'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

[slackpacker]

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[/QUOTE]


As someone stated before "Its the Software Dude" OS X is why we use macs

not the PowerPC Chip. I also use Macs because of apple design of thier Hardware like the iBook which is a perfect Laptop design. So if Apple makes a Laptop with intel... I'm there.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

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)

if IBM holds all the intellectual properties it would be in their interest to have the PPC in as many copies as possible. As you said I doubt that IBM would oppose licensing.

 

[Link]

Interesting little history, good job.


But I swear, as soon as I read in the IRC channel that Jobs announced the switch to Intel, I am going to put my head through my wall, very fast, and very hard.

 

[Platform]

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

Intel recently got license to produce PowerPC chips.

Well what kind of PPC are we talking about

 

[rdowns]

As someone stated before "Its the Software Dude" OS X is why we use macs

not the PowerPC Chip. I also use Macs because of apple design of thier Hardware like the iBook which is a perfect Laptop design. So if Apple makes a Laptop with intel... I'm there.

I'm with you brother. Apple could put on of these inside the box for all I care.

 

[slackpacker]

Interesting little history, good job.


But I swear, as soon as I read in the IRC channel that Jobs announced the switch to Intel, I am going to put my head through my wall, very fast, and very hard.

All I can think of is that Jobs has done this before and Failed... when he brought NeXTstep to Intel...lets hope history does not repeat itself.....

 

[Link]

All I can think of is that Jobs has done this before and Failed... when he brought NeXTstep to Intel...lets hope history does not repeat itself.....

As someone mentioned before, I'd like to think to think that this is an incredibly cunning marketing ploy and Jobs will announce a trememndous PPC breakthrough.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Okay Option 1 has happened before.. when NeXT release NeXT 3.3 not too long after that they stop making hardware.

Yes option 1 has happend before... and since classic support is more or less gone by now, all programs from the past are useless.
How many times do you think you could pull that stunt and still have customers?

 

[DakotaGuy]

Education Market

I would imagine another HUGE platform shift on Apple's move to x86 will do nothing but further destroy the education market for them. Schools cannot and will not re-purchasee all their software or have 3 machines all running different software, ie...x86 Apple PC, x86 Windows, and Power PC Macs. Anyhow my guess if after Monday you won't see many schools ordering Macs for next year, everything will be going to XP.

 

[sparksinspace]

...
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."
...

Exactly. That's what I'd want to hear and he'd be right. From a developer's standpoint this can only be more interesting. From a user's point of view this means more choice. For Apple this will mean, more turnover. My gosh, all these brilliant productivity applications in iLife and iWork... they just deserve a broader audience and Apple is positioned brilliantly for this switch to be going well, I'm assuming here that switching to Intel/AMD would not only give state-of-the-art processors but also reduce the hardware costs and thus give broader appeal.

 

[Cooknn]

An Intel based Macintosh?

Rumors of Apple switching to an Intel based processor pre-date the existence of this site.

Excellent roundup Arn. Thank you very much

 

[mandis]

All this could only mean one thing:

Dual Dual Core 3.0GHz G5 Powermacs next Tuesday!

or maybe not...

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I would imagine another HUGE platform shift on Apple's move to x86 will do nothing but further destroy the education market for them. Schools cannot and will not re-purchasee all their software or have 3 machines all running different software, ie...x86 Apple PC, x86 Windows, and Power PC Macs. Anyhow my guess if after Monday you won't see many schools ordering Macs for next year, everything will be going to XP.

Same story with the science community. You need stability. Huge data sets makes transitions from one program to another very difficult. Most dept tweaks existent programs to fit their needs. IMHO, if Apple changes system again most of the science community will be gone.

 

[Chaywa]

Anonymous sources

After the recent high-profile embarassments of CBS and other "reputable" news sources (concerning much more important issues than what processor is in your computer) I am supprised to see people taking this as the gospel truth. Anonymous sources have lead many reputable news sources (including the WSJ) astray in recent months.

As usual we will have to wait and see. Not long now.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Good wrapup. Perhaps this site can be called Macfacts.com.

BornagainIntel

 

[adamfilip]

IBM > Im sorry Steve we have to realocate our resources to the Xbox processor. we wont be able to meet your needs. in the near future
It will unfortunately be not until next summer before we can produce dual core 970's estimated at 2.9 ghz

Steve > How in hell can I justify that kind of delay when I promised 3ghz chips last year!!, Geeze.. weve done it before we can do it again..

Steve (Exits IBM headoffice in a Mad Roar)

IBM> .oO0 (do what again..?)

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

hear, hear...

So So true, Im just happy Apple will be dropping the deadbeats MotoStink and IBM. I cant think of anything that has hurt Apple more through the years then these 2 clowns and their stagnated fabs. Could be the best Apple news in years.

 

[Sirus The Virus]

This is getting better and more interesting by the hour!!

 

[dodonutter]

I have a horrible feeling that if apple switches to x86 it will be result in one of 2 things....

1. Apple hits the nail on the head and becomes the new M$ (whether or not the computer business fails or not is debatable

2. Apple dies

monday will i've us a good pointer but only time will tell

 

[MacIke]

That's certainly one thing I'm afraid of. Thanks to the Mac's high resale value I have a tendency to sell my current setup and just pay the difference. I would imagine a move to x86 would pretty much ruin that value.

I genreally do the same thing about every 18 months and was waiting for the next bump to buy again.

I think there will be a lot of people wanting "real Macs" and not the Intel to keep the prices up. Look at Newton.

I had a 2100 at the end of newton, sold for $200 more then paid, waited three months bought again and made $200 in the proces

 

[JesseJames]

I don't see what all the hubbub's about.
In the end, don't we just want a fast machine with our favorite OS?
I won't believe anything until it comes from the Jobs-meister himself.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

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

It's the software dummy!

No, it's the platform. Mac OS X is nothing without a secure hardware platform, which Intel time and again has proven unable to provide...

And I don't much appreciate being called a dummy.

 

[Tealeaf]

Assuming the Apple to Intel rumors are true, this article on the Inquirer sheds some slight on why Apple is waiting until 2006/2007 to switch:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23055

Merom (iBook/Powerbook/Mac mini), Conroe (iMac/PowerMac), Woodcrest (PowerMac/XServe) and Whitefield (XServe) are the reasons why Apple is waiting. Intel throws out the useless Netburst/Prescott family and change to an all-new setup - low power consumption, shorter pipelines, more efficient architecture.

In return, Apple gets access to Intel's vast manufacturing capabilities (bigger than AMD, for example), cheaper and more readily available chips and gains from Intel's chipset know-how (Centrino et al). They also get to use Intel's peerless x86 compiler for C/C++.

It makes sense if you think about it. The only downside is the pain that the switch from CPU architectures causes and the re-compilation and re-optimizing that would be required.

We live in interesting times.

 

[Angrist]

Ok, I've been attempting to read these threads, btu the grow so damn fast I'm sure I've missed about half the posts, so please forgive me if I'm duplicating.

As near as I can tell, the speculation abut a switch all comes from "talks" between Apple and Intel ... so what? There are a lot of possibilities.

1) Intel makes many chips other than x86 CPUs.
2) Apple currently uses chips from AMD for a lot of suplementary chips. (Pop open a PM and take a look)

 

[Sun Baked]

Oh, well another day down ... don't think it's worth worry about until the news (or lack of it) hits.

But we all have to remember, that Apple seemed prepared to release new PMs ... stuff was modified in Tiger as Apple passed their expected upgrade cycle -- and then we got PM 2.7s, something which stank of a last minute upgrade.

A lot of stuff pointed to a new PM, Apple may have asked for the chip delivery in advance of the announcement (to avoid more long waits or another iMac debacle) -- and IBM probably ran into another brick wall.

The G5 may have very well been EOL'd by Apple, should be interesting to see what replaces it.

Just odd that we go from Cell/Power5/SPE/PPE/VMX2 rumors to Intel...