Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple in Talks with Intel?

NO NEED TO WORRY EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE

ok i feel the need to speak up here normally i just lurk around these parts but i think i can clear up a small but important detail for most people.

"Computers have more chips in them then just the processor"

Really it's true :)

My G3 has intel chips on the motherboard.

In this article apple is only talking to intel about chips NOT processors http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...148464_RTRIDST_0_TECH-TECH-APPLE-INTEL-DC.XML

Just because apple might be talkinging to intel doesn't mean that they will be switching to a x86 processor. As i understand it Intel is making a new wireless chip. Since apple is always staying cutting edge maybe thats what they are after or just other chips for their motherboards.

Everyone should take a deep breath and just be calm ;) i don't think were going to x86 anytime soon if ever.

(i've only read about the first 4 pages of this thread so sorry if someone else has covered this)
 
thecrunge said:
This is what I was thinking as well. Maybe they could be discussing PCIe chips for use in future macs.
Click to expand...

Nice one guys, YOU SOLVED IT! Oh wait, no, that was me, about a hundred posts ago. You know, post 342? Either way, POST 342!!!! (page 14)
 
Mystery Solved!!!!!

Church said:
Alright guys, after reading 300 posts of junk and speculation and utter chaos, this guy finally got part of it right. If I remember correctly Intel owns the rights to PCIe. Apple doesn't have PCIe in it's machines yet. Either way, all of the new video cards are going towards PCIe. I read somewhere the other day that Nvidia's next generation video cards won't be AGP, only PCIe. This means that if Apple wants to try and stay up there with video cards and everything, they need PCIe. Now, both video card companies, ATI and Nvidia, are making a type of SLI compatible card. (ATI is developing theirs right now). To use SLI, you need PCIe. It was also mentioned in a previous rumor, Apple had hired/was going to hire, whatever, game guys. And what do you use SLI and PCIe for right now? Oh, that's right, gaming. OH, and Apple was also talking to ATI at some point in time about something, which I can't remember right now. (Sorry) So, apparently, Apple wants to bring gaming home, and Intel has the keys. Case solved. End of story. :eek:
Click to expand...
He nailed it right between the eyes. Everybody can go home now!
Sorry I didn't catch that earlier Church, I only read the first 3 pages!
 
I FIGURED IT OUT!

Intel owns the rights to PCIe. Apple doesn't have PCIe in it's machines yet. Either way, all of the new video cards are going towards PCIe. Nvidia's next generation video cards won't be AGP, only PCIe. This means that if Apple wants to try and stay up there with video cards and everything, they need PCIe. So Apple is talking with Intel about the PCIe interface rights.

Damn I am smart. I got it!





he he.
 
ioinc said:
After reading this thread it seems clear to me that apple is virus free (to the extent that it is) not because of a rock solid OS or a high level of skill and committment from Apple Computer.

It seems apple just has a chip that makes it so.


Hmmm.... sad.... all this time I thought it was because apple did a better job. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Um you have completely misunderstood.

There are less viruses on the Mac because Mac OS X is more stable and solid and well designed then any version of Windows, not because of the processor.
 
Apple Xserves RAIDs use Intel chips - talks could center around similar non-OS items

Apple does utilize Intel for some product - anydiscussions could be centered around these type of future deals. From March 3 back on CNET - noting Intel chips used in Apple Xserve RAIDs, for example. http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Apple+has+Intel+inside--sort+of/2100-1042_3-5598783.html


"Apple has Intel inside--sort of
Published: March 3, 2005, 2:52 PM PST
By Ina Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
TrackBackPrintE-mailTalkBack
SAN FRANCISCO--It's not the product some have been hoping for, but there is already one Apple Computer machine that has "Intel Inside."

For a long time, people have suggested that Apple make its Mac OS X operating system work with Intel chips. While the Mac maker has not done so, it has used Intel processors in one of its recent products--the Xserve RAID storage system.

Intel included one of the rack-mounted storage systems in a display at this week's Intel Developer Forum here. The device sat in a rack, surrounded by products from more familiar Intel customers such as IBM and Dell.
According to Intel marketing materials, the Xserve RAID uses Intel's IOP 331 chip, a derivative of the XScale processor. The IOP chip, which is used in many storage systems, is designed to speed the task of shuttling data in and out of a computer system.

The use of an Intel chip does not appear to be part of a broader trend, however. Apple has resisted demands to move away from the PowerPC chips made by IBM and Freescale Semiconductor.

As recently as last month, Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer reiterated that Apple has no plans to offer Mac OS X on anything other than the kinds of chips it currently uses. In the past, CEO Steve Jobs has said that such a move is technically feasible, but not something the company has seen a need to do.

An Apple representative was not immediately available for comment."
 
MacEyeDoc said:
Amazing how Steve-o can make people jump - he probably got a little mad seeing IBM provide triple core 3.2MHz chips for M$, so he placed a warning shot across their bow. It's unlikely Apple would change chip providers, but I think we know that if you make Mr. Jobs mad, you could lose all your business with him. Apple may just use this as leverage against IBM.
Click to expand...

Yea **** IBM for that one. I'm pretty sure that Apple is not getting the best cooperation from IBM. But honestly, why isn't Apple going for the cell processors from Sony? Why on earth would they want to switch to a dying architecture (I say dying because it really is inferior). Power is the future!
 
BTW.. if Apple DID switch to x86 (which I very very highly doubt), for about 90% of all Mac developers it would be a breeze. They would simply need to recompile, not rewrite their software.

Cocoa apps were originally made to run on multiple platforms. Just right click on any .app app, go to Show Package Contents, and then you will see in the Content folder a MacOS folder, with the actual executable binary inside. Apple could easily add another folder alongside the MacOS folder to support other platforms.

Most optimizations on 99% of any software today on any platform is no where near processor-related. The compiler optimizes for any developer way more then you think. No one writes in assembly anymore for modern applications. It's inefficient, and a waste of time. Everything is done in high level languages which get translated at compile time (except Java) to machine code.

Seriously, what is up with this emotional attachment to the PowerPC? It's not going to stay here forever. It's a reality that being ~5% of the market isn't enough to get you 100% of the attention by IBM. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are probably a lot more important to IBM then Apple is to them.

Anyways, if Apple ever does change processors, they will most likely have some type of emulation for old PPC code, much like Classic is to OS X today. So don't fret, everything will be fine :)

Personally, I hope that Apple and Intel team up to make a better PPC processor for Apple's laptops. Intel is cheaper, and they know how to make good mobile processors that run cool enough. But not sure if it'll happen since Intel is currently x86 :(
 
WRONG !!

kainjow said:
Um you have completely misunderstood.

There are less viruses on the Mac because Mac OS X is more stable and solid and well designed then any version of Windows, not because of the processor.
Click to expand...

Although OS X is tighter, primarily because of its UNIX underpinings and UNIX being more 'internet aware', it is foolhardy and arogant, well, one could also say ignorant, to dismiss the processor architecture.

Linux on Intel can suffer the same processor exploits as Windows. That's why the original developer of Linux now runs Linux on a PowerMac.

And on a different note, anyone who gets upset with someone for not reading the first 400 posts has a screw loose. When threads become this large, the dynamic changes. Deal with it.

~iGuy
 
waaaaah! IBM chips are soooo slow. Slow at what exactly? You can't encode a DVD in 1/100 sec? Holy jeebus people! The current Apple offerings are as good as anything you are going to get in the PC world.

PCIe sounds great. Next thing that would be nice is if video games were optimized for openGL instead of DirectX. It still baffles me that companies voluntarily code for DirectX when openGL seems just as good.
 
Sedulous said:
waaaaah! IBM chips are soooo slow. Slow at what exactly? You can't encode a DVD in 1/100 sec? Holy jeebus people! The current Apple offerings are as good as anything you are going to get in the PC world.

PCIe sounds great. Next thing that would be nice is if video games were optimized for openGL instead of DirectX. It still baffles me that companies voluntarily code for DirectX when openGL seems just as good.
Click to expand...


uhhh all the money is at DirectX.
 
LGRW3919 said:
uhhh all the money is at DirectX.
Click to expand...

open gl is on x86 also, i don't see what the big difference is except for the crappy m$ incentive that I hope doesn't exist. If it doesn't I can give my fist a break from some of the shaking it does towards M$ anyways.
 
A little birdy told me Apple is switching to Intel x86 processors. A fly on the wall told me it's a new wireless tech. A friend of my friend overheard Steve's relative that PCI-e is going to be in Macs. A insider at Intel mentioned USB 3.0 will be in Macs this Fall from a chat room hosted by Bill Gates. Nobody knows anything uh? Perhaps in 2 weeks at the developer's conference.
 
Possible Scenario

Apple seems to have no problem getting G4 processors, so I can see a new hybrid system that uses Intel for it's main processor, but also has access to an onboard G4 cpu for backwards compatibility. The PS2(playstation2) does this by using the PS1's main cpu as a controller processor and to run the old PS1 games. It shouldn't be too hard for OSX to run on a Pentium CPU(darwin already does) and if it detects an application needs a PowerPC processor, it will funnel that code off to the G4. As a bonus, when the G4 isn't being used for old applications, it could be used for any number of speed/multitasking improvements.

Just a thought,
-rich
 
jiggie2g said:
Looks like there is tension on both sides :mad:


http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/5208-1042-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=6912&messageID=46035&start=-1
Click to expand...

That was an interesting reply, but like others on their site in the past, it may not have much truth behind it.

If Apple is in need for a new CPU producer, I will be fine with intel, as long as apple has a large say into how exactly it is built.

I like the comments on that forum / page about the future comming free hard drive based phones to kill the iPod and Apple. I guess they think Apple is now done on Ipod development, and totally dropped the ball on working with Motorola on an iTunes phone.
 
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.
Click to expand...

In a typical buffer overflow, the application has a bug that allows a buffer to be overflowed, causing the return address on the stack to be overwritten with a new address, such as to the buffer itself, which contains instructions to be executed.

This requires two things:
1. The software to have a bug, allowing for the buffer to be overwritten
2. The CPU to allow the buffer to be executed

The CPU can make data buffers and the stack non-executable. For example, the amd64 architecture adds the NX (non-execute) bit to a page's table entry.

Software checks tends to be slower than hardware protection, so while software solutions have some use, they are insufficient in of themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back