Mitthrawnuruodo said:
What would it be...a Dell?
If it's the x86 that you don't like then your options would very limited.
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
What would it be...a Dell?
If it's the x86 that you don't like then your options would very limited.
harveypooka said:
Tiger seems to run fine on my G3/400, but of course I wouldn't know what bells and whistles I'm missing if I were missing them.
Yes, it's weird that the iPod dominates, and yes, it's weird to see Apple doing so well. I'm not sure I agree that part of the magic would be lost if it were adopted EVERYWHERE. In fact, isn't mass adoption the lesson we've been so eager to preach to our win-afflicted breatheren? Isn't this the point of all our endless comparisons to Windows?
I hope I'm not being presumptuous, but doesn't every pawn want to be a queen? Good knight, and have a great day.
MS Coffin
Just think objectively (if you can) about what you've written. First, MS is LONG from being in a "coffin". Why do you think Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows? Do you realize what would happen to them? First, MS would kill their OEM pricing for Windows/Office if they offered OS X on their machines. Dell and HP wouldn't be able to compete. As much as I love Apple, I doubt they would be able to produce enough OS X CD's to get to 50% market share in 3 years [/sarcasm]
muffler said:
Just think objectively (if you can) about what you've written. First, MS is LONG from being in a "coffin". Why do you think Dell and HP are desperately looking for an OS alternative to Windows? Do you realize what would happen to them? First, MS would kill their OEM pricing for Windows/Office if they offered OS X on their machines. Dell and HP wouldn't be able to compete. As much as I love Apple, I doubt they would be able to produce enough OS X CD's to get to 50% market share in 3 years [/sarcasm]
Why not AMD?
I don't mean to single anyone out, but a lot of people are asking why Apple is not talking to AMD. I think the answer is pretty clear here: they are not looking to put OS X on x86.
If they are in talks with Intel, they are going to want to work on something that Intel does best, like ARM processors or improvements to USB. These two companies are on many technology working groups together and they cooperate on many technologies that they currently use.
Intel has many business areas that are not tied directly to Windows. If Intel can sell more chips (ARM, USB controllers, Wi-Fi, or whatever else they are working on) they will, regardless of the buyer. Apple will buy the best chip for the job for their products: PPCs as the main processors for Macs, and other chips from various companies for supporting architecture and other products (such as the case already with the iPod).
VicMacs said:
I don't mean to single anyone out, but a lot of people are asking why Apple is not talking to AMD. I think the answer is pretty clear here: they are not looking to put OS X on x86.
If they are in talks with Intel, they are going to want to work on something that Intel does best, like ARM processors or improvements to USB. These two companies are on many technology working groups together and they cooperate on many technologies that they currently use.
Intel has many business areas that are not tied directly to Windows. If Intel can sell more chips (ARM, USB controllers, Wi-Fi, or whatever else they are working on) they will, regardless of the buyer. Apple will buy the best chip for the job for their products: PPCs as the main processors for Macs, and other chips from various companies for supporting architecture and other products (such as the case already with the iPod).
if it would mean moving to x86 I'd be very much against it unless Intel wants to / can produce a PowerPC. The x86 trade off is just not worth it.
I don't consider myself narrow minded, either.kirk26 said:
And remember the forum rules. No personal attacks. You may say someone's statement is idiotic, like yours is, but not accuse someone of being an idiot. You wouldn't want to be banned, would you...?
dual lines: ppc/intel
Apple will start selling dual lines: the PPC line that we all have and use; and starting in 2006: OS 11, a new OS running on Apple's new line of Intel based computers that are completely compatible with all Windows software..but doesn't use the Windows OS in any form...retains all the superior attributes of Apple's OS and enables current Windows users to not have to buy all new software.
And the big bonus: OS 11 and OS 10 are compatible with each other...just
on different platforms, both of which are made by Apple...
Future big leaps in OS development would have the PPC line on even numbered oerating systems ( 10, 12, 14 ) and the Intel line on odd numbers ( 11, 13, 15)
Just think of the all the Apple nuts who would now have a reason to buy
2 computers, a PPC/OS 10, and an Intel/OS 11...whether they really need
both or not...those folks you see at the conventions rapturously watching
Apple TV ads projected on large screens...
Plus, all those current Windows users completely sick of virii, update hassles, crashes, (god knows what else) now have a non-Linux option where all they have to do is re-install their fave stuff on a safe, stable platform.
and think of the businesses with a huge investment in Intel based software looking to upgrade to a better platform...
Apple could sell these machines for 70% of the PPC line prices...and ultimately bring down the price of the PPC line due to huge sales/projections
it's win/win, no?
heh heh heh...
Apple will start selling dual lines: the PPC line that we all have and use; and starting in 2006: OS 11, a new OS running on Apple's new line of Intel based computers that are completely compatible with all Windows software..but doesn't use the Windows OS in any form...retains all the superior attributes of Apple's OS and enables current Windows users to not have to buy all new software.
And the big bonus: OS 11 and OS 10 are compatible with each other...just
on different platforms, both of which are made by Apple...
Future big leaps in OS development would have the PPC line on even numbered oerating systems ( 10, 12, 14 ) and the Intel line on odd numbers ( 11, 13, 15)
Just think of the all the Apple nuts who would now have a reason to buy
2 computers, a PPC/OS 10, and an Intel/OS 11...whether they really need
both or not...those folks you see at the conventions rapturously watching
Apple TV ads projected on large screens...
Plus, all those current Windows users completely sick of virii, update hassles, crashes, (god knows what else) now have a non-Linux option where all they have to do is re-install their fave stuff on a safe, stable platform.
and think of the businesses with a huge investment in Intel based software looking to upgrade to a better platform...
Apple could sell these machines for 70% of the PPC line prices...and ultimately bring down the price of the PPC line due to huge sales/projections
it's win/win, no?
heh heh heh...
Shouldn't be that difficult finding a computer running a PPC from IBM or Freescale and install FreeBSD with some kind of GUI on top. (Which, in many ways, also describe Mac OS X right now.)bbyrdhouse said:
Mac OSX
I like MacOsx and i don't care where it runs.
I like good quality hardware (not cheap dell plastic) and if it has an AMD inside i don't care.
of course everyone dreams of a powermac with 3 or 4 powerPC and some cell stuff, but normal processors will catch up soon.
I like MacOsx and i don't care where it runs.
I like good quality hardware (not cheap dell plastic) and if it has an AMD inside i don't care.
of course everyone dreams of a powermac with 3 or 4 powerPC and some cell stuff, but normal processors will catch up soon.
Hey, to me its all about the software. I could care less if it ran on my toaster oven, OS X is the best OS hands down. If this makes it faster, or more available, or allows better speed upgrades in the future, then by all means, make it happen.
3.0Ghz delivery time has came and passed.... I think someone upstairs is feeling mighty unhappy about that....
I mean, lets be honest here, We all USE OS X. Very few of us JUST use the hardware.
I honestly still dont think it will happen, and chances are there is something in the works (arm processor sounds VERY possible) that noone is aware of yet.
3.0Ghz delivery time has came and passed.... I think someone upstairs is feeling mighty unhappy about that....
I mean, lets be honest here, We all USE OS X. Very few of us JUST use the hardware.
I honestly still dont think it will happen, and chances are there is something in the works (arm processor sounds VERY possible) that noone is aware of yet.
BINGO. Reading this thread, I kept thinking 'Intel' != 'x86'.adzoox said:
Intel makes other processors, and -- beyond that -- nothing stops them from licensing PPC and making those! If Intel can crank out PPC chips that are faster than what IBM can produce at the same price, Apple should switch.
I think a platform change (to x86 or elsewhere) would be a mistake. PPC is the right path, but I don't care if that PPC is made by IBM, Freescale, Intel, AMD, or somebody else.
Although I'm hoping for ARMs in a revived Newton/iPod(/cell phone?) fusion device. I miss my PDA, but the PDA/Phones are too expensive for what you get and carrying a phone, PDA, and iPod got to be a bit much. I want one device that does it all well!
Oh yeah, of course they are...
using Intel for something portable, why not? Its not as though the ipod or such devices is running on OS X.
Intel (x86) in a mac..HAHAHAHAH. The list of reasons why that would be a huge mistake completely engulfs the list of positives. EVERY piece of significant mac software would have to be rewritten just to work, then optimized, and how pissed would developers be for spending all this time/money to make softare they have to ditch and recode.
LOOK at the numbers apples post for the new Powermacs (G5 vs intel vs AMD). According to apple themselves their procs are much faster as is anyways, so apple would have to admit they have been lying to the public for years if they claim this would be a move towards faster machines.
Aside from portables, the only reason Apple would move to Intel Procs would be for some factor no one
using Intel for something portable, why not? Its not as though the ipod or such devices is running on OS X.
Intel (x86) in a mac..HAHAHAHAH. The list of reasons why that would be a huge mistake completely engulfs the list of positives. EVERY piece of significant mac software would have to be rewritten just to work, then optimized, and how pissed would developers be for spending all this time/money to make softare they have to ditch and recode.
LOOK at the numbers apples post for the new Powermacs (G5 vs intel vs AMD). According to apple themselves their procs are much faster as is anyways, so apple would have to admit they have been lying to the public for years if they claim this would be a move towards faster machines.
Aside from portables, the only reason Apple would move to Intel Procs would be for some factor no one
Lucky736 said:
Apple doesn't own the PP970, IBM does. It would require a lot IBM intellecutal property to be transferred to intel. I doubt IBM would agree. Plus, whats in it for Intel? They're have to take space away from their x86 processor business.
broken_keyboard said:
It is definitly a good idea to have and keep options and alternatives as well as having some pressure on current supplieres aka IBM.
The recent upgrades for the Power lines were really tiny and IBM could do better if they weren't putting their resources on the consoles
my 2 cents
*shrugs* Its obviously Apple's way out scenario in the event that they get cornered which so far is heading that way.
Lets look at present. Apple is still on the G4 for its high-end laptop. Its low end can be forgiven but the high end has as much power is even its consumer grade offering which is down right pathetic. Theoretically there are several solutions down the road for the mobile line but the pace of updates always makes Apple second fiddle to the PC industry. Like it or not Intel's Pentium M changed everything. Even AMD is having a hard time finding a comparable solution. Unless Apple does something drastic quick by next summer we could be seeing dual core Pentium M's that make Apple's high end look even more pathetic which I didn't think was possible but there it is....
Then you have the desktop. Up til now its done a pretty good job of keeping up with the Joneses. In some cases surpassing the x86 architecture. However in the last 12 months there has been a lot of stagnation (Which goes beyond just the CPU by the way.) and now as both Intel and AMD launch their dual core solutions IBM and Apple are nowhere to be seen. Admittedly this could be due to Apple's secretive nature but unless a dual core CPU is announced at WWDC Apple is going to be once again playing second fiddle. The one good news is that a lot of software on the Mac is already tuned for multithreading. So once this happens I have to imagine you are going to see a bigger performance boost across the board then on x86 where benchmarks have shown that for the average app a dual core doesnt do too much yet. (Obviously for Apps that are tuned for SMP it provides more of a kick.) Its great for true multitasking but thats about it for now.
Personally I think all this is, if true, is Apple finally learning to see more then six months in front of their face. Up til now I considered this one of the more major issues with Apple. They get so focused on one aspect of the business that they loose sight of everything else. Moving to X86 solves one major problem choices, and creates about several dozen more all of which can be overcome with the right amount of finesse which Apple has. To put it another way. Solving the problem of choices (hardware) on the PPC is a lot more difficult then solving the problems on a migration to x86. (software\money.)
But I personally think discussion of this is a moot point right now. Apple isnt going anywhere if for no other reason then the cost of the transition. All this is, is Apple keeping their options open which any good business should do.
Lets look at present. Apple is still on the G4 for its high-end laptop. Its low end can be forgiven but the high end has as much power is even its consumer grade offering which is down right pathetic. Theoretically there are several solutions down the road for the mobile line but the pace of updates always makes Apple second fiddle to the PC industry. Like it or not Intel's Pentium M changed everything. Even AMD is having a hard time finding a comparable solution. Unless Apple does something drastic quick by next summer we could be seeing dual core Pentium M's that make Apple's high end look even more pathetic which I didn't think was possible but there it is....
Then you have the desktop. Up til now its done a pretty good job of keeping up with the Joneses. In some cases surpassing the x86 architecture. However in the last 12 months there has been a lot of stagnation (Which goes beyond just the CPU by the way.) and now as both Intel and AMD launch their dual core solutions IBM and Apple are nowhere to be seen. Admittedly this could be due to Apple's secretive nature but unless a dual core CPU is announced at WWDC Apple is going to be once again playing second fiddle. The one good news is that a lot of software on the Mac is already tuned for multithreading. So once this happens I have to imagine you are going to see a bigger performance boost across the board then on x86 where benchmarks have shown that for the average app a dual core doesnt do too much yet. (Obviously for Apps that are tuned for SMP it provides more of a kick.) Its great for true multitasking but thats about it for now.
Personally I think all this is, if true, is Apple finally learning to see more then six months in front of their face. Up til now I considered this one of the more major issues with Apple. They get so focused on one aspect of the business that they loose sight of everything else. Moving to X86 solves one major problem choices, and creates about several dozen more all of which can be overcome with the right amount of finesse which Apple has. To put it another way. Solving the problem of choices (hardware) on the PPC is a lot more difficult then solving the problems on a migration to x86. (software\money.)
But I personally think discussion of this is a moot point right now. Apple isnt going anywhere if for no other reason then the cost of the transition. All this is, is Apple keeping their options open which any good business should do.
CmdrLaForge said:
Bull. You are making assumption as to where IBM's resources are. Neither you nor anyone outside of Apple or IMB knows why we are seeing the stagnations we are seeing.
rumor reported on FOX news
I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, maybe it was already reported.... I didn't take the time to read through all the pages... but this rumor was just reported on FOX news. That seems pretty strange to me. Seems like having it reported on a major network it might not be much of a rumor after all? They said neither company commented to the rumor.
I don't know if anyone else saw this or not, maybe it was already reported.... I didn't take the time to read through all the pages... but this rumor was just reported on FOX news. That seems pretty strange to me. Seems like having it reported on a major network it might not be much of a rumor after all? They said neither company commented to the rumor.