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
BillHarrison said:
In the world of big business this makes more sense now - keep in mind Intel dumped a ton of $$$ and resources not only in designing the first gen X-Box but all the specs as well. And trust me at the corporate level Intel and Microsoft are always looking for a way to weaken the strength of the other ....
Soooooooo - its now time for Tit for Tat
Microsoft goes to PPC for their X-Box ...... Tit
Intel brings on a second powerful OS that runs on their x86 ..... Tat
IBM either can't or won't put the resources to satisfy Apples need for Chips ... Tit
Apple is forced to move its camp to survive .... Tat
For every Mac user who deserts the flock "on principle" over a switch to Intel, there will be many Windows users who switch to Macs because they believe Intel is inherently better, because they saw an ad, only considered GHz, or are familiar with Intel from their Wintel box.BillHarrison said:
Object-X said:
I would think that the time has come and has gone for a G5 in a powerbook. I know I am waiting
eeesh, well right now, I'm pretty turned off to the whole idea, but who knows, this could end up being great for Apple. My main concern is the transition. If this is going to be as difficult as it was to move from 9 to X, I imagine many people aren't going to put up with it. I probably wouldn't switch to something else, but come on, Apple with Intel chips? I just know that I don't want to deal with seeing Steve Jobs with his "clock" and showing how the transition is "at the 6 so halfway complete" and all that. It scares me how much this might mean for developers and how many of them will continue to develop for Apple if they have to change quite a bit.
ZLurker said:
Dude -- the x86 architecture is doing fine now ... new dual cores and all - everyone seems happy - and will into the future. I've seen the Arch. plans for the future into '09 - '10 ---- some very impressive perf. things coming down the pike both in CPU - system buses - OS support to run dozens of "virtual" copies of both the processor and the OS.
I've lost count of how many times the x86 arch. has been declared dead by either industry "experts" or analysts.
- RISC will kill the x86
- Internet PCs (all computing at a central CPU on the net ot LAN) will kill the PC and x86
- AMD will take 1/2 of the market share
- On and on
I an't saying Intel is perfect or infallible ---- but they didn't get to where they are by just luck and hanging out
~Shard~ said:Wow, that takes me back! Ah yes, the good old days when you could actually keep track of how many MegaMan games there were...
And, they had the *best* music. And, erm, you hadn't yet realized that they were all exactly the same.
realism@mac.com said:
Except the racing anaolgy fails. There is not a last lap. This is like changing cars to a fresh car that is all tuned up with fresh oil and fully loaded with gas. It is a pain to get out of the one car (sliding through the window and such) and getting into the new car.
We might get 1/2 lap back from our lead. But the other crew has yet to leave the 4 year pit stop.
LOL... well I guess we will see tomorrow. 2000 posts so far and counting. Whatever tomorrow brings I am sure we will see another 2000 posts...ZLurker said:1 2 3 4 5
I can even throw in 23 if you want?
Strange times we live in
MacIke said:
x86....all tuned up with fresh oil and fully loaded with gas.
Are you kidding??? please say you are
I remember seeing a homepage with the original midi-files, so you could download and listen to them, anyone seen this? I cant remeber where i saw it?mkrishnan said:And, they had the *best* music. And, erm, you hadn't yet realized that they were all exactly the same.
MacIke said:
As long as this fresh car doesn't turn out like IBM's fresh car. (assuming the rumor is true).
Also, what will you guys say if there is no Intel chip, but rather a G5 dual core running in excess of 3 GHz?
MacFan26 said:
If it does happen... you would still be using Mac OS X, it would look the same, work the same (maybe faster), etc. In the general the main end user issue would be having to upgrade software you use to take full advantage of the new systems, so vendors may do it for free others may charge for it.
MacFan26 said:
For most developers this change would be a non-issue or minor issue (endian issues could cause some problems), the tool chain would take care of things for them. They could still develop using Cocoa, Carbon, Java, etc. on Mac OS X. In fact they could use existing systems to develop and build products for the new systems. Also Mac OS X support fat binaries so they could ship a single product that could work on either type of systems automatically.
I don't know why I'm posting this, it'll probably get lost in the tsunami of posts...
But I just wanted to say why does people say "if they go x86, I'm GONE!"? I'm in for Apple's design and Mac OS X. Neither are going away if Apple switches to x86. And all the security flaws in x86 are enabled by software. Knowing Apple, they'll probably patch those insecurities long before they hit the market. Look at say, UNIX. They're versions of UNIX on x86 you know. And why aren't they insecure POSes? Huh, can you tell me? It's the SOFTWARE, not the HARDWARE. (You can bring up the technicalties about buffer overflow and all that, but this insecurity is enabled by software. If the software doesn't allow this kind of code... it won't happen. Do you know that OS X has buffer overflow exploits at least once? (It was obviously plugged long ago)? I don't have any links, but I do remember one security update fixes a buffer overflow exploit a while ago.
Secondly, all of you whining about how Intel doesn't give a **** about Apple and all that. Well guess what? That is 100% true. Do you think IBM and Motorola really gives a **** about Apple? Welcome to the real world. But the benefit of going with Intel is that now Apple is EQUAL to all other computer manufactuers - Dell, HP, Gateway, et al. Intel doesn't give a **** about Dell either. But they do provide chips for them. Gives a **** about HP? Guess the answer. The point is that now Apple is going with a chipmaker that HAS COMPETITION (AMD). This will force Intel to progessively get better and better chips out - with no urgings from Apple at all. Think on that, people.
But I just wanted to say why does people say "if they go x86, I'm GONE!"? I'm in for Apple's design and Mac OS X. Neither are going away if Apple switches to x86. And all the security flaws in x86 are enabled by software. Knowing Apple, they'll probably patch those insecurities long before they hit the market. Look at say, UNIX. They're versions of UNIX on x86 you know. And why aren't they insecure POSes? Huh, can you tell me? It's the SOFTWARE, not the HARDWARE. (You can bring up the technicalties about buffer overflow and all that, but this insecurity is enabled by software. If the software doesn't allow this kind of code... it won't happen. Do you know that OS X has buffer overflow exploits at least once? (It was obviously plugged long ago)? I don't have any links, but I do remember one security update fixes a buffer overflow exploit a while ago.
Secondly, all of you whining about how Intel doesn't give a **** about Apple and all that. Well guess what? That is 100% true. Do you think IBM and Motorola really gives a **** about Apple? Welcome to the real world. But the benefit of going with Intel is that now Apple is EQUAL to all other computer manufactuers - Dell, HP, Gateway, et al. Intel doesn't give a **** about Dell either. But they do provide chips for them. Gives a **** about HP? Guess the answer. The point is that now Apple is going with a chipmaker that HAS COMPETITION (AMD). This will force Intel to progessively get better and better chips out - with no urgings from Apple at all. Think on that, people.
People are overreacting
I'm amazed by all the generally unfounded and emotional responses to this. To me, it's obvious that Apple would not want to switch to Intel processors unless they have good reason. Presuming the latest press reports can be believed, which is quite likely given the sources, then they must have good reason. What reason?
Remember, Apple is not switching to current Intel processors. The first machines would be planned in a year. Apple is looking at the future of Intel's processor lines vs. the PowerPC platform.
Consider this: Apple's notebooks are falling further and further behind. The roadmap looks bad. The G5 seems like a big challenge to get into laptops and even when it makes it, we're likely talking about single-processor, relatively slow models. There's the possibility of the dual-core G4, but it hasn't materialized yet, and I'm sure Apple knows more about the current status of IBM's plans than we do. While many of us have traditionally thought of the PowerPC platform as being faster than Intel's latest and greatest, I'd like people to point to speed tests that actually demonstrate this to be true. The G5 was supposed to be at 3 Ghz long ago and the lack of progress is concerning.
My guess is the situation is the following: Apple has looked at the realistic timeline of future processors from IBM and it's clear to them that they will fall behind Intel over the next several years, particularly if the critical laptop market is taken into account. Remember, we're not talking about just the G5 versus the current Pentium - we're talking about the processor market in 1-2 years and what IBM and Intel are realistically going to be able to deliver. Apple's options are:
a) stick with the current platform and fall behind in speed and again become known as the "slower" computer.
b) switch to the processor line with a better outlook
Everyone is quite concerned about the speed hit a switch would take but is this really a problem? If the rumors are to be believed, Apple has continued to maintain an intel-compatbile version of OS X. Even if you took an emulator approach, any software that used system-level functionality would be autmatically "native" any time it used the built-in tehcnologies. if you give developers a year with the appropriate tools, "fat binaries" should be easy enough to create (that would run on either processors).
Don't make the assumption that Apple is going to make an OS X that runs on generic PC's - this would essentially mean taking a bit hit in the hardware market in exchange for a potentailly bigger piece of the software market and would be a major shift in strategy - I doubt this will happen. Apple is simply going to continue making its own machines with a different brand of processor on the inside. They will work no differently to us and you will not be able to install OS X on a Dell.
On the other hand, a switch to Intel would enable someone to create software to allow users to run Windows, and Windows apps, at high speeds. As I recall, when NeXTSTEP/Openstep was ported to x86, SoftWindows allowed users to run Windows within a window at close to native speeds. It would also reduce a barrier to buying Apple machines as users could always fall back on Windows if needed, so this has the potential to grow Mac marketshare.
The question is whether Apple will continue to develop machines with both platforms, which would certainly be a possibility, though may be complicated. Supporting both chip lines would allow Apple to pick and choose the right processor for each task, but may not be practical depending on the business arrangements.
If the transition has been well-designed, and at this point we can only speculate, the implementation should be fairly inapparent to end-users as long as Apple has a way of running non-recompiled apps at fairly high speeds (which is likely if the OS is essentially already native). PowerPC based machines should still sell as software should work on both platforms. G5 machines won't become obsolete when Intel-based machines come out no more than they would be obsolete if Apple had switched to the "G6" in a year or two - it's just that Apple will have to have OS X working on both processors (which they most likely already do) - remember that when Apple bought Next, the software was Intel based at that time!
This is a great opportunity for Apple. The downsides that everyone are concerned about seem to be largely panic:
a) Apple is switching to a slower processor - If IBM realistically had a better processor option, then Apple would not change. This is being done because IBM has let Apple down. I know everyone wants Apple to have something "different", but if "different" is slower, I'll pass. Better to at least be able to be on equal footing with the PC guys from a processor point of view and have an edge in the OS and design.
b) the new machines will be running emulated software - A year is plenty of time to recompile software
c) Apple will lose its installed base - this strikes me as ridiculous. Most people are not using Macs because they have the G5, they are using them because they are Macs. The alternative is what exactly? Intel machines running Windows? This is a non-issue unless the transition because obvious due to incompatibilities. If Apple has planned adequately, the Intel-based machines will be able to run old programs will a relatively small speed-hit and by then most programs should be recompiled anyway
d) Current and near-future PowerPC based machines will be obsolete - this is also silly - all current software is compatible with the PowerPC line, and since the installed base is going to be much larger than the Intel-Mac base in the near future, future software will be as well.
I'm amazed by all the generally unfounded and emotional responses to this. To me, it's obvious that Apple would not want to switch to Intel processors unless they have good reason. Presuming the latest press reports can be believed, which is quite likely given the sources, then they must have good reason. What reason?
Remember, Apple is not switching to current Intel processors. The first machines would be planned in a year. Apple is looking at the future of Intel's processor lines vs. the PowerPC platform.
Consider this: Apple's notebooks are falling further and further behind. The roadmap looks bad. The G5 seems like a big challenge to get into laptops and even when it makes it, we're likely talking about single-processor, relatively slow models. There's the possibility of the dual-core G4, but it hasn't materialized yet, and I'm sure Apple knows more about the current status of IBM's plans than we do. While many of us have traditionally thought of the PowerPC platform as being faster than Intel's latest and greatest, I'd like people to point to speed tests that actually demonstrate this to be true. The G5 was supposed to be at 3 Ghz long ago and the lack of progress is concerning.
My guess is the situation is the following: Apple has looked at the realistic timeline of future processors from IBM and it's clear to them that they will fall behind Intel over the next several years, particularly if the critical laptop market is taken into account. Remember, we're not talking about just the G5 versus the current Pentium - we're talking about the processor market in 1-2 years and what IBM and Intel are realistically going to be able to deliver. Apple's options are:
a) stick with the current platform and fall behind in speed and again become known as the "slower" computer.
b) switch to the processor line with a better outlook
Everyone is quite concerned about the speed hit a switch would take but is this really a problem? If the rumors are to be believed, Apple has continued to maintain an intel-compatbile version of OS X. Even if you took an emulator approach, any software that used system-level functionality would be autmatically "native" any time it used the built-in tehcnologies. if you give developers a year with the appropriate tools, "fat binaries" should be easy enough to create (that would run on either processors).
Don't make the assumption that Apple is going to make an OS X that runs on generic PC's - this would essentially mean taking a bit hit in the hardware market in exchange for a potentailly bigger piece of the software market and would be a major shift in strategy - I doubt this will happen. Apple is simply going to continue making its own machines with a different brand of processor on the inside. They will work no differently to us and you will not be able to install OS X on a Dell.
On the other hand, a switch to Intel would enable someone to create software to allow users to run Windows, and Windows apps, at high speeds. As I recall, when NeXTSTEP/Openstep was ported to x86, SoftWindows allowed users to run Windows within a window at close to native speeds. It would also reduce a barrier to buying Apple machines as users could always fall back on Windows if needed, so this has the potential to grow Mac marketshare.
The question is whether Apple will continue to develop machines with both platforms, which would certainly be a possibility, though may be complicated. Supporting both chip lines would allow Apple to pick and choose the right processor for each task, but may not be practical depending on the business arrangements.
If the transition has been well-designed, and at this point we can only speculate, the implementation should be fairly inapparent to end-users as long as Apple has a way of running non-recompiled apps at fairly high speeds (which is likely if the OS is essentially already native). PowerPC based machines should still sell as software should work on both platforms. G5 machines won't become obsolete when Intel-based machines come out no more than they would be obsolete if Apple had switched to the "G6" in a year or two - it's just that Apple will have to have OS X working on both processors (which they most likely already do) - remember that when Apple bought Next, the software was Intel based at that time!
This is a great opportunity for Apple. The downsides that everyone are concerned about seem to be largely panic:
a) Apple is switching to a slower processor - If IBM realistically had a better processor option, then Apple would not change. This is being done because IBM has let Apple down. I know everyone wants Apple to have something "different", but if "different" is slower, I'll pass. Better to at least be able to be on equal footing with the PC guys from a processor point of view and have an edge in the OS and design.
b) the new machines will be running emulated software - A year is plenty of time to recompile software
c) Apple will lose its installed base - this strikes me as ridiculous. Most people are not using Macs because they have the G5, they are using them because they are Macs. The alternative is what exactly? Intel machines running Windows? This is a non-issue unless the transition because obvious due to incompatibilities. If Apple has planned adequately, the Intel-based machines will be able to run old programs will a relatively small speed-hit and by then most programs should be recompiled anyway
d) Current and near-future PowerPC based machines will be obsolete - this is also silly - all current software is compatible with the PowerPC line, and since the installed base is going to be much larger than the Intel-Mac base in the near future, future software will be as well.
costs
The CPU is only part of the potential money savings. If Apple went to an off the shelf processor, wouldn't they be able to use off the shelf support circuity too? things like controllers, video, even motherboards could be bought at substantial savings.
Isaac
The CPU is only part of the potential money savings. If Apple went to an off the shelf processor, wouldn't they be able to use off the shelf support circuity too? things like controllers, video, even motherboards could be bought at substantial savings.
Isaac
Not sure if this means anything or not but yesterday folks were able to check out the schedules for WWDC.Now one has to log in using your WWDC membership ticket.The disclaimer states :
Note that with the exception of the WWDC 2005 Keynote, all information presented or provided to you by Apple during WWDC 2005, including the information on the Attendee Site, is considered Confidential Information and is subject to the terms and conditions of your ADC Membership Agreement with Apple.
Note that with the exception of the WWDC 2005 Keynote, all information presented or provided to you by Apple during WWDC 2005, including the information on the Attendee Site, is considered Confidential Information and is subject to the terms and conditions of your ADC Membership Agreement with Apple.
