I might be stupid, but I cant see why IBM wouldn't license PPC to Intel. Intel wants to get on the PPC train and Apple needs PPC chips. IBM would make money anyhow... I just cant see why this wouldn't be a possibilityPlymouthbreezer said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
~Shard~ said:
I think he's saying he hates the x86 platform - A large majority of people equate Intel with x86 only. If this means x86 in Macs then I'll have to agree with him.
If Intel starts making PPC processors I'm willing to bet he wouldn't mind - and neither would I. It's the processor's technology we're concerned with, not the company that makes it.
In an interview with one of the Mac Business Unit people in January, the division head mentioned that 7 million copies of Mac office have been sold over the years. That's not a huge amount by Microsoft standards (a mere billion dollars or two over the years), but the MBU is also where Excel, Word and PowerPoint came from and the division has always been profitable.Frisco said:
Why would MS kill off a profitable incubator for some of its most successful products, a unit that also provides one of its few defenses in the antitrust scrutiny around the world?
I think that the two companies need each other.
I think that we should think at some facts:
1) The ibook/powerbook line have been still for quite a long time
2) The G5 powerbook seems to be still a LOOOOOOONG way to come
3) A company CANNOT have its plans dictated by someone else ( in this case IBM not upgrading the ppc fast enough).
4) Steve Jobs will NEVER wait until IBM wakes up
5) I think Steve Jobs is smart enough to have been planning this as a backplan since OSX is born
6) You can bet he has a Tiger for Intel somewhere. And the Transitive tech statement:
"We anticipate that a second computer company will deploy products enabled by our technology in early 2005"
seems to fit enough.
If this is true (end every second it seems more true) I'm expecting an Intel based tablet or powerbook in the keynote.
The Apple Stock is going up if this is true (wall street considers Intel a strong firm, so anybody buing processsors from them is going to gain stock value).
just my 2 cents.
1) The ibook/powerbook line have been still for quite a long time
2) The G5 powerbook seems to be still a LOOOOOOONG way to come
3) A company CANNOT have its plans dictated by someone else ( in this case IBM not upgrading the ppc fast enough).
4) Steve Jobs will NEVER wait until IBM wakes up
5) I think Steve Jobs is smart enough to have been planning this as a backplan since OSX is born
6) You can bet he has a Tiger for Intel somewhere. And the Transitive tech statement:
"We anticipate that a second computer company will deploy products enabled by our technology in early 2005"
seems to fit enough.
If this is true (end every second it seems more true) I'm expecting an Intel based tablet or powerbook in the keynote.
The Apple Stock is going up if this is true (wall street considers Intel a strong firm, so anybody buing processsors from them is going to gain stock value).
just my 2 cents.
jwhitnah said:
19 and my first computer was an SE/30
i have to wait til 6pm to find out what Jobs is up to...my exam on tues morning is not gonna go well!
Hate to say it but what is every1 gonna do if only minor bumps are announced or nothing new is announced...dont think i could take another 6months of this
iindigo said:
That's what I thought, as I am in the same boat - I care more about the technology than the company making it in many cases. Even with MS as an extreme example, there are pieces of software which they release were are extremely good - so I wouldn't refrain from using them just because they're from MS.
Macmadant said:I Don't like intel and and the first mac i had was a ibm 603 anyway so i never experienced moto power pcs but over the last year the speed increases are more productive than when moto was running the show
Understood, thanks for the elaboration.
~Shard~ said:That's what I thought, as I am in the same boat - I care more about the technology than the company making it in many cases. Even with MS as an extreme example, there are pieces of software which they release were are extremely good - so I wouldn't refrain from using them just because they're from MS.
Understood, thanks for the elaboration.
i wouldn't mind intel ppc just as long as pc users can't go out and buy mac osx
Low end computers switching in 2006... high end in 2007 ? PowerMac sales are already pretty poor what would happen to them in the run up to 2007? How would Apple support both of these computer lines running different hardware and software? Lots of confusion and disruption to the consumer - something any business can't afford.
And in terms of specs and speed, where is the PPC expected to be in 2007 - certainly dual-core i would have thought?
And in terms of specs and speed, where is the PPC expected to be in 2007 - certainly dual-core i would have thought?
MacSA said:
This is why the "switch to x86" theory doesn't make any sense.
Why would they switch the Mac mini/eMac/iBook to x86, they're just fine as they are right now with the 1.2~1.42GHz G4.
The Macs that need a speed boost are the PowerMacs and PowerBooks (and Xserves). If there really was a switch to x86 in the name of computing power, the high-end would get it first.
The only explanation I can see is that Intel will start making PPC processors, and will start at the low-end since it'll be easier than starting at the high-end (easier to make a 2GHz G4 than a 3-4GHz G5).
Edit: I can't type today.
shawnce said:
I think you are on the right track and I am surprised others have not brought this up previously.
Consider:
Many people have stated why the switch to x86 would be a bad idea.
I suspect Apples plan is more along the lines of:
1) Intel making a PPC chip (can Freescale not get their act together?)
2) Apple making a computer than can run Mac OS X or Windows at native speeds.
3) The adoption of PCI Express which is an Intel product.
Heres to hoping the PPC death sentence is premature.
smigatron
Hi
Anywho...
For example, look at the FSB. 800MHz / 1066MHz at best. 800MHz on the dual-core (Pentium D)...That's 400MHz per processor, in general. Why do you think Intel has so much L2 cache? The Power Mac G5 also has a point-to-point system controller and a 2:1 system bus clock. The PPC architecture is great and I'm not disappointed in the dual 2.7s by any means. I wouldn't at all mind dual dual-core 3GHz or something to that effect with DDR2 and PCIe but I won't cry myself to sleep if it doesn't come until late this year or even early next year.
It's not just about the microprocessor. Though enough "PC" users who even have used Intel, still claim that AMD is much more efficient and cool running than Pentiums.~Shard~ said:
Anywho...
For example, look at the FSB. 800MHz / 1066MHz at best. 800MHz on the dual-core (Pentium D)...That's 400MHz per processor, in general. Why do you think Intel has so much L2 cache? The Power Mac G5 also has a point-to-point system controller and a 2:1 system bus clock. The PPC architecture is great and I'm not disappointed in the dual 2.7s by any means. I wouldn't at all mind dual dual-core 3GHz or something to that effect with DDR2 and PCIe but I won't cry myself to sleep if it doesn't come until late this year or even early next year.
What would be sweet is a return to the coprocessor card days. Pentium-M onboard and simultaneous running in OS X, ooh baby. ;-)
Even basic Windows emulation would, of course, be the problem, though.
I'm confident that it's not a switch-to-Intel processor deal (xscale for iPods, more chipsets, perhaps even a coprocessor), and all of this talk about a full-blown switch to a Marklar system is horse manure.
Even basic Windows emulation would, of course, be the problem, though.
I'm confident that it's not a switch-to-Intel processor deal (xscale for iPods, more chipsets, perhaps even a coprocessor), and all of this talk about a full-blown switch to a Marklar system is horse manure.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824230,00.asp
"I have no evidence if we have Intel based Macs hiding anywhere. But, I do have evidence of the next PowerMac (yah, yah we just speed bumped them)," the poster said. "It means at least one more generation of PowerMacs that are 970-based. Now, it could be we are switching to Intel chips and when I walk in Monday, I will learn all my work has been for naught. But, since I have access to a PowerMac unlike any other, I should also be allowed to know about a platform switch, but who knows."
Probably not true thoug lol
"I have no evidence if we have Intel based Macs hiding anywhere. But, I do have evidence of the next PowerMac (yah, yah we just speed bumped them)," the poster said. "It means at least one more generation of PowerMacs that are 970-based. Now, it could be we are switching to Intel chips and when I walk in Monday, I will learn all my work has been for naught. But, since I have access to a PowerMac unlike any other, I should also be allowed to know about a platform switch, but who knows."
Probably not true thoug lol
I think they were stumped buy what to do with the powerbook line..
OR they are introducing a new IPOD like device.... Remember I think Steve thinks Ipod is the cash cow now not the computers..... this could all be some new multimedia playing device and Have nothing to do with PPC or G5 or MAC... as we know it.
Slackpacker
OR they are introducing a new IPOD like device.... Remember I think Steve thinks Ipod is the cash cow now not the computers..... this could all be some new multimedia playing device and Have nothing to do with PPC or G5 or MAC... as we know it.
Slackpacker
(posting from an email of mine)
My 2 cents...
Scenario #1
Apple is getting Intel to fabricate PowerPC CPU or possibly cooperatively develop PowerPC based CPUs. This scenario doesn't rock the boat much and would ideally allow Apple to get CPUs at the clock rates and volumes they have been hoping for (the last two years with IBM have been a thorn in Apple's side [1]). It also would lend a little more legitimacy to Apple systems from the point of view of Intel bigots in the industry.
Scenario #1a
Apple is doing #1 but also having Intel add in some hardware level microcode support to crack native x86 instructions, etc. In other words Intels' PowerPC chips will have some level of hardware assist for running an x86 emulator. The goal being to allow folks to run Windows software on Mac systems with less of a penalty.
Scenario #1b
Apple is doing #1 and getting help implementing a software level x86 emulator from Intels folks (Intel folks get to peak at the PowerPC design to help with this).
Scenario #2
Apple will start using some Intel main stream IA32 or IA64 CPU in some systems and PowerPC in other systems. In other words Apple is going for a mixed platform using the best CPU for the target segment. This is the "I like having options" scenario. It gets Apple and its developer base to produce software that supports both platforms (fat packages) which allows Apple to more easily use the best technology that is available from either camp at a given time. This is a big win for customers as long as Apple can keep support seamless as possible (if anyone can Apple can). Of course developers will have to work a little harder... at least on the test side of things.
Scenario #3
Apple is starting a full switch over to Intel. Basically it will be like scenario 2 for a while until the switch over is done.
Note for scenarios 2 & 3 don't think these will be your run of the mill Wintel boxes or that Mac OS X will be running on generic Intel/AMD boxes.
Scenario #4
Apple is making a new product the will use Intel CPUs and/or something like the iPod using specific Intel low power CPUs.
Scenario #5
The rumors are bogus or at least misreading the use of some Intel chips in Apple hardware (bridge chips, controllers, etc.) as a wholesale switch over.
My belief is something like scenario #1 is a little more likely then scenario 2 or 3 based on the tea leaves I have read so far (not tried smoking them yet)...
However going the 2 or 3 route could be a win for Apple if it allows relatively seamless use of Windows software at native speeds. It would allow Apple to sell hardware that runs Mac OS X to markets that are strongly Windows based at a lower end cost to the users. They can continue to use existing Windows software hence avoiding cost of purchasing new software or retraining personnel, etc. (hardware cost if often much less of an issue then legacy concerns). Then as times goes by hopefully they would switch to Mac OS X native software solutions and replace their legacy Windows software but they could do this at their leisure.
On a final note I believe Apple has a PowerMac waiting in the wings that is PowerPC based and that is a decent jump beyond current systems on several fronts (not really talking clock speed). It could be talked about as soon as tomorrow but if not I feel in the next 3-6 months (IMHO closer to the 3 side of things... I believe the current 2.7GHz are just a simple speed bump product gap filler).
-Shawn
[1] I would love to know what Apple's contract with IBM stipulated ... it must have some (rather strict) statements of expectation and contractual options that Apple could execute if IBM didn't live up to those expectations. I just don't seeing Apple not pushing for such a contract since they have so much to lose if the PPC970 and friends didn't deliver ... which one can easily argue that it hasn't lived up to Apple's (or IBM's) expectations in terms of manufacturing output (the PPC970 and PPC970FX are good CPUs just not scaling like they hoped/promised). It is within reason that Apple has an option to find at least find alternate companies to fabricate G5 reworked as need to function in the fabrication process used. They may also have the ability to gain full rights to all IP related to the G5 from IBM.
My 2 cents...
Scenario #1
Apple is getting Intel to fabricate PowerPC CPU or possibly cooperatively develop PowerPC based CPUs. This scenario doesn't rock the boat much and would ideally allow Apple to get CPUs at the clock rates and volumes they have been hoping for (the last two years with IBM have been a thorn in Apple's side [1]). It also would lend a little more legitimacy to Apple systems from the point of view of Intel bigots in the industry.
Scenario #1a
Apple is doing #1 but also having Intel add in some hardware level microcode support to crack native x86 instructions, etc. In other words Intels' PowerPC chips will have some level of hardware assist for running an x86 emulator. The goal being to allow folks to run Windows software on Mac systems with less of a penalty.
Scenario #1b
Apple is doing #1 and getting help implementing a software level x86 emulator from Intels folks (Intel folks get to peak at the PowerPC design to help with this).
Scenario #2
Apple will start using some Intel main stream IA32 or IA64 CPU in some systems and PowerPC in other systems. In other words Apple is going for a mixed platform using the best CPU for the target segment. This is the "I like having options" scenario. It gets Apple and its developer base to produce software that supports both platforms (fat packages) which allows Apple to more easily use the best technology that is available from either camp at a given time. This is a big win for customers as long as Apple can keep support seamless as possible (if anyone can Apple can). Of course developers will have to work a little harder... at least on the test side of things.
Scenario #3
Apple is starting a full switch over to Intel. Basically it will be like scenario 2 for a while until the switch over is done.
Note for scenarios 2 & 3 don't think these will be your run of the mill Wintel boxes or that Mac OS X will be running on generic Intel/AMD boxes.
Scenario #4
Apple is making a new product the will use Intel CPUs and/or something like the iPod using specific Intel low power CPUs.
Scenario #5
The rumors are bogus or at least misreading the use of some Intel chips in Apple hardware (bridge chips, controllers, etc.) as a wholesale switch over.
My belief is something like scenario #1 is a little more likely then scenario 2 or 3 based on the tea leaves I have read so far (not tried smoking them yet)...
However going the 2 or 3 route could be a win for Apple if it allows relatively seamless use of Windows software at native speeds. It would allow Apple to sell hardware that runs Mac OS X to markets that are strongly Windows based at a lower end cost to the users. They can continue to use existing Windows software hence avoiding cost of purchasing new software or retraining personnel, etc. (hardware cost if often much less of an issue then legacy concerns). Then as times goes by hopefully they would switch to Mac OS X native software solutions and replace their legacy Windows software but they could do this at their leisure.
On a final note I believe Apple has a PowerMac waiting in the wings that is PowerPC based and that is a decent jump beyond current systems on several fronts (not really talking clock speed). It could be talked about as soon as tomorrow but if not I feel in the next 3-6 months (IMHO closer to the 3 side of things... I believe the current 2.7GHz are just a simple speed bump product gap filler).
-Shawn
[1] I would love to know what Apple's contract with IBM stipulated ... it must have some (rather strict) statements of expectation and contractual options that Apple could execute if IBM didn't live up to those expectations. I just don't seeing Apple not pushing for such a contract since they have so much to lose if the PPC970 and friends didn't deliver ... which one can easily argue that it hasn't lived up to Apple's (or IBM's) expectations in terms of manufacturing output (the PPC970 and PPC970FX are good CPUs just not scaling like they hoped/promised). It is within reason that Apple has an option to find at least find alternate companies to fabricate G5 reworked as need to function in the fabrication process used. They may also have the ability to gain full rights to all IP related to the G5 from IBM.
Macmadant said:
Uhm, Friday: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/ZZ7CYdvw6dM69V/Intels-Yonah-Dual-Core-To-Go.xhtml
A month or so ago, they announced more dual core processors, for release quite soon.
Intel tends to release new desktop core versions every 8 months to a year or so to keep up with the technology and to readjust for market demand.
Notebook, about every 8, at least with the P-M.
I think Steve-O is going for the homerun. He knows MS has OS security problems. He's tired of 3% market share. Within a few years OS x could be fighting neck and neck with Longhorn.
He's had a near death experience; I think he thinks it's time to get back in the game they could have been in 15 years ago.
MS's ace in the hole? Office. Noone in corporate America wants to retrain their employees to use something else. If MS felt threatened, they could yank Office from Apple, and while it might not be a death blow, it would hurt.
This is a big game for high stakes. Intel, Sony, MS, AMD, IBM are all scrapping against one another. Apple is the wild card.
He's had a near death experience; I think he thinks it's time to get back in the game they could have been in 15 years ago.
MS's ace in the hole? Office. Noone in corporate America wants to retrain their employees to use something else. If MS felt threatened, they could yank Office from Apple, and while it might not be a death blow, it would hurt.
This is a big game for high stakes. Intel, Sony, MS, AMD, IBM are all scrapping against one another. Apple is the wild card.
i get the feeling that maybe apple is unhappy with IBM's performance, and someone is spreading this rumor in order to make IBM sweat a little... it's common practice in the business world to get a story published for political purposes (i.e. "if the city finances this project, it'll bring jobs, money, etc...").
i might be completely wrong, though...
-to
i might be completely wrong, though...
-to
Einherjar said:
#1 itunes now has video in it!
#2 The Tablet rumor from last month
#3 Ipod makes more money quite a bit of Money for Apple
Plus it would be insane now to switch.... whos going to buy the current lineup
The articles form various sites on the backlog of product ... reflect this....