Apple in Talks with Intel?

[Peace]

Snip

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??

Currently the majority of casual computer users don't buy Apples.

Porting OSX to an Intel platform or conversly producing "low-end" Mac's using Intel chips would send the mainstream casual user to Apple..

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Intel pumping out chips fast? hah

You guys who think Intel will just pump out the fastest chips they make in mega quantities?

not, they take alot of time, this is why you see chips at $600 each and up.

they cost alot because they dont make as many of them.

 

[jwhitnah]

No way

So one guy from wsj uncovers a major strategy change at Apple before a single credible rumor site (thinksecret, appleinsider, or macrumors) get even a hint of a change to INTEL. Rumor site managers know which dressing Jobs used on his salad last night! Very improbable. Like very close to zero. Must be made up. Maybe Dan Rather found a new job at the WSJ.

 

[admanimal]

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.

The only way Windows applications could even possibly be run under OS X on an intel machine is if Windows itself was emulated by OS X. Virtual PC can already do this (slowly) now, so there's no big breakthrough you are predicting here, aside from OS X being released for the x86.

 

[alandail]

it amazes me that people think that by adopting an Intel processor that Apple will suddenly forget how do design machines. What it will give them is the economies of scale that results in lower priced chips, thus lower priced computers with the same strong design Apple is known for.

 

[admanimal]

credible rumor site

If they were that credible, they wouldn't be rumor sites.

 

[BlackLilyNinja]

is it possible?

We all know that apple will not change from PPC to x86. Even with the knowledge that there were workking ports. However, could it be possible that intel has developed a type of PPC or new kind of architecture that was needed to move past the recent speed hurdles. Something that they see as the future of processing? Its obvious that current methods have limitations. I would love to see what the future holds.

 

[jwhitnah]

yeah

Because this is what Apple does.

1. When they intro'd the iMac G4, Steve said vertically mounting the optical drive sucks because it slows down the drive...then we have the iMac G5.

2. Steve said the CRT was dead at Apple...then we have the eMac.

Other sources I have read said this is the real deal this time...it's happening.

please. Now everyone already knew?

 

[jwhitnah]

If they were that credible, they wouldn't be rumor sites.

Well at every major roll-out of a new product I am rarely surprised. Not because I'm smart, but because I already read it on a rumor site. I have yet to see wsj out scoop the big 3.

 

[macridah]

I don't understand this move. The new "cell" processor is coming out ... M$ even moved the XBOX to PowerPC ... PowerPC architecture is obviously better than Intel.

 

[calyxman]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was entertaining the idea of using Intel's chips.

I'll give you a hint as to why: Powerbook G4. Long overdue for a change, but we all know that the earth will crash into the sun before Apple will get a G5 chip inside a powerbook.

Pentium M's are the way to go for thin and light notebooks.

 

[jwhitnah]

Right

I don't understand this move. The new "cell" processor is coming out ... M$ even moved the XBOX to PowerPC ... PowerPC architecture is obviously better than Intel.

Another reason I think this rumor is wrong.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

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?!?

I'm devoted to the platform, not the OS alone. Never claimed that. I've also stated, a couple pages ago, which alternatives I see if Apple switches platform, so that has already been answered, no need to shout... remember, research involves actually reading the posts in this thread...

Also. I don't appreciate being called a moron. I might post silly things from time to time and you are welcome to attack those posts. But to generalize and plain out start name calling is not acceptable behavior...

 

[sigamy]

Apple has called this "rumor and speculation"...so, is Apple Legal going after The WSJ yet?

 

[Zigster]

Notice the stock is up 5% on the rumor.

I think it's a planted story to put additional pressure on IBM. However, Apple does see this as a time to take their computers to the masses...

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

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.

Yes, but those buffer overflows cannot be executed on a PPC, and I can give you thousands of examples of using this exploit to run code on an Intel architecture...

Along with permissions set properly and root privileges protections, which is shared/inherited from the *nix world, this is the main reason why there are no, nill, nought, null, nada virus for Mac OS X, yet...

 

[jwhitnah]

Notice the stock is up 5% on the rumor.

I think it's a planted story to put additional pressure on IBM. However, Apple does see this as a time to take their computers to the masses...

Or is it up because of the phone, or the iTMS videos/possible movies, or is it new cool things for iPods...

 

[law guy]

Why x86 - What if Intel is saying we can make chips that run your code?

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.

I find this post by adzoox interesting - the partnership idea, e.g., production and development under license.

Alternatively, b/c Apple has wanted to keep Apple hardware exclusive (thus the demise of Power Computing, et al when Mr. Jobs returned to the helm), I would expect that there's some twist that keeps Apple from just being a pretty Dell in terms of the machine.

What if Intel is saying to Apple - we can make chips that run you code natively and do it faster? Certainly sounds like there would be some intellectual property issues there, but perhaps they can license bits and just reinterpret other parts?

I don't have so much of a problem believing the use of the intel product (recall S. Jobs at the event (which one was it) where the Intel CEO was in the front row, and then PIXAR went out and purchase all of those intel servers soon thereafter) - I think there are some business relationships there It's the notion that Apple would just use an x86 that has me wondering.

LG

 

[muffler]

The only way Windows applications could even possibly be run under OS X on an intel machine is if Windows itself was emulated by OS X. Virtual PC can already do this (slowly) now, so there's no big breakthrough you are predicting here, aside from OS X being released for the x86.

This is definetely complete BS. You could leave the executables as they are. You would only have to adopt the interface for Aqua, thats it.

Its not new, Code Weaver does that for several Windows apps already, adopting them to run NATIVE under Linux, meaning keeping the executables and knit them to an X11-Gnome/KDE interface.

 

[greenfluke]

I don't believe that Apple is really considering moving its desktop line to Intel. The cost to recompile, and the issue of legacy apps, plus the small, but vocal group still using classic, especially for custom science apps. That would be tough to run on x86.

I think this is for either some type of mobile chip, although the AMD mobile 64-bit chip might work better, or more probably for some palm / tablet PC Apple has in the works. As unhappy as I was with the *new* dual 2.7 GHz at the top of the line, Apple is only behind in dual-core, performance is comparable to a single P4. I think Jobs is still real pissed like someone said earlier, and IBM is dragging their feet on the dual-core 970MP. He is letting this rumor get out of hand to put some public pressure on IBM.

Isn't it conspicuous that this rumor comes out after Microsoft announced XBox 360 running on 3.2 GHz PPC. Whether it is as powerful as the desktop chip is irrelevant, it is the perception. If IBM can create those types of yields on dual-core PPC chips running at 500 MHz faster than the current single-core top-end of Apple's line, something is wrong, they are making Apple look marginal, this isn't acceptable to Mr Jobs, especially since they made him look like a fool with the 3 GHz announcement. If they wanna mess with Apple, Steve'll make 'em pay. Keep kickin' butt Steve!

 

[fluidinclusion]

No

IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo, so even though you see Big Blue's logo on the ads, they do not make Intel-based PCs. They don't make any PCs. IBM is in the enterprise computing and chip fab business.

Would everyone please cease the crap shoveling? Apple is not leaving the PPC platform! As has been pointed out here several times, this rumor gets recycled all the time, and Apple has reason to talk to Intel for Intel's peripheral technologies like USB, WiMax, and so forth. Could be for a new device, could be for AirPort or iPod. But there is no plausible scenario in which Apple all of a sudden leaves the PPC platform. OS X may be able to be ported, but all the apps that run on it are a different story. Leaving PPC for x86 would be suicide.

If anything, the new next gen game consoles' demand for PPC chips will bolster IBM's fab division. You think they will be supplying that demand with current capacity? They need more factories, and for all we know these talks are because Intel wants to shift some of their formidable chip-fab capacity to PPC manufacturing now that there is demand for it beyond Apple!

C'mon guys, I thought Mac users were more savvy than this...

Actually he said IBM computers, not PC's. I see ads for IBM computers all the time that advertise Intel CPUs. What planet are you on? Ever heard of Xeon?

 

[Chaz]

Ummmm...... XServe?

Never happen.

Not entirely true. I'm surprised that in 8 or so pages of discussion no one has ever stopped to consider if this rumor is even true at all. No one said that they're replacing IBM with Intel, they are reporting that Apple might be using Intel chips in its hardware. Apple couldn't abandon IBM's PowerPC partnership anytime soon; they'd destroy the user base they've spent years building up.

I'm not claiming to be an insider by any means, but in tech circles it's a well known (and I think reported on a few news sites) fact that several major PC vendors are openly in talks with Apple about bringing OSX Server to their hardware. They can offer Apple the kind of standardization that OSX needs on the PC side, and are very interested in having an alternative to Windows Server. Don't believe me? Well, do a little digging and see for yourself.

There is a huge market out there for better UNIX-based server software. Linux is currently becoming more and more popular against MS Windows Server, but is a real pain to install and maintain (and I do speak from personal experience here) for a lot of users. OSX Server is a fantastic product, but many companies (like mine) have gone Linux solely because for the price of an XServe, you can find x86 blade servers for about half the price.

So when you think about it this way, it makes perfect sense for Apple to release a server product on the PC side, there's a huge market there. If they build anything with Intel chips, it'll most likely be a new XServe.

 

[kangaroo]

You don't use your Mac <thinking> 'this is great because my machine is running off an IBM processor' any more than you think 'this is great because I'm using X brand power supply'. You want your machine to get from point A to point B, without crashes, as quickly as possible, within a OS/software environment you like and at a reasonable price. If Apple thinks it can do that by hitching its wagon to Intel--then so be it.

 

[Zigster]

Apple has a very loyal following. What happens if they switch? The fanboys won't go anywhere. What would they buy? Maybe 1% would buy a linux box in protest...the rest will go wherever Apple leads them.

I don't think Apple's above making the switch to a new chip manufacturer, though it might give their "switcher" campaign a little irony.

 

[Trout74]

The more I think about it, Ill bet that they are talking about just moving the Powerbooks to Intc. based processors. I bet they put Centrinos in them, and the rest of the line stays with the PowerPC derivitive.

hell what do I know, jsut a guess.

trout