaggerated, but anyways. I'll have my credit card ready for the minutes after the Keynote.

SiliconAddict

Jun 3, 2005, 11:34 PM

Dude.... :eek: I went to read the article and FireFox just blew up on me. This is the first time this has ever happen with this browser since I moved to 1.0. Its a sign. Its the end!!! :eek:

swingerofbirch

Jun 3, 2005, 11:34 PM

Yvan256

Jun 3, 2005, 11:35 PM

Slightly. But in reality the main problem porting is all the graphical elements - menus, buttons, dialog boxes etc. They all need _competely_ rewritten.

This ain't websites and MSIE vs Gecko rendering...

Apple going x86 for the CPU wouldn't mean ANYTHING as far as compatibility goes... Unless Apple goes with a generic BIOS, generic chipset, etc, to be beige-box compatible. But if they do that, that means OS X can install on any beige box - hence killing Apple's own hardware market.

And about OS X vs Windows vs Linux, it's all different, even if the CPU is the same. Why do you think we don't see x86 Linux ports of x86 Windows games?

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:35 PM

Just in :

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1110

HA ha, now those people who didn't believe it cause it wasn't on AppleInsider can believe.

Oh SNAP! Its official now kiddies. Getting way drunk this weekend now. :D

BenRoethig

Jun 3, 2005, 11:36 PM

What Mac-only applications are out there? I know Apple has a ton of them, but I can't think of any third-party apps that are Mac-only. If they move to x86 processor architecture, the PC versions (x86) of existing applications would be easy to run because they are compiled for x86, correct?

If that were the case, Apple would not loose their own software developers because of the transition, so no Mac-only applications would be in jeopardy.

...And it could open up the PC only apps (and viruses, unfortunately) to the Mac platform.

There are a lot of people on these boards that are smarter than I am. Does this theory hold water?

Software will still have to be written for the operating system. It'll make game ports and anything else graphics intensive a hell of a lot easier. I'd also like to reiterate one thing: x86 does not equal windows. There will be no bios, there will be no active x, there will be no .exe files, and there will certainly be no windows security issues. You will not know if a Mac Mini whas a PM or a G4 in it unless you open up the case. You will not find the 98¢ power supplies that HP uses. It will not be easy, but Apple is no stranger to hard transitons. If we wanted to easy our operating system would still be based on OS9 and runnin 16mhz 68040 processors.

As for the hardware, the PowerPC has had a lot of potential. Unfortunately it's unrealized potential. Sticking with the PowerPCs have a bunch of what ifs and maybes. Intel has a plan with the Pentium-M and a guaranteed supply. Intel also needs a platform that can show off what its hardware can do. Windows has little SMP support for the new dual-core processors. OSX is built for SMP. Add in a Altivec-class SIMD unit and we're in business.

sord

Jun 3, 2005, 11:36 PM

Ok so what happens when all of the loyal Mac users realize their expensive hardware has just been abandoned. Also, software companies aren't going to just ship off free CDs to already paying customers so people will have to buy the x86 version of their software again (after waiting for it to be done).

Seriously, Apple would die with a move like this unless Intel made PPC processors AND made them as good as IBM does (which won't happen). Moving to x86 would mean a new FCP would be needed, OS X reoptimized, Microsoft Office converted, etc.

No need to worry, Apple won't bite the hands feeding them - especially from a money perspective. If something changes, it will only be because its better. Personally I hate Intel, but if they can make a better processor than IBM then I'm all for it.

Let's let the people who actually know what they are talking about speak on Monday and until then...NEW PowerBook G5s on Monday/Tuesday?!?

Cooknn

Jun 3, 2005, 11:37 PM

And then there will be no incentive for developers to make Mac apps. Remember OS/2? It could run Windows apps. What happened? Developers made Windows apps, which didn't take advantage of OS/2's unique features, so nobody bothered to use OS/2.Comparing OS/2 to OS X isn't really apple's to apple's is it? Every Windows user is experiencing the virus/spyware problems that plague that platform and OS X is getting great press. Switchers aren't coming in for the hardware IMHO, it's about OS X. I don't understand why you think that developers would have no incentive. What more of an incentive do they have to code for the PPC? We're a minority now, and we may or may not be on x86. What's the difference :confused:

artifex

Jun 3, 2005, 11:37 PM

I'd be all up for Apple going with AMD, but Intel? They're just too much of a behemoth of a company.

I would be disgusted if they chose Intel's x86 CPUs over AMDs, especially if we're talking about the 64-bit platforms, as I'm assuming we are.

It's my understanding that AMD's chips use of HyperTransport as the bus allows each CPU a certain amount of bandwidth. Each one can use the full bandwidth. On the contrary, Intel's CPUs have to share bandwith. At least, that's the way it's been on the 32-bit side of things. If it holds true for the 64-bit side, this decision sucks. Not to mention that Apple is a founding member of the HyperTransport consortium (http://www.hypertransport.org/consortium/cons_members.cfm) to begin with.

Let's hope that if Intel is really going to be supplying CPUs for the primary product lines, and not a tablet or something, that they'll be Power architecture chips. That would be sad for Intel, though, having to make chips that use HyperTransport :)

iMeowbot

Jun 3, 2005, 11:38 PM

Just in :

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1110

HA ha, now those people who didn't believe it cause it wasn't on AppleInsider can believe.
But Appleinsider is only saying that C|NET said....

sord

Jun 3, 2005, 11:38 PM

...and there will certainly be no windows security issues...
Except for that dang buffer overflow stuff that is available only due to x86 architecture.

Lazy

Jun 3, 2005, 11:38 PM

There are some misunderstandings here about what's technically feasible and also about the business ramifications. To wit:

1. It would be easy to switch OS X and its applications to x86. OS X already run on x86, so that's done. Any Cocoa application only needs to be recompiled. For a developer this would be no different nor any more work than producing the next PPC release. (They would have to buy new x86 Macs though, and decide how long to offer both PPC and x86 versions of their applications.) If there is any assembly (e.g. Altivec) code then that's a problem, and who knows about Carbon. (Note: Some people are confused about where application source compatibility lies; it's in the language it's written in and the APIs it uses, not the instruction set its compiled to. An x86 switch would do absolutely nothing for porting Windows applications.)

2. Intel is not going to make PPC chips. There is absolutely no reason for them to do that, and at least one very good reason not to: if the competing product is in enough trouble that Apple has to come begging for you to bail it out, why would you help save it when you've got your own splendid (at least from Intel's point of view) product to offer instead?

3. If Apple does switch to x86, they will not have OS X (at least for a long while) run on generic x86 hardware. They will design Macs just like they do now, using open firmware instead of a PC BIOS.

4. If this switch happens the only reason imaginable is that IBM pulled a Motorola on Apple and said they were canceling the 970MP/GX, or whatever the new dual core chip is. If that's happened I'm surprised we didn't all hear Steve Jobs yelling when that little surprise was dropped on him. :-| This is hard to imagine, but then again that 3Ghz chip that they were oh so confident would be in volume production a year ago shows no signs of appearing, so something's not going well.

5. One can imagine other PC makers wanting to get on board and make Intel-based Macs. Not clear if that would make any more business sense for Apple than it did back when clones were terminated the last time, but with sufficient volume that model obviously works.

Lazy

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:40 PM

If this is true my mother in law is going to kick me in the balls. I just talked her into getting a mac mini last month.

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:40 PM

But Appleinsider is only saying that C|NET said....
im confused.

hernick

Jun 3, 2005, 11:42 PM

Apple has always craved publicity. This looks like what could be their smartest move in a long time.

Okay. You've got a keynote coming up on monday, you want people to listen. What do you do ? Leak a very, very controversial story to the mainstream technological press. This story is sure to get every Mac fan riled up.

And they'll be thinking about it all weekend, and they'll be listening to the keynote. Apple has generated massive interest in their keynote speech.

So, what will they actually announce on Monday ? Well, there's another leaked story today, at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp - it's about Dual-Core G5s.

So here's my prediction for Monday's announcement. Apple announces Dual G5s and confirms that the PPC architecture is moving forward - also mentionning the amazing new PPC chips made for the Xbox360 and the PS3.

Apple also announces a new chip supplier: Intel. Those chips will not be used in Macs; they will be used in a new, low-end computer line that Apple will sell. This new line, which won't be called Macs, will not compete directly with Macs. Here's my guess:

For the sake of argument, let's call the new Apple computer line the e-Ntels. Low end machines, powered by Intel chips. They're computer appliances. They come pre-loaded with OS X x86-64 and Apple apps.

You can't install conventional software on them - every piece of software comes pre-installed by Apple, and gets automatically updated. The only software that you can run on it is approved by Apple, and is automatically deployed on all the e-Ntels.

The form factor might be a tablet, or it may be an HTPC, or both ! It's not going to be a conventional computer form factor. It's not going to be a general purpose computer. It's going to be an extremely inexpensive computer appliance.

You can pick one up like you pick up an iPod or a console. Costs at most 300$. You don't need to know anything about computers to use one - they run the incredibly user friendly OS X, which has been stripped down to be even easier.

So, what about the Macs, then ? Well, if you ever overgrow your i-Ntel, if you ever become a power user.. If you ever need software past that which is preinstalled on the i-Ntel (and it'll include everything most home users need), you get a real Mac.

And those Macs will be powerful. They will have fast dual-core PPC chips, and everything you expect from a Mac. They'll be able to network with your i-Ntel appliance, without any configuration, thanks to Rendezvous.

You're a current Mac user ? You'll want an inexpensive i-Ntel tablet and HTPC. It runs OS X and communicates with your real Mac.

Not a Mac user right now ? Tired of your ****** old PC ? Apple has a very inexpensive solution to your problem. Pick up the tiny i-Ntel box availaible at all good computer stores, plug it in, and you're good to go.

I can't wait to know what they're going to announce on Monday. But trust me: they're not dropping PPC - and the use of Intel chips is going to enhance their offerings. Everybody is going to be pleased, including hardcore Mac fans.

gate

Jun 3, 2005, 11:42 PM

From the CNET article:

"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said. "

That's exactly how I feel. If they don't find a way of minimizing the impact of a switch, Apple will suffer for real. I simply can't see most customers buying new versions of softwares because they want to buy a new computer. I wouldn't do it. I would stick with the old hardware 'til the moment I really have to buy new versions of the software I use. So for me, it could mean about 2 years of having to use slower hardware (and be pissed off). I really hope that Apple is not heading in that direction.

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:43 PM

all that's happening is Apple is making an emulator for PCs to run OS X. I bet $500.

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:43 PM

This news is no more shocking than when IBM announced it was no longer making PCs. I think that news is more unlikely but it happened. Mac on Intel. Its the future folks.

VanNess

Jun 3, 2005, 11:43 PM

whooleytoo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:45 PM

Why feel bad for developers?

If Apple whole-heartedly goes to Intel architecture and you've written in Objective-C and Cocoa and Mac OS X runs ontop of intel you've written to Cocoa, not PowerPC 970/G5.

If apple handles the translation of Altivec with a few libraries, whats to stop a recompile with the new intel flags/optimizations and off you go?

If you require good performance, you'd certainly need to optimise your code to some degree.

There almost certainly will be a raft of bugs that show up when re-compiling that would need to be fixed.

If you have to make changes to get the Intel version to work, you may have to branch your code which creates code duplication issues and overhead.

All your tech support staff would most likely need re-training.

You'd need to re-test your application from scratch, pretty much any testing done on the PowerPC version would be invalid.

You'd need to invest in "Intel Macs" for all your development, testing and support staff.

You'd need to redo all your manuals, marketing materials, boxes, etc.

It's certainly not trivial.

chatin

Jun 3, 2005, 11:46 PM

I would be disgusted if they chose Intel's x86 CPUs over AMDs, especially if we're talking about the 64-bit platforms, as I'm assuming we are.

It's my understanding that AMD's chips use of HyperTransport as the bus allows each CPU a certain amount of bandwidth. Each one can use the full bandwidth. On the contrary, Intel's CPUs have to share bandwith. At least, that's the way it's been on the 32-bit side of things. If it holds true for the 64-bit side, this decision sucks. Not to mention that Apple is a founding member of the HyperTransport consortium (http://www.hypertransport.org/consortium/cons_members.cfm) to begin with.

Let's hope that if Intel is really going to be supplying CPUs for the primary product lines, and not a tablet or something, that they'll be Power architecture chips. That would be sad for Intel, though, having to make chips that use HyperTransport :)

If Steve Jobs had any real guts he would have switched to AMD. The AMD64 chips are superior in every way to Intel's. They are better for gaming. better for business.
:D

Bradley W

Jun 3, 2005, 11:46 PM

dicklacara

Jun 3, 2005, 11:47 PM

Lest we forget!

Intel to Apple: Why, hello there beautiful!!!

Apple to IBM: Well, is it going to happen???

IBM to Apple: Not tonight... I have a headache!!!

Apple to Intel: My companion doesn't understand me.

Microsoft to IBM: Aw, C'mon... it won't hurt and we'll stop before anything happens!!!

IBM to Microsoft: Kiss you??? I shouldn't even be in bed with you!!!

mccoma

Jun 3, 2005, 11:47 PM

Not at all. ReCOMPILED. It's the equivalent of clicking a radio button for which CPU you want to target, then doing a QA regression. It will mean changes for some of the SIMD stuff (maybe Apple will do a cross-compiler,) but in general it should be fairly painless for developers. MUCH more so than the 680x0 transition, and that one went fairly well.

the 68K and PPC are big endian - Intel is little endian. This could be a pain in the butt for certain people. Also, the SIMD stuff will be a pain because of the major differences between Altivec and SSE/SSE2.

Cocoa will probably fair better than Carbon.

whooleytoo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:47 PM

Just in :

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1110

HA ha, now those people who didn't believe it cause it wasn't on AppleInsider can believe.

Well, that report just quotes the CNET article, it's not exactly a second source.

Lazy

Jun 3, 2005, 11:48 PM

Take a look at the business. 50% of Mac sales are notebooks and increasing, yet IBM has NOTHING that Apple can use in a notebook. IBM furthermore is telling Apple that it isn't worth the investment to develop a notebook chip.

Where do you think Apple will be in January 2006 when the high-end PowerBook is running a 2.0 GHz G4 chip (maybe) with 3 hours of battery life while PC makers have dual-core Pentium notebooks that get 8 hours of battery? The future is the notebook business, not the desktop market.

This issue is much more serious than "IBM still can't get to 3.0 GHz after 2 years." It has to do with the fact that in 2006, Apple iBook and PowerBook segment will be majorly screwed up the wazoo because IBM has no mobile-friendly chip for Apple, and apparently doesn't care.

That's a very good point. The slowness of progress in the high end may just be added aggravation on top of the real problem -- the lack of a low-power chip.

Lazy

MacTruck

Jun 3, 2005, 11:48 PM

Agathon

Jun 3, 2005, 11:49 PM

What will we call the new Apple computers now? We call Wintels "Wintels".

The New-Apple-Intel machines...

"Aptels"?

"Intles"?

or my favourite..

"Nipples"?

:( :)

whooleytoo

Jun 3, 2005, 11:51 PM

I'd love to think somewhere in a dark room deep in the bowels of Cupertino, some marketing rat realised all the pre-WWDC rumours are about worries over iPod inventory, so they decided to start leaking stories to boost the stock price. Apple switching to Intel? Sure. Apple using dual core PPC? Yup, that too. Steve Jobs is Steve Spielberg's long lost brother? Ah, what the hell, why not?

Capt Underpants

Jun 3, 2005, 11:51 PM

Powerbooks with Pentium-M processors.

[begins drooling]

Agathon

Jun 3, 2005, 11:52 PM

That would annoy me. I just bought a PowerBook.

whenpaulsparks

Jun 3, 2005, 11:53 PM

i just got sick to my stomach. literally.

this would mean certain death of apple's notoriety. and its not just about CPU registers either.

that means they are so desperate to push out their little mac minis that they are sacrificing the G5 and what makes the powerpc great for the age-old x86, which is only retrofitted for x86-64.

i really hope that the intel rumors are for XScale processors in a video ipod and not desktop processors for a mac.

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:56 PM

i wonder - every time apple switched to a new chip, they redesigned the look of their computers. does this mean a fairly decent look for the ugly powermac industrial machine?

Sun Baked

Jun 3, 2005, 11:57 PM

i really hope that the intel rumors are for XScale processors in a video ipod and not desktop processors for a mac.We still got XScale for Airport Extreme BS 2 as a possiblility -- or a return to the palm/tablet/pda market.

Hopefully arn disects this insanity and puts it on Page 2. ;)

funkywhat2

Jun 3, 2005, 11:57 PM

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

"Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"

"3D Rendering: Over Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"

"Video Effects: Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"

And don't forget this IS the year of HDV....

"HDV Rendering: 84% Faster Than Pentium 4"

"Nearly Three Times The Plug-ins As Pentium 4"

"Over 80% Faster Than Dual Xeon at Scientific Analysis"

What was that cnet story about again? lol

Apple can still claim that the G5 is faster then the Pentium 4, even if the G5 becomes a glorified P4. Apple doesn't have to mention that it might be the same exact processor an could easily tweak everything to get the same performance differences. The fact that the G5 is a PPC 970 is only mentioned to professionals and in passing everywhere else - and a marketed name can be applied to anything.

53399

Jun 3, 2005, 11:57 PM

---

TheGimp

Jun 3, 2005, 11:57 PM

big-a$$ negative

At least the dual 2.7's will be enough for most of us to cling to in the coming years. We'll stay put at OS10.4.9. Consider how many are still happy with OS 9.

Doctor Q

Jun 3, 2005, 11:59 PM

If it's true...

Will Apple retain its tight control over Macintosh hardware, or will that make more likely the possibility that Apple would sell you Mac OS for a box manufactured to Apple's specifications but sold by another company, not an Apple retailer?

How will the stock market (and the perceived fortunes of IBM, Intel, Apple, even AMD) react to this story?

Since Apple wouldn't want to dry up current sales with an announcement that they are abandoning their long-time processor, would they plan to sell for both platforms for the foreseeable future and convince buyers that PPC Macs are still a worthy investment and not lame ducks?

or

Since Apple wouldn't want to dry up current sales with an announcement that they are abandoning their long-time processor, would they announce that Intel Macs are already ready for the market, which means they are near the end (not at the beginning) of a secret porting project for Mac OS, Apple applications, and maybe their biggest software vendors?

If it's false...

Will this rank with the worst mistakes by CNET?

xy14

Jun 3, 2005, 11:59 PM

apple should make a new line of computers with this intel chip.

lets call it "Lemons"

Devie

Jun 3, 2005, 11:59 PM

If apple change to X86, then I'm going to be really pissed, I just ordered a iMac!
If its just a move to another producer of PPC chips, then meh, doesnt mean anything.

sord

Jun 3, 2005, 11:59 PM

Powerbooks with Pentium-M processors.

[begins drooling]
*Grabs a bat and starts clubbing you to death*

Bradley W

Jun 4, 2005, 12:00 AM

iMeowbot

Jun 4, 2005, 12:00 AM

Monday's Stevenote: "Oh, one more thing. YHBT. YHL. HAND."

sord

Jun 4, 2005, 12:01 AM

If this does happen, and I CERTINALY HOPE IT DOESNT, dual 2.7GHz PMs for $1000 for students? If they do it they better discount their current products like hell because I have dreams too! And a high end dual processor PPC PM is one of them!

mulletman13

Jun 4, 2005, 12:02 AM

Is Intel even liscensed to make PPC chips? I don't know how that works....

I thought he AIM group is only allowed to manufacture them... Apple, IBM , Motorola... in which case could Apple pass on it's rights to Intel to manufacture said chips?

Hrmm..

mad jew

Jun 4, 2005, 12:03 AM

Dunno if this has been posted, I'm not really keeping up with this thread very well, but I just got another email from C|Net saying they've updated the article. I can't notice any difference yet.

mymemory

Jun 4, 2005, 12:03 AM

I am a god! I told THE G5 IS A BIG SCAM!!!

THE CORE audio and video is a technology used by PC ages ago and it was the last resource of Apple to try to SIMULATE speed enhancement in the G5!!!!

The G5 is not more than an overclocked G4, that is why I returned mine BECAUSE IT WAS OVERRATED!

Bradley W

Jun 4, 2005, 12:03 AM

BenRoethig

Jun 4, 2005, 12:05 AM

From the CNET article:

"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift."

Don't know if Apple's marketshare can survive another G4 type fiasco either, but it looks like we're headed that way. Apple is between a rock and a hard place. They have to choose between risking another transition or risking their processor supply drying up.

dicklacara

Jun 4, 2005, 12:05 AM

MacTruck to dicklacara: That was Lame.

MacTruck

I cannot believe that IBM is dumb enough to let itself get screwed over <b>again</b> by Microsoft...

...If they are, then there is no future with IBM, for anyone!

sonyrules

Jun 4, 2005, 12:06 AM

I have an emac which is more than two years old, with a g4 1 gigahertz which far outperforms my almost brandnew amd emachines 2.17 ghz...we have g3s that are old (BW G3) that work great for lots of things and run mac os x...can't say that about any 6 year old pcs....

I agree, I have a g4 cube, and for what i use it for, Its still very fast with tiger in it, I have a cust that has a old g3, 350 beige powermac, and to my suprise, with panther in it, it pretty snappy at the internet and basic stuff... that just shows that appl ecan make not only the hardware work, but the software work well at 6 years old.

KooStarck

Jun 4, 2005, 12:06 AM

Those chips will not be used in Macs; they will be used in a new, low-end computer line that Apple will sell. This new line, which won't be called Macs, will not compete directly with Macs. (snip)
The form factor might be a tablet, or it may be an HTPC, or both ! It's not going to be a conventional computer form factor. It's not going to be a general purpose computer. It's going to be an extremely inexpensive computer appliance.

This dovetails neatly with all the rumors floating around about an Apple Media Hub device running some sort of embedded OS, but also able to run a graphically rich UI and even Dashboard widgets. Intel make all sorts of processors for the set-top, embedded and wireless markets, so this makes a lot of sense.

It is the one missing piece of the puzzle for Apple. This will be a computer appliance for non-computer users, people who want an iTunes / AirTunes jukebox, a TiVO, a wireless access gateway/firewall, maybe even a wireless IP telephony application (iphone?).

It also opens the doors for new significant markets - one, doing an end-run around Microsoft's IPTV initiative, as an end-user terminal for streaming HD programming either as an "IP cable box", downloadable free programs like "HD podcasts," and purchased / rented movies via an Apple Movie Store.

The tablet could also dovetail with it - maybe acting as a rich-media remote control for the Media Hub, maybe as a video iPod in-home (screen to stream content to from the Hub) as a wireless client device with an embedded browser (a kind of Knowledge Navigator) and access to email, contacts, etc. via .Mac; maybe via Remote Desktop screen-sharing it could be a remote screen for a desktop Mac as well.

I really don't think Apple would put Pentiums in their desktops - even if it is technically possible. One, the PR blowback would be crippling: it belies the message of PPC superiority they've sent out over a good decade of marketing. Two, for technically unsavvy purchasers, it makes the choice even more confusing than trying to explain the differences between windows and mac, powerpc and x86.

Overall It doesn't provide anyone with a compelling reason to switch, other than the OS and user experience, even on a 'closed' box.

They won't release OS X for generic PCs either, because the support issues would be a nightmare (potentially infinite number of system configurations, manufacturers, chipsets, bios versions), and it would kill their hardware business. Apple is not Microsoft; their money is in making Macs - OS X and the iApps are the bait to get us to buy them. Nobody buys a new PC to get Windows, I imagine...