'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

[gregoryp]

OSX on Opteron, not Mac "Switching" to Intel

When I first heard this rumour, I was shocked, like many of you. Perhaps even a feeling of betrayal.

But then as I started to read some of the posts,
... "Possibly Jobs wants to do a premptive strike on Microsoft... by getting X to run on Intel."

or the one about Transitive Technologies... http://www.transitive.com/products.htm

Then it became clear...Apple is not switching...Apple is porting. I think they are still going to create OSX to run on PPC, but they are going to use Transitive to make sure the 64-bit OS can run on Opteron.

The benefit to Apple is that it all of a sudden expands its OS to a second and potentially dominant platform. This eliminates the need for companies to switch boxes in order to run cool Apple apps.

For Intel, they beat AMD out of the gate with a 64-bit chip that actually has a 64-bit operating system to run on. They could promote the fact that 64-bit is a reality right now. No need to wait for Longhorn.

With the move to 64-bit chips levelling the playing field for the moment (Intel and AMD are both starting from scratch), who ever can get the jump in sales early may indeed win the lions share of the market.

Apple may have just doubled sales of OSX if they announce this.

Of course OSX on two platforms still does not guarantee there will be more games available. ;-(

 

[BWhaler]

New Coke.


Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

As I've said more than once: If Apple goes x86 I'm off. I refuse to do my day to day computing on a leaky inferior hardware platform, even if Mac OS X is by far the best OS out there. My next system would then be a Power based system running FreeBSD or something very similar.

Now, there is always the chance that Intel (having lost both the XBOX and PS3 contracts) are looking for new markets, and it might even be that they've acquired a license from IBM, after all IBM opened up for licensing the PowerPC platform more that two years ago:

IBM recently announced a broad licensing program for the IBM® PowerPC® architecture. [...] Customers of IBM's PowerPC technology have requested manufacturing and business-model flexibility, more access to IBM's leading PowerPC technology, and a second source of supply for PowerPC chips. [...] While IBM's PowerPC 4xx core family will be the primary offering for the new open licensing program, other processor IP (PowerPC 7xx, 9xx families) can also be made available to license.

from IBM PowerPC processor news March 2003.

And if Apple still uses some Power derivative, I don't give a fu...dge as to who manufactures it...

 

[BornAgainMac]

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.

This will allow Jobs to save face on Monday. We will say that the future Intel processors is a better move for the high-end Macs. But they will use today's Intel cpus for the low-end Macs and portables.

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.

My gut reaction is that I still believed Rdowns that it was the OS but I did a quick google search and found some truth in what you said. Something about turning off the Hyper-threading for better security. In truth, you both would agree that the OS is part of the entire security package and the policies the users use to secure their box.

 

[JeffTL]

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

Intel recently got license to produce PowerPC chips.

That's very interesting -- and somehow more likely. I don't see how going X86 could have any positive effect on the bottom line, due to the necessity of recompiled software, et cetera.

With X86, all I can see is a good opportunity sell that stock you've been hanging onto for years hoping for it to come up -- just be sure to dump it before the quarterlies...

 

[askien]

Mice and processors

I have a question for Apple:

If you think that users can't handle 2 buttons on a mouse for the sake of simplicity, why do you think that they are going to be able to handle 2 different kinds of processors?

Example:

User: Hi, my system is hosed
Tech Support: Well, are you running the old PPC version of the mini, or the new Intel version?
User: Uh.... I don't know... but my mouse has one button
Tech Support: Uh... sorry... I'm quitting my job today and dedicating myself to bass fishing.

I have nothing against one-buttoned mice BTW. I kind of like them.

As far as I am concerned, as long as Apple stock does well, I couldn't care less if they go X86. I'll buy 10 new X86 systems with the profits

The engineer in me (and yes, I'm a computer engineer) says X86 is the most contrived POS architecture out there. PPC is so much better.

Slow G4's on laptops don't matter. I'm 3000% more productive on my 1.5Ghz PB than on any kind of Windows box.
This is all thanks to OS X. Open source dementia aside, OS X is the best operating system ever for personal use. EVER!

If MacOS X runs on X86 or PPC doesn't really matter.
It's the confusion about the change that might hurt Apple for a bit (bit=years.)

Having said that, I hope they don't switch. I'd rather have them fix/dump the Mach-O format, or the threading model, or a number of other legacy low-level crap that still permeates OS X.

A thread-safe Cocoa would such a better use of their engineering time!

Later!

 

[minimax]

Who would've thought 5 years ago (before the XBOX was on the market) that Microsoft would be building computers based on PPC with Apple using the x86 platform.

 

[Cooknn]

Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?

According to an unconfirmed report, there is evidence that Apple has had special internal seeds of Tiger which support this technology for the x86 platform. Beyond allowing Tiger to run on x86, perhaps more significantly is the potential to also allow existing Mac OS X applications to be run on the x86 (PC) platform without recompilation. Otherwise, requiring developers to recompile all current Mac OS X applications has been seen as a major hurdle in providing Mac OS X on the PC.

Don't know about you guys but if my application software has to go through translation I will be hanging on to my PPC Power Mac for a while - until everything I use runs natively

 

[jiggie2g]

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.

I agree with you 100% , I can't believe all the mac moneys here defending the PPC , Since Apple has switched to PPC it's market has done noting but decline , never increase not once . how long do u think this company can survive on 1.8% Market share.

Going Intel is a very practical choice at this point and time , Intel WILL NEVER ,I REPEAT NEVER MAKE A PPC CPU so give it up already. this opens doors to Apple it has never even dreamed of , those who hate Windows like myself can just buy a copy of OSX and lead it into thier current computer.

Yes I say Apple should sell OSX separate and it would make a killing , then license it. I know the arguement about the mac clones , however at the time the Windows market was very stable and was not ready.

fast forward to 2005 Windows/M$ are at an all time low. If Apple wants to hit M$ they will never get a better chance then now.They will have the support of the Industry I really belive that. The Retail and OEM make hate the Monster M$ has become and would love to see them die.

I am against a propietarry x86 platform as it puts them in the same boat as they were in with PPC and people are not going to buy it. and seome one will crak it eventually then put a hacked OSX for x86 free on the web.

Apple can survive as just another PC vendor , someone will have to fall though most likely Gateway or Sony. The Macs will sell them selves if priced right , just like the Viao notebooks do.

IBM nor does Freescale care about you Mac users. They are more then willing to let the Mac shribble up and die. IBM has all that Console money now for the next 5yrs , they can care less.

Apple must Support PPC Macs till atleast 2008-2009 , Apple needs an emulation mode to run windows Programs.

being on x86 gives them AMD as a vendor also, and even VIA with thier new Mobile chips the C7-M 2.0ghz 20watts , that are supposed to take on the Pentium-M.

Apple is no longer at the Mercey of 1 company like it has been for the last 8yrs or so. They can always jump between AMD and Intel depensing on who is making the better CPU at the time.

they don't have to design thier own MotherBoards anymore Intel , VIA , ALi, Nvidia and ATI can to that for them.

Now they Finally get PCIe , WiMax , USB 3.0(coming soon) , SLI

The Possiblities are endless especially with OSX.

lastly Apple is out of dept and richer then ever thay can take the hit over the next 18months while the conversion takes place. newer iPods will pay for it

 

[iindigo]

WHY is everyone ignoring the interview with Steve Jobs on May 23rd where he said that he had been in talks with Intel but was not going to use Intel processors? It's almost as if you people WANT the plague of x86 to come the Mac...

I'm leaning towards the idea that someone gravely misinformed CNET... Jobs switching to the side he's been bashing for so long does not sound like him - he hates admitting he's wrong.

 

[Cooknn]

Apple is clearly going for desktop domination this time, a fast 10-20 % of all newly sold desktops is more than possible.

The stars are definitely aligned for that IMHO. If all this is true, x86 boxes running OS X will be hitting the market about the same time as Longhorn. I look forward to the day when all the users I support are on OS X and they will be able to stop working for their computer and instead their computers will work for them. Oh, and I will have more time to do what I am supposed to do instead of dealing with screwed up Windows PC's

 

[Mac_Freak]

If the switch is real then HOLD ON BOYS CAUSE WE ARE FOR A ROUGH RIDE!!!

 

[iGary]

This rumor depresses me.

It removes some of the exclusiveness of being a Mac user, goes against the whole "Think Different" philosophy and only aligns Apple closer to the demon we've been preaching against for years.

Call me silly. I hope this doesn't happen. I don't want no stinking Intel chips inside my Mac.

 

[akac]

To me what's interesting is that this quote by Jobs:

"He said, 'We've had talks with Intel' and that's about it," Bajarin said.

is construed as "basically saying 'no'". Sure its implies that no progress was made, but it is not saying no. At that time, I don't think he could say anything else but "No", or "We're in talks".

 

[jiggie2g]

WHY is everyone ignoring the interview with Steve Jobs on May 23rd where he said that he had been in talks with Intel but was not going to use Intel processors? It's almost as if you people WANT the plague of x86 to come the Mac...

I'm leaning towards the idea that someone gravely misinformed CNET... Jobs switching to the side he's been bashing for so long does not sound like him - he hates admitting he's wrong.

So Cnet , the WSJ and the Inquirer are all wrong but this jerk off's assumption of what Steve ment is correct , gee you are misguided.

No one mentions it because Steve Jobs never tells the truth about his futute plans . He's got one serious Poker Face.

 

[akac]

Because Steve Jobs never tell the truth about his futute plans . He's got one serious Poker Face.

No, saying "no" would get him in hot water with the stock holders since it'd be a flat out lie. But that's my point. He didn't say no. He just said that at that time, talks hadn't gotten anywhere. Perhaps a week later they did

 

[fraggle]

Macs will run SLOWER on Intel than Windows PCs.

First, compilers for Windows are much more highly optimized for x86 CPUs than Mac compilers. Windows compilers have been optimized over the past decade. Thus Mac applications will run slower.

If Apple has a deal with Intel they will have made sure that they use the Intel compiler beneath XCode. This is the best compiler for x86, better than the ones from MS. OS X on x86 would be faster than Windows as probably most people on Windows use the Visual-C++ compiler.

 

[jiggie2g]

If Apple has a deal with Intel they will have made sure that they use the Intel compiler beneath XCode. This is the best compiler for x86, better than the ones from MS. OS X on x86 would be faster than Windows as probably most people on Windows use the Visual-C++ compiler.

Windows also has years and years woth of usless code and bloatware piled up over the year that drags it's OS to the grave and back. OSX is from scratch and won't be full of crap like window , I say you shoyld expect perfromace comparable to a good Linux Distro. Personally I think OSX would Fly on x86.

Also I'm surprised Think Secret has very quiet right now , this was prob one the the Big Parts of the settlement , can't talk about x86.

 

[iindigo]

ugh... all this has made me want to say this sooo badly:

DAMN PENTIUMS AND ANYTHING x86! LONG LIVE THE POWERPC!!!!


Ahh, that feels better.

 

[Azurael]

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.

While I'd agree to an extent about Motorola, you couldn't be further from wrong about IBM.

IBM fabricate nearly all of AMD's chips, a lot of nVidia's and even some ATI chips, not to mention the chips they use in their own servers. They use strained silicone in the AMD64 production lines, something that other chip manufacturers (aka Intel) took a long time to catch on to that vastly increased clock headroom. They don't have problems with supply for these other clients (and presumably won't for the chips going in PS3, Nintendo Revolution and XBox 360), and the only reason Apple has problems with supplies from IBM is that they're a relatively small customer comparitively.

You think the same thing won't apply to a relationship with Intel - Especialy if the chips are any different to the stock Intel output?

 

[Paul Sop]

Lots of random theories and opinions:

While I like Power PC, and would deeply love to run OS X on a few tripple-core chips, I do recall that NeXTStep had 'FAT' binaries, which was essentially an .APP like we have now, except it had different binaries for different architectures. The cool thing was that the binaries could be partitioned, so if you emailed someone an attachment for say a 'spreadsheet', you could email along the 'viewer' component (but not the ability to create/edit) right along with the data. That was cool.

Anyway, I think Steve wants a) Apple to leave no stone unturned where revenue is concerned, and b) Wants Apple to get in front of as many people as it possibly can. It may be that all that will be announced is a cross-platform initiative like the FAT binaries, and the cocoa framework that will begin to be cross-platform. They may do one better than duplicate binaries, instead offering some sort of intermediate machine-independent version with mapping.

Concepts like 'Architectural Purity' where 'Purity' means few target architectures may help certain people feel special, or elite (even .. Arian?), but if you apply some wisdom, and look at it from a 'customer benefit', what real 'benefit' do we get from 'just Power PC'?

For instance: Does JAVA only work on one target architecture NO. Does .NET's virtual machine make it Intel Only? NOPE. Does Linux just run on Intel -- NOPE.

And then I think: What would give us the greatest benefit? Is it waiting 2 or 3 years for a Quad dual core Power PC? I'd rather run OS X (like I can with all my other operating systems) on a Quad Dual-Core AMD -- it would give me more BENEFIT. I'm all for more BENEFIT.

Still, I don't think Apple is going to dump Power PC -- mainly due to the 'optics' of an architectural shift. A 'Cocoa everywhere' strategy, giving people the 'option' to run their apps on other platforms is probably better. That way Apple competes for Developers by working a strategy to improve their development experience. If Apple's development experience becomes the best around, lots of coders will go there -- esp if they can still code nice apps on Windows.

As for the PPC, it's a very good chip and once dual core versions are around, I'll buy a dual-dual-core mac. The big question of course is the 'altivec' compatiblity. The same issues will arise with other vector cores as they are added to CPU's. A few good vector API wrappers will probably take care of it though.

Those are my random thoughts anyway.

 

[Mr Maui]

Yeah, could have been a plant so that the mole is revealed. Boy that apple mole is BALLSY!

Somewhere in California, Steve is doing the Cupertino Chuckle.

 

[Cooknn]

The year of HD

Well, if this is indeed going to be The Year of HD, there must be something HUGE on the horizon for it to be bigger than the Intel bomb that's going to drop tomorrow

 

[OSXcellent]

THe higher end PowerMac ( name change??) changing to the new quad Intel dual-core Itanium-2 chipset and the Powerbooks (name change??) switching to the Itanium-2..

Please, stop. The Itanic is horrible, and if you think the current 970FX chip in Macs runs hot, you've seen nothing. The Itanium is a horrible, horrible chip that runs extremely hot and extremely slow. Just an FYI.

 

[jarodsix]

They could do it either way... but presumably, Apple would create their own proprietary hardware. So that you could NOT run OS X on any PC. You'd have to buy a "Mac"

arn

Yes, and that's the way we like it...Good hadrware desing, attention to detail, perfect collaboration between the computer and the OS.