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

'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

AFAIK IBM allows licensing of the Power architecture. http://www.power.org/home

I think it is more likely that Intel is a foundry partner for Apple. Now, if that relationship would move to something more in the future.. that's the question.

Remember Foundry space is in limited supply... Besides IBM/Intel who else do chips in large enough scale (AMD is having problems of finding free space for their own chips)

In all respects, FreeScale is more than happy with their automotive/embedded stuff.. Apple needs a foundry partner and IBM is happy supplying Microsoft + Sony and Nintendo? I don't see AIM would have any problems agreeing, as none of the products overlaps each other. BTW it is only IBM that holds all the intellectual property/ trademark for PowerPC if you look at here http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/trademark.html even Freescale pays IBM. I can't see IBM being too upset and Freesacle knew they don't have the capacity or capability.

dodonutter said:
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....
Click to expand...
 
Complete nonsense!!

This would be horrible. IBM's G5 is at least as good as the latest x86 chip, if not even better.

When there will be more optimized compilers for the PPC 970, they will by far surpass the power of any x86 chip!!!

So please, please Apple don't do such a HUGE mistake. No x86 CPU is capable of emulating a PPC at decent speeds!!

Using x86 without some very very good ideas for the transition would be Apple's death! I won't do it. I would leave Apple ans search for another PPC platform, because PowerPC just rulez!!!
 
stuepfnick said:
This would be horrible. IBM's G5 is at least as good as the latest x86 chip, if not even better.

When there will be more optimized compilers for the PPC 970, they will by far surpass the power of any x86 chip!!!

So please, please Apple don't do such a HUGE mistake. No x86 CPU is capable of emulating a PPC at decent speeds!!

Using x86 without some very very good ideas for the transition would be Apple's death! I won't do it. I would leave Apple ans search for another PPC platform, because PowerPC just rulez!!!
Click to expand...

So you would change OS just to run PowerPC? The CPU in itself really gets you going, or what?
 
quit whining, it's good news if true.

Really, what's all the fuzz about? This is good news if true.

The "church of Mac" is not founded on PowerPC, is it? I believe the biggest strength of Apple is the brand they have built ever since it's inception of a company that's building great computers for end-users. MacOSX is the best operating system around for end-users (I've been around a while and develop on Windows, MacOSX and Linux), yes, it could do better as server operating system in its kernel creating threads, but for an end-user there is simply nothing better.

So, whether or not there is a PowerPC inside doesnt really matter, does it? And think about it, Apple are the ONLY big brand with shops worldwide where you can actually get help by a human and not some hormon-driven, spotty teenager who's going to brag about how many MHz are in his pants. Over the years Apple have repositioned themselves as a company who's going to deliver a positive user experience, rather than a nightmare, try to explain to your mother-in-law how to connect to the internet and you know what I'm talking about. Or just look at what you get when you unpack your Mac, the way things are packed in their own little wrappers with little caps on the connectors, that's just perfect and when I unpacked my first Mac two years ago, I felt that I "had arrived". Compare that to buying a PC from any other manufacturer...

It all fits together:
- Apple appeal is based on a great brand image. When you've got such a brand you can do such a switch.
- Bad publicity for Windows as end-user O/S, Microsoft is weak now, who knows, maybe with Longhorn they might regain strength, so Apple have to act now.
- Linux isn't there yet (will it ever be?)
- PowerPC G5 doesnt seem to have a future, especially for low-power. So Intel is much better. And with AMD there too Apple can probably buy the CPUs at the same cost as Dell...
- All the empasis on Tiger in the last few months was preparation for this switch.
- The XCode development platform is just brilliant. Just add cross-compile to it so I can build fat binaries for all CPUs..
- I believe Apple's got a lot of cash, you need it to do such a switch, great.

If anything this will broaden the appeal of software for MacOSX. Yes, you have to recompile, so what (with the exception of AltiVec optimized programs this shouldn't be a problem, if it is, you're just a crap programmer and I'd fire you.)
 
So, based on all the recent sources, it looks like this is quite possibly true. I'm sure Steve willl give everybody god reasons; we'll just have to wait and see.

If this does indeed happen, what is the future of the current Macs. It's not the same as the OS9/X change as previous Macs were compatible. Now we're talking a whole structure change to the product's themselves, which will surely render current computers useless? What will that do to resale value, or will nobody want to buy PPC based computers?

All questions I don't know the answer to, so please help me out here.
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I was under the impression that PPC was the property of AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola)?
Click to expand...

AIM holds the IP rights but can any of them use that right to get others (ie Intel) to make PPC procs for them or do they all have to agree? Or as Godwin said will IBM not fight it (im assuming thats what u meant rather than anyone can built PPC without a license)
 
Get this ..

Possibly Jobs got wind that Microsoft was planning to get windows running on
MAC hardware..or that Microsoft was also usng that PowerPC "Transmit"? emulation bridge as well.....Being that the new Xbox is PPC based the big MS is closer than ever with a G5 based windows OS.

Slackpacker
 
Marianco said:
Interestingly, Apple hasn't lately been doing bakeoffs of Macs versus PCs - because IBM has been having problems developing faster PowerPCs - laggin farther and father behind the Intel and AMD offerings.
Click to expand...

That's simply false: Apple comes closer and closer to x86 performance and at many tasks it already surpassed the competition.

Take a look at Intel: From 3.2 to 3.7 Ghz in the last 2-3 years. IBM at least made it from 2.0 to 2.7 Ghz, which is more procentually.

So the 2.7 Dual CPU Powermac is faster compared to a Dual 3.6 Ghz System, as the Dual 2.0 was to a Dual 3.0 System.

Just get it: Everyone gets slower and slower in CPU-speeds, and if IBM really would have reached the 3.0 Ghz, the Powermacs would really surpass PCs by far!
 
Remember back in the days of Quadra 660 and PowerMac 6100? I got a feeling it will be the same thing all over again if that happens.. Timing is really crucial.. I mean if they don't have product now they are pretty much screwed so I don't see they going for x86.

Imagine people would be waiting for the new product.. so we will have a few bad quarters to boot.. I wonder if there would be a 2nd "going" of Steve Jobs from the boardroom.

Maxiseller said:
So, based on all the recent sources, it looks like this is quite possibly true. I'm sure Steve willl give everybody god reasons; we'll just have to wait and see.

If this does indeed happen, what is the future of the current Macs. It's not the same as the OS9/X change as previous Macs were compatible. Now we're talking a whole structure change to the product's themselves, which will surely render current computers useless? What will that do to resale value, or will nobody want to buy PPC based computers?

All questions I don't know the answer to, so please help me out here.
Click to expand...
 
That can't work because the BIOS of Apples are Apple property.. not to mention Microsoft develops Xbox on Apple hardware remember the guy that got fired for taking pictures of Apple unloading a few pallets of G5s? To get Windows running on G5 is a lot of redudant work which doesn't make any business since.. remember back in the day that Windows NT runs on multiple platforms (Alpha, PowerPC etc etc)?.. in the end no vendor came up with software for other platforms to run.. that's why they tanked bad.

AFAIK it is only Apple/NeXT that were able to make the "fat" binary thing work... even Sun Solaris at its peak cant' do it

slackpacker said:
Get this ..

Possibly Jobs got wind that Microsoft was planning to get windows running on
MAC hardware..or that Microsoft was also usng that PowerPC "Transmit"? emulation bridge as well.....Being that the new Xbox is PPC based the big MS is closer than ever with a G5 based windows OS.

Slackpacker
Click to expand...
 
In the link I posted, you only need IBM's license to build a computer and name it PowerPC. http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/trademark.html

dodonutter said:
AIM holds the IP rights but can any of them use that right to get others (ie Intel) to make PPC procs for them or do they all have to agree? Or as Godwin said will IBM not fight it (im assuming thats what u meant rather than anyone can built PPC without a license)
Click to expand...
 
Godwin said:
That can't work because the BIOS of Apples are Apple property.. not to mention Microsoft develops Xbox on Apple hardware remember the guy that got fired for taking pictures of Apple unloading a few pallets of G5s?
Click to expand...

Thats exactly my point .... Microsoft is looking to Run on G5... or bring out
a Windows for MAC. They don't need to copy the Bios. They had Windows NT
for PPC a while ago.... Just like Yellow dog Linux runs on a G5 they could have a version of Windows XP sans emulator... (virtual PC)

Possibly Jobs wants to do a premptive strike on Microsoft... by getting X to run on Intel.?

Just a thought ....

Golly and I was JUST about to order a PowerBook 15"....
 
SpamJunkie said:
In light of the switch to x86 what I want is an agreement with Intel that Apple gets first access to all the newest processors. It's unlikely, but if, for example, Powermacs had 4ghz Pentiums in them for 3 months before Dell could even buy them I'd feel a little better.


PS - that apple/intel hybrid logo is brilliant.
Click to expand...

Dream on.

Intel: OK, Apple, we have this new 4.5 GHz chip. How many could you move if you had it exclusive for one quarter?

Apple: Wow, we could easily double our normal volume of high end systems. We'll take 300,000 of those puppies.

Dell: Hey Intel, how's everything? We hear you have a new 4.5 GHz chip. We'd like it first. We'll take 2 million.

Intel: Dude, you got a deal!!!!
 
Err actually the problem with your train of thought is Windows NT for PPC CANT run on PowerMacs... they were for IBM's Powerstation.

With the recent news that Apple has tons of stock left.. you would think if Steve Jobs really want to make a switch.. they would wait till they have ramp up enough hardware so even if people wait they won't loose that much in current stock.


slackpacker said:
Thats exactly my point .... Microsoft is looking to Run on G5... or bring out
a Windows for MAC. They don't need to copy the Bios. They had Windows NT
for PPC a while ago.... Just like Yellow dog Linux runs on a G5 they could have a version of Windows XP sans emulator... (virtual PC)

Possibly Jobs wants to do a premptive strike on Microsoft... by getting X to run on Intel.?

Just a thought ....

Golly and I was JUST about to order a PowerBook 15"....
Click to expand...
 
Pedro Estarque said:
If Apple goes x86 on monday I'm never buying one again in my life. I've had 9 macs in my life, 7 of which I still use. I'm not gonna deal with fat binary again. And knowing that future software won't run in your current hardware is not a god feeling. They better learn to have some respect for their user/developer.
I'm a "hardcore" mac user, I even have a sticker in my car, but that's as far as I go. We'll see on monday.
Click to expand...

Replying to you but to all the, "If Apple goes Intel, I'll never buy another Mac", relax.

It's the software dummy!
 
Macrumors said:
That being said, it doesn't answer the many other questions that stem from such a transition. Questions such as emulation layers, current PowerPC Mac sales, developer migration, end user confusion and more. As well, Steve Jobs was recently asked about the possibility of switching to Intel and reportedly "Jobs basically said no."
Click to expand...

If the news is true, I would expect Mac sales to slow and this wouldn't be good news for the bottom line and of couse the APPL stock. I know I wouldn't want to purchase a new Mac if I knew the processors were going to change. Besides, what are the developers to do? Are they going to want to go through this?

Another point ... how will Apple support OS X on the PowerPC for existing systems/customers and OS X on Intel for new systems/customers? I would think that Apple would need to ramp up on numerous levels ... developers, management, support, sales, etc ... That isn't going to be cheap.
 
UberMac & Neodym, those are good suggestions. I thought I might go through some obscure subpage on Apple's site, one that has a search box but not much else - but they all have little images / ads and whatnot. I'll probably get one of my iPod-lovin', OSX-hesitant friends to help me out if Uber's guess on the url doesn't work for some reason.

It really is exciting to see if I can keep myself offline until then!
 
modernpixel said:
Booed? ha-ha, I think the stage will be rushed. It will be apocalyptic.

Jobs could use his ego knocked down about 50 pegs anyway. Whenever he has a success he goes into "I can do no wrong" mode. Coming off of the iPod - I think he is at his worst.
Click to expand...

CUPERTINO: Apple sources tell us that Jobs will deliver the keynote from one of the two venues below. Due to the tremendous interest in the rumored subject matter, the decision is likely to be made at the last minute.
 

Attachments

  • images-1.jpg
    images-1.jpg
    2.7 KB · Views: 832
  • images.jpg
    images.jpg
    3 KB · Views: 834
Okay Option 1 has happened before.. when NeXT release NeXT 3.3 not too long after that they stop making hardware.

Dr.Gargoyle said:
My point was:

option 1: PPC -> x86
This would IMO more or less terminate all Mac sales for two years. I doubt that Apple would survive as a Computer manufactor

option 2: Intel PPC
ok, Apple are small and intel wouldn't set high priority Apple chips unless there was another market for PPC. However, intel needs to develop their own PPC chip to be able to compete in this market. Apple is just a bouns for them.
The upside from Apples side is that they will have yet another chip company as a provider, which woud enable Apple to put pressure on the chip makers by threatening to switch chip provider.
This is the only feasible senario I can see that doesn't entail Apple being pushed out of the computer market.
Click to expand...
 
Superhob said:
I completely disagree with your assessment. First, you are assuming that the coffin has been almost completely shut but THERE is NO coffin.

Apple is and has been doing better then ever. They are selling more of everything they make. I think that this would be a great move for Apple because it would open the door to customers who would have never considered Apple before. So what if it upset a few mac loyalists and developers. The truth is a transition to Intel chips can only be good for Apple.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely - this wouldn't open the door to some mythical group of customers. The people who don't buy Macs right now are those who aren't willing to risk spending time on using something that isn't Windows (the 'safe' known commodity, as far as they're concerned).

Using a non-x86 chip adds a certain mystery and differentiation value to Macs at present. I think if this move does go ahead, then you can guarantee it'll alienate a certain number of long-term Mac users who've followed Apple's rhetoric and outlook over the years, me included
 
niji said:
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. ...
Click to expand...

I'd also like to point to this article quoting Transitive CEO Bob Wiederhold:
"We have seen few people who would like to move away from the x86 appplication market," Wiederhold said. If desktop, then it might be rather the Apple computer that would receive a software solution from Transitive, he said.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20040913_111526.html

And from the Transitive website:
"We anticipate that a second computer company will deploy products enabled by our technology in early 2005 and that others will deploy QuickTransit before the end of the year. Unfortunately, strict confidentiality obligations prevent us from saying more about these relationships at this time." http://www.transitive.com/customers.htm

Tiger and QuickTransit, makes all sense IMO.
 
Interesting that the rumour resurfaces from the WSJ.
I generally like the idea, but only from certain perspectives - since there are so many things that could go wrong with an Intel Mac.

Firstly, how is this idea sold? Someone said that if they announce a switch that customers would stop buying existing PPCs rather quickly, and I agree.

And what about developers - are they going to switch platforms again? (despite how brilliantly it was done when Apple moved from 680x0 to PowerPCs).

What about all the great things happening with Cell chips and so on?
And what about Clones?

So..... why would Steve make this kind of move?

IBM's promises haven't quite made it, and Intel Pentium-M chips are looking good. Intel has a processor line that isn't getting the popular support they'd like and MS's move to PPC looks bad for them. iPods are very popular and Apple is in the limelight. And communication and TV technologies are about to take a step up in many ways that Apple wants to be involved with and that don't require PPCs.

I think if Steve wants to switch ever, then now is a very good time. Still, it could undo Apple.

I've read the 11 pages here and only 1 or 2 people suggested that Apple might keep both processor lines. What if Steve came up and said "we've got to a point where using an IBM or Intel processor makes little difference to us, to our users, or to our developers. Processors have different strengths and we're going to help you get the best processor for what you need to do."

We all know the rumours that OSX has continued to run on Intel since its early development (since Next's OpenStep & Apple's Rhapsody). Cocoa is a portable technology too. It'd be nice to have an announcement that both CPU lines would continue (perhaps with Transitive technology). Announce that Apple will use the best chips that come out - whether Cell chips, Itaniums, PPCs, Pentium-Ms etc.

If Apple makes an announcement with Intel I can see many possibilities. It'd be easiest to see more use of ARM processors, or something in a set-top box or tabletPC. But Apple needs something for their laptops too.

Just my thoughts.
... ps.... License it to clone makers - but restrict it to certain hardware. Is Apple a hardware company that happens to use OSX, or a software company that happens to use their own hardware? It's all in how they smudge their sales figures.
 
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