Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple set to go Intel? (Again)

i've read through the last couple of pages in this thread and a good reason why Apple won't switch to Intel came up in my mind.

For the last couple of years Apple has continuosely confronted it's computers against Intel based PC's. Remember the G3 ad campaign where the "G3 burns the rest of the competition" where we saw a smoldering Intel cleanroom worker (of the dancing kind)?

Or how the G4 in the begining was a "Supercomputer" on your desk? Apple has been "bashing" Intel for years, and if it would switch hardware in PowerBooks to run on P4 mobile processors in order to keep them up to date, Apple would be throwing away the money they spent on all that advertizing.

If Apple couldn't update PowerBooks fast enough with G4's, my best guess is that they would swith to G3's with Altivec built in, and end up renaming them G4's until IBM comes up with a low power version of the PPC970 (if they do).

As for programs, companies would have to switch compilers or use special "translator" compilers that would be able to traslate PPC assembler code to x86/64 code. And think of all the companies that re-code all those games so we can play them. If Apple would leave their architecture completely, these companies would be bankrupt in a few months.

Those are my reasons why Apple switching to Intel being out of the question.
 
I laughed when I read this rumor. There was one word that surfaced.... bull****!

Apple has (if they don't I will be shocked) a working version of OS X that can run on x86 architecture. Its a backup, and also a great source to help peg down little bugs that plague other OSes that only run on one architecture (Windoze). Take a look at Linux and you see that its rather stable on all architectures because its developed for them all.

Apple letting go the recently introduced G5, and going x86 for MWSF2004, is laughable. That would be suicide. If Apple wasn't able to get a decent processor in the unlikely event both Motorola, and IBM can't come with anything or another company can't provide, Apple *may* go x86 because they are forced to. Apple like any large business has several contingency plans in case something fails. Its the only way the company would be able to survive such a change in their market space.

No OS X on x86, for at least the lifetime of the G5. That much is guaranteed.
 
Re: Apple set to go Intel? (Again)

Originally posted by Macrumors
Due to the frequent recurrance of this rumor as well as being from a rumor source of unknown reliability, it is felt to be unlikely.
Click to expand...

Yet it appears on the front page instead of page 2...
 
Re: Re: Apple set to go Intel? (Again)

Originally posted by SeaFox
Yet it appears on the front page instead of page 2...
Click to expand...


I think arn was trying to work us all up so we would have somehting to talk about when the powerbook don't appear next week. The old bait and switch. And we almost bought it.
 
Did anyone notice on their site they have a butchered picture of the G5? Its been squashed vertically and stretched horizontally. It makes the G5 look like a fat whore.
 
Originally posted by Kermit
Could someone please explain to me what a "duel" platform "MAC" is? I thought it was "dual" platform "Mac" but of course I could be wrong, tomorrow maybe pigs can fly and come january certainly MAC(?) OS X will run exclusively on Intel-hardware. RIGHT!!
Click to expand...

The "duel" platform Mac is Apple's idea of how to "foil" the competition on both ease-of-use and hardware costs."

😀

C'mon people, throw me a bone here.
 
OS X for x86 (or one of its successors) will happen when Apple stops being a hardware maker. Until then, it won't. One fact that people constantly forget is that Apple is not competing with Microsoft. If they were, the PPC and even probably the 680x0 would have been little more than historical footnotes. And Microsoft and Apple would each have about 40-45% market-share, and both OS's would likely not be as good as they are today.

But Apple doesn't compete with Microsoft, no matter how much people would like to think it does.

Apple competes with Dell. Apple competes with Gateway. Apple competes with HP. Apple competes with Sun. Apple competed most directly with NeXT and Be. Apple most directly competes with Genesi and their Pegasos computer and MorphOS (an outgrowth of Amiga OS). And you know what? In every playing field with the competitors doing the same thing (OS AND hardware), Apple has come out on top, except in the case of Sun, but their target market is very different than Apple's (though the XServe isn't doing too bad).

The problem is, of course that hardware+software vendors such as Apple obviously don't do as well as solely hardware (Dell) or solely software (Microsoft) companies. But Apple is stuck. Apple obviously can't switch solely to hardware (unless MorphOS gets way better and gains way more acceptance than it has), but has far too much invested in hardware to become a software company. Admittedly, switching to software only would be far easier than a hardware-only switch, but it's still darn difficult and I doubt Apple wants to lose its high margins. But, because it is so late in the game, Apple has a further issue to deal with: developers. While I don't doubt that many developers would be glad just to have to write x86 code, I doubt they'd be so happy as to write nearly the same code for two different OS's on the same hardware.

To say nothing of the compatibility issues Apple would have if it became software only. The integration between hardware and software is what keeps Apple going in its current form, and it's one reason a lot of people like the Mac. Why would anyone want to use an unstable, less integrated Mac OS on x86?

It's too late for Apple to become a software only company, and impossible for them to release an x86-compatible Mac OS. In short, they're stuck until the next major processor architecture breaktgrough.
 
Originally posted by SeaFox
The "duel" platform Mac is Apple's idea of how to "foil" the competition on both ease-of-use and hardware costs."

😀

C'mon people, throw me a bone here.
Click to expand...
As a fencer that was BAD🙂
 
off the top of my head...

While this seems extremely unlikely for desktop macs and laptops it would be very easy for Apple to put out x86 based servers (long overdue an update), using any old chip-set. OSX is already available for x86 (sans GUI), the services, apache etc. are ready, the market would love them and lest we forget, Apple already did this, what 8 years ago? with those enormous boxes running what was it, AIX?

On balance though, its more likely just another wannabe site going for page hits.

darndog
 
I would personally hate to see it happen...

The only plausible way I can even think of this happening is for Apple to keep a high end pro line sporting the G5, and successors processors, and to switch their consumer line to Intel.

This may help lower the priices in thier consumer lineup.

Other than that I'd say NO WAY!😡
 
WHY APPLE SHOULD COME OUT WITH A INTEL VERSION OF OSX.
or Why I will get flammed.
by freundt


1. 98-99% of all computer hardware sold is based on the x86 processor.

2. Every IT geek, slashdot reader, etc. wants top move to a linux/unix solution WITH a good UI. OSX is at heart, a unix OS. So is Linux. OSX is a unix solution with a pretty UI
2.5 One reason for Linux not being adopted is that all the UIs out there are not standard, nor do all the apps use the same commands, etc. OSX would not bring only it's superior UI to x86, but also, MAJOR DEVELOPERS like adobe and macromedia, et. al.

3. With all of the negative press out there, and with tech heads bashing it, Windows is looking worse and worse, leading to Point #4.

4. PEOPLE ARE looking for an alternative OS.. just look at what Lindows, Red hat, Mandrake, et. al. are trying to do. Would they be trying is there wasn;t a market? Would investors invest in them they didn't think it was a good invetment?

5. Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company.. the richest in the world. So software companies DO make money! Imagine that.

6. If OSX were to get say just 10% of Microsoft's market share on x86, that is still like 300% more marketshare than it has now.

7. Apple does not have to abandon it's PPC architecture to do this either. Anyone remember those fat binaries from the first PPC platform change? Why couldn't apple do the same thing.. One program, two platforms. Apple could release it as diffent flavors of thew same OS, much like Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional.

8. Apple is positioning itself as a "service" company as it stands.. Itunes, Ipod, Iphoto, etc... These are the main selling points of apple now, not superior hardware!

Ok.. enough of this rant.

I personally believe that for Apple to release OSX for the x86 would make them not only a viable contender in the future of the computing world, but also very rich... and we all know shareholders love the $$$$....

_f

---------------------------
OSX for intel - not only a good idea, but a GREAT one.
 
There should be a Page 3. It would be dedicated to rumors about Mac OS X on x86 hardware and buyout's by Disney.
 
Originally posted by freundt


I personally believe that for Apple to release OSX for the x86 would make them not only a viable contender in the future of the computing world, but also very rich... and we all know shareholders love the $$$$....

_f

---------------------------
OSX for intel - not only a good idea, but a GREAT one.
Click to expand...
The only problem is writing the support into the os for every bit of hardware that is out for the x86 architecture. If apple tries to do this it will end up as buggy as microsoft. And if they try to only support specific hardware no one will buy it (too Complex)
 
Originally posted by admford
For the last couple of years Apple has continuosely confronted it's computers against Intel based PC's. Remember the G3 ad campaign where the "G3 burns the rest of the competition" where we saw a smoldering Intel cleanroom worker (of the dancing kind)?
Click to expand...
Yes that was sort of fun, along with the snail...

Any commercial for Apple switching to Intel would be ugly, what are they going to say -- they lost that horse race and ended up having to shoot the horse and the jockey to put them out of our misery.
 
Never gonna happen. I laugh out loud every time someone poses a theory about how Steve Jobs would rationalize going to the dark side. Some think Intel CPU's aren't going to the dark side... they are. But the most telling reasons why they would NOT go INTEL:

1) A Recompiled of every app or be forced to sluggish emulation of every EXISTING app. It's one thing to emulate a single app here or there, it's another thing to do it for all the apps.

2) It's too soon since the transition to OS X to make developers and users make another costly investment in software and hardware.

3) The G5 is faster than anything in the PC world right now, and it's speed ramp-up should be outpacing the INTEL and AMD offerings.

4) Steve Jobs would have to figure out how to say "INTEL is your friend!"

5) You can always try to punch a hole in one of my theories, but you all know it ain't gonna happen despite that. 🙂
 
admford:

Good idea, but flawed. Recall that in the 1980s Apple pitted its computers again IBM. Remember the full page advertisement that Apple took out in the New York Times when IBM introduced the first IBM PC?

"Welcome IBM. Seriously."

Today, Apple and IBM are partners and Apple actively advertises the IBM chips in its computers.

In the 1990s Apple fought against Microsoft - actively.

Recall the famous anti-Windows 95 advertisement "Crowd Control" with the presentation gone awry? Or the large advertisement Apple took out:
"C:\ONGRATULATIONS", mocking Microsoft's attempts to make Windows more user friendly?

Now Apple advertises Microsoft products on its homepage.

Remember: Advertising and marketing is the "art of the possible" and has absolutely no basis on hard principles and even less basis on 'fact'. Was the G4 a "Supercomputer?" Hardly. Is the G5 the fastest personal computer on the market? That's debatable.

Advertising is useful for the moment and quickly forgotten in the minds of most consumers. Apple's advertising focuses today more on "branding" the company and giving it a strong identity rather than in "roasting" it's competition as they did several years back.

Originally posted by admford
i've read through the last couple of pages in this thread and a good reason why Apple won't switch to Intel came up in my mind.

For the last couple of years Apple has continuosely confronted it's computers against Intel based PC's. Remember the G3 ad campaign where the "G3 burns the rest of the competition" where we saw a smoldering Intel cleanroom worker (of the dancing kind)?

Or how the G4 in the begining was a "Supercomputer" on your desk? Apple has been "bashing" Intel for years, and if it would switch hardware in PowerBooks to run on P4 mobile processors in order to keep them up to date, Apple would be throwing away the money they spent on all that advertizing.

If Apple couldn't update PowerBooks fast enough with G4's, my best guess is that they would swith to G3's with Altivec built in, and end up renaming them G4's until IBM comes up with a low power version of the PPC970 (if they do).

As for programs, companies would have to switch compilers or use special "translator" compilers that would be able to traslate PPC assembler code to x86/64 code. And think of all the companies that re-code all those games so we can play them. If Apple would leave their architecture completely, these companies would be bankrupt in a few months.

Those are my reasons why Apple switching to Intel being out of the question.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by mattmack
The only problem is writing the support into the os for every bit of hardware that is out for the x86 architecture. If apple tries to do this it will end up as buggy as microsoft. And if they try to only support specific hardware no one will buy it (too Complex)
Click to expand...

A lot of it is already done.. look at the FREE BSD distro... And as for buggyness, that would be like saying Linux Distros, which support tons of hardware, are buggy. They aren't. They are pretty solid.

Just because you have to support multiple devices doesn't make your OS buggy. Writting bad drivers for those devices does.

_f
 
It is very intersting how assumptions were jumped to immediately. I never said Apple would make a Wintel clone or run Window, but you did exactly what the average consumer will do if this were to happen. What make a Macintosh a Macintosh is the fact that is does not look or work like a Wintel regardless of the GUI and operating system. You forget the driving force behind Apple is there are 2 kinds of computer you can buy, Apple or a PC.

Originally posted by tgrundke
qjksaeib:

Once again, I ask: WHY would putting an Intel processor into a Macintosh make it a marketing nightmare? Does a Motorola chip make a Macintosh a Macintosh? Does an IBM Power4 make a Macintosh a Macintosh? No! Does having a limited number of applications make a Macintosh a Macintosh? No! What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is the user interaction/operating system. What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is Apple's integration of hardware and software. THAT is what a Macintosh is. REGARDLESS the processor that fuels it.

The assumptions made here baffle me! What makes you believe that Apple woul be producing a Wintel clone? What makes you believe that Macs would then run Windows? (Because you are assuming that the move to Intel means Macs will become 'like everything else')

What makes it a marketing nightmare? Actually, it would be the greatest boon for Apple to advertise: "NOW WITH INTEL!" Imagine that!

This does not automatically mean that Macs will be Windows compatible. This does not mean we'll see Macintosh clones. This doesn't even necessarily mean that we'll see more software! BUT, it will grab a lot of peoples' attentions and make them think that they can just pick up any software title in the store and run it on their Mac (probably not, however). It would improve the Macintosh 'mindshare' significantly and reduce the image that "Macs are outsiders, incompatible with the Wintel world."

Please explain the exact "advantage" that we Macintosh users have with hardware that is more expensive, of relatively lower performance, and with fewer software titles? Is *that* the Macintosh advantage? Hardly.

Our advantage is the seemless integration of software and hardware. It is OS X. It has NOTHING to do with the processor.

This is like saying that your car is what it is because you use premium versus regular fuel. Bologna.
Click to expand...
 
This Rumour always seems to come up when Microsoft needs Spanking. The 5 year truce is over and this seems to be apple's way of saying to microsoft that they could hurt M$'s core business. It wouldn't suprise me if Apple did have something locked in a cupboard somewhere, even developed by a trusted team of oopaloompas.

The PPC platform is looking healthier than it has done in years and itanic is looking very shonky. There is actually a roadmap, thanks to the IBM Power series of processors and IBM has a vested interested in keeping this development track going.

If this rumour is anything it's to get M$ to keep office going, which mean that apple has got an office suite based on Open Office/Star Office (or heaven forbid koffice) in the pipeline, or at least not yet.
 
Re: off the top of my head...

Originally posted by darndog
Apple already did this, what 8 years ago? with those enormous boxes running what was it, AIX?
Click to expand...

Those still didn't run Intel.

Okay, why would Apple switch to Intel if the G5 is going to be much, much faster than Intel in the near future? And those of you saying that Intel will only go into laptops or into the low end--ha! Any cost/performance gain from that would be greatly outweighed by the hassle of having two mutually incompatible system architectures that you have to support. If anything, Apple will have to double the hard drive capacity of all their products just to run a fat binary of every single piece of software, including the OS! This is untenable.

And yes, the G5 will go into PowerBooks. They may even go into PowerBooks this very month. If not, it will be soon, as soon as the G5 reaches 90 nm.

There's no rationale for Apple to use Intel processors. None at all.
 
Re: Re: off the top of my head...

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Okay, why would Apple switch to Intel if the G5 is going to be much, much faster than Intel in the near future?
Click to expand...


Who says they are going to be much, much faster?
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
By next summer we'll be at 3 GHz. If we continue at that rate, we will outpace them quite significantly.
Click to expand...

So at what speeds are intel and amd supose to be by next summer?
 
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