Apple in Talks with Intel?

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,437
8,501


This Reuters story revives one of the oldest Mac rumors around... Apple switching to Intel?

The rumor originated at The Wall Street Journal:

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.
Apple has seriously considered switching to Intel at least twice in its history. One previous project code-named Star Trek actually ported Mac OS 7 to Intel based hardware in 1992. Most recently, internal IBM documents noted that Apple considered switching to Intel but felt it would be too much trouble:

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

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,265
76
I find this impossible to believe. I think the recent announcements of Xbox 360 and PS3 (which both contain processors manufactured by IBM, though the latter wasn't developed solely by IBM) show that IBM has some major potential in being the future of the processor industry. Furthermore, even if Apple wasn't going to use IBM, it looks to me like Intel should be the last choice, as AMD has passed them up again in terms of performance.

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

rickmac2005

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2005
12
0
If apple chose to switch to intel now they would be choosing the worst time in a decade- with evry other manufacturer making the move to powerpc- even microsoft, it would be stupid to move at a time when intel could eventually be left high and dry.
 

macmax77

macrumors regular
Sep 2, 2004
134
0
Chaszmyr said:
I find this impossible to believe. I think the recent announcements of Xbox 360 and PS3 (which both contain processors manufactured by IBM, though the latter wasn't developed solely by IBM) show that IBM has some major potential in being the future of the processor industry. Furthermore, even if Apple wasn't going to use IBM, it looks to me like Intel should be the last choice, as AMD has passed them up again in terms of performance.

Bottom line: The only way I think this can be true is if Intel has some big new thing coming out that Apple knows about and we do not.
+1 . But i would hate it, hate the Intel music thingy at the end of the adds
 

nomore

macrumors member
Feb 11, 2005
91
0
Looking at recent Apple patents, maybe it's for a centrino processor for a PDA/Tablet type device. A huge platform shift from OS9 to OSX took quite some time. Imagine how long it would take to transition to a different HW architecture, not to mention the amount of time and cost to ALL OS X software developers. I find it highly unlikely that Apple would change to x86 on the Mac platform.
 

fraggle

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2003
75
0
Switzerland
macmax77 said:
+1 . But i would hate it, hate the Intel music thingy at the end of the adds
AFAIK you do not have to do this, it just gives you some money from Intels PR pool... I strongly doubt that Apple would do this :)
 

dobbin

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2002
587
5
England
Does this mean that Mac OS would be designed to run on any old POS intel box, or would Apple just be buying in intel chips to put in Macs?

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

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

harveypooka

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2004
1,302
0
This has all came before - you'd think they'd go for Cell instead of Intel? They'd open up a wealth of applications and games, but they'd possibly lose
their devoted Mac fans. Can you imagine a neat little 'Intel Inside' on the front of your G5? Never! They'll stick with IBM.
 

scottschor

macrumors newbie
Apr 8, 2005
4
0
Connecticut
If they already have an OS ported to run on Intel, and it opens up new markets and/or offers opportunities for greater performance, why shouldn't they partner with significant others?

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

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

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

Go, baby, go.
 

Frisco

macrumors 68020
Sep 24, 2002
2,475
69
Utopia
I think Apple will have a response pretty quickly if this rumor is false, because this rumor will hurt Mac sales. Who would buy a Mac now if they are moving over to Intel--oh sorry Mactel :)
 

animefan_1

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2002
249
0
New York
scottschor said:
Manogomy? Humbug. They shifted from Motorola to IBM and no one lost any sleep over it. You think they're abandoning their core customers? Don't be silly. My trusty old G3/400 still works, still runs Tiger, and will do so for the foreseeable future.
You seem to be forgetting the little fact that both Motorola and IBM are part os the PowerPC 'AIM' alliance (the 'A' being Apple). That, and the fact that when Apple switched from Moto to IBM, they didn't change processor types - it remained PowerPC.
 

Apple.Girl

macrumors newbie
May 23, 2005
1
0
Maine
Re: Apple in Talks with Intel?

nomore said:
Imagine how long it would take to transition to a different HW architecture, not to mention the amount of time and cost to ALL OS X software developers. I find it highly unlikely that Apple would change to x86 on the Mac platform.
I agree, it seems unlikely and would probably stir up a lot of resentment, anger, and animosity. I switched from a PC for the PowerPC/OSX architecture. I'm running a 1.33GHz G4 in my PowerBook and I find that pretty fast for almost all tasks (except Photoshop edits), so I find it hard to believe that it's just a megahertz decision... and if Apple is considering a move, would strongly urge them to reconsider!
 

Mitthrawnuruodo

Moderator emeritus
Mar 10, 2004
13,591
141
Bergen, Norway
If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,314
5
Few problems with this:

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

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

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

abrooks

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2004
620
54
London, UK
As much as I hate to read this flapdoodle, I see no reason why we cannot imagine the opposite, is it possible that Intel are dabbling with PowerPC architecture, as someone has already mentioned Microsoft and many other companies are moving to this architecture for games consoles, maybe Intel have seen the light.
 

Frisco

macrumors 68020
Sep 24, 2002
2,475
69
Utopia
abrooks said:
As much as I hate to read this flapdoodle, I see no reason why we cannot imagine the opposite, is it possible that Intel are dabbling with PowerPC architecture, as someone has already mentioned Microsoft and many other companies are moving to this architecture for games consoles, maybe Intel have seen the light.
Good Point! That would make more sense. It's only a rumor so who knows.

I bet IBM would be pissed though.