Apple in Talks with Intel?

[Dont Hurt Me]

MSNBC has it on their business section, wow if this is true would it mean AMD based Macs? or just Intel? PowerPC makers have been kicking Apples butt for years,motostagnation or IBM's false promise to Steve. Perhaps Steve just said enough of this B.S. It makes sense when you think about it. No more spin games or waiting on suppliers who could give a .... Wouldnt it be easier to just release say OSX for Intels rather then building Intel Machines?

 

[Lancetx]

Well if its been reported on Fox News its officially ********

If we can leave your ultra left wing politics out of this discussion for a minute...the story originated in the Wall Street Journal and every news service on the planet practically had picked up on it by early this morning...

 

[nslyax]

Unsure if it has been mentioned, but Apple already uses an Intel chip.
http://news.com.com/Apple+has+Intel+inside--sort+of/2100-1042_3-5598783.html
Seems talks regarding the controller in an upgraded XServe RAID are more likely than a total CPU shift are much more likely.

 

[Trout74]

MSNBC has it on their business section, wow if this is true would it mean AMD based Macs? or just Intel? PowerPC makers have been kicking Apples butt for years,motostagnation or IBM's false promise to Steve. Perhaps Steve just said enough of this B.S. It makes sense when you think about it. No more spin games or waiting on suppliers who could give a .... Wouldnt it be easier to just release say OSX for Intels rather then building Intel Machines?

My thoughts exactly, so if Apple computers run Intel chips, and also Run OS-X, how is that differnet than a Dell PC running OS-X. Will any PC be able to run OSX now?
Can someone explain the difference?

thanks
trout

 

[spercharged69]

What happened to the age-old time-tested tradition of posting to a discussion after you've done some research on a topic so you don't sound like an ignorant fanboy? Seriously, some of these replies in this thread are making me do a complete face->palm.

IBM going 'behind Apple's back' for the XBOX 360 is probably single-handedly the most retarded thing I have read this morning, and probably will hold that title for the rest of the day. Yeah, a global company worth 138 BILLION (For those of you playing at home that's a little over 5 times the value of Apple.) is going behind Apple's back by selling a product to another company. Give me a god damn break. THE REASON THEY ARE SO HUGE IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE CUSTOMER. Show me anything on an exclusivity agreement with Apple which keeps them from selling any other types of chips, please. Until then, shut up.

Centrino based chips on their way out? Tell me another one, I haven't laughed so hard all day. Compare even first generation Centrino based laptops to Apple's 'bleeding-edge' PowerBooks and get back to me.

And to you morons who claim to be jumping ship when Apple finally does make the switch to Intel manufactured chips, what are you going to buy instead? A Sun Blade workstation? An IBM Intellistation? I'm surprised so many people are so hopelessly devoted to PowerPC hardware... FUNNY, I THOUGHT THE ENTIRE REASON TO BUY APPLE'S ANTIQUATED HARDWARE WAS OSX?!? Perhaps switching to Intel will help Apple get out of the dark ages of behind the curve hardware, and allow them to finally compete with PC's on hardware specification sheets, and if they can drop some of the dead weight of Mac Rumors retards, I am ALL FOR IT. Maybe you guys will get x86 Linux boxes and can migrate to Slashdot, your posting style will fit in well.

I half wonder if the flamers against this are against it just for the sake of being against it, or if they suffer from this strange iteration of agoraphobia which manifests itself in being completely horrified of anything that is less than 3 degrees of separation in any way shape or form to the dreaded M-dollarsign.

I'll be jamming away on my Intel-powered PowerBook which isn't slow as dog-piss in comparison to anything else for the same price on the market... For you all, I recommend therapy and Xanax.

 

[DrNeroCF]

Bull, if there's any porting done, it will be for the cell processor. That thing may not be all that and a bag of chips as far as gaming goes, but the 3.2 core alone in a Powerbook is what we all need. Besides, AMD is kicking Intel's ass right now, they're not even worth negotiating with. Now, AMD branded PowerPCs, that would be nice...

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Why not talk with Intel?

This is crazy. Macintoshes are great because of the hardware & software innovation.

It is about the CPU CHIPS!! ABOUT THE CHIPS, ABOUT THE CHIPS!

IBM has been horrible with their G5 Development cycle. The speed increases have not been coming. And what some people perceive as speed increases, is merely Apple over-clocking a cpu chip.

The CPU chips IBM is turning out for Apple are waaaaay behind schedule. And they are going to run into significant problems on the laptops.

I think alot of mac users are defining their experience from a cpu, rather instead of their user experience. If Apple can make computers work better than even microsoft can on similar chips, why not take advantage of that?

This reminds me of the negative thoughts any mac users have of Windows. Which stinks, but it is alot like a political party identity.
Republican or Democrat?

If Apple used a great chip from Intel as a CPU, alot of mac users would think it is treacherous. BUT WHAT IF IT IS A GREAT COMPUTER?

Do not forget Apple has been developing a version of 10.3 and 10.4 which can run on x86 machines. this is pretty cool.

Think of the possibilities. Apple can go from 4% OS/hardware marketshare to 20% OS and 6% hardware. within years.

This could actually help Apple alot.

 

[Peace]

Hey I know how everybody feels about this rumour.I'm a deadhead

 

[Kato C.]

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.

Never happen.

 

[spercharged69]

Bull, if there's any porting done, it will be for the cell processor. That thing may not be all that and a bag of chips as far as gaming goes, but the 3.2 core alone in a Powerbook is what we all need. Besides, AMD is kicking Intel's ass right now, they're not even worth negotiating with. Now, AMD branded PowerPCs, that would be nice...

Please read the thread.

 

[sinisterdesign]

My thoughts exactly, so if Apple computers run Intel chips, and also Run OS-X, how is that differnet than a Dell PC running OS-X. Will any PC be able to run OSX now?
Can someone explain the difference?

thanks
trout

exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??

they would KILL their computer business if they did this. Apple would be a software/iPod company. i just don't see how it would go down any different if they switch to Intel. not to MENTION thoroughly digust all the developers that are just now reaping the rewards for going through the OSX transition.

all for a few MHz speed bump? can anyone explain to me the benefit of this tradeoff? if they killed off most of their CPU sales, could they recoup THAT much in OSX sales?? i just don't see it happening.

 

[savar]

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.

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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If we can leave your ultra left wing politics out of this discussion for a minute...the story originated in the Wall Street Journal and every news service on the planet practically had picked up on it by early this morning...

And you can save your eye-rolling. The WSJ is not necessarily a credible source, either. They are reporting an echo. They are speculating with little or no real information, and if you actually read the articles, they say nothing about Apple switching to x86. All they say in fact is that Apple is in talks to "use Intel chips." See how meaningful?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[Willy S]

Apple needs to change its current strategy

Don´t you feel it´s a waste that the best OS in the world has only about 1,5% market share of computer sales? (3 million out of 200)

Apple is not going to have the cake and eat it too. They have to decide to keep their margins or go PC. Their hardware business might not be destroyed with this. Lets face it, Apple´s unmatched design and low rate of failures is going to sell many computers at a reasonable margin. The price would decrese and the quantity increase, so their hardware profit might not change that much.

The software business would explode since people could go MacOs without throwing away their PCs. This would also lead to MacOS becoming mainstream and we would have more software and games to choose from. We would also get more variety of machines.

 

[spercharged69]

all for a few MHz speed bump? can anyone explain to me the benefit of this tradeoff? if they killed off most of their CPU sales, could they recoup THAT much in OSX sales?? i just don't see it happening.

Because Apple's marketing department can only dupe so many people in to buying PowerMacs with 'benchmarks' like these for so long:

Sooner or later people will get wise and figure out that they can spend 1/3 the money and have a faster computer without OSX.

 

[MrKahuna]

6. Intel processors are faster. Intel mobile processors are faster for the heat dissipation. Intel processors are cheaper. Intel processors are always available in large enough quantities so they will never be a gating factor for a new Apple release.

I have 2 questions for you:

1. What is the price difference between a comparable Intel processor and a PowerPC processor? I checked the new Intel dual-core and it's priced at $999 in lots of 1000, not exactly cheap in my book.

2. Where will Apple be in the pecking order for Intel supply? I'm sure they won't be in front of Dell. For this reason alone, moving to Intel could be a problem for Apple if they have to wait until Dell's orders are fulfilled and are always behind Dell in availability. You think people are screaming now about being "behind" the Mhz curve, wait until you are behind the Dell elephant in the parade!

 

[admanimal]

exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??

You have just identified the reason why this will never happen.

Of course, Intel could design another chip not compatible with the x86 architecture...but that probably won't happen either.

 

[spercharged69]

I have 2 questions for you:

1. What is the price difference between a comparable Intel processor and a PowerPC processor? I checked the new Intel dual-core and it's priced at $999 in lots of 1000, not exactly cheap in my book.

2. Where will Apple be in the pecking order for Intel supply? I'm sure they won't be in front of Dell. For this reason alone, moving to Intel could be a problem for Apple if they have to wait until Dell's orders are fulfilled and are always behind Dell in availability. You think people are screaming now about being "behind" the Mhz curve, wait until you are behind the Dell elephant in the parade!

1. In order for there to be an accurate comparison here we'd need someone to build a time machine and go ahead in time six or seven years to see what IBM's offering is selling for, to accurately compare chips which were equal in performance.

2. You'd be surprised how fast they can pump out chips... When was the last time you heard of a delay coming from Intel?

 

[Agathon]

I'd take this somewhat seriously.

A little bird told me that Apple and IBM are not getting along, and that Apple would very likely be switching processors.

I don't care. I buy macs for the software.

 

[Booga]

I talked about the mac mini earlier to gain market share. The perhaps easier place to switch CPUs is in the servers Apple sells. It really wouldn't matter AT ALL if apple put different CPUs in their servers. Take the best server chips in the world, no matter who makes them, and put Tiger Server on them.

Yes. This is what I was saying last time this rumor surfaced. MacOS X Server for Intel would make a LOT of sense. Orders of magnitude less stuff to recompile, and HUGE advantages when dealing with purchasing and IT departments.

 

[muffler]

Never happen.

WILL HAPPEN.

One morning, your Windows XP system will pop up a dialog, asking you whether you want to update to OS X.

If you reply "OK" , all of your applications will be translated to run under OS X.
Sounds unlikely ? Well, it would be possible to do so.

 

[admanimal]

A little bird told me that Apple and IBM are not getting along, and that Apple would very likely be switching processors.

Then that little bird probably started having a conversation with itself in a mirror.

 

[siliconjones]

And you can save your eye-rolling. The WSJ is not necessarily a credible source, either. They are reporting an echo. They are speculating with little or no real information, and if you actually read the articles, they say nothing about Apple switching to x86. All they say in fact is that Apple is in talks to "use Intel chips." See how meaningful?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Exactly. Actual credible news is not done anymore. All the major networks are to lazy to any real reporting. IMNSHO Fox is the worst.

That being said. If in fact they Apple and Intel are speaking it is in regards to ARM. Apple will never go to x86.

 

[mac-er]

The WSJ is not necessarily a credible source, either. They are reporting an echo. They are speculating with little or no real information.

This is the most laughable statement I have ever heard. The WSJ is one of the most credible newspapers in the world. And their sources, or echos as you call them, tend to be pretty accurate. WSJ doesn't print echos.

If WSJ reports on a merger, talks between companies, or whatever...its true.

 

[Booga]

Originally Posted by sinisterdesign
exactly. if OSX is on an Intel chip, why would ANYONE pay top dollar for a Powermac?? or Powerbook? or iMac? yes, the designs are nice, but do you think the majority of casual computer users would buy a computer from Apple when they can get the same thing for $400 from Dell??

You have just identified the reason why this will never happen.

Of course, Intel could design another chip not compatible with the x86 architecture...but that probably won't happen either.

Why would anyone pay top dollar today for a PowerMac right NOW, with a CPU slower than what you can buy today from Dell for half the price? Either Mac users have to start admitting that it's all about Apple's software, or Apple is doomed. I understand the argument that most of Apple's revenue comes from hardware, but, 1. the iPod can smooth the transition, and 2. Apple could be a top-tier Intel/AMD supplier as well, increasing revenue.

It's just a CPU, folks. It executes instructions. Intel and AMD have proved that there's nothing inherently worse about the x86 and x86-64 by consistently producing chips that outperform PowerPCs. You can't buy PowerPCs that match the performance of the latest x86 chips... such PowerPC chips don't exist. And you can't buy a laptop with the latest generation PowerPC chips because they're too hot. Why NOT Intel?