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
Zigster said:I think my brand spanking new imac I bought just plummeted in value...waited five years to switch and now I realize I should have just sat and waited for the Dark Side to win.
Unless Apple includes an x86 emulation layer for PPC systems. It would be a very Jobs-ian thing to do.
Zigster said:I think my brand spanking new imac I bought just plummeted in value...waited five years to switch and now I realize I should have just sat and waited for the Dark Side to win.
I dunno, I just bought a superdrive iBook G4 a couple months ago and I'm feeling pretty content right about now.
Apple Shifting To Intel, For Hollywood's Sake (Wired Magazine)
Wired Magazine's Leander Kahney writes in his Blog: I knew there would be a connection! Tomorrow Steve announces the forthcoming service for Hi-Def movies on Demand through either iTunes or another on-line store front with another name - surely accessible via iTunes anyways. Television as we know it is about to change completely. This will be VOD as it should be
Wired Magazine's Leander Kahney writes in his Blog:
This is indeed The Year of HD
I knew there would be a connection! Tomorrow Steve announces the forthcoming service for Hi-Def movies on Demand through either iTunes or another on-line store front with another name - surely accessible via iTunes anyways. Television as we know it is about to change completely. This will be VOD as it should be 
Lets for a second assume this rumour to be true, and Apple moves over to a new chip in 2007.... That's still 2 years away, what will go in the high end desktops in those intervening 2 years? Can you imagine sales of Macs in the months before the first new computer comes out...NOTHING would sell. It just seems like a massive gamble on Apples part.
admanimal said:
Yeah,
Quote (from Transitive web site): " We are pleased that Silicon Graphics Incorporated (SGI) will begin shipping QuickTransit on their Prism product family beginning in January 2005. For more information on our relationship with SGI please click here.
We anticipate that a *second computer company* will deploy products enabled by our technology in early 2005 and that others will deploy QuickTransit before the end of the year. Unfortunately, strict confidentiality obligations prevent us from saying more about these relationships at this time."
Could the second computer company be Apple? Really, how many companies would really have a need for this technology at this time???
BTW, I wonder if the lawsuits involving some of the rumor sites were intentionally done to discourage anyone leaking this HUGE news piece before market close Friday. The timing of the CNET story is interesting, and all other stories followed. There is some MAJOR orchestration of info flow going on... The only slip was WSJ say 10 days ago, but interesting little after that until Friday 5PM.
just my 2 pfennigs worth
I concur...
but on the other hand, Apple is an excelent gambler.
MacSA said:Lets for a second assume this rumour to be true, and Apple moves over to a new chip in 2007.... That's still 2 years away, what will go in the high end desktops in those intervening 2 years? Can you imagine sales of Macs in the months before the first new computer comes out...NOTHING would sell. It just seems like a massive gamble on Apples part.
but on the other hand, Apple is an excelent gambler.
Just took a nap...
I've been working on-and-off my system all day doing some song remixing for an upcoming event. I just got back from a nap and thought I'd see where the (200+) additional posts on this thread were at. One question lingers in my mind about the Apple/Intel thing:
If Apple is switching to Intel solely for performance gains, then why would it start phasing in Intel hardware in its low-end systems first? If Apple and Intel have cooked up some mind-boggling new chip (or even not), then wouldn't it make more sense to introduce them into PowerMacs first, and then gradually matriculate out the PPCs in the low-end systems as time wears on? With the current direction all the articles on this topic mention, Apple will be producing PPC PowerMacs up to and possibly into 2007 - which would mean that OS/application porting would need to support the PPC chip for at least three years beyond 2007 for sales not to slump or customers to go in to revolt.
Something's not adding up here, I just can't put my finger on it...
I've been working on-and-off my system all day doing some song remixing for an upcoming event. I just got back from a nap and thought I'd see where the (200+) additional posts on this thread were at. One question lingers in my mind about the Apple/Intel thing:
If Apple is switching to Intel solely for performance gains, then why would it start phasing in Intel hardware in its low-end systems first? If Apple and Intel have cooked up some mind-boggling new chip (or even not), then wouldn't it make more sense to introduce them into PowerMacs first, and then gradually matriculate out the PPCs in the low-end systems as time wears on? With the current direction all the articles on this topic mention, Apple will be producing PPC PowerMacs up to and possibly into 2007 - which would mean that OS/application porting would need to support the PPC chip for at least three years beyond 2007 for sales not to slump or customers to go in to revolt.
Something's not adding up here, I just can't put my finger on it...
He said it, I confirm it... Whether the result is x86 or a custom CPU... This platform is going to be called:
Macintel
You just wait...
Macintel
You just wait...
Relax!
Look - I don't like this any more than the next person. But take a look at eBay with regard to the older G4 desktops: The true dual boot systems (with regard to OS 9) command a much higher value; and so will your iMac (and my PPC G5) if PPC is truly abandoned.
Sit back, pop some popcorn, and watch the keynote live, thanks to addtional resources at MacRumors.com!
You're kidding, right?Zigster said:I think my brand spanking new imac I bought just plummeted in value...waited five years to switch and now I realize I should have just sat and waited for the Dark Side to win.
Look - I don't like this any more than the next person. But take a look at eBay with regard to the older G4 desktops: The true dual boot systems (with regard to OS 9) command a much higher value; and so will your iMac (and my PPC G5) if PPC is truly abandoned.
Sit back, pop some popcorn, and watch the keynote live, thanks to addtional resources at MacRumors.com!
Is it possible to put an emulation layer in ROM, on a chip, or otherwise make it hardware-dependent (running at bus speed), rather than software dependent?Zigster said:
tomorrow is the day
Info sites opping up:
http://www.maconintel.com
I feel sure we'll hear an affirmitive from Steve tomorrow. Biggest news in Apple's history, basically.
blakespot
Info sites opping up:
http://www.maconintel.com
I feel sure we'll hear an affirmitive from Steve tomorrow. Biggest news in Apple's history, basically.
blakespot
Agreed. Those kinds of apps require a recompile (or Fat Binary). Note though that any app using CoreVideo and CoreImage will be fine, since that would be native (assuming this happens).Zigster said:
If this happens, there's value in replacing the G4 asap. Laptops and Mini, using the Pentium-M.FoxyKaye said:
As a combined step, I guess there's an option to OEM release MacOSX Server, for some high end servers. This would give IT departments a chance to test OSX Server on their hardware (if so, Intel may encourage the use of Itanium here, or not).
I tend to think that if there is a change, Apple will be marketing itself as cross platform, instead of "switching to x86". Use the best chips for each situation. Are they capable of doing cross platform ongoing? I don't know - but for Cocoa only apps I think so (anything using the OS underpinnings, BSD, Linux, or Carbon, would be harder right?).
MacSA said:Lets for a second assume this rumour to be true, and Apple moves over to a new chip in 2007.... That's still 2 years away, what will go in the high end desktops in those intervening 2 years? Can you imagine sales of Macs in the months before the first new computer comes out...NOTHING would sell. It just seems like a massive gamble on Apples part.
That is what I have been saying as well. They need a product there right now and make it work with an emulator. When the PowerMac 6100 came out, the first PowerPC, it was announced at the same time or within a few weeks it was shipped. It used an emulator to run all the 68K programs. It took a long time for full PowerPC support in the orginal Mac OS. The thing to remember however, is a 68K program would run fine on a PPC through emulation, but you COULD NOT run a PPC designed program on a 68K Mac. So what that means is emulation is fine to introduce an x86 Mac tomorrow that can run everything we run right now, but any new software for that Mac will not run at all on your PPC one. You just have to look at the history to get the answers.
Everything points to Apple doing this tomorrow, I just think it would be stupid to say, well this is what we are going to do in a couple of years...and then have no proof sitting there or ready to sell. They never did it when they switched to PPC, so why are they doing it this time? I would think when you do a switch you need the hardware to come before the software and work the interm issues with emulation. What good telling this to developers and then having nothing for them to develop on is beyond me.
If they roll a new line or portables and mini's out tomorrow with Pentium M processors running every current software title through emulation just like the PM 6100 did back in 1994, then I think it will work, but they need to move that timetable of 2 years way up. I think last time within a year they pretty much had everything moved over to PowerPC and once that was done the new software that was being developed at the time was pretty much PPC only.
Ew.Laurent said:
And people, please please stop changing your avatars to look like variations of the Intel logo, Intel Inside, and other Intel-related images.
We're not there yet, and it's terribly disconcerting.
30 unread pages later...Any play with Intel would be a niche product IMO to keep th ehalo effect going. How about the reverse of Microsoft using PPC for the x-box ie Some pretty Apple box with intel inside to play a load of games they have been quietly developing to shut up the "cant play games on a Mac" whiners. Plus a little Mac-like functionality like iTunes added in, a taste of Apple software...