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?

thatwendigo said:
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.



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...

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.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you what. A Hyundai is better than most of the domestic crap I've been seeing lately. Have you seen GM's and Ford's stock recently?...
Click to expand...
 
People should remember that Intel makes more than just CPUs. They invented USB, among other things.

The fact that Apple and Intel are talking shouldn't be news. There are probably plenty of projects they work on together.

This just sounds like a re-run of the Mac-on-PC rumors that play every year.
 
I don't care who makes the chips beit Intel, AMD, IBM etc. Just as long as OSX remains stable, secure, user friendly I really don't give a damn. I do think this is simply a case of upper middle management morons not understanding their chosen industry and blurting their nonsense to the first hack that'll buy them lunch.
 
Wow

All I can say is I get goose bumps everytime I think about it. Wow. Running OS X on all my company's Dells...it boggles the mind. All I can say, if this turns out to be true, is it will change the entire computer industry. I have believed that the demise of Microsoft's empire was inevitable, and this would be the stone that brings Goliath down.
 
I think, as several people have said, that any intel processor that ends up in an Apple product in the near future will most likely be in the form of an iPod derivative or a PDA of some description.

I would not be entirely surprised if Apple wants to produce a portable media centre similar to Creative's, iRiver's and the like. For this they would need a much more powerful processor. Even if they wanted to endow the iPod with a modestly expanded feature set a better, faster, more efficient processor would be beneficial and Intel is the one manufacturer who probably has enough fabrication plants to meet high demand.
 
thatwendigo said:
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.
Click to expand...


LOL !!!
The rest of your argument made sense to me, and I thank you for it. Your judgement on the Hyundai reference was a whole lot less convincing. I realize this isn't a Hyundai thread, but I have already had the car for many troublefree years and I'm certainly not sorry for my initial decision making prowess. <G> I'd buy it again, as I would an Apple product, Motorola, IBM, Intel, or AMD Inside, or otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
I personally would love it if Apple did this. Why not? Faster Macintoshes for less money. The PowerPC is a very elegant ABI-- the actual desktop CPUs are just not nearly as fast as the marketing would have you believe. MacOS X would SCREAM on modern Intel hardware.


That being said, we'll know in 2 weeks. If Apple doesn't get developers on board at WWDC, it simply can't happen this year. Without developer support, Apple will just be shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Lets go i386 !!!
Finally, that would put more nails in MSs cuffin.
Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows. Everybody is pissed about MS. But its not Linux, because its still not streamlined enough for the masses. PPCs are still too expensive and IBM is not very reliable delivering and Apple overdependent. Lots of chips inside a Mac come from Intel. Code translation is easy, in the meantime. Such systems could as well run translated Win code. Imagine Apple at 50 % market share in less than 3 years with such a decision.
LETS GO.
 
Booga said:
I personally would love it if Apple did this. Why not? Faster Macintoshes for less money. The PowerPC is a very elegant ABI-- the actual desktop CPUs are just not nearly as fast as the marketing would have you believe. MacOS X would SCREAM on modern Intel hardware.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would scream on a chip it was never intended to run on.
 
BenRoethig said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm thinking may be happening. IBM's main focus is on consoles now and Apple is getting the shaft. If you think about it Apple sold around 3.2 million computers last year. Compare that to Microsoft selling 20 million Xbox's in the 2.5 years since it was released and then throw in Sony and Nintendo and suddenly Apple doesn't seem so important anymore.
:eek:
 
Exactly

animefan_1 said:
You're not a Mac user for the Mac OS? wow.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sometimes the whining is just sad by die hard Mac users. I use OS X for the OS. The hardware is nice, but if it had Intel chip in there how the hell would you know? If it runs OS X well (or better than PPC) why do you care? Being against Intel just for the sake of it is PLAIN CHILDISH!
 
I originally bought my PB and PM for OS X... Well, I must say that I've continued using them for OS X and the PPC. I know it seems strange, but the PPC seems to be more efficient. I've programmed for years on projects that use embedded PPC processors. I always thought they seemed to do a nice job for performance. I was amazed when I bought my Macs how well they performed against "faster" PC systems. Needless to say, I'd be VERY disappointed to have an Intel based system.

In all fairness... Perhaps we are assuming that an Intel chips means a x86 variant.
 
Hmmmm

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 ;).
Click to expand...

1. Because IBM and Motorola can't deliver. The best product in the world is CRAP if it's not produced.

2. Why not? AMD might be better now, but will they be in the future? Will they exist? Intel will always be there. They've got a huge part of the market.

3. Why does it have to be x86? Can't Intel make PPC chips? Maybe with the success of XBox 360, Microsoft is considering moving to PPC for Longhorn or whatever follows Longhorn. Maybe Intel wants a piece of the PPC game and isn't willing to let IBM walk away without a fight.
 
Turning Tables

I can see this happening.Lets look at the stats here..

ALL three of the console game platforms are going to the PPC..This in itself is going to cause some mass-production issues with an already labor reduced IBM corp.

The Mac Mini comes out.This shows us Apple wants to enter the low price puter market..

If the rumour of a Tiger seed out somewhere for the Intel chip is true we could see a sub $1000 Mac for the Intel..It's not hard to do.I've played around with almost all flavors of Linux over the years and Linux seems to fit better with the Intel chip.If you can get Linux on an Intel theres a good chance you can get BSD/Aqua on one too..

So I see the possibility of a an Intel/Apple computer..

Who'da thunk 3 years ago Microsoft would be on the PPC bandwagon :)

So we could see the high-end Macs at quad 3.2 for the $4000 range and the X64 Tiger in the $1500 range..

Afterall these companies arn't out to do charity work..
It's business
 
potofgold said:
springdaddy said:
some of you guys act like little fanboys. if it gives me better performance, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
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? :confused:
Click to expand...
Here is a very good example why! That case, of the so called first 64 bit virus running on a - wait for it - Intel architecture, is a year old. The PPC architecture has several features that prevent these kinds of exploits because malicious code (often introduces to a system using buffer overflows) cannot be executed directly in the CPU.

There just as many buffer overflows to exploit in BSD/Mac OS X that it is on the Widows platform, but since the processor demands more than some rouge executable code the holes cannot be exploited in the same way on a PPC that you see on the Intel platform.

So, if you want to trade a slight increase in speed with a very secure platform, you're welcome to it. But that will be without me...
 
Just wondering how possible a split dual core chip would be. 1 core PPC, 1 core x86. It would certainly speed up emulators. It would also be a much cheaper solution than adding an x86 chip like apple tried before.
Seriously though, if apple wasn't talking to Intel on a regular basis I would be shocked. It helps to keep IBM on their toes.
 
Using Intel cpu's wouldn't necessarily mean x86. Question becomes how much of the PPC ISA intellectual property may Apple use in a processor manufactured by a company outside of the original AIM Alliance?

Moving to x86 would have devastating effects on Apple. Why would major developers optimize and compile code for OS X when it would run natively on an Apple computer with an Intel x86 cpu under Windows?

Count me as one very sceptical of this rumor. :)
 
abrooks said:
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.
Click to expand...

That doesnt seem unlikely at first sight. The SMT potential hyped by Intel hasnt lived-up with HT on the P4 as it is not able to free enough execution resources for a second thread but IBM's Power5 architecture makes fantastic use of SMT (read this
There is more and more evidence Power is the way to move forward as x86 has hit the wall of wire delay, memory lag and power leakage. Intel needs to simplify their architecture to handle their massive power leakage problems (shorter pipeline!) which is the reason they are already moving away from the P4 and are defusing the GHz-myth they installed with that same P4.
But for apple to move to Intel, and intel to make a strategic move to PPC, this would impy a Power version of Windows as well (as I believe PPC is co-owned by Apple, correct me if I'm wrong). A power pentium and ppc derivative from Intel would still leave Apple with the side-product of a main product, just as is the situation now with IBM. A mainstream PPC Pentium would imply windows be ported to PPC as well and Apple going head to head with MS, not only on their own hardware, but also forcing Apple to license it to every other hardware manufacturer. In other words, a move to Intel would mean a head-to head confrontation with MS and a salesmodel that is based on software revenues, not hardware.
Doesnt sound very likely to happen, although I can imagine wintel to be interested in the PPC architecture.
 
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