From MacCentral Report: Apple will go Intel next year

[FelixDerKater]

Report: Apple will go Intel next year (http://www.maccentral.com/news/0210/28.intel.php)

[edesignuk]

SERIOUSLY doubt it!

[Chaszmyr]

I am not so sure that will happen... Apple likes being ahead of the game... and if you are using the same products as your competition you will never have a chance of being ahead.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
Report: Apple will go Intel next year (http://www.maccentral.com/news/0210/28.intel.php)

sounds like an interesting article and who ever thought that a machine built by apple would ever use a microprocessor built by IBM?

who ever thought that macs would come with MS software on it right out fo the box?

anything can happen in the high tech industry but i still somehow hope motorola makes faster processors and apple sticks with them and we get a decently fast G5 or whatever the next generation is called

even if apple moved to the standard intel platform, apple would still be light years ahead in industrial design and durability

right now, the best intel running computers are the VAIOs and toshibas...but i still prefer any mac;)

[peter2002]

It's about time. I'm glad somebody has woke up at Apple. By October 2003, Intel will have the 4.4GHZ P5 with a 1MB L2 cache and a 600MHZ FSB, so why would anybody want a 1.8GHZ 970?

Peter :)

[Telomar]

I'd take the report with a grain of salt. It is based on the assumption people want single faster CPUs. In fact market research tells us this isn't the case and there is an increasing push towards multi-processor or multi-core designs.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by peter2002
It's about time. I'm glad somebody has woke up at Apple. By October 2003, Intel will have the 4.4GHZ P5, so why would anybody want a 1.8GHZ 970?

Peter :)

Because the 1.8 will wipe the floor with the 4.4 intel, that's why. Performance, performance, performance :rolleyes:

[peter2002]

Because the 1.8 will wipe the floor with the 4.4 intel, that's why. Performance, performance, performance

Bud, that 970 is vaporware. Nobody knows what kind of performance it may have. I wouldn't bet a billion dollar company on a product that not here, and may never work as claim. CEO's and directors aren't that stupid.

And I have seen the 970's numbers. It's not even as fast as the 1GHZ Itanium 2. So there is no competition. Just more hot air from IBM. IBM can't compete in the chip market with Intel, nobody can, and nobody ever will. Whoever has the most money always wins, and Intel has got the most mula. IBM has too many forks in the fire.

Peter

[Sun Baked]

Macs have been sold with Intels x86 style chip installed before...

[barkmonster]

and on that day eminem and vanilla ice will both dress as Corperal Klinger and have a custard pie fight on live TV.

An in house drive pie is more likely than an intel based apple computer :D

[Mr. Anderson]

Ha, all based on speculation. I don't think it will happen and we'll have to resurrect this thread in 14 months to see if it came true.....

D

[DakotaGuy]

Apple will also ditch it's own operating system in 2003 and began selling computers with Windows XP...I mean really...if they are going x86 why waste their money on making their own OS when MS has pretty much caught up with XP. With the new PC Apples, they will come loaded with the great "i" programs and have special styling...those features should keep them competitive against Dell and Gateway. Bill Gates is happy to finally provide the only choice in a consumer operating system, it's either Wintel...or your typewriter.

(I am being sarcastic if you have not figured it out yet)

[MrMacMan]

OH NO
:Checks if pig are flying: Hmm... That only means one thing
:check if core of earth froze: I didn't REALLY want that apocalypse anyway...
heheh.
If you read the article it doesn't say that apple will go to intel... plus IBM is showing life with this 970 Chip, Heck Many Motorola can roll over in its grave and make a faster chip too?
Dare I speak the words of G5! ;)

[mischief]

For responding to an idiotic rumor.

Peter2002: The Itanium isn't a desktop chip, the 970 is. Intel's P5 is no less vaporware than the PPC 970, which has actually been tooled and proto'd.

This article is based on 1 study of broad market trends which apply to Apple as much as broad weather trends apply to Antarctica.:rolleyes:

"Analysis of 2002 tropical storms show huge statistical vacuum in Antarctica that guarantees being McMurdo being hit by a cat 5 hurricaine next year!":eek:

[FelixDerKater]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Macs have been sold with Intels x86 style chip installed before...

The X86 chips sold in Macs in the past were not the main CPU, but rather a PC compatibility card. So, no, Apple has never sold a computer with an X86 processor as the main chip. :)

[springscansing]

Whatever.. why NOT go to Intel? Think about it.

You'd have the exact same speeds as the competition, guaranteed. Neutral.

BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one. Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.

Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.

Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.

So... what's SO bad about intel? If IBM is faster, go IBM. But Intel would be great too!

[mischief]

Originally posted by springscansing

BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one. Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.

Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.

Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.

So... what's SO bad about intel? If IBM is faster, go IBM. But Intel would be great too!

Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.

Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.

You're basically saying that if Pigs could fly we could all have fried pork wings and wouldn't that just be peachy.:rolleyes: Because of course, not being a genetic scientist it would make all that cooking stuff so much easier. If this was a face to face I'd slap you. :p

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater


The X86 chips sold in Macs in the past were not the main CPU, but rather a PC compatibility card. So, no, Apple has never sold a computer with an X86 processor as the main chip. :)
Never said CPU, said installed in a Mac...

Up to that point it was a self-install. :p

So technically, Apple has sold Wintel machines before.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by MrMacman
OH NO
:Checks if pig are flying: Hmm... That only means one thing
:check if core of earth froze: I didn't REALLY want that apocalypse anyway...
heheh.
If you read the article it doesn't say that apple will go to intel... plus IBM is showing life with this 970 Chip, Heck Many Motorola can roll over in its grave and make a faster chip too?
Dare I speak the words of G5! ;)
Remember, you asked for it...

While all the old arguments, as to why it's bad to embrace the Wintel world still stand, it would be like embracing OS/2s fate.

If you're just another compatible machine/OS, why bother writing for the other machine/OS.

[iJon]

Originally posted by Chaszmyr
I am not so sure that will happen... Apple likes being ahead of the game... and if you are using the same products as your competition you will never have a chance of being ahead.
I would rather be with my competition than fastly falling behind it.

iJon

[mischief]

Originally posted by iJon

I would rather be with my competition than fastly falling behind it.

iJon

Okay, listen up all you newbies:

<Flame on>

APPLE SWITCHING TO INTEL OR ANY OTHER X86 CHIP WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS WASTE OF RESOURCES AND WOULD ONLY CONTRIBUTE TO FALLING FURTHER BEHIND.

IF IT WERE AS SIMPLE AS JUST POPPING IN AN ATHLON APPLE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCESSOR EVERY YEAR.

IN ORDER TO TRANSFER TO X86 APPLE WOULD HAVE TO RECOMPILE ALL THE CODE IN OS X ABOVE DARWIN AND REDESIGN ALL THE HARDWARE FROM SCRATCH.

UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT AN APPLE LOGO ON A PC CLONE I SUGGEST YOU THINK SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ABOUT THE IDEA YOU ARE PROPOSING BEFORE SUGGESTING IT LIKE AN IDIOT.

<Flame off>

Now admittedly all of us have posted some very stupid things from time to time but when you don't really know, I suggest you research or make your comment in the form of a question so we can debate viability rather than roasting you like marshmallows.;)

[iJon]

Yeah i know man. I would hate apple you go to intel. im just saying apple is behind in the speed business. although it really doesnt matter to me because i dont buy a comptuer for its speed, but for what it can do.

iJon

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by mischief


Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.

Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.
...


Moving Mac OS X to Intel/AMD would not be that difficult because it was written with portability in mind. Moving some of the applications, which might not be so carefully written, would probably not be.

Certainly, there wouldn't be any more software just because they changed the main processor because Mac OS X isn't suddenly going to have a Windows compatibility layer.

[mac15]

They can port it in a week minimum, But It would kill Applehardware. not unless intel made a special apple only thing on a new non ppc format.

[mangoduck]

the second comment to that article is great: " Yep. It's official. They're having snowball fights in hell. Honest. I have a giga report saying so."

and why would they switch to x86 when they're going to have the ppc970 (or some variation thereof) at their disposal by that time?

been said before, it would kill apple hardware. dead horse plz.

[madamimadam]

Giga where used as a resource for this NewsFactor article (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19208.html) and some of the masses of us pissed off people did some research and it turns out than Giga are on the payroll of none other than Microsoft.

Need I say any more???

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by madamimadam
Giga where used as a resource for this NewsFactor article (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19208.html) and some of the masses of us pissed off people did some research and it turns out than Giga are on the payroll of none other than Microsoft.

Need I say any more???
say no more.

besides the whole speed argument is boring. that is not reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!

i_b_joshua

oh and melbourne IS the place to be :)

[macmax]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Apple will also ditch it's own operating system in 2003 and began selling computers with Windows XP...I mean really...if they are going x86 why waste their money on making their own OS when MS has pretty much caught up with XP. With the new PC Apples, they will come loaded with the great "i" programs and have special styling...those features should keep them competitive against Dell and Gateway. Bill Gates is happy to finally provide the only choice in a consumer operating system, it's either Wintel...or your typewriter.

(I am being sarcastic if you have not figured it out yet)

If this happens someday, i will go back to a pencil and a notebook, no more computers for me:mad:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by i_b_joshua


we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!

i_b_joshua

oh and melbourne IS the place to be :)

come crying to people like rower_cpu, mischief, bttm, or me...people who fix and/or sell computers

ve vill take jour monies!!!

broken computers keep techies/computer sales people employed, macs and pcs alike, but i have to admit...at the rate that pcs still break down at, there is more money per computer in fixing the pc side of the fence:p

[dethl]

Didn't apple just release the a new version of the darwin base code for the x86? Even though moving to x86 would be a pain in the butt...it could be done. But seriously, I wouldn't want them to do it. I like my iBook just the way it is thank you very much.

[mischief]

Q2 2003: Apple Revs into 1st generation Moto 7457's @ 1.2-1.6Ghz

Q3 2003: Apple Revs 7457's to all machines, towers go to 1.8 at the high end.

Q4 2003: PPC970 is introduced @ 1.8 Ghz in the xServes, which sell in smaller quantities allowing for IBM ramping production.

Q1 2004: Towers get PPC 970's. All machines above 1 Ghz.

Q2 2004: TiBooks gain DDR.

Q3 2004: TiBooks gain PPC970m's. Apple introduces X.2.5 and X.2 x86

[transistor]

IF Apple turns Intel, it is because they already have the OS AND hardware working with Intel. EOF.

I love my Mac, but I am not really sure if I care if it is Intel, Moto or IBM, as long as there are still cool Macintosh computers to buy!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by springscansing
Whatever.. why NOT go to Intel? Think about it.

You'd have the exact same speeds as the competition, guaranteed. Neutral.

BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one.
Even when the nicer one costs hundreds more? The public at large is not buying Apple's nice machines now. They wouldn't buy Apple's nice machines if they had Intel inside either.
Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.
OS X is an easy sell over XP? I don't think so. Only for geeks and Mac lovers. OS X doesn't run Windows software, therefore, it's no contest. Public perception of Microsoft outside the geek world is very positive.
Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.
You're mostly wrong, except in the case of programs which have hardware-specific optimizations. All Windows apps would still have to be ported over to an OS X-native API.
Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.
Actually it would mean fewer differences between Macs and PCs, leading to less ability for consumers to differentiate the two, leading them to buy even FEWER Macs, requiring Macs to come down in price by a huge amount just to stay competitive, obliterating Apple's margins and eventually driving them out of business. Intel can suck it as far as I'm concerned. The day Apple switches to Intel will the be the day I switch to the Amiga.

[scem0]

IBM or Intel, I care not, as long as it isn't moto :o ...........

[solvs]

Originally posted by i_b_joshua

besides the whole speed argument is boring. that is not reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!


Why is it every time someone says they want Macs to be faster, they are Crybabies? We like the OS, the iApps, the Design. etc. Why is it so wrong to want faster processors? Like it or not, PCs are the competition. OS X is great, but when you can build a PC for less than the cheapest Mac, that's faster at a lot of things than the fastest Mac, there is a problem. For those of us who do things that need as much speed as possible, and are on a budget, most of the current Apple offerings are good enough.

That being said, if by the time I'm ready to buy my new Mac (and I will be getting a new Mac, I like OS X enough to want one. And video-editing may be slower, but it's a pain in the *** on the PC), if it's close enough feature, performance, and price wise to a comparitive WinTel, I'll be happy. Most of the current offerings are enough for most users, but some of us need as much speed as we can get.

I just hope they don't have to go Intel to do it.

But if they did, can you imagine running OS X on a home built PC. Good bye the nightmare that is Windows 2000. I think most people are like I am. Hate M$, love Apple software. Tolerate Intel/AMD hardware, hate Motorola. Give us some real IBM compatibles.

Despite my current objections, I still have hope.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by scem0
IBM or Intel, I care not, as long as it isn't moto :o ...........
While I mostly agree - Motorolla and Apple have been together for a looonnnggg time. (1984?) On the other hand, it sometimes feels like Motorolla has been the one that has dumped Apple like a rock.

Personally, as long as OS X runs on it and Final Cut Pro renders my video fast, I could care less what CPU is in the box.

[Dave Marsh]

While I understand why we all want faster Macs, including those who actually need the additional speed (and the rest of us who just think it would be nice to not have to listen to Windows PC owners telling us about their latest CPU's clock speed), I don't really understand why turning to Intel's CPUs is the solution. Yes, Intel knows how to crank out fast processors, but those processors will NOT run Mac software natively.

I believe Apple does keep current a version of MacOS X that runs on X86 processors, but what about all the Mac commercial application software we now use? NONE of it would run on an Intel Mac. It would all have to be rewritten to run in MacOS X on Intel processors, which means we would have to repurchase ALL the software we're currently using. Why would a vendor who currently has an Intel Windows version of their program go to that expense for 5% of the market? Also, how many frustrated Mac users faced with that prospect would incur that repurchase expense?

I also believe Apple currently makes most of its profit by selling a tightly hardware/OS-integrated product. It's able to do that because it controls the hardware AND the OS. This permits them to sell an exceptionally high quality product, with outstanding industrial design. If it switches to Intel's technology, it loses that edge. Then, people would just see a pretty Mac box, with MacOS X inside running on Intel parts. Most non-Mac people truly believe Windows XP is just as good as MacOS X. So, where's the edge that justifies the premium Apple charges to come from? Are switchers really just converting because of Windows, or does the hardware itself play a part in the overall user experience? If the insides are the same, and XP is just as good (NOT MY opinion, by the way), just how much extra is the pretty case worth? Enough to repurchase all my Windows software to run on an Intel Mac?

IBM has produced a path out of this performance mess. Note I say performance, NOT clock speed. I don't think anyone is professing that IBM's 970-series processors will ever out-clock Intel. As Ars Technica noted in their excellent article on the 970 this week, the new processor follows an entirely different philosophy from Intel's. IBM is more focused on total throughput performance, Intel is more focused on highest speed (for its obvious marketing advantage). While we don't yet know just how well this first generation PPC64 will perform vis-a-vis the latest P4, Itanium, or Hammer CPU, we do know that IBM has the expertise, resources, and incentive to tweak the design of this processor to strengthen its weaknesses. (Motorola lost interest in producing desktop computer CPUs years ago, and is now apparently focusing on low voltage, embedded processors.) That means we'll be able to move forward without Apple's entire developer infrastructure and customers being financially harmed.

We should also keep in mind that Apple has been buying up high-end media software companies over the past couple of years, even though it didn't have the hardware to take full advantage of it. The new IBM 970-series processors built on POWER4 technology offer an answer to this standing question.

No, I don't believe Apple has ANY intention of switching to Intel. The x86 MacOS X exercise is just a demonstration project, likely a last-ditch bargaining chip to keep the company alive if all else fails.

Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest. In 18 years of using Macs, I've had to replace a couple of keyboards, a monitor, and a power supply. Otherwise, they never had a hardware issue. I know that's not everyone's experience, but I believe it applies to most Apple users even today. Apple was the first to introduce the use of the 3 1/4" floppy in a commercial personal computer, and the first to discontinue it, the first to incorporate actual sound (vice a beep), the first to use a graphical interface. And even though Intel's USB was built-into PCs before Macs, it was Apple's initiative with the iMac that pressed it into ubiquitous use. It's been Apple's innovation, its R&D, its risk taking that's driven the personal computer experience. Virtually everyone else follows Apple's lead. And, I believe, we're now seeing Apple's next move down this road.

Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.) It's also continuing down the integrated digital user experience road with the iApps, the iPod, the i???. To do this, it needs the flexibility to select the best technology around, and then design its own hardware to accommodate it. Switching to Intel would not facilitate that option, and it would alienate its developers and customer base.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.)

Not just his renderfarms, but his Workstations as well! Its really hard to model and animate with a computer that struggles to even display a simple character. PC's are WAY beyond Apple in this regard.

Im not talking about mHz or gHz--Im just talking about performance period. PC's get the job done for half the price.

Its sad--Im dying to get back into Apple and OSX, but theres really no reason to in my industry.

[gopher]

Originally posted by peter2002
Because the 1.8 will wipe the floor with the 4.4 intel, that's why. Performance, performance, performance

Bud, that 970 is vaporware. Nobody knows what kind of performance it may have. I wouldn't bet a billion dollar company on a product that not here, and may never work as claim. CEO's and directors aren't that stupid.

And I have seen the 970's numbers. It's not even as fast as the 1GHZ Itanium 2. So there is no competition. Just more hot air from IBM. IBM can't compete in the chip market with Intel, nobody can, and nobody ever will. Whoever has the most money always wins, and Intel has got the most mula. IBM has too many forks in the fire.

Peter

And the 4.4 Ghz Pentium IV is not vaporware? The 970 was announced at the Microprocessor forum....I've heard no news that a 4.4 Ghz Pentium IV has been announced. And I'm turning off email notification, so if you want to contact me, you'll have to hit the email below.

[jefhatfield]

dave marsh,
great argument against going with intel!

while it would be nice to stay with motorola and ibm, apple inc should at least make it an option to go intel if they needed to

there should be a plan b also

[springscansing]

Originally posted by mischief


Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.

Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.

You're basically saying that if Pigs could fly we could all have fried pork wings and wouldn't that just be peachy.:rolleyes: Because of course, not being a genetic scientist it would make all that cooking stuff so much easier. If this was a face to face I'd slap you. :p

Don't they already have Jaguar running on x86 buckshot? Stop being a dick.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by springscansing


Don't they already have Jaguar running on x86 buckshot? Stop being a dick.

ok folks, i hear about jaguar running on x86 over and over again...but is this true?

links?

and could i get one for my pc?

if so, in the future, i would definitely take out windows 98 in favor of having os x on my compaq pc

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by iJon
Yeah i know man. I would hate apple you go to intel. im just saying apple is behind in the speed business. although it really doesnt matter to me because i dont buy a comptuer for its speed, but for what it can do.

iJon

I'm an Apple fan all the way..but sometimes I think you guys are dreaming things up to make yourselves feel better. You buy a computer "for what it can do." Part of what it can do involves how fast it can do it. Sure I can do xyz on my mac, but in most cases, xyz is much much faster on x86 hardware. Albeit some things exist solely on the mac thru OS X and that experience. However, you just cannot deny that part of buying a computer for something involves how fast you can do that something. With some tasks speed is irrevelant, however some it's definitely not.

[Dave Marsh]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

if that's true, then what the heck is apple inc waiting for?

while some cannot afford the expensive apple hardware, they can certainly afford jaguar for the pc

we don't want macs to only be for the ones who "can afford it"

i would definitely put jaguar on my pcs

[Dave Marsh]

I believe I've read Apple makes the bulk of its income selling hardware. MacOS X is the software that makes that possible. If Apple permitted standard PCs to run MacOS X, several things would probably happen:
1. Apple hardware sales would initially plummet, killing Apple's revenue stream.
2. The user experience using MacOS X on Intel would be terrible as Apple would then have to deal with the plethora of hardware incompatibilities in the Wintel world.
3. Apple would be seen as a direct competitor to Microsoft, creating the expected Microsoft reaction, and subsequent marketing campaign pointing out those problems and how they work better currently using Windows XP, so why change?
4. The world would then realize that the reason that Apple's products have been so good is that Apple controls both the hardware and the OS, and stop buying the Intel version of MacOS X.

So, would Apple's $4.3B last long enough for this trauma to work its wait out and permit Apple to return to its closed hardware/OS solution?

It's an interesting thought, that of Apple Macs and Intel Macs in the marketplace. Would Microsoft stand by and permit this? Microsoft has never failed to use its monopoly clout to squash/influence competitors in the past, and I don't doubt they would have private talks with software developers would might think about developing software for this new platform. I think we could forget about Office for Mactel, or Office for Mac, for that matter.

A more realistic, if still far out alternative, is that Apple is simply covering its bases by preserving the ability to switch processors, while retaining control of the box. This means replace the PPC with an Intel chip, maintain a Mac ROM, continue to sell an integrated package that's better than a Wintel solution. That probably wouldn't be as compelling a solution as today's PPC-integrated box, but it would allow Apple to continue selling hardware.

I don't think we'll ever see Apple offering the MacOS to the generic Intel world.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
I believe I've read Apple makes the bulk of its income selling hardware.


This may or may not be true.
This is a screenie of a PDF of their 3rd Quarter earnings for 02:

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=178698


Notice how it splits up software and hardware.
But how is it split exactly?
If you were to take this exactly like it sez now, they make about 8% of their income off of software, but which software?
Software sold seperately (copied of jag, FCP, etc) or does that include software pre-installed on all the machines?

Personally, I think it's only for seperately sold software.The numbers just look too small to include all the pre-installed stuff.
If that's true then they make more money selling software than you woul think.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh

A more realistic, if still far out alternative, is that Apple is simply covering its bases by preserving the ability to switch processors, while retaining control of the box. This means replace the PPC with an Intel chip, maintain a Mac ROM, continue to sell an integrated package that's better than a Wintel solution.

this is probably the smartest thing said on this thread.

i'm willing to bet apple has intel-based prototypes, on custom motherboards, that they constantly test on. and if those machines were actually 2-3x as fast as the PPCs (as the MHz ratio leads some people on this site to believe), why wouldn't they switch?

given what dave marsh said, it wouldn't matter if it's Intel, or AMD, or Bob's Chip Consortium, 'cuz Apple would treat is as just another piece in their h/w offering.

let's separate the ideas of "using Intel" and "windows compatible."

THAT said, let's not forget how painful of a process it would be, waiting for all the app vendors to port their code. apple would make it easier for them by offering something like Carbon, but hey, haven't we suffered enough waiting for vendors to move to OSX?

[MacsRgr8]

I just installed Darwin 6.0.2 on a P3 running @ 733 Mhz, and also the same build on a dual 533 MHz G4. The actual installation took twice as much time on the Pentium.
Both OS's had XFree running as the only gui, so I think the real question would be:

WILL AQUA EVER COME TO THE X86?
The Aqua gui is what we all really love, with all the i-Apps.

(I sure hope not!)(':cool:')

You can get the installers here:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh

2. The user experience using MacOS X on Intel would be terrible as Apple would then have to deal with the plethora of hardware incompatibilities in the Wintel world.


I see this all the time, and it just makes no sense. Any hard drive I could put in my PC I can put in my mac (besides SATA).

Any CD drive that I could put in a PC I could put in a Mac. True not ALL of them are totally compatible, but in the Windows world, not all cd drives are compatible with all burning programs, etc.

Pretty much all RAM works both with PC and Mac.

Ever heard of monitors not working with a Mac?


3rd party devices are essentially that...3rd PARTY. My Keyspan Digital Media Remote...Apple doesn't make that compatible..Keyspan does. So basically this makes no sense to me...what hardware are you referring to? If the device is a third party device, then it's that company's problem to make it compatible...if it wasn't compatible..then they wouldn't make it for that computer.

This concern is just crap...think about it really. Sure...you might buy a CD drive or some sort and it might not work with Toast, etc....but that's not Apple's fault...and the same infrequent incompatibilities occur on the Window's side of the field as well. Don't tell me that switching to x86 will cause apple more problems then they have now in terms of making devices compatible. Ever see a list of compatible cd drives with iTunes, etc.? Ever see how that list seems to grow with OS updates? It means they are already doing what you say they'd never be able to do. I hope someone understands me.

[nixd2001]

Originally posted by Dave Marsh

Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest.

<sarcasm>

Hey! Steady on there! You're suggesting quality enters in to the equation.... That's pretty revolutionary talk.

</sarcasm>

I'm still amused that the cost and performance number comparison debates so studiously avoid ever letting the word quality creep in to the discussion.

[Dave Marsh]

My point isn't that standard PC hardware couldn't work with Mac OS X for Intel, but that it likely won't with much hardware out of the box. I remember all too well the RAM fiasco we had moving from Mac OS 9 to X because the installer decided the old RAM wasn't good enough for the upgrade. I also had a legacy printer, scanner, ADB to USB adapters, and the like that still don't work, so I've had to replace the hardware that I continue to need. My Saitek joystick only works, somewhat, because of a third party app I recently acquired.

So, assuming Apple could even make any money out of this scenario, what's the ordinary user who's looked at MacOS X in a store, and heard all the kudos about its ease of use to think when he rushes home, reformats his hard drive, and installs it, only to find that some critical piece of hardware for him no longer works? How's that contribute to Apple's ease of use legend? At that moment, MacOS X simply becomes another OS product, with the same issues of every OS, except on the Windows side the issues have been dealt with. Yes, he can contact the vendor. (My experience here is that the vendor simply tells me to buy their newest hardware. What possible incentive do they have to write drivers for legacy hardware just for Apple to reap the profits?)

So, I guess I don't basically disagree with you, but I do believe the devil would be in the details...the specific and huge range of hardware currently in use in the PC world. I also believe this would be a catastrophe for Apple. Apple would basically be setting up the clones scenario all over again, only this time it would be with every PC vendor in the world. Apple's hardware would certainly not be able to compete at cost against a barebones PC setup. While that might seem a plus to some, Apple has to pay for all that R&D and industrial design that other vendors don't. How would Apple survive? And finally, would Microsoft just sit on the sidelines and allow another OS compete on its proprietary turf? I think not.

[Catfish_Man]

...
Reasons for Apple to switch to an x86 processor (Hammer, or Pentium 4):
1) Speed advantage until 2H03
2) Easier Windows emulation
3) High MHz numbers for marketing

Reasons for Apple to not switch to an x86 processor:
1) All PowerPC optimizations would have to be thrown out (including all Altivec code)
2) All software would have to be recompiled (at the very least)
3) The speed advantage would be negligible after the PowerPC 970 comes out (more on this at the end)
4) PC hackers would almost inevitably reverse engineer the "won't boot on a generic PC" protections that Apple would put into OSX
5) New versions of all software would have to be bought
6) Many developers wouldn't switch (since they just went through one switch, from 9 to X), they'd just develop for Windows instead
7) Having to support two different processors for a long time would be a major drain on their budget (especially since they'd have to optimize for two different architectures)
8) Intel and AMD are both trying to get rid of x86 (Intel with IA-64, AMD with x86-64), why would Apple switch to it now?
9) easier speed comparisons would highlight any low performance areas (and we know OSX still isn't that fast)





PowerPC 970 vs. Prescott Pentium 4:
970 has 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth
Prescott has 5.3GB/sec
970 uses 42 watts of power
Prescotts power consumption is unknown, but will likely be similar
970 is on .13 micron SOI
Prescott is on .09 micron
970 starts at 1.8GHz
Prescott will likely be at 3.6GHz
970 will likely get about 4 IPC
Prescott will probably get about 2 IPC
970 is built for multiprocessing and multicore
Prescott can't do multiprocessing
970's memory bus runs at 1/2 the processor frequency
Prescott's is 667MHz.

Overall performance will likely be similar, with the Pentium 4 taking a lead in single precision integer and double precision vector, and the 970 leading in double precision integer, floating point, and single precision vector. In multiprocessor systems, the 970 will crush the Pentium 4, but will be more expensive. When the 970 switches to .09 micron circuitry (which should be well before Intel switches to .065), dual core 970s become practical, the clock frequency can go higher (the bus frequency would go up with it), the power consumption is lower, and it's cheaper and smaller.

Any comparisons to the Intel Itanium or Itanium2 processors, or AMD Opteron processors are useless as they are intended for entirely different markets (and VERY different price ranges). Useful comparisons will be against AMD Athlon64s, and Intell Pentium 4s (or they may call it the Pentium 5 by then).

[AssassinOfGates]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


sounds like an interesting article and who ever thought that a machine built by apple would ever use a microprocessor built by IBM?


Umm my powermac 7500 has an old IBM PPC chip in it.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by AssassinOfGates


Umm my powermac 7500 has an old IBM PPC chip in it.

i was talking about way before the aim alliance when ibm was the big brother of computing before microsoft came in and took everything over;)

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i was talking about way before the aim alliance when ibm was the big brother of computing before microsoft came in and took everything over;)

The iBook and CRT iMac both use post-AIM IBM chips. I see your point though, luckily IBM seems to have changed greatly since then.