Apple in Talks with Intel?

[scottschor]

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.

Yes, of course, you are correct. However, I buy Apple products because I like the ease with which I can use their software. I'm also an American who purchased a Honda and Hyundai for the value/performance ratio.

While I certainly don't think Apple would divest themselves from PPC, an endeavor to which they've no doubt devoted vast resources, I don't understand the hysteria (perhaps that's too strong a word) resulting from a possible Apple/Intel solution. I am open to education and pursuasion if you are inclined to school me, though.

 

[do_not]

a second (third) one?

What if apple is planning to bring the best of both worlds?
What about a multiplatform system out of the box, no SW emulation, a multi-system machine booting the different systems to make use of different processors?
May we won’t see a windows GUI, but we could have access natively to hundreds of applications and games.
I don’t know if this is technically possible…

 

[joeconvert]

Not Even AMD?

Wow, Apple must have an obsession with pickingprocessors that can't compete. First, loyalty to the PowerPC experiment. Now going after the company that only a fanboy can defend.

Don't believe this to be true, but glad to see the rumor community can recycle them like the slashdot editors do stories.

 

[iGary]

I'll kill myself.

 

[fixyourthinking]

ARM

Apple no longer owns a stake in ARM (sold it all to Intel) but they do have experience and could easily hire/rehire programmers that worked on Apple/ARM devices (read as Newton)

My guess is that this will be for a new ARM processor for the iPod - the custom chip is probably too weak for advanced features.

 

[macorama]

Surely if this comes to be, it'll be a case of Intel producing a chip with the same architecture as the current G5/G4/G3. Ideally Apple could have two suppliers for the chips, IBM and Intel, which should help smooth out supply problems.

Either way I can't see the change happening to boost CPU speed, as Intel seems to have hit the same barrier as IBM on chip speeds.

 

[potofgold]

I'll kill myself.

A bit dramatic are we?

 

[slu]

From my pespective, if this happened, it would have little effect on the end user, except making Apple computers cheaper. I would expect it would still be a closed archtiecture and you could not just install Mac OS X on any crappy x86 box. You would still need to buy a Mac to get OS X, just the 'guts' would be different.

If they did allow OS X on any x86 box, they would be better off just dropping computers all together and becoming a SW company.

 

[musiclover137]

Im a mac user for the PowerPC, if they switched to Intel, they loose me...

to who?

 

[Roller]

I'm not surprised that Apple is talking to Intel, as I'm sure they did before the G5 move. It makes perfect sense for them to explore any opportunity that could move them forward.

People claim that they'll stop using Macs if this happens. Personally, I don't care that much what Apple puts inside the box, as long as it runs Mac OS and my apps. If there's a real advantage to going to Intel or AMD or whatever, I'm for it. Marketing would be challenging, though, given some of Apple's past ads.

However, I can't imagine Apple licensing Mac OS to run on non-Apple boxes again, so I don't think you'll be able to install OS X (or XI or whatever) on a Dell.

 

[BenRoethig]

Good Point! That would make more sense. It's only a rumor so who knows.

I bet IBM would be pissed though.

Unless IBM made the decision to stop 970 development. They're making CPUs for the all next generation consoles and two years later the 970 isn't the success they hoped it would be.

 

[BenRoethig]

I'm not surprised that Apple is talking to Intel, as I'm sure they did before the G5 move. It makes perfect sense for them to explore any opportunity that could move them forward.

People claim that they'll stop using Macs if this happens. Personally, I don't care that much what Apple puts inside the box, as long as it runs Mac OS and my apps. If there's a real advantage to going to Intel or AMD or whatever, I'm for it. Marketing would be challenging, though, given some of Apple's past ads.

However, I can't imagine Apple licensing Mac OS to run on non-Apple boxes again, so I don't think you'll be able to install OS X (or XI or whatever) on a Dell.

Not unless that Dell ran open firmware instead of BIOS.

 

[virividox]

i dont care whats runing my comp as long as it doesnt stop the current fucntionality i enjoy now

 

[fixyourthinking]

Another probable scenario

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.

This is another probable scenario- Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -

As I said in my previous post though, Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple) - this is the processor in the majority of PocketPCs, Palms, and GPS units. So - this Intel processor is most likely for a new device or even the iPod.

 

[Platform]

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.

VERY good post.....this is so right....apple please don't fall into the trap of Intel....may look good now but what about next year

Good with IBM or any other that can make good PPC

 

[sparky76]

Apple already uses an Intel chip - it is a controller for the Xserve Raid box (I think Apple exhibited at a recent Intel conference with it). Why the concern that an Intel chip will be for the Mac? More likely for another as-yet unannounced device. Intel chips (ARM core) are very powerful in PDAs for example.
Anyway, we now know PowerPC can run at 3.2GHz (XBox 360) and IBM must have the supply problems sorted out, given the numbers they will have to supply for all 3 of the new consoles.

 

[BenRoethig]

why intel? why not use sony's cell processor?

The cell would probably require as many changes as moving to the x86. You could use just the PPE, but it wouldn't much faster than the 900mhz G3 in my iBook. The Cell and the X360 chips are simple and designed for multimedia work, not general computing purposes.

 

[Daveway]

I'll kill myself.

I wouldn't go that far myself, but I would be VERY disappointed in Apple. I'm praying the are smart and go with Cell.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Incorrect

The cell would probably require as many changes as moving to the x86. You could use just the PPE, but it wouldn't much faster than the 900mhz G3 in my iBook. The Cell and the X360 chips are simple and designed for multimedia work, not general computing purposes.

The SonyPS3 and XBox are using the same processor (said loosely) with custom tweaks - both processors are derivitives of the PowerPC and both are RISC - like the Apple/IBM G5 ...

 

[thatwendigo]

Manogomy? Humbug. They shifted from Motorola to IBM and no one lost any sleep over it.

Apple, Motorola, and IBM are the core partners of the AIM consortium that originally laid out the common specification for the PowerPC standard. Both together and separately, they are responsible for the family of processors that we all know and, coincidentally, which are making enormous strides in many areas of computing - embedded solutions, big-iron servers, consumer machines (all three next generation game consoles are PowerPC).

Switching from Motorla to IBM made at least some sense, considering just how much of the PowerPC intellectual property belongs to Big Blue. For that matter, take a look at how much technology has originated with IBM and been licensed by the likes of Intel and AMD for their products. There's a reason that AMD is sharing fabrication space with them, not to mention the relative parity in performance and design specifications.

Jumping to an x86, and especially an Intel, solution is an awful lot more complicated. The whole operating system and every program on it would have to have some way to address the new hardware, which takes overhead, and that would suddenly cripple any performance advantage. So Apple loses any benefit from PowerPC and their code, being forced instead to hope that they can keep ahead on byte-code changes or a total recompile that would break everything that you like about third party software. It would make the change from 680xx to PowerPC look like a walk in the park for developers, especially the smaller ones.

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.

Great, good for you. What do you do when you need a new version of your software sometime in the future or when that machine dies? Do you honestly believe that developers that were forced through two enormous hoops so far - transition to PowerPC and then to OS X - would still be around?

My prediction is that most large developers would stop releasing OS X versions entirely and tell people they can run the Windows/Linux versions since they now have an x86 processor. That's a pretty handy definition of having your core customers abandoned...

Yes, of course, you are correct. However, I buy Apple products because I like the ease with which I can use their software. I'm also an American who purchased a Honda and Hyundai for the value/performance ratio.

You bought a Hyundai?

Well, that explains your attitude. They're crap and you might have bought cheaper, but just wait a few years. You'll be sorry.

 

[Eastend]

Kind of amazed at how many people in this thread really panicked. I think Apple regularly talks to all the manufacturers and I do not think we will see a Intel processor replacing the IBM one for awhile. Even in my business I talk to many manufacturers, but I usually just buy from those I have a relationship with.

Brian

 

[Lucky736]

It is probably an agreement to have them manufactur chips as clearly IBM cant keep up, then we will see down the road.

 

[springdaddy]

some of you guys act like little fanboys. if it gives me better performance, I'm all for it.

 

[potofgold]

some of you guys act like little fanboys. if it gives me better performance, I'm all for it.

I'm new to this forum and I'm kind of shocked by some of these statements! Seriously, who would care if performance was better and OSX wasn't changed?

 

[harveypooka]

Scottshor- for sure your 400mhz mac runs Tiger, but it'll run it badly, with no bells and whistles and no support for the major services. That's not the point! If Apple change to Intel it would mark a major shift in their strategy. It's weird, after years of being niche, the iPod dominates, it's just weird to see Apple doing so well. Would it take part of the magic of Mac away if they moved to Intel (all that anti-Intel advertising for nothing) and were adopted everywhere?