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
Ask yourself this? Are you a bigger fan of PowerPC or OS X & Apple Software?
If I ask myself " Am I a bigger fan of Power PC or Apples OS X & Apple applications ? " To me it ends up being the easiest decision in the world. Apple is all about usability. Power PC performance is no better than AMD 64 bit or Intels. I run both platforms & prefer Intel |AMD performance on jobs like intensive video renders | Photoshop etc.,, but you cannot beat the stability of OS X which has nothing to do with PowerPC.
If I ask myself " Am I a bigger fan of Power PC or Apples OS X & Apple applications ? " To me it ends up being the easiest decision in the world. Apple is all about usability. Power PC performance is no better than AMD 64 bit or Intels. I run both platforms & prefer Intel |AMD performance on jobs like intensive video renders | Photoshop etc.,, but you cannot beat the stability of OS X which has nothing to do with PowerPC.
your post, again, brings out the foundamental question.
is Apple a hardware company or a software company?
is Apple a hardware company or a software company?
mediababy said:
bammac said:
that'd better be the case.
otherwise they better get some police cars and choppers down there at WWDC to prevent any commotion.
Some people are really attached to these chips. I think it's more the brand names you're attached to because Apple would probably just get Intel to make the next generation chip that could potentially be better than the PowerPC chip. Like the major shift from OS9 to OSX, maybe this will be the equivalent for the processor. Perhaps Apple has developed a completely new kind of processor chip?
Intel is no longer the sweetheart of Microsoft like it was years ago. I'm sure this is probably a way for Intel to put it's huge production and R&D capacity behind another company that has the potential to "blow out" over the next 5-10 years like Microsoft did, and which Apple seems poised to attempt. Maybe Intel is doing what it can to fatten up a new cash-cow because Microsoft is no longer a sure thing.
I wouldn't poo-poo the Intel alliance yet until we first know if it's true, and if it is, what it really means.
Intel is no longer the sweetheart of Microsoft like it was years ago. I'm sure this is probably a way for Intel to put it's huge production and R&D capacity behind another company that has the potential to "blow out" over the next 5-10 years like Microsoft did, and which Apple seems poised to attempt. Maybe Intel is doing what it can to fatten up a new cash-cow because Microsoft is no longer a sure thing.
I wouldn't poo-poo the Intel alliance yet until we first know if it's true, and if it is, what it really means.
For this to be true, Apple would have to have some technology up its sleeve--I really don't think they can afford the speed hit of emulation like they went through with the 68K->PPC transition. Why would anyone buy a new Apple when a used one would run their favorite app faster? It takes time to optimize software for hardware; while OS X probably is kept "running" on x86 machines, there still would be some effort needed to convert all the Altivec code over to the Intel equivalent. There would have to be some compelling reason for developers to switch (or produce 2 pieces--one for the new platform and one for the old). I think it would be an even harder pitch for Apple to only switch part of its line--that would mean even fewer sales for developers (i.e., they'd have to do added development for only a small gain).
The only area I could see Apple switching to is servers, as there's not a lot of 3rd party sw that would be impacted.
I don't see how switching would gain Apple much, at least in the short term (18 months). IBM's products are still competitive with Intel's; from what I've heard, much of the difference bewteen programs at the high end is the optimization applied--the more applied to the Mac side, the more (or even better) the Mac shows. I don't see how Apple's optimization ability would suddenly get better with a switch (it should get worse, as much of their current development optimization is geared to the PPC, so moving to Intel would be a big shift for those groups). Companies (like Adobe for Photoshop) would still have to optimize differently for the Mac than Windows, even if it was the same processor. Those companies would still (short term) put more of those resoures into the Windows side, so the Mac would still come up short in a head to head. Unless there's some new, great technology, it seems that its still a better risk to bet on IBM, as they still ARE improving (not as much as anyone would like, but they still are), and have seem to have promise for delivering better (970MP, 980/Power5 derivative) in the future.
I just can't see Apple being able to afford the emulation speed hit and the developer unrest (there's enough work just keeping up with the OS changes between 10.2-10.4 much less an architecture change), unless they have some technology magic. Monday should be interesting
The only area I could see Apple switching to is servers, as there's not a lot of 3rd party sw that would be impacted.
I don't see how switching would gain Apple much, at least in the short term (18 months). IBM's products are still competitive with Intel's; from what I've heard, much of the difference bewteen programs at the high end is the optimization applied--the more applied to the Mac side, the more (or even better) the Mac shows. I don't see how Apple's optimization ability would suddenly get better with a switch (it should get worse, as much of their current development optimization is geared to the PPC, so moving to Intel would be a big shift for those groups). Companies (like Adobe for Photoshop) would still have to optimize differently for the Mac than Windows, even if it was the same processor. Those companies would still (short term) put more of those resoures into the Windows side, so the Mac would still come up short in a head to head. Unless there's some new, great technology, it seems that its still a better risk to bet on IBM, as they still ARE improving (not as much as anyone would like, but they still are), and have seem to have promise for delivering better (970MP, 980/Power5 derivative) in the future.
I just can't see Apple being able to afford the emulation speed hit and the developer unrest (there's enough work just keeping up with the OS changes between 10.2-10.4 much less an architecture change), unless they have some technology magic. Monday should be interesting
MontyZ said:
If they do make the slip with x86 processors, they better talk with AMD. I refuse to buy Intel chips anymore. They have just proven slow and basically worthless. AMD is my chip along with IBM.
Is Apple A Hardware Or Software Company?
My thought is they are both & as weird as it sounds " A usability & esthetics design company "
It is obviously not uncommon for Mercedes & BMW not to design all of their hardware, why should that apply to Apple. Everybody subcontracts out to their design specs. I don't believe that commonality should be applied to all other companies except Apple.
For example, I just purchased a Sansdisk 1gb flash mp3 player which was pretty good (Has a backlit screen, works as a usb flash drive, loads songs easy & fast, good audio quality, battery life outstanding & great price ).
I thought for sure I would like it more than buying a shuffle (no screen, doesnt play as many formats). I liked the sansdisk player pretty well except for two glaring exceptions that the shuffle offers. What are they? It came down to how easy it was to create playlists in the shuffle & load one of them via iTunes when I am getting ready to exercise & the neck lanyard. The sansdisk player has no playlist feature (Alot of USB flash players don't offer this) & when it came to finding a specific song out of 240 some songs it became impossible to scroll through the backlit screen). At least with the shuffle I can load any playlist on the fly & it is easy to skip through that playlist & hear which song I am looking for. The neck lanyard is way nicer to use on the shuffle than the backwards contraption armband Sansdisks supplies. Apple is all about actual ease, performance & aesthetics. To say Apple is only one or the other couldn't be an accurate question to ask.
They outsource components just like everybody else. Nobody is designing & manufacturing every single part of their products.
macdong said:
My thought is they are both & as weird as it sounds " A usability & esthetics design company "
It is obviously not uncommon for Mercedes & BMW not to design all of their hardware, why should that apply to Apple. Everybody subcontracts out to their design specs. I don't believe that commonality should be applied to all other companies except Apple.
For example, I just purchased a Sansdisk 1gb flash mp3 player which was pretty good (Has a backlit screen, works as a usb flash drive, loads songs easy & fast, good audio quality, battery life outstanding & great price ).
I thought for sure I would like it more than buying a shuffle (no screen, doesnt play as many formats). I liked the sansdisk player pretty well except for two glaring exceptions that the shuffle offers. What are they? It came down to how easy it was to create playlists in the shuffle & load one of them via iTunes when I am getting ready to exercise & the neck lanyard. The sansdisk player has no playlist feature (Alot of USB flash players don't offer this) & when it came to finding a specific song out of 240 some songs it became impossible to scroll through the backlit screen). At least with the shuffle I can load any playlist on the fly & it is easy to skip through that playlist & hear which song I am looking for. The neck lanyard is way nicer to use on the shuffle than the backwards contraption armband Sansdisks supplies. Apple is all about actual ease, performance & aesthetics. To say Apple is only one or the other couldn't be an accurate question to ask.
They outsource components just like everybody else. Nobody is designing & manufacturing every single part of their products.
no, you are right.
and i am not saying Apple makes every singal component inside their computer.
but think about this, if Apple switches to Intel, they are switching to x86 chips (unless, like someone so optimistically said, Intel plans to make PowerPC chips ).
this is unlike Mercedes-Benz & BMW, because if a BMW car has a different engine you still wouldn't see a Mercedes-Benz logo on it (ok, bad example).
anyway, it means we don't need to buy computers from Apple anymore.
so, if Apple were a software company, this probably wouldn't hurt them much, if any at all.
but if Apple were a hardware company, this is not only a switch of CPU, but also a change of company principle and direction.
and i am not saying Apple makes every singal component inside their computer.
but think about this, if Apple switches to Intel, they are switching to x86 chips (unless, like someone so optimistically said, Intel plans to make PowerPC chips
).this is unlike Mercedes-Benz & BMW, because if a BMW car has a different engine you still wouldn't see a Mercedes-Benz logo on it (ok, bad example).
anyway, it means we don't need to buy computers from Apple anymore.
so, if Apple were a software company, this probably wouldn't hurt them much, if any at all.
but if Apple were a hardware company, this is not only a switch of CPU, but also a change of company principle and direction.
mediababy said:
OS X on PC
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?
Apple might be in talks with Intel for releasing OS X on Microsoft turf.
No rules stating that Apple cant compete with Windows on its own turf.
That would be sweet if Apple did, released the same day or the day after ?Leghorn? ?Longhorn?
(Steve Jobs)]Im a rooting tootin cowbow! Out to get that pesky vermit (Microsoft)
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?
Apple might be in talks with Intel for releasing OS X on Microsoft turf.
No rules stating that Apple cant compete with Windows on its own turf.
That would be sweet if Apple did, released the same day or the day after ?Leghorn? ?Longhorn?
(Steve Jobs)]Im a rooting tootin cowbow! Out to get that pesky vermit (Microsoft)
well, again, is Apple a hardware company or software company?
of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?
just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.
of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?
just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.
neildmitchell said:Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?
Apple might be in talks with Intel for releasing OS X on Microsoft turf.
No rules stating that Apple cant compete with Windows on its own turf.
That would be sweet if Apple did, released the same day or the day after ?Leghorn? ?Longhorn?
(Steve Jobs)]Im a rooting tootin cowbow! Out to get that pesky vermit (Microsoft)
Er, I really hope there's not a change. I know it's all rumour and speculation at the mo, but it's still a little disconcerting when these news sites come out
with stuff like that. Would anyone not use Mac's anymore if they switched to Intel? For some reason it put's me off. I think all the anti-Intel advertising from Apple and others has worked...
with stuff like that. Would anyone not use Mac's anymore if they switched to Intel? For some reason it put's me off. I think all the anti-Intel advertising from Apple and others has worked...
wdlove said:
IBM has been, apples inventorys are full and sales are strong, the G5 is not slower than any intel cpu's and apple posted the largest profit ever last quarter, if they were going to switch to intel they would have done so in the G4 days, the G5 is going well why everyone elce cant see that is beyond me.
this is probably misinterpreted as apple decides to put intel RAID chips in all powermacs or something, and someone hears intel and powermac in the same sentence and adds 2 and 2 to make 400.
it's not about weather we like the software or the hardware it's about apple making a stupid decision and this would be one, alienate all there users and break all compatibility for dual core cpu's which are around the corner anyway.
harveypooka said:
well, to be honest with you, if Apple does switch to Intel the question becomes two fold.
because "using a Mac" will have different meaning.
will you still use Mac OS as your primary operating system? probably.
will you still buy computer from Apple? probably not.
and somebody mentioned that Apple could, even after switching to x86, make Mac OS run only on their computer.
i am not sure how true is that, but honestly if they switch to x86 and do that, they'll go down before you can say "bang".
Hector said:
so true, so true
we'll hope this turns out to be false (dang, what kind of calendar you people got? plutonian? i didn't know it's still april! )
but as far as this being a stupid decision, let's hope there isn't anyone in the board that's stupid
Is it too early to start a thread describing how to remove the "Intel Inside" stickers from new Powerbooks?
Maybe I have a bit more hope that Intel will be making PPC chips for Apple and it won't be an x86. I've read the posts of a few others and it just seems more likely than an x86 processor from Intel.
ok so IF they do make this move and will change the computers over between mid 06 - 07. What happens to their sales between monday and mid 06? If they change over to a different architecture they will have to change over all their programs, so anyone that buys a Mac between monday and the crossover will not be able to get updated software correct? since it will be for x86 or whatever apple uses from intel. Why tell about a switch so far in advance from when it happens, i think it will just kill sales from monday to 2006
How to remove the Intel Inside sticker, it won't be a sticker, it'll be welded to the powerbooks lol. Seriously, this is just a rumor. If the Transitive Technology is released, then I think that may be what they're talking about. Its all still for PowerPC, but it'll work on x86 hardware, and vice versa. Boosting both companies sales. Unlelss *shivers* Bill Gates and Steve Jobs decide to do a...... m... merger AHHHHH!!!
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but...
I didn't check all 600-700 replies in this thread, but I was wondering about something that DaringFireball brought up.
So suppose Apple switches to Intel - they'd have to give their developers some time to change the software to work on x86 chips. They'd also have to alter OS X. In the time that that takes, how many people would be willing to buy an Apple computer based on an architecture that will in the future NOT BE SUPPORTED?
None. Its a little worrisome. But I still find myself worrying because I just ordered a G5.
Is there an option that Apple is switching to x64 Intel chips? Or Intel chips that wouldn't require a big change to the OS and third-party software? I'm hoping. Whenever I read Paul Thurrott I want to throw up, he makes me absolutely sick. He's so pompous. He brought this up, talking about how "sweet vindication is." Gimme a break.
I'm not really a rabid-Apple fan and I wouldn't "kill myself" if they switched to Intel but it raises serious questions about the future of the company and the hardware.
Maybe, this is all twisted, and the information actually said that Apple was writing OS X to work on x86 chips, but not putting x86 chips into their machines. Its a known fact that many vendors, like HP, Dell, and Sony have been courting Apple for a version of OS X to run on Intel or AMD chips.
And the rumors that Intel already has OS X running on chips in their labs? It only confirms the idea that Apple is making OS X for other chips. Wouldn't this make like three platforms in the market then? Mac, PC, and... OS X on Intel? Xintel? I dunno. Its very confusing.
Someone please reassure me this isn't really happening, its very worrisome because I just ordered a G5. So far, the rumors I've heard haven't addressed the issue of how no one would buy a PowerPC-based Mac in the amount of time it would take to move everything over to the x86 side of the fence.
Again, I don't know if this has been commented on before.
Calih
I didn't check all 600-700 replies in this thread, but I was wondering about something that DaringFireball brought up.
So suppose Apple switches to Intel - they'd have to give their developers some time to change the software to work on x86 chips. They'd also have to alter OS X. In the time that that takes, how many people would be willing to buy an Apple computer based on an architecture that will in the future NOT BE SUPPORTED?
None. Its a little worrisome. But I still find myself worrying because I just ordered a G5.
Is there an option that Apple is switching to x64 Intel chips? Or Intel chips that wouldn't require a big change to the OS and third-party software? I'm hoping. Whenever I read Paul Thurrott I want to throw up, he makes me absolutely sick. He's so pompous. He brought this up, talking about how "sweet vindication is." Gimme a break.
I'm not really a rabid-Apple fan and I wouldn't "kill myself" if they switched to Intel but it raises serious questions about the future of the company and the hardware.
Maybe, this is all twisted, and the information actually said that Apple was writing OS X to work on x86 chips, but not putting x86 chips into their machines. Its a known fact that many vendors, like HP, Dell, and Sony have been courting Apple for a version of OS X to run on Intel or AMD chips.
And the rumors that Intel already has OS X running on chips in their labs? It only confirms the idea that Apple is making OS X for other chips. Wouldn't this make like three platforms in the market then? Mac, PC, and... OS X on Intel? Xintel? I dunno. Its very confusing.
Someone please reassure me this isn't really happening, its very worrisome because I just ordered a G5. So far, the rumors I've heard haven't addressed the issue of how no one would buy a PowerPC-based Mac in the amount of time it would take to move everything over to the x86 side of the fence.
Again, I don't know if this has been commented on before.
Calih
Another question
Apple will have to give developers time to port their programs. Will this be the WWDC where Tiger x86 is distributed to developers.
I would assume that Apple would want software available the day they release the new hardware.
Max.
Apple will have to give developers time to port their programs. Will this be the WWDC where Tiger x86 is distributed to developers.
I would assume that Apple would want software available the day they release the new hardware.
Max.
Calihafan, your argument stands perfect, as far as I'm concerned. That would make sense. If Apple were to broaden their market, then they may be able to over take Microsoft. I think that your pose on the rumor may be the closest one to fact. I would rather have a recompiled OS X for x86 hardware than a complete move. This is just a rumor. I work on Monday so I'm gonna need the scoop after WWDC's first day is over. Then again MacRumors, should have a lot of the information on new announcements. This may be a great move for all computer industries, except Microsoft - which is perfect in my world. You're G5 will be the best $$$ you've spent on a computer ever.
EDIT: Here's something I just thought of, the iPod's have Intel Strong ARM processors in them: https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21277 there's the attachment I took from one of the iPod Linux video's. Now I know that it's iPod, but Apple already has Intel Processors in their iPods. So now what?
EDIT: Here's something I just thought of, the iPod's have Intel Strong ARM processors in them: https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21277 there's the attachment I took from one of the iPod Linux video's. Now I know that it's iPod, but Apple already has Intel Processors in their iPods. So now what?
well, making an OS X for x86 IS switching to Intel.
think about it, if there is a version of OS X for x86, are you going to buy a computer from Apple that costs 3 grand?
that's why i said if a x86 version of OS X does turn out to be true, Apple will be a completely different company.
and we will not be the same Mac users.
think about it, if there is a version of OS X for x86, are you going to buy a computer from Apple that costs 3 grand?
that's why i said if a x86 version of OS X does turn out to be true, Apple will be a completely different company.
and we will not be the same Mac users.
slooksterPSV said: