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 Wants Intel Chips Early?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
fordlemon said:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Seriously, are you claiming that Windows is ridden with viruses because of the CPU? the fact that Windows is designed like crap and runs on 90+% of worlds computers have nothing to do with it? And that since OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, BeOS, NetBSD etc. etc. run on x86 as well, they are just as virus-ridden as Windows is?
First rule of discussing things with others: make sure you actually know what you are talking about.
Second rule of discussion: if you don't know what you are talking about, don't try to act like you are an expert on the subject at hand. Sooner or later people will find out that you are clueless.
since everybody knows there will be a switch to intel they´re waiting.
for what?
apple have to do something to speed up their computers!
steve is telling everytime something "big" is coming.
this time he said the solution is intel.
why is he naming the solution this time?
now there is no way back.
apple is only important for a view users.
the computer market is much bigger than apple.
it seems that steve is a big mouth this time by announcing the switch to intel.
better shut up and surprise the customers than to disappoint them permanently.
for what?
apple have to do something to speed up their computers!
steve is telling everytime something "big" is coming.
this time he said the solution is intel.
why is he naming the solution this time?
now there is no way back.
apple is only important for a view users.
the computer market is much bigger than apple.
it seems that steve is a big mouth this time by announcing the switch to intel.
better shut up and surprise the customers than to disappoint them permanently.
sparkleytone said:
When it comes to contacts within Intel, the Inq has very good ones.
Ironically, being a smaller customer could be good for Apple in terms of getting chips early. Think back to the days of the Mac clones: Power Computing used to regularly beat Apple to the latest chips, because it sold less than Apple. Because it sold less products, it could take early production runs that produce less good chips than later ones (good in the sense of meeting the necessary clock speed).
MikeAtari said:
The Inq are Brits, so they're born sarcastic. And Mike McGee, who founded it, is one of the most sarcastic men evah. If you think they're "anti-Apple" you should read what they say about Microsoft.
But they also have good - VERY good - contacts in the chip world.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. With IBM mainly interested in x-box chips and the G4 barely increasing in performance I'd expect to see the first chips in macs earlier than originally slated. I'd bet on march 2006.
I wonder if this had anything to do with it
http://www.ppcnux.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5707
Motorola delayed the dual Core G4's till 2q 06. Looks like we won't be seeing a dual core G4 powerbook, maybe apple decided to move its roadmap up!
http://www.ppcnux.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5707
Motorola delayed the dual Core G4's till 2q 06. Looks like we won't be seeing a dual core G4 powerbook, maybe apple decided to move its roadmap up!
greenstork said:
Best post on this topic yet. Apple would have had to open a FreeScale sized division and spent billions on CPU fabrication facilities to pull this off. For what? Enough CPU to feed a ~3% marketshare company. That doesn't make economic sense and Apple knows it. Apple has in the past treated their CPU partners like whipping boys because they could always pull out the dreaded "we'll switch to Intel" card to get them to sign up.
The problem is that IBM finally called their bluff - and backed Apple into a corner where Intel was their only viable option. So now that Apple's played their only trump card, let's hope that they won't need another one. My guess, however, is that this rumor simply isn't true - I'm sure they worked out WAY IN ADVANCE the delivery schedules for the replacement processors of computers in their current lineup. Apple isn't stupid enough to try to change that only a few months in. Nor are they stupid enough to try to get some "first dibs" exclusivity agreement now, if they didn't have one when they originally signed on.
That doesn't mean that they haven't approached Intel about shipping some current processors for a device that we haven't seen yet. Of course that would hardly be Apple attempting to place "pressure" on Intel, but I doubt that is happening anyway.
This is the Motoscale that we all have learned to hate. I still quiver when i think what would have happen if Apple didnt attempt the G5. We would have new Powermacs with dual...............1.8 G4s????????????The faster Apple makes the move the better. IBM/Motostink have neve been interested in moving PPC forward and Apple has been forced to sell machines with 2 cpu's in them for years to try to make up for the performance difference of the stagnated PPC.BillHarrison said:
Dont Hurt Me said:
I agree that the development of PPC is stagnated (who can argue with that?), but I liken Apple's Intel move to an amicable divorce.
Both parties (Apple and IBM/Motorola) knew it was time to move on.
The PPC people weren't about to bust their a**es developing chips for Apple without more incentive from Apple.
Apple wasn't about to deal with the painfully slow processor pipeline anymore.
Not really anywhere to go from there except separate directions.
Wow, you are so bitter.
People buy Apple for the OSX, not so much the hardware. PPC isn't that much better than current x86 processors these days.
If you hate x86 architecture, why did you buy an AMD based computer?!!! ( smell... troll ).
People buy Apple for the OSX, not so much the hardware. PPC isn't that much better than current x86 processors these days.
If you hate x86 architecture, why did you buy an AMD based computer?!!! ( smell... troll ).
fordlemon said:
NicP said:
I'm inclined to agree, I don't post that often on the forums as my knowledge of the inner workings of a mac or PC is very limited, yes I can change RAM, HD and cards, but I don't know how they work or any of the technical stuff.
But I do know that I use this site like many others, for info and accurate(ish) info on products security updates and the like, but the down right arrogance and rudness in some of these posts, and political statements, quite frankly are appauling, and really have put me and my colleagues off.
Funny how we are so quick to call troll, many many folks use both just as many many folks have Pcs because the software isnt on Mac. If you have followed PowerPc developement since the get go you would be screaming in stagnating agony. The fact is Intel,AMD have just ran away from G4. G4 is way way back in the rearview mirror in performance terms. There just isnt any reason not to get out those Intel Macs or sell OSX for Pcs. We deserve the best software on the fastest hardware. PPC isnt the fastest at all compared 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 chips. We allways have tests that show 2 Cpu's in that Mac vs 1 Cpu from the other guys. Never forget those MacWorld/MacAddict dec tests for the dual 2.0 vs single AMD Athlon. Its why i bought my first Pc after reading those 2 reviews and they were biased Mac Magazines.Stella said:
Look through his previous posts and you may change your mind.
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with AMD and Intel processors - Pentuim 4s were iffy - relied on brute force rather than a good architecture ( originally P4s were less efficient than P3s ).
I like Intel processors for laptops, AMD for desktops. Currently you can't beat Intel laptop processors.
I'm looking forward to Intel on Mac - the performance will hopefully be a lot better than current machines.
However, overall, I don't care if a computer is hampster powered as long as there is good software and enough performance. The Mac platform offers good software that is, IMO, better than those on Windows ( functionality plus ease of use - which is partly down to the OS ).
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with AMD and Intel processors - Pentuim 4s were iffy - relied on brute force rather than a good architecture ( originally P4s were less efficient than P3s ).
I like Intel processors for laptops, AMD for desktops. Currently you can't beat Intel laptop processors.
I'm looking forward to Intel on Mac - the performance will hopefully be a lot better than current machines.
However, overall, I don't care if a computer is hampster powered as long as there is good software and enough performance. The Mac platform offers good software that is, IMO, better than those on Windows ( functionality plus ease of use - which is partly down to the OS ).
Dont Hurt Me said:
Stella said:
Actually, my brother bought a Mac mini mainly because of iLife'05 (or, to be even more precise, for iMovie/iDVD). The "not much maintenance" fact is also a boost (he now calls me on how to use some programs, instead of how to fix his computer - it's great!)
Yes, its the software, not hardware. Do you or your brother really care that your mac runs PPC? Probably not! Why should you? If your Mac does what you want it to do then why should you worry. I understand people don't like Intel because of the company, and would rather have an AMD processor.. but Intel / AMD - both x86 based. You can swap your processor + motherboard and still run continue on as before without knowing much difference.
Yvan256 said:
Macs bundled software rules, thats a given. Hardware design rules. Hardware performance and modernization has allways been another ballgame. Anyone remember ADC? Heck apple is still using AGP though there isnt anything wrong with it. I look forward to the day I can run My Mac and play HL2 or F.E.A.R. or say Pacific Fighters on the same machine with no trade offs,no sacrifice. have my cake and eat it to 
That wont be on a PPC Machine. Moto is still still spinning paper So funny i sure would have like to have heard Jobs responses to Moto /IBM this past year.
That wont be on a PPC Machine. Moto is still still spinning paper So funny i sure would have like to have heard Jobs responses to Moto /IBM this past year.Yvan256 said:
I bought mine because it was silver.
Oh and because it was PPC. Would i stil have bought one if it was x86? possibly. But i have been using PC's for a while i didnt just want to change OS (I could have got Linux if i wanted to do that) i wanted to try something new and different. I read about how great the PPC architecture was supposed to be so it seemed to be a good investment with OSX and Appleto back it up. I didn't spend £3000 to use OSX, I spent £3000 to use OSX on a Dual G5. I'm prolly alone though in that last bit.
Dont Hurt Me said:
When will you finally notice it's not Motorola anymore!? It's Freescale! Repeat after me: FREESCALE! Did you get it?
Freescale never promised the dualcore next-gen G for this year, it was always 1H 2006!
They promised the 7448 for 2H 2005 and they delivered, anything Apple's got to do is use them as drop-in replacement in the current Powerbooks.
Apple however for some (stupid?) reason doesn't act, I guess they still want to milk the customers with the old ones...
fordlemon said:
The only reason to buy a Mac is for the superior user experience. If you love your new BSD box, then user experience is not even a factor for you and you should not have ever bought a Mac in the first place.
The reason to buy a Mac is and always been user experience. Apple switching to Intel doesn't change that one little bit.