'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

[oldskool]

Consider Intel makes PPC

Don't leap to the conclusion that Intel only equals x86.

Intel is a huge company that makes all kinds of chips--some of which are famously the Wintel variety of processor. From what I've read lately, it's conceivable within the licensing rights of the PPC architecture that Intel could *also* make a variant of the PPC for Apple. It would have all the required functionality (Altivec, etc.) from an OS X perspective, but could be a very different implementation under the hood compared to either an x86 or IBM's current PPC.

Motorola had technical problems implementing the PPC at competitive speeds and power dissipations; IBM did much better but they've had supply issues. Given this, it's perfectly understandable why Apple would talk to Intel (a leading chip manufacturer) about tapping into their awesome engineering capability to create a new, reliable supply of processors. This does not necessarily mean you need to buy new versions of OS X and all your apps.

If Intel can and will build a better microprocessor that runs OS X, I'm all for it.

 

[Yvan256]

A few random thoughts....

-----

Can't Apple use standard, stock IBM PowerPC processors and add a Cell (or more than one) as Altivec co-processor(s)?

Isn't Apple's real problem that they need custom PowerPC processors (because of Altivec)? If they could use stock IBM processors, would they still be in this mess?

-----

IBM opened up PowerPC two years ago. Intel missed the boat on all three new game consoles. Wouldn't you want to enter the PPC market if you were Intel? Wouldn't you jump on the occasion of proving yourself with all the Mac lines so you can bid on future consoles production runs?

Or at least, add another architecture to your line-up so you keep more doors open? (you never know what may happen). Intel producing PPC CPUs doesn't mean they stop making x86 (or ARM, etc), they'd simply make YAC (Yet Another CPU).

-----

Apple has already jumped the specs twice: 68K->PPC, OS 9->OS X. I think another jump (fat binaries aside) would only mean trouble.

-----

Unless Apple wants to become a software-only company (which they're not intending to do if they're really in talk with Intel), you won't be able to run x86/OS X on a regular beige box. You'll still need a Mac/x86.

-----

Monday can't come soon enough.

 

[emotion]

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.

the EPIC architecture is not really meant for desktops though. it's a good server architcture (a lot of the worlds supercomputers use it).

the heat output is silly though, yes.

 

[Stella]

Personally, it doesn't matter what processor OSX runs on, as long as I can run OSX*.

Users generally don't care what processor their computer as long as its fast enough to get the job done.

These people who say "Intel, Never in Macs" will soon forget when they are able to buy faster, and *cheaper* machines that the PPC processor were unable to delivery.

( *As along as Apple doesn't kill OSX and software due to any transition. However, emulation is the way to go, initially. )

 

[Mr Maui]

Maybe it's all a plot by Bill Gates. Get Intel to promise Steve Jobs the world ... get Apple to switch over to Intel ... then end the existence of Apple since Microsoft practically owns Intel. Soon to be a made-for-TV movie (similar to the RJR-Nabisco movie starring James Garner a few years back).

or, perhaps ... even worse ...

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have decided to peacefully co-exist, creating only systems perfectly designed for the benefit of all mankind.

<guess I was up too late last night>

 

[iMeowbot]

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.

Note that the dual-core CPUs under discussion will not have HT. (It's suspected that the currently shipping dual-core generation, being based on Prescott, may have a latent HT capability; but unused it poses no risk.)

 

[Calihafan]

I don't see it happening...

I don't see it happening for all of the reasons stated in this thread and a few more -

-The whole "The G5 smokes the Pentium 4" mantra would go straight down the toilet. Not that they'd be confined by the P4, but still, there is a sort of resentment of Intel from the Apple persuasion.

-Who would buy a Mac in the period of time it would take for the OS to be ported over to x86 and for all the applications to be ported over, if they are? What developers want to do THAT again? None, or few. No one in the period of time that takes (if it even happens) wants to buy a Mac with a deprecated chip architecture - developers are not going to develop for three platforms, Mac, PC, and OSx86. go to www.daringfireball.com for more he has some great ideas on the subject.

-Is the Pentium 4 really faster, if that's the chip Apple is going with? I've seen it said and I could see Intel making the PPC faster then IBM, but I'm pretty sure IBM owns most of the intellectual property for the chip.

-How does switching to Intel help marketshare or sales? Did Apple lose a lot of customers when they didn't ship the PowerMacs on time right after they were released? Does it matter enough to piss Jobs off? Does it matter enough to piss Jobs off to the point where he's "in-your-face" about it to IBM?

-There's the possibility, and I've seen this noted on a few websites, that he's just doing this to threaten IBM. He might be leaving leaks to show them "You really are unsatisfactory, come on, do better."

Just my ideas. Like I said, I don't see it happening, and I don't particularly want it to happen (imagine the Intel Inside sticker, shudder), but I guess we'll all have to wait till Monday.

Calih

 

[jiggie2g]

Maybe it's all a plot by Bill Gates. Get Intel to promise Steve Jobs the world ... get Apple to switch over to Intel ... then end the existence of Apple since Microsoft practically owns Intel. Soon to be a made-for-TV movie (similar to the RJR-Nabisco movie starring James Garner a few years back).

Did you ever think Intel joining with Apple is so they can get out from under M$ Thumb. Actually The Hardware Makers will always have the upperhand , If windows were to come out on PPC it would fail. IF intel Choses to Run OSX it will still sell chips no matter what OS it's running.

 

[beeblebrox87]

Just an idea:
Apple has sold machines with x86 CPUs in them before. I have a powermac 6100/66 with a 486 card in it, in addition to the PPC CPU. Would it not make sense to do this again, offering machines with poth a PPC and an x86 CPU? A Pentium or Celeron M could be included in a slightly enlarged Mac Mini without producing too much heat. It would allow full compatability with Windows applications, without any slowdown from emulation, and would thus be enormously useful for switchers. This would also explain why the story mentions it being offered in consumer desktop line first, as this is the segment most switchers fall under. (If Apple were switching to x86-only machines, as most of the discussion here suggets, then mobile and power-user machines would benefit more, which contradicts the article's statemen.)

The Intel-made PPC idea makes some sense, as the use of PPC in consoles makes the market more attractive for suppliers, but I find it hard to believe that Intel could have designed a whole new core without anybody hearing about it until now.

If Apple does switch to x86-only systems, I will never buy one again. I run linux on all my machines and choose Apple exclusively for the superior PowerPC CPU.

 

[OSXcellent]

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.

Maybe because if Apple doesn't make the move, they're dead anyways since their laptop lines haven't gone /anywhere/ in the last 12 months.

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.

Those PPCs are for games, not general computing. Or, there's only one company making PPCs for these games, and they made Apple an after-thought. Who knows for now, but we'll find out. Clearly, if IBM and Freescale were able to provide Apple with better chips in sufficient numbers, this wouldn't be an issue. So, we'll see.

 

[Laurent]

I'm getting tired of people mixing unstable platforms with Intel hardware. Intel makes great CPU. Computer companies choose cheap hardware with a great CPU. This makes their platform less stable than a platform with great hardware and great CPU. The end.

 

[admanimal]

Just an idea:
Apple has sold machines with x86 CPUs in them before. I have a powermac 6100/66 with a 486 card in it, in addition to the PPC CPU. Would it not make sense to do this again, offering machines with poth a PPC and an x86 CPU? A Pentium or Celeron M could be included in a slightly enlarged Mac Mini without producing too much heat. It would allow full compatability with Windows applications, without any slowdown from emulation, and would thus be enormously useful for switchers.

I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing Steve wasn't CEO at the time when those dual-architecture powermacs were offered. They arent very elegant solutions. I would be extraordinarily surprised if Apple ever offered anything that was specifically designed to let you run Windows or Windows apps on an OS X computer (Although of course MS could release a new Virtual PC...which would be much less virtual if it was running on an x86...so basically a version of Windows that runs like Classic does in OS X now...but then again they would probably just rather have you buy a copy of Windows for your Intel CPU).

Apple will also never include a WINE-like Windows app emulation tool in OS X, because it would create a usability nightmare and again be very anti-Steve. OS X and Windows apps are created with very different UI guidlines in mind, so trying to use both at once in the same OS is going to be an unpleasant experience for most users, and definitely something Apple won't want to create. I mean just think, Windows apps frequently have multiple windows, each with their own menu bars. How is that going to fit into the OS X UI? They could make it so the Windows app's windows appear just like they would in Windows, but then you're going to have some OS X apps that just use the menu bar like they're supposed to, and some Windows apps that have 10 other menu bars of their own....it would totally contaminate the OS X user experience.

 

[suntzu]

I'm just going to throw this out there.

Maybe they're sticking Cell Processors in the Macs now.

 

[emotion]

If Apple does switch to x86-only systems, I will never buy one again. I run linux on all my machines and choose Apple exclusively for the superior PowerPC CPU.

heh heh i love this reasoning. i have used linux for over 10 years and whilst it's not bad now it's a long long way from an alternative to macosx.

especially for audio and video apps which apple have traditionally been good at.

 

[Yvan256]

I'm getting tired of people mixing unstable platforms with Intel hardware. Intel makes great CPU. Computer companies choose cheap hardware with a great CPU. This makes their platform less stable than a platform with great hardware and great CPU. The end.

I've read many times that there IS a buffer overflow problem in the x86 architecture. That's what some people are complaining about (not counting those who think x86 = Windows).

 

[ogminlo]

Intel will be taking over the development and production of PowerPC chips. The problem here is that the PPC isn't solely Apple's product, being a product of the AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) alliance. Apple will have had to convinced Motorola and IBM to go along with this as they have some control over the technology. Also, what would motivate Intel to take such a risk when it will gain them relatively small numbers in terms of market share? It doesn't make sense.

IBM already licenses their silicon-on-insulator technology to the likes of Intel and AMD. Why isn't it plausible that they would license the PPC architecture as well? Intel can see that PPC is a real player now with its adoption into all the next gen game consoles. It will only get more widely adopted moving forward. Making chips for 3 million Macs a year doesn't make sense for Intel, but making chips for 75 to 100 million total devices a year (Macs + Xbox 360 + PS3 + Nintendo) might be another story. PPC has emerged from being niche. I think it far more likely that Intel would be getting into fabbing the suddenly valid PPC than it is for Apple to suddenly ask the whole of their customer base to transition to x86. Moving Mac to x86 is just too messy.

And besides, are we sure that PPC is even a proprietary architecture at all? Can anyone link to proof that the AIM group owns the rights to pressing those chips outright? I thought I'd heard it was an open architecture. After all, Intel sure didn't "own" x86 enough to keep AMD from trumping them with it.

I think it's very important to note that none of these rumors mentions x86, they just mention Intel. Intel is a company, not an architecture. They have formidable fabrication capabilities, as much as IBM is weak in that area. Isn't it also plausible to consider that IBM has to license out PPC (if they really "own" it) to cover all the demand the consoles will generate? If they can't keep supply up for a few million Macs each year, how can they supply for tens of millions of consoles without some manufacturing help?

I'm sure there is a way they can structure a licensing/manufacturing agreement in that everyone makes more money and no one loses their claim on the technology and assets that got them there. We'll see what's true tomorrow, but I'm of the very strong opinion that if any of these Intel murmurs have legs, they don't have anything to do with the Mac going x86.

EDIT: Upon reading more of the pages of this thread, we already have links that prove PPC is available for license. So lets put this Mac-on-x86 rubbish out of our discussion, shall we?

 

[Laurent]

This is what I figured Steve will wear for the announcement...

 

[guez]

Perhaps a little nuance is called for here

Nearly every comment that I have read on this subject seems to take either the "OS X on Intel is a good idea" or the "OS X on Intel is a lousy idea" line. Maybe it's not so simple. Apple has a real problem right now with the G5 (not up to promised speed, too hot etc.). The switch to Intel would be a calculated risk. Note my words: "calculated" and "risk." Anyone who thinks there isn't a downside is deluding themselves. Apple will lose a lot of sales in the short run. The x86 (if that is the future of the platform) is hardly perfect. But what if they don't move? There are other unknowns, after all. Will IBM ever get their act together? Do they care about Apple? What is Motorola's future? In what direction is market share moving? Are we at the end of the iPod boom? There is no "perfect solution" just as there is no "perfect platform." Apple is a company like any other company (albeit with some great products). Steve Jobs has no crystal ball. (Blame the G5 3Ghz fiasco on whomever you want. The fact remains the Jobs missed the call.) Neither do any of you. Only time will tell.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I think I have said that a couple of times, but none seems to listen...

Do you have a link to an article or something? I mean just telling us is great. But a link would be even better.

Thanks

 

[4God]

What if?

Hmmmmm........., and everybody said that WWDC was not the likely time or place for a major announcement. How 'bout this: ol' Stevie has a card up his sleeve and introduces a dual dual-core 3.0Ghz PowerMac with Intel inside.


....or maybe even AMD?

 

[guez]

I'm sure someone has mentioned this...

IBM already licenses their silicon-on-insulator technology to the likes of Intel and AMD. Why isn't it plausible that they would license the PPC architecture as well?

Doesn't the proposed time-frame lend credence to the Intel-PPC speculation? One reason to introduce the new technology on low-end machines first would be if Intel had to ramp up their production. Perhaps the first Intel-PPC chips will be slower G5s or (PPC G6s or whatever). But what do I know?

 

[calyxman]

So two big headlines coming on Monday.

This:

and This:

The press will be having an orgy.

 

[dodonutter]

Anyone read the comment in the first intel thread about the fact that there seems to be FSL and FSL-B (Freescale Semiconductor Inc ie Motos chip builders) on the stock market at the moment, and FSL-B seems to be quite young (ie around a week or so old according to yahoo finance and according to bloomberg its been around since Dec '04)

Now i know nothing about the stock-market but is this indicative of anything? Whoever discovered this and posted first (sorry i can't remember who you are) suggested that Intel could have bought FSL-B and use them to produce PPC chips for apple.

Can anyone who knows something about this kind of thing clear this up for me cos im confused

 

[Mac_Freak]

Look what my RSS feeds brought up.

Cooperation between the two companies could also finally make the portable video player a success. Apple has been working with Taiwanese contract manufacturers for the last year on a portable video player. Intel has designed several of these units, which later got sold by outfits like Sonicblue. Right now, however, sources have not said Apple and Intel are working on these products. Instead, they have said Apple will adopt Intel chips in its PCs

here is the link to article

 

[Mr Maui]

Why would IBM not want to license the PPC to Intel. Then IBM can sit back and collect licensing fees without having to lift a finger, nor having to listen to Apple or anyone else complaining because they are not meeting the production schedules / deadlines. Let that be Intel's problem. IBM could sit back and focus on PPC design. Thoughts?!?