Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple in Talks with Intel?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm pretty sure that VMWARE does very little real emulation and passes most instructions directly to the processor. This why it is faster to run windows with vmware from linux than it is to run windows from vpc in osX.muffler said:
Thats a good analogy!
Yvan256 said:Found this comment on Slashdot:
What really happened ... (Score:5, Funny)
by maxwell demon (590494) on Monday May 23, @09:37AM (#12611351)
Steve Jobs said he liked the potato chips he was offered during an Intel presentation, and plans to sell the same chips in Apple's cafeteria as well.
Now the argument is gonna be how many ridges does each chip have and are they crunchy or not.Ya know ridges make for a more powerful snack
Booga said:
I don't see it. I don't think Apple is suffering because of the price of the CPU. Probably it wouldn't be much different with Intel. Also, in the beginning OS X would run much slower on x86s because it is optimized for PPC. In any event, the PPC is not a slow processor.
From an article at Linux Insider by Paul Murphy 9/30/04 titled "But Macs Are Slower, Right?".
So switching to Intel CPUs does not give Apple a cost advantage and does not give Apple a speed advantage. Then why do it? I think it is clear that the reasons have to do with chips other than Pentiums. The people suggesting ARM chips for a future iPod are probably on the right track.
Not likely
Not likely. Too many people would know. I be no one outside of Apple, and perhaps the MS Apple business unit have been working on this. No way would Adobe, Macromedia, etc. have been given this information.
Think about it. If they are currently discussing it with Intel, then there is no firm deal yet anyway.
BarfBag said:
Not likely. Too many people would know. I be no one outside of Apple, and perhaps the MS Apple business unit have been working on this. No way would Adobe, Macromedia, etc. have been given this information.
Think about it. If they are currently discussing it with Intel, then there is no firm deal yet anyway.
Hank_Reardon said:..I made this post for two reasons. First, please stop speculating about Cell's in Apples unless you have some technical solutions to Cell's shortcomings to offer. Cell was not designed as a desktop processor, and just because it has one small core with similar origins to Apple's current G5's says absolutely nothing about it's suitability for a desktop solution. Second, stop the hysteria over Apple-Intel rumors. If Apple was planning an x86-64 migration, I would fully expect it to be to Intel rather than AMD. And if Apple did migrate, it would be one of the best moves they have ever made. I can explain that further if anyone is interested.
-Hank Reardon
Yes - I am interested. Pls explain. (if you find this post)
Not that important?
While this may be true for the "fun apps", the real important apps are not made on XCode (that I know of). Are MS Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. made using XCode? If not, then the XCode option wouldn't help these and similar products to be simply recompiled for x86.
Any feedback from people who work on these types of apps?
alandail said:
While this may be true for the "fun apps", the real important apps are not made on XCode (that I know of). Are MS Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. made using XCode? If not, then the XCode option wouldn't help these and similar products to be simply recompiled for x86.
Any feedback from people who work on these types of apps?
Phew...ok, I have read through all 13 pages now.
I have some questions though. Assuming Apple would change from PPC to x86, wouldn't that render all current mac applications useless?
If so, don't think that would be a rather silly idea since all users would more or less have to start from scratch again?
Many science dept have invested a lot of effort in tweaking these programs such that they fit their needs perfectly. Apple is rather big in some science communities. In science you just don't switch from one platform to another just like that. What do you think the likelihood would be to have these guys remain as Mac users if Apple tried to pull a stunt like that?
Don't you think the program developers would be rather annoyed? What would the likelihood be to have them write new programs for the new platform?
Wouldn't a change in platform more or less leave all useres with >=G5 out in the cold with no support? I was under the impression this was one of main features with Macs that you don't need the latest and greatest to run the latest applications.
Given all the above, don't you think, as many people before have mentioned, it is much more likely that Apple is trying to persuade Intel to begin producing PPC than Apple buying x86?
I have some questions though. Assuming Apple would change from PPC to x86, wouldn't that render all current mac applications useless?
If so, don't think that would be a rather silly idea since all users would more or less have to start from scratch again?
Many science dept have invested a lot of effort in tweaking these programs such that they fit their needs perfectly. Apple is rather big in some science communities. In science you just don't switch from one platform to another just like that. What do you think the likelihood would be to have these guys remain as Mac users if Apple tried to pull a stunt like that?
Don't you think the program developers would be rather annoyed? What would the likelihood be to have them write new programs for the new platform?
Wouldn't a change in platform more or less leave all useres with >=G5 out in the cold with no support? I was under the impression this was one of main features with Macs that you don't need the latest and greatest to run the latest applications.
Given all the above, don't you think, as many people before have mentioned, it is much more likely that Apple is trying to persuade Intel to begin producing PPC than Apple buying x86?
Maybe it would still be a powerpc based processor, just a new one made by Intel?? That would be best you'd think. Intel is good at putting out chips, powerpc = better.
...and how could that be considered good? The performance of a computer is not just the sum of its components.makisushi said:
Besides, when Apple don't even trust other professional computer companies to manufacture Mac clones, I doubt they would let you do it.
fluidinclusion said:
you mean "fun apps" like the OS itself - I'm sure Apple uses XCode internally to build the OS? Developers either use XCode or Codewarrior. XCode has the architecture in place to support this, codewarrior already has x86 compilers that ship with their products. They'd need a new linker and perhaps some new libraries/headers from apple. The important thing is that the OS already supports this sort of thing. Cocoa ran on x86 long before it ran on PowerPC.
Regardless of if they have serious plans to adapt Intel or not, I'm sure that Apple has in their labs OS X Tiger running on x86 hardware. It would be shocking to find out otherwise.
I noticed something profound: QuickTime 7 is built on Cocoa. In order to run on Windows, Apple will have to revive the "Yellow Box" (the Cocoa frameworks on Windows), at least in part. I'm hoping that this means they are about to re-release the Yellow Box with full updates. That would immediately and immensely increase the market for Cocoa apps. And if the Cocoa frameworks are simply included in the QuickTime 7 install, then Cocoa apps compiled to x86 for the Yellow Box could simply list QuickTime 7 as a system requirement.
Doesn't have to be CPUs, there are a bunch on Intel chips that would work in a Mac as it stands right now.
Intel may have offered Apple a sweet deal to switch from one of their other long standing chip vendors.
Remember we did get those AMD processors awhile ago, when Apple signed the deal to use AMD chips -- but that was for the Airport base station.
If you pop the hoods on the Macs there are a lot of non-Apple chips.
But the biggie that Apple needs updated quick are the HT Tunnels (PCI, PCI-X, and PCI-express), ethernet PHYs, PCI-to-USB bridge, and possibly a third video GPU vendor (which would suck coming from Intel.)
Intel may have offered Apple a sweet deal to switch from one of their other long standing chip vendors.
Remember we did get those AMD processors awhile ago, when Apple signed the deal to use AMD chips -- but that was for the Airport base station.
If you pop the hoods on the Macs there are a lot of non-Apple chips.
But the biggie that Apple needs updated quick are the HT Tunnels (PCI, PCI-X, and PCI-express), ethernet PHYs, PCI-to-USB bridge, and possibly a third video GPU vendor (which would suck coming from Intel.)
chicagdan said:
Wow. This one of the few posts I have read on the whole topic that actually make some sense.
I would add that Intel is not the only party here with a problem to solve. Apple has some "issues" shall I say with the G5 such as processor yields and heat. I think they may have hit a roadblock shoehorning the thing into a Powerbook and may actually be in "panic" mode. Intel has solved that problem better than anyone else I know of.
If Apple start using x86 I will completely disown them and never again buy a mac. x86 is a fugly architecture, apple is about innovation and elegence. It would be a massive leap backwards to start using x86. I really hope they haven't lost all their ideals so much as to go this far.
Of mention should be ThinkSecret's response to the Wall Street Article.
"Think Secret sources have heard nothing to date regarding any collaboration between Apple and Intel." -thinksecret.com
I trust thinksecret more than almost anyone, they are right 99% of the time when it comes to Apple.
Until they predict something involving Apple and Intel I just don't see it coming.
"Think Secret sources have heard nothing to date regarding any collaboration between Apple and Intel." -thinksecret.com
I trust thinksecret more than almost anyone, they are right 99% of the time when it comes to Apple.
Until they predict something involving Apple and Intel I just don't see it coming.
Pentum-M for laptops?
Strange that I had not foreseen this. This rumored ALLIANCE can only be the work of the Sith. And yet, the Dark Side of the Force can be a pathway to many things...
Since Microsoft has announced its new XBox with 3.2 Ghz, and that should improve economies of scale for the G5, it looks like the future is secure with the G5 and then the G6 derived from the Power5.
Perhaps what this news means is that Motorola (Freescale) will not be able to deliver on the enhanced G4 chips. Maybe the IBM chips- even the Power5 which would become the G6- will never be useable for laptops because they are really workstation or umm what's the term---they are designed for larger machines- So maybe Apple will be using a future Pentium-M for its laptops.
Strange that I had not foreseen this. This rumored ALLIANCE can only be the work of the Sith. And yet, the Dark Side of the Force can be a pathway to many things...
Since Microsoft has announced its new XBox with 3.2 Ghz, and that should improve economies of scale for the G5, it looks like the future is secure with the G5 and then the G6 derived from the Power5.
Perhaps what this news means is that Motorola (Freescale) will not be able to deliver on the enhanced G4 chips. Maybe the IBM chips- even the Power5 which would become the G6- will never be useable for laptops because they are really workstation or umm what's the term---they are designed for larger machines- So maybe Apple will be using a future Pentium-M for its laptops.
