Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Full Wall Street Journal Article:

Apple Explores Use
Of Chips From Intel
For Macintosh Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, in a sign of how small a player Apple remains in the PC market, the strong sales have translated into only minuscule market-share gains. Apple rose to 2.3% of new world-wide PC sales in the first three months of the year from 2% the prior quarter. Windows PCs account for the vast majority of the rest of the market.
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
If Apple changes to an Intel platform two things will definitely happen very fast:
- The first effective OS X virus will exploit a buffer overflow that can be executed on the crappy Intel CPU.
- I will stop considering myself to be a Mac user, after 11 years on the platform. My next purchase would NOT be a Mac.

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

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

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

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

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

The Xscale (Intel version of ARM) might be used in more Apple devices.
 
Don't Panic - Probably just a smart backup plan

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

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

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

Besides:

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

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

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

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

In the long term, I want whatever can run OS X best. I like the PPC architecture a lot better, but I don't want Apple to close any doors.
 
it's BS, the reason macs cost as much as they do is the case, the powerpc is not slower it has more of a future and all of apples software is optimised for it, it would be the greatest blunder in history if apple switched to x86 and if they did why the hell with intel AMD is a far better choice as sun Microsystems has proven. the powerpc is a strong architecture it's not slower than x86 and it's not more expensive, the most expensive part of the emac is the case.

intel has been doing worse than IBM the P4 has not moved in clock speed for eons the dual core p4 is slow as **** and wont ship to anyone but dell for yonks, the only thing they have going for them is the pentium M which is just a P3 with a giant cache and clock speed control, they are much slower on battery than they are when they are pluged in.
 
I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but I haven't read through all the replies so I was wondering if someone could answer my questions.

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

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

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

As a side question, why not use AMD?
 
i'm guessing this is simply a political move by apple, to push the folks at ibm to upgrade and deliver chips much faster. think part of the problem, though may also be a solution, is ibm is bogged down with making chips for ps3 and xbox360 as well. with both of those respective companies pushing ibm i'm sure, as there will be insane demand for those consoles. which in the long term, i think will be the solution to making better, faster, cheaper, cooler chips for apples needs as well.
 
crpchristian said:
using Intel for something portable, why not? Its not as though the ipod or such devices is running on OS X.

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

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

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

But this would mean competition within a company and thats bad. Intel could scale back development of a faster PPC to save its name sake the P4.
 
Josh396 said:
I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but I haven't read through all the replies so I was wondering if someone could answer my questions.

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

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

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

As a side question, why not use AMD?

i'm no engineer, but i'd assume it's very possible for intel or amd to make a powerpc chip. second, i doubt the speed issue is simply to blame on the powerpc architecture as it will be in ps3/xbox360 and from what i've read, they are gonna speed monsters with multiple processors.
 
uhzoomzip said:
I believe this rumor was leaked by Apple and it's purpose is to put pressure on IBM. Apple may have some reasons to be discouraged by IBM:

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

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

This is just nuts.

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

Who's to say Intel won't get involved with PowerPC? Intel... If they're not in on the ground floor with patents they're not going to get involved, See Infiniband vs. PCI-Express (AKA Future I/O and 3GIO) The first was IBM/Compaq/HP the Second was Intel and everyone who uses only Intel stuff (gateway/dell) before it got all hammered out in the late 90s early 2000s
 
mrsebastian said:
i'm guessing this is simply a political move by apple, to push the folks at ibm to upgrade and deliver chips much faster. think part of the problem, though may also be a solution, is ibm is bogged down with making chips for ps3 and xbox360 as well. with both of those respective companies pushing ibm i'm sure, as there will be insane demand for those consoles. which in the long term, i think will be the solution to making better, faster, cheaper, cooler chips for apples needs as well.
In a different discussion here folks were saying that the PPC chip for the XBox were gonna be fabricated at different factories other than IBM so I cant see how IBM would be bogged down producing chips for the new XBox.That theroy doesnt fly..
 
savar said:
Buffer overflows generally don't have anything to do with the CPU, except that like most CPUs the stack can be overwritten.

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

Uhm, actually there have been a recent articles that it's inherent in the stack-order execution of the x86 architecture that more buffer overflows appear on Intel systems...The Execute disable features help but at the same time..
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
First SCSI -> IDE, then ADC -> DVI, and now PPC -> Intel???
Are they aiming to make a Wintel clone? :eek:
I hope this rumor is false.

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

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

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

MIAMI

(Microsoft-Intel-Apple-Motorola-IBM) :D
 
OS X for x86 is the best thing Apple can do, although they should have done it over 15 years ago! I just hope it's not too late.

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

Common guys Apple market-share is pathetic and this may be the only solution.
 
Yvan256 said:
That'd be more PPC->x86 instead of PPC->intel (as AMD and VIA both make x86 processors too).

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

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

MIAMI

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

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

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

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


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

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

We've all heard it before. :rolleyes:

PS- Did I EVER mention a G5 in a PowerBook? Nope. I don't care if its a revamped G4 but the simple fact is at 1.67Ghz The PowerBook is getting soundly thrashed by a similarily speced Pentium M. But keep on talking trash because that is all you can do to support an aging platform.
 
muffler said:
This is definetely complete BS. You could leave the executables as they are. You would only have to adopt the interface for Aqua, thats it.

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

You're kind of right. A Win32 compatible API would have to exist within OS X... something like WINE.
 
muffler said:
This is definetely complete BS. You could leave the executables as they are. You would only have to adopt the interface for Aqua, thats it.

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

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

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

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

you don't have to emulate windows, you can run windows in a window - like Virtual PC for Windows does.
 
Evangelion said:
AFAIK, the pipelines on G5 are roughly the same length as the pipelines on Athlon64 are.
Yes, but as I understand it, RISC is more suitable to pipelining compared to CISC as the instructions are roughly the same size with RISC. CISC was not designed for pipelining. My assumption was this will lead to more 'waste' with longer pipelines compared to RISC architecture but that's uninformed speculation from my hand.

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

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



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

As I said, there are good possibilities in these processors for Apple, and what do you mean with vagualy related? Is G5 also vaguely related to Power4? I'm just saying there are other options for PPC then multicore.
 
I'm not so concerned or caught up about the whole OS X on Intel thing. As long as it remains OS X.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone agree with me that if Apple can make Intel processors available on the iMac or Mini, it would actually be a good thing? I mean, in this case, Apple gets to provide higher performance in its consumer lineup with lower cost.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.