'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

[Tech^salvager]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

"THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQIORER has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models"

Sorry if it has been stuck up here allready.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

1. How many present Apple customers would abandon Apple hardware, if OS X would run equally well on PC machines from other makers?

I doubt that anyone would buy a PPC based Mac during the transition. Why would they pay top dollar for an already terminted system?

2. How many current Windows users would like to buy Apple hardware, if Windows would run perfectly on the new Apple machines?

How long do you think it would take for MS to prevent this if it happened? It has been done before you know.

3. How many Windows users would buy Apple's OS X operating system to install as a primary (or secondary) OS on their existing PCs? .

...and now to the complete nightmare, Mac clones. I wont even go there....

 

[Thes Quid]

2¢

Well, well, it has finally come to be something other than the usual blather.
IF and that's a big IF the rumors are true, here's my take:
The frameworks which were left over from NeXT will be released, enabling developers to recompile their apps for x86, provided they followed standard practices in programming. Progs will come with binaries for all in the bundles. Space is not an issue in the days of progs delivered on DVDs and broadband.
Apple will lock OSX to it's own boxes, and will endeavor to give them features that will make them worth getting instead of plain boxen (which won't run OSX anyways).
As a side effect, we'll have something like the original Yellow Box of yore. You'll be able to load and run PC apps transparently. They won't include this in the box, but it'll be a simple as a download and install from a variety of Open Source projects.
Hell, you could even dual boot with Windows if you like.
I'm betting you'll be able to run at least the next several versions of OSX on the PPC boxes, even up to 10.8. The graphics cards are becoming more important than ever now anyways, witness Quartz Extreme 2D.
PERHAPS after the transition is complete, and Apple's hardware is established again as the "Best of Breed", they would start to sell OSX for generic boxen. Which would never be as fast as Apple's own, because they will embrace the bleeding edge.
Just in time to drive a spike through Longhorn's heart.
Just my 2¢.

 

[Abstract]

^^Apology accepted. Why? Because I only made it to page 3 of this thread and had to respond.

All I really have to say is that Apple will lose a lot of sales from people who don't want to buy into a computer with PPC if they're told that in 1 year, they're making the transition towards Intel, and in 2 years, they think that many companies would be working in full force to change their software.

ALSO: if they're planning on an Intel switch, maybe its not x86. Maybe its Intel who sees the opportunity to produce PPC for Apple, and since Apple does have some rights to the PPC architecture, this is Intel's way in. I mean, with all 3 video game systems using PPC, Intel is now not a part of something huge, so its not like they're making a bit of a switch just for Apple's sake. They're doing it for the video game market.

Maybe Intel see's what the industry already sees.......PC gaming as being irrelevent now that internet, harddrives, USB, USB2, bluetooth, and some other nifty features will be standard on all systems in this iteration, or for the next iteration of gaming consoles in 2009-2010.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

^^Apology accepted. Why? Because I only made it to page 3 of this thread and had to respond.

All I really have to say is that Apple will lose a lot of sales from people who don't want to buy into a computer with PPC if they're told that in 1 year, they're making the transition towards Intel, and in 2 years, they think that many companies would be working in full force to change their software.

ALSO: if they're planning on an Intel switch, maybe its not x86. Maybe its Intel who sees the opportunity to produce PPC for Apple, and since Apple does have some rights to the PPC architecture, this is Intel's way in. I mean, with all 3 video game systems using PPC, Intel is now not a part of something huge, so its not like they're making a bit of a switch just for Apple's sake. They're doing it for the video game market.

Maybe Intel see's what the industry already sees.......PC gaming as being irrelevent now that internet, harddrives, USB, USB2, bluetooth, and some other nifty features will be standard on all systems in this iteration, or for the next iteration of gaming consoles in 2009-2010.

I couldn't agree more. I just can't see x86 happening. Intel seem to happen, but I think it will be PPC, NOT x86.
I doubt Apple would survive a PPC -> x86 transition.

 

[fraggle]

The transition to OS X was long and messy enough. I think this would be even worse. Would we have a PPC classic shell to run all our current apps until everything was rewritten? That would be an emulation and we know how slow that is.

That is not necessarily true. A few years ago I read an article about HP emulating one of its HP-PA CPUs on the same CPU and getting a speed increase. They used a mechanism similar to what JIT is for Java. If you store the "translated" code you can avoid doing the translation again when you start the application the again.

This works because the compiler can only optimize the (static) source code, the above mentioned runtime translation on the other hand takes the actual behaviour of the running code into account and can thus do a much better optimization.

If you combine this mechanism with a new XCode that provides the possibility to automatically generate "fat" binaries plus a few tools that highlight possibly problematic code on the other plattform you will have a sound system.

But: I also expect that hardware sales of PPC hardware will basically drop to zero, even if Steve would announce a dual-platform strategy. This did not work for Windows NT, it did not work for BeOS, it does not work for SUN. So either they already have everything ready in terms of hardware to do the switch immediately or they won't sell anything until they have...

 

[dodonutter]

Why don't we trust steve?

Why can't we trust Steve on this one? Mr J has been with apple since the very early days and was pretty passionate about what he wanted back then. NeXT is also apple now and NeXT was his baby. Plus Steve is probably (not really a great knowledge on that topic) the best CEO apple has ever seen...he has almost consistently got good or amazing results for the company (do i even need to point out the iPod?) and taken it to be a highly respected company and a leader in design and standards which is way out of proportion to its market share.

I know someone is going to point out where he's screwed up or something he's done in the past that doesn't match any of this but everyone has to agree he has done a lot of good for apple, so why can't we trust that he knows what he is doing here and isn't going to march head long into something he doesn't think he can achieve.

Wait and see what he has to say on monday

Oh and btw i think the scariest thing he could say would be nothing at all....

 

[MacWhispers]

...and now to the complete nightmare, Mac clones. I wont even go there....

Do you understand that, at $129, Apple earns about as much net profit on an OS X sale as it does on the sale of a low end Mac mini, iBook, or eMac? The impact on Apple's bottom line of a Windows PC owner buying a copy of OS X is similar to the same person buying an Apple computer. How is it bad that Apple could suddenly have a product to sell to a few hundred million new customers?

 

[ksz]

Oh and btw i think the scariest thing he could say would be nothing at all....

Well said! All these rumblings and no earthquake would be a big letdown. Hmm, did I say that right?

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

But: I also expect that hardware sales of PPC hardware will basically drop to zero, even if Steve would announce a dual-platform strategy. This did not work for Windows NT, it did not work for BeOS, it does not work for SUN. So either they already have everything ready in terms of hardware to do the switch immediately or they won't sell anything until they have...

Being a 3% player you will jeopardize your very existance by halting all sales for a couple of years. That is the main reason why I don't believe in a PPC -> x86 transition. It would kill off Mac as a computer and possibly also Apple as a company.

Why would Apple choose to go x86 just when other companies have seen the how powerful the PPC is and are beginning to use it in consols? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Quicktime of the keynote?

Is there any way to watch the QT that's usually posted after the event without going to Apple.com or Macrumors first?

I'm asking because I think I could stay away from news sites for a couple of hours, then watch the keynote with _no_ prior knowledge. That would be huge!

But how do I find the url without going to the aforementioned sites and seeing big splash pages with the news?

Any ideas?

 

[XboxEvolved]

I think this is a huge possibility seeing that cnet (and to my knowledge rumors posted on Macrumors.com are right a lot) posted the rumor. I think that if Intel is making something, it would be a special 64-bit CPU or possibly core based CPU that would take full advantage of the Mac OS, unlike the Intel CPUs that are out right now that have to accomodate a wide range of OSes.

I also think that this could all be a scare tactic, and that the culture, hype, and Apple built up will tumble if they were to really go through with it. If you look at IBM though, they have not been treating Apple that well lately. Microsoft has made a deal for a triple 3.2 GHz cores--IBM has made a deal in conjunction with Sony and Toshiba for a 7x3.2Gh cores CPU, and what does apple have? Apple doesn't even have the 3Ghz CPU they were promised by IBM (or maybe Apple just promised it) that they were supposed to have by end of 04 I think? Hopefully these rumors are scaring the crap out of IBM and we will start seeing some sort of new partnerships. Maybe that Sony partnership Apple had with their cameras and HD technology on the Apple computers, as well as Apple backing Sony's blu-ray tech will have some sort of effect and we could see a jointly made Apple/IBM/Sony/Toshiba Cell CPU on the PowerMacs?

It's just a thought.....

 

[uncle_sam_ie]

They're going to have to have a Mactel sooner than mid 2006. All those Apple stories are going be very empty without one . Hell, I was planning on buying a G5 iMac, but not now. . This is a double edged sword with a lot of blood. Hopefully Job's has really good plan.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Do you understand that, at $129, Apple earns about as much net profit on an OS X sale as it does on the sale of a low end Mac mini, iBook, or eMac? The impact on Apple's bottom line of a Windows PC oner buying a copy of OS X is similar to the same person buying an Apple computer. How is it bad that Apple could suddenly have a product to sell to a few hundred million new customers?

This is the main problem with windows, having the OS able to run on gazillion different hardwares. If Apple tried that, OSX 10.5 could just as well be named millenium edition.
Secondly, Apple provide OSX to be able to sell hardware. Apple's main revenue comes from hardware.

Moreover, OSX sell on two things: stability and virii free platform.
Allowing/porting OSX to run on any PC x86 would IMO effectively remove the main reasons why people should switch from windows to OSX.

 

[Neodym]

Who says it must be a full switch?

The transition to OS X was long and messy enough. I think this would be even worse. Would we have a PPC classic shell to run all our current apps until everything was rewritten? That would be an emulation and we know how slow that is. Can't IBM just come out with a PPC chip that kicks butt and continue to do so? Or maybe Intel will come out with a PPC chip that does the same. If we did go to x86 I can see the advantages of better windows emulation (or maybe just native), faster processors, maybe reduced costs. But what a mess to get there!

It does not necessarily have to be like that!

Back in times on Amiga a small company called phase5 produced Dual-CPU boards (PowerUP -> http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=225), blending 68k and PPC (603/604) together into one system. However, the AmigaOS back then was fully 68k-based, so a lot of so-called "context switching" had to be made in order to make use of the PPC. But it did work, allowing e.g. to playback mpg-Video on a 68040/25 System (the decoding routines running on the PPC).

Warping back to present time, Apple could e.g. blend PPC (970xx) and Intel together into one system again - the systems with 2 CPU sockets are already there (Apple would just have to replace one PPC socket with an Intel one). The difference to the PowerUP cards would be, that with a system like OSX (Tiger) - which is already designed for multi-threading/-processing - the 2nd CPU could be integrated seamlessly. Imagine OSX running "classic" PPC-apps and Windows (apps) at the same time, each one running on their "native" CPU.

No emulation necessary!

But besides that - noone said that Apple will in fact introduce Intel chips all over their product lines. It could also limit the introduction to e.g. Powerbooks or a new device (new Newton, anyone? ;-) first, thus allowing for a _slow_ migration (pun intended .

And one more thing...

Looking back each time that Apple introduced "standard PC hardware" (Ethernet, ATA, Memory, DVI etc.) some people were afraid everything would now turn worse, but in the end the only impact was, that people could now go and buy standard accessories (Mice, keyboards, memory, harddrives etc. etc.) in the shop around the corner, which also allowed for lower prices.

So if Apple would now introduce the possibility to use either Intel or PPC, it could win more potential customers and have more competition on the supplier side (which is a good thing). And who knows - maybe it turns out that customers prefer Intel-based systems (meaning x86 when writing "Intel") over PPC, because the price-performance-ratio turns out to be better.

I'm totally relaxed on that one, awaiting calmly the things to come (in the worst case my 1.3GHz-Cube can easily serve me another year =)

Cheers
Neodym

 

[UberMac]

Is there any way to watch the QT that's usually posted after the event without going to Apple.com or Macrumors first?

I'm asking because I think I could stay away from news sites for a couple of hours, then watch the keynote with _no_ prior knowledge. That would be huge!

But how do I find the url without going to the aforementioned sites and seeing big splash pages with the news?

Any ideas?

Well assuming that the Keynote IS posted (I certainly hope because I plan on doing exactly the saem as you...THE SUSPENSE!!! )...

anyway - All previous evetns follow the saem rule so I assume the link would be

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

That worked for me for MWSF 05...Hope that helps.

 

[Neodym]

Is there any way to watch the QT that's usually posted after the event without going to Apple.com or Macrumors first?

I'm asking because I think I could stay away from news sites for a couple of hours, then watch the keynote with _no_ prior knowledge. That would be huge!

But how do I find the url without going to the aforementioned sites and seeing big splash pages with the news?

Any ideas?

- Ask a friend to supply you with the respective URL (and let him promise not to spoil anything by telling you in advance).

- Try to find out the URL path that has been used in the past - maybe you could extrapolate the path that will be used for the new keynote next week.

- Surf with pictures NOT BEING LOADED while clicking on the link to the keynote video (so the news won't be that obvious (refrain from reading any text though ).

- Set the browser to just show the links on a given website (e.g. Opera has some function like that in its Smartphone edition(s)).

Oh - and stay away from ANY news source around, because if Apple should really introduce something as big as a switch to Intel i bet nearly every news site on the world would cover that! In that case also radio/TV could become a spoiler...

Cheers
Neodym

 

[stuepfnick]

If that's true, I'll won't buy an Apple anymore

Hello!

If the move to Intel X86 CPU's is true, it is really, really, really, very, very bad news.

Ok it is true, that IBM had promised to make 3 Ghz in 2004, but look at the others: Intel is still at 3.6 Ghz and AMD at 2.6 Ghz.

And a G5 with 2.7 Ghz is in many tasks a lot faster than the fastest Pentium 4 chip, because of Altivec and other stuff.

Just ask the people who built Mac-Clusters, why they have chosen PPC as platform.

It is true that JavaVM and some games are running fast on Intel Chips and the compilers are better. But the issue of the games is more the OpenGL implementation of Mac OS X.

So there won't be ANY speed advantage, if Apple switches to X86, especially Intel. AMD could be a little faster in some cases, but not all.

Also if you need to run all existing in emulation mode, these will be much slower than today. So only after a long peroid of time, when everything is redone for x86 chips, there will be the first speed advantage, and then the PowerPC 970 is the 980 at 3.2 and will beat every Pentium.

So speed won't be better, just worse. Maybe prices: Yes, for the moment Intel produces larger volumes and therefor can offer lower prices, but look at IBM: The Xbox 360 AND the PS3 use IBM PowerPC Chips, so the price will drop aggresively.

So price and speed aren't issues? What could it be...
There is the Pentium M wich is consuming less power and has a G4/G5-like performance at the same clock-speed.
But there is even the G4+ with a higher FSB and other on-chip controllers (like PCIe) in the works by Freescale, that uses very very less power. That chip would be at least as powerful as a Pentium-M, but maybe it won't see the daylight??
The only thing that could be better are portables with the Pentium-M, because the G4 has such a slow FSB that has negative effects on the performance at clock speeds above 1 Ghz, and the G5 is too hot and needs to much power.

But only for slightly better notebooks doing such a complex transition? I think that's really big crap and would be the biggest mistake Apple could do in it's whole history.

The move from 68k to PPC made sense, because the PPC was MUCH stronger, but Intel x86-Chips aren't. The PPC could emulate an 68k Chip as fast as the fastest 68k Chip ran natively.

The only chip that I know off, that could emulate todays CPU as fast as they are native is the CELL-CPU.
But the Cell comes from IBM, not Intel. And Cell uses a G5-like PowerPC Core.

I would be much much more pleased, if Apple announces a move from the G5 to Cell in the Powermacs. Those will become very cheap and surpass every other CPU in performance by far!

An example: The fastest Intel Pentium 4 has a float-performance of 8 GFlops, the Cell achieves 218.
So a move to Cell would be really the greatest thing. It has a normal PowerPC Core, that can do normal work at normal speeds and it has 8 APU's, these are capable of vector-processing.

So in reality normal Apps would be as fast as on a normal G5 and simplified about everything that can be vectorized for the use of Altivec can take advantage of the pure Cell-Processing-Power.

So Apple, please stay at IBM, the most powerful processor-maker in the world!! Don't go to crappy Intel or I'll jump off for sure. That won't be any fun...

 

[Godwin]

Intel partnership can mean XScale aka ARM which Apple used in Newton?

Since IBM opens G5 specs already.. as they did with Cell.. could Apple ask Intel to be the second foundry partner? (considering how bad Intel fared with the last few own chips eg P4, Intanium).

We all know how well the last PPC -> x86 OS went aka BeOS?

Not to mention Apple would know all their current product would go down the toilet in terms of value and people purchasing them.. that can't be good.. However on the other hand if Apple is already ramping up production there would have been more leak than just 2 sources.

 

[Godwin]

But I thought the PPC and Amiga are the same endian so the change is much simplier.. but PPC and Intel are on the opposite end of the spectrum.. So hardware wise it is much harder..

However apparently ECS has a motherboard which can accomodate both AMD + Intel via some kind of backplane.

Considering Intel is being attacked by AMD.. I think Intel needs Apple and (if IBM's G5 is really down the crapper).. Apple needs Intel.

However it could all be a rumour to route out informants.

It does not necessarily have to be like that!

Back in times on Amiga a small company called phase5 produced Dual-CPU boards (PowerUP -> http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=225), blending 68k and PPC (603/604) together into one system. However, the AmigaOS back then was fully 68k-based, so a lot of so-called "context switching" had to be made in order to make use of the PPC. But it did work, allowing e.g. to playback mpg-Video on a 68040/25 System (the decoding routines running on the PPC).

Warping back to present time, Apple could e.g. blend PPC (970xx) and Intel together into one system again - the systems with 2 CPU sockets are already there (Apple would just have to replace one PPC socket with an Intel one). The difference to the PowerUP cards would be, that with a system like OSX (Tiger) - which is already designed for multi-threading/-processing - the 2nd CPU could be integrated seamlessly. Imagine OSX running "classic" PPC-apps and Windows (apps) at the same time, each one running on their "native" CPU.

No emulation necessary!

But besides that - noone said that Apple will in fact introduce Intel chips all over their product lines. It could also limit the introduction to e.g. Powerbooks or a new device (new Newton, anyone? ;-) first, thus allowing for a _slow_ migration (pun intended .

And one more thing...

Looking back each time that Apple introduced "standard PC hardware" (Ethernet, ATA, Memory, DVI etc.) some people were afraid everything would now turn worse, but in the end the only impact was, that people could now go and buy standard accessories (Mice, keyboards, memory, harddrives etc. etc.) in the shop around the corner, which also allowed for lower prices.

So if Apple would now introduce the possibility to use either Intel or PPC, it could win more potential customers and have more competition on the supplier side (which is a good thing). And who knows - maybe it turns out that customers prefer Intel-based systems (meaning x86 when writing "Intel") over PPC, because the price-performance-ratio turns out to be better.

I'm totally relaxed on that one, awaiting calmly the things to come (in the worst case my 1.3GHz-Cube can easily serve me another year =)

Cheers
Neodym

 

[stuepfnick]

The only things that makes sense...

..would be if Apple uses Intel PCI-Express Controller Chips instead of AGP. That would be a big and welcomed step forward.

..would be if Apple offered Powermacs with one PowerPC and one X86 Chip, just for flawless windows emulation.

..would be if Intel has some Super-Chip in the pipeline, that can emulate todays PowerPCs with ease, that would be something like IBM's Cell - that one could emulate an 3.7 Ghz Pentium 4 with ease...

..would be anything else but switching to x86 CPUs.

 

[jonlesser]

The Real Deal

5 hours of reading and I've just now caught up on ALL the posts. Every time I get to the bottom of a page I just have to refresh and there's another page to read.

I'm going to go ahead and call it right now. A new iBook with dual core intel Yonah chip (ok, maybe a single dothan). The crowd will get unruly but calm down. And then at the end there will be just one more thing: Intel powerbooks.

They can't simply announce a new architecture will arrive next year and expect to sell deprecated hardware. The emulation of PPC apps will be seamless and executed with the usual apple finesse (Steve will be sure to demo it). I expect the iApps and Tiger to ship ready to run native on the intel hardware. Honestly the only non apple apps I use are FTP and the Adobe suite. Perhaps, as someone else mentioned, Adobe will announce their support at keynote and give a timeline. I image Steve will bring up a few big software players to sing the praises of the switch and pledge their support.

The mobile chips from Intel are really kicking ass. The Yohan is scheduled to be out right now according to this older article http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117718,00.asp but AnandTech says 2006 here http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2366.

 

[pyn]

JUST BECAUSE IT'S INTEL DOESN'T MEAN IT'S X86

Intel recently got license to produce PowerPC chips.

 

[jpn]

not enough talk about transative. this is the key to it all.

1. transative: if you read their site it clearly says that their software can allow software written for the ppc to also run on x86 chips. as well as x86 written software to run on otherwise ppc machines.

2. it is likely that the very first device that apple uses to allay everyone's fears is in fact a totally new device that doesnt replace anything: like a new newton or something like that...

imagine a world where current mac software simply runs well ALSO on a x86 box that apple has made.
AND imagine x86 sofware will be able to run an apple made machine.
Noboby loses at all. except ibm...

i just hope that microsloth doesnt buy transative like it bought virutal pc.

 

[dodonutter]

JUST BECAUSE IT'S INTEL DOESN'T MEAN IT'S X86

Intel recently got license to produce PowerPC chips.

Where did that one come from???

Quite a few people have said that they haven't got the license because that would involve Apple, Moto, and IBM agreeing....