Intel's roadmap (Intel>Products>Desktop Proc>Roadmap) doesn't say much, but it mentions that by early '04 they'll have at least 3.4 Ghz - And the G5 will still be similiar in performance.
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 set to go Intel? (Again)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
also found this.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11229
2nd quarter they will be close to 4 ghz with prescott. Not too shabby hehe
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11229
2nd quarter they will be close to 4 ghz with prescott. Not too shabby hehe
You're right. I said it wrong. I meant P4's are heavy and battery-sucking. Aple currently has a big focus on light-weight, small, laptops with a long batt. life, so a move to P4's would seem strange. Also, the projected Itanium chip is very hard to put in a laptop (from what I've heard), especially a small one.
Anyone new to Mac news and rumors...
should be told that this plan has been trotted out time and again.
It usually rejected as utter crap, but with the current switch to the G5 (IBM 970) chip, this incarnation of the Mac-on-Intel fantasy is sheer buffoonery and/or delusional nonsense.
One clue: the early spelling of MAC in all caps. Anyone slightly knowledgable about our platform would know that such a spelling reveals ignorance of the Mac platform!
should be told that this plan has been trotted out time and again.
It usually rejected as utter crap, but with the current switch to the G5 (IBM 970) chip, this incarnation of the Mac-on-Intel fantasy is sheer buffoonery and/or delusional nonsense.
One clue: the early spelling of MAC in all caps. Anyone slightly knowledgable about our platform would know that such a spelling reveals ignorance of the Mac platform!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
Well what you're saying make sense. For university folks, that sounds like a good idea. Of course, it is completely unrelated to the original rumor (Itaniums cost way too much), but is a good idea (and I think any x86 machine Apple made now would be completely unrelated to the original rumor). However, for switchers, what about Office, Photoshop, etc.? Developers would be reluctant to port 'em yet again, and MS probably wouldn't at all (because they want 90% of the OS market.)
Rocketman
macrumors 603
Best Buy? Wal-Mart?
Some companies are coming out with "thin client" PC's. I wonder if Apple made an Intel based super crippleware PC for about $500 or less fully loaded if that would satisfy their opinion of Intel crap.
It would have a browser, email, iTunes of course, and a host of low cost iApps that tried to suck premium revenues from the lowball buyers over time. Maybe forced them to refuse an automatic purchase of a dual G5 Powermac on each boot-up.
Rocketman
Some companies are coming out with "thin client" PC's. I wonder if Apple made an Intel based super crippleware PC for about $500 or less fully loaded if that would satisfy their opinion of Intel crap.
It would have a browser, email, iTunes of course, and a host of low cost iApps that tried to suck premium revenues from the lowball buyers over time. Maybe forced them to refuse an automatic purchase of a dual G5 Powermac on each boot-up.
Rocketman
mvc
macrumors 6502a
xpormac, I see you are a macrumors regular, so clearly you are a pet troll.
Does Arn call you in on a regular basis to keep the forum threads ticking over, or is there really nothing better for you to be doing on your almighty, ultrafast xp box than endlessly defending your platform choice to the deeply unimpressed? 😉
While I agree, I am not so quick to say never, and to disagree that some of this may be founded. Apple is smart, they know they are on thin ice. Having a plan to fall back to a strictly software based world (think Sega) is just smart planning. I would rather have Apple software and products for an X86 based architecture than no Apple at all, and I think most would agree.
troll....wow...is that word getting old fast. Who is arn? and why can't I say something without someone like you coming around saying "troll" ? Seriously, piss off.
emulator?
I haven't read all of the post, but Apple making an intel machine makes no sense whatsoever. Apple making an intel imulator that allows x86 software to run on apple hardware makes sense to me. Is this possible?
I haven't read all of the post, but Apple making an intel machine makes no sense whatsoever. Apple making an intel imulator that allows x86 software to run on apple hardware makes sense to me. Is this possible?
mvc
macrumors 6502a
That's a GOOD way to get banned. Try responding intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse.
Arn is the Macrumors God, which I'm suprised you don't know as you spend a lot on time on the forums.
And a troll is someone who spends his time on any forum spreading FUD, negativity, and criticism simply for the perverse pleasure of being contrary.
Which is fine, if tedious, until it turns to abuse.
Read the rules.
getting band for saying piss off to someone calling me a troll? 🙄 I say my opinion on something. I don't do it to disagree. Why don't you try and respond intelligently and with some wit instead of direct abuse? Because calling me a troll is not intelligent nor witty.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Re: Best Buy? Wal-Mart?
That would cost plenty, and probably not make much money. It would be inadvisable. It fails the cost/benefit analysis. And, Apple's too proud to build crap.
That would cost plenty, and probably not make much money. It would be inadvisable. It fails the cost/benefit analysis. And, Apple's too proud to build crap.
He wasn't trying to be witty I'm sure, it's just an honest assessment of your posts on this forum, which is a MAC forum in case you need reminding yet again. C'mon now, you've had a long day of trolling and spreading FUD and now you're just getting cranky, it sounds like it's past your bedtime. 😉
At the time of the 68k->PowerPC switch, Apple had a much larger market share than now (slightly north of 10%) and similar profitability to now. This was around 1994 - by most indicators, Apple was healthier then than now.
This assumes that the main reason for Apple switching to x86 is so people can install it on any old Windows box. I don't think, given Apple's dependence on high profit margins on hardware, that this is a path that would make sense for Apple. Rather, it buys Apple an out in case the PPC line hits another G4-like snag.
A side effect of having a x86-based Mac is that a PC emulator would no longer have the burden of emulating the x86, so a built-in PC emulator would mean that a x86 Mac box would in all likelihood be able to run Win32 software at native speeds. That in itself would certainly add fuel to the switch campaign. Even if an x86 Mac was a "closed" box, that advantage would be more compelling to the average PC buyer than the current state of affairs.
Healthier as far as market share...no doubt, but doing all the wrong things. I am worried about Apple's ability to get that back, it's much easier to hold what you have than to get new users as we all know. To bad in hindsight we couldn't be where Apple is today with that 10% market share...things would be a lot different. Can you imagine Apple's R&D department while justifying it by producing 10x the number of units? *drools*
I think that that kind of logic is not rational. I'm sorry to say this.
That is said by many Macholics.
I'm also an Macholic. However, I don't agree with that kind of logic.
First, Apple should change its strategy that satisfy the change of the situation. OK. Apple is a H/W company. However, has it made the Apple successful in the market? You may say that it was successful. But Apple's problem is that it should worry about its existence always. The fact itself says that the existing strategy is not successful.
Second, Apple may be able to sell more S/W especially OS than now it does. There will be many people who want to buy Apple's own H/W, not because of its design, but because Apple's H/W will be shipped with the OS on it. It will satisfy current type of Mac users. "Ready-to-use" machine will be main reason for choosing Apple's machine.
However, for another type of users, who usually installs their own OS, S/W, etc, general PC H/W with Apple's OS will satisfy their needs. Better and more reliable OS with wide selection of H/Ws.
Moreover, you should not be confused with the fact of adapting Intel's CPU by Apple with "You can run the MacOS on general x86 machines.".
You don't know that if the H/W with Intel's CPU will have the same architecture with current Windows box. There are many possibilities. Same CPU doesn't mean that they are same machine, or compatible machines.
You may have different memory map, different BIOS, different mechanism of controlling other components.
I hope that Apple Intel machine will have same architecture with current windows box. However, Apple should worry about relationship with MS. So, probably if Apple choose Intel processor, they may develop new architecture. (Then you should buy Apple's H/W to run the MacOS X. )
If Apple use current Windows box architecture, it wil be welcomed by many new users. If it will not installed and run smoothly on current Wintel box, it will hurt the Apple's new move. Because "MacOS X can run on existing ( means inexpensive or wide selection of existing H/W ) wintel architecture." will the main reason to spur the sales of Apple's MacOS X for Intel.
Probably due to the fact, people may be able to buy Apple's H/W without worry.
You know, people kept saying that "x86 is faster than Mac machine.. " etc.
However they don't buy the fastest x86 machine in general. Why? They just feel comfortable with the fact that there are faster machine available if they want the machines, and they choose inexpensive machine. That kind of attitude will work for Apple's H/W and Apple's MacOS X for Intel strategy.
So, I don't think that you should worry about Apple's H/W sales.
If Apple can't find a way to boost its sales or market share with current H/W architecture, then MacOS X for Intel will be better option. They can increase the MacOS X sales while they maintain the current sales of their own H/W.
If Apple choose general Windows box architecture, I hope that it will have no problem with MacOS X for Intel on the machine. Because if installing and running the OS on current intel architecture, then it will hurt the fact, "Apple's OS can run on Intel machine" itself, and gives negative effect.
The main problem I see with Apple's mid-term future, is that without Motorola having a decent product line, they once again seem to be tied to one only processor manufacturer, IBM, and are thus condemned to fully depend on that other single foreign party's success or failure.
Mac ON PC
I'm using a PC as the pedestal upon which my Mac sits.
Does that count as using Mac OS-10.2.6 on a PC that contains an Intel chip? 😀
=-=
Mac OS running through an Intel processor chip?
Not bloody likely for the general public.
Would not surprise me to find Mac OS running on an Intel processor chip in a lab at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino.
You might also find Mac OS running through several other brands of processor chips at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino.
Makes good business sense to me: explore the possibilities, and feasibilities of other chip sources.
What if some terrorist drops a Boeing on the IBM factory?
=-=
JJ
I'm using a PC as the pedestal upon which my Mac sits.
Does that count as using Mac OS-10.2.6 on a PC that contains an Intel chip? 😀
=-=
Mac OS running through an Intel processor chip?
Not bloody likely for the general public.
Would not surprise me to find Mac OS running on an Intel processor chip in a lab at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino.
You might also find Mac OS running through several other brands of processor chips at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino.
Makes good business sense to me: explore the possibilities, and feasibilities of other chip sources.
What if some terrorist drops a Boeing on the IBM factory?
=-=
JJ
Im reading,... and reading,.... again and again,.... AND I CAN'B BELEIVE HOW STUPID MAC USERS ARE, WHY, ooohhhh why
, but Im not ashamed that Im mac user too! So please use that little rock inside your skull when you talk about Apples against Intels.
Intel CPU on Macs will never happen
I am one who rarely says never. Still here are some reasons:
1. Apple is a hardware company.
2. Developers would have to recode the software they still haven't yet finished developing for Mac OS X, for the Intel platform running Mac OS X. And in some cases, big developers like Microsoft who bought Virtual PC will have to decide whether
to code VirtualPC for the G5 (which isn't yet complete and won't be until next year), or for Mac OS X running on Intel and ignore the G5 entirely.
3. An upgrade path from G5 to Intel would have to be made.
4. The ROM would have to be rewritten on the motherboard.
5. Apple would have to do some hardware based emulation to maintain backwards compatibility to make its customers happy.
6. The lack of expansion capabilities on the Powerbook G4 12 inch, iBook, iMac, and eMac would preclude this happening.
7. It is bad enough that the software base makes many PC users fear switching now. Switching to Intel in order to keep Apple a high quality hardware company would force Apple to have to make a software that doesn't allow a true version of Windows to be installed on it, but rather an emulated version. And then waiting for developers to update their software for the new version will cause more complaints. With Apple's 6 to 11 month CPU upgrade cycle, this will never happen.
I am one who rarely says never. Still here are some reasons:
1. Apple is a hardware company.
2. Developers would have to recode the software they still haven't yet finished developing for Mac OS X, for the Intel platform running Mac OS X. And in some cases, big developers like Microsoft who bought Virtual PC will have to decide whether
to code VirtualPC for the G5 (which isn't yet complete and won't be until next year), or for Mac OS X running on Intel and ignore the G5 entirely.
3. An upgrade path from G5 to Intel would have to be made.
4. The ROM would have to be rewritten on the motherboard.
5. Apple would have to do some hardware based emulation to maintain backwards compatibility to make its customers happy.
6. The lack of expansion capabilities on the Powerbook G4 12 inch, iBook, iMac, and eMac would preclude this happening.
7. It is bad enough that the software base makes many PC users fear switching now. Switching to Intel in order to keep Apple a high quality hardware company would force Apple to have to make a software that doesn't allow a true version of Windows to be installed on it, but rather an emulated version. And then waiting for developers to update their software for the new version will cause more complaints. With Apple's 6 to 11 month CPU upgrade cycle, this will never happen.
Re: Linux doesn't have any trouble
If Apple could double its marketshare, the developers will follow. Porting an application from Mac OS X on PowerPC to Mac OS X on x86 will probably be less painful than porting from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
Application developers code to an API, not a CPU. As long as the API stays the same, recompiles pretty much do the trick. This is why so much Linux/x86 software is available to Mac users, and with X windows standard in Panther, I expect to see that grow.
In the near-term (6-18 months) I would imagine people using a dual-boot machine. Alternatives include VMWare-type system or Windows emulation so that everything was up simultaneously.
If Apple could double its marketshare, the developers will follow. Porting an application from Mac OS X on PowerPC to Mac OS X on x86 will probably be less painful than porting from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
Application developers code to an API, not a CPU. As long as the API stays the same, recompiles pretty much do the trick. This is why so much Linux/x86 software is available to Mac users, and with X windows standard in Panther, I expect to see that grow.
This is the biggest gotcha in the plan. Microsoft still has Apple by the balls (pardon the crudeness) with Office, and until Apple can break free of that, Microsoft can always hold Apple's growth down.