aahh ... a warming sentiment that really justs schnuzzles into it's audience .....avus said:
.... although I appreciate your point. It all makes for a very interesting WWDC
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
.... although I appreciate your point. It all makes for a very interesting WWDC
Yes but even by it's own admissionSiliconAddict said:
Do you actually know anyone that uses Pear as a serious piece of kit?
Object-X said:Think Secret claims their sources have not provided them with any information. Perhaps Apple has singled out the source an intentially kept them in the dark. Oh, they are so busted!!
Dude! I could SO see Steve playing mind games with the mole.
Question for the developers and folks that attend WWDC.
Why would the WWDC have a keynote about Apple switching to Intel.Causing obvious concern and immediate desire to try and "switch" to the X86 then turn around and hold 5 days worth of development classes,labs and other such stuff devoted mainly to the PPC platform.One would think the developers would want to jump right into switching over and not concern themselves with the PPC.
I'd say we could see the eMac,IBook and possibly a new media tablet sporting Intel Pentium-M right away keeping the fear factor down for the developers.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..
Either that or the Wall Street Journal,CNet news,TheInquirer and other journalist are gonna have a group egg-in-the-face party come Monday.
Why would the WWDC have a keynote about Apple switching to Intel.Causing obvious concern and immediate desire to try and "switch" to the X86 then turn around and hold 5 days worth of development classes,labs and other such stuff devoted mainly to the PPC platform.One would think the developers would want to jump right into switching over and not concern themselves with the PPC.
I'd say we could see the eMac,IBook and possibly a new media tablet sporting Intel Pentium-M right away keeping the fear factor down for the developers.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..
Either that or the Wall Street Journal,CNet news,TheInquirer and other journalist are gonna have a group egg-in-the-face party come Monday.
I know the No Intel PPC group is going to jump all over this, but lets think about this option:
Freescale has been stuck on the G4 side of things, they can't get more headroom. The Pentium M is doing great. Lets all remember the Pentium M is a Pentium III...it ended up having a lot of headroom didn't it
Now, one of the largest parts of the Pentium III and Pentium 4 chips is the decoder, the part that changes instructions into micro-code RISC-like instructions.
It would not be impossible, nor would it be that hard, for Intel to change the instruction set a CPU supported. Yes, it would need to be a new CPU made specifically for Apple, BUT, the development costs would not be more than a few million dollars because overall, that is one of the simplest parts of the CPU!
A Pentium M with a PPC decoder could almost fully replace a G4 processor in its present form...but run faster. It could breath life into their portables without sacraficing compatibility and size.
Now, the longer desktop transition is interesting. Note that Intel doesn't have a great 64-bit chip yet... ALSO, note that Intel's dual-core solution sucks. Why aren't the confirmed rumors saying AMD if they were switching CPUs?
My thought is, if they can get Intel to switch the instruction decoder on the Pentium M for G4 style computers to run PPC code, maybe they are doing this to a) replace Freescale/Motorola, and b) Pressure IBM to get their ducks in a row. The timescale on the desktops makes me think that they would rather stick with the G5, and that a modified Pentium M is in the works for notebooks.
Remember, XBox had a modified Pentium III. 90% of the R&D is already done... Intel develops versions of the PIII and P4 all the time that have never seen the light of day. If Apple was willing to flip the bill, there would be no problem.
Also, the nice advantage to having an Intel processor is the intel chipsets...no custom development work needed. Apple could probably convince Intel to add FireWire 800 to all chipsets, and they get "free" access to PCIe, as well as the new centrino wireless solutions.... Normally apple chipsets are custom made because the CPU external bus is different than anyone else.
So I think, while it may not be a custom PPC chip...it could be a custom Pentium M with a PPC decoder instead of an x86 decoder.
Freescale has been stuck on the G4 side of things, they can't get more headroom. The Pentium M is doing great. Lets all remember the Pentium M is a Pentium III...it ended up having a lot of headroom didn't it
Now, one of the largest parts of the Pentium III and Pentium 4 chips is the decoder, the part that changes instructions into micro-code RISC-like instructions.
It would not be impossible, nor would it be that hard, for Intel to change the instruction set a CPU supported. Yes, it would need to be a new CPU made specifically for Apple, BUT, the development costs would not be more than a few million dollars because overall, that is one of the simplest parts of the CPU!
A Pentium M with a PPC decoder could almost fully replace a G4 processor in its present form...but run faster. It could breath life into their portables without sacraficing compatibility and size.
Now, the longer desktop transition is interesting. Note that Intel doesn't have a great 64-bit chip yet... ALSO, note that Intel's dual-core solution sucks. Why aren't the confirmed rumors saying AMD if they were switching CPUs?
My thought is, if they can get Intel to switch the instruction decoder on the Pentium M for G4 style computers to run PPC code, maybe they are doing this to a) replace Freescale/Motorola, and b) Pressure IBM to get their ducks in a row. The timescale on the desktops makes me think that they would rather stick with the G5, and that a modified Pentium M is in the works for notebooks.
Remember, XBox had a modified Pentium III. 90% of the R&D is already done... Intel develops versions of the PIII and P4 all the time that have never seen the light of day. If Apple was willing to flip the bill, there would be no problem.
Also, the nice advantage to having an Intel processor is the intel chipsets...no custom development work needed. Apple could probably convince Intel to add FireWire 800 to all chipsets, and they get "free" access to PCIe, as well as the new centrino wireless solutions.... Normally apple chipsets are custom made because the CPU external bus is different than anyone else.
So I think, while it may not be a custom PPC chip...it could be a custom Pentium M with a PPC decoder instead of an x86 decoder.
THEINQUIRER: APPLE TALKING TO AMD AS WELL!
TheInquirer is a very reliable source!
They are always true, and they seem to have more details then Cnet!
Apple will switch to X86 processors
Talking to AMD too
By Charlie Demerjian: zondag 05 juni 2005, 06:40
THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQIORER has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models.
The Intel chips are almost assuredly going to start with a mobile part, probably Yonah, then on to Merom. Both use the same FSB technology, but Merom is faster so the switch will be a fairly painless one. The markets pointed out by CNet back up the idea that Yonah will start it all off, then Conroe and Woodcrest will take over. These sure are interesting times. µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714
TheInquirer is a very reliable source!
They are always true, and they seem to have more details then Cnet!
Apple will switch to X86 processors
Talking to AMD too
By Charlie Demerjian: zondag 05 juni 2005, 06:40
THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQIORER has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models.
The Intel chips are almost assuredly going to start with a mobile part, probably Yonah, then on to Merom. Both use the same FSB technology, but Merom is faster so the switch will be a fairly painless one. The markets pointed out by CNet back up the idea that Yonah will start it all off, then Conroe and Woodcrest will take over. These sure are interesting times. µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714
Interesting Times...
I don't know, you step outside for a day and when you come back the (Apple) world has gone into meltdown!
Having read through a few hundred comments on this board and others about the rumoured switch to x86 processors, and having got over the initial shock, a couple of things spring to mind...
A lot of people are comparing the rumoured switch to the transition from OS9 to OSX, and only a few have mentioned the switch from 68xxx to PPC, which is a much more relevant comparison.
I was supporting Macs during the switch to PPC, and for those here that don't remeber it, it was incredible. Things worked, almost everything worked, as if nothing had happened. And then the optimised code for PPC started to arrive, and things worked really quite fast. They've done it (switch processor architecture) once, it was fine. Honest.
I am also reminded of a fantastic PC manufacturer that closed for business a few months back. As their website reported the closure it bemoaned the lack of innovation and design in the rest of the marketplace, with one honourable exception - Apple.
The site's still up at http://www.go-l.com/ and they really did do some fantastic stuff, really spectacular 'think different' kinda ethos
Heck, if you could've run OSX on their systems, they would've been better than Apple's own kit I reckon. Wonder if anyone bought them after they closed for business???
I don't know, you step outside for a day and when you come back the (Apple) world has gone into meltdown!
Having read through a few hundred comments on this board and others about the rumoured switch to x86 processors, and having got over the initial shock, a couple of things spring to mind...
A lot of people are comparing the rumoured switch to the transition from OS9 to OSX, and only a few have mentioned the switch from 68xxx to PPC, which is a much more relevant comparison.
I was supporting Macs during the switch to PPC, and for those here that don't remeber it, it was incredible. Things worked, almost everything worked, as if nothing had happened. And then the optimised code for PPC started to arrive, and things worked really quite fast. They've done it (switch processor architecture) once, it was fine. Honest.
I am also reminded of a fantastic PC manufacturer that closed for business a few months back. As their website reported the closure it bemoaned the lack of innovation and design in the rest of the marketplace, with one honourable exception - Apple.
The site's still up at http://www.go-l.com/ and they really did do some fantastic stuff, really spectacular 'think different' kinda ethos
Heck, if you could've run OSX on their systems, they would've been better than Apple's own kit I reckon. Wonder if anyone bought them after they closed for business???
freechris said:
of course they are talking to AMD too. APPLE IS A COMPUTER COMPANY. they probably talk to every chip manufacturer!
OSXcellent said:
Yah right. And you think the first person to get one of these spiffy X86 Macs isnt going to create an ISO image of the DVD and drop it on the net? Do you think even before that time some developer who is doubtlessly going to have an X86 version of X isnt going to dump it on the net? The OS will be on bittorrent before you can say lawsuit.
HA! Wow you really don't know the Windows market do you? First off EVERYONE I know who uses Windows got their version with their computer. Anyone who upgraded to XP has pretty much downloaded one of the bazillion ISO copies on the net and use any of the bzillion generated corp product codes that allow users to bypass activation. (Its a way for corp users from having to call home to MS every time they install XP. MS has learned not to piss off their corp customers.) So product activation doesn't mean jack squat. In point of fact MS's product activation was cracked and on the net before XP even shipped. Right now there are dozens of way to crack product activation.
As for the 95% figure. Bet money its WAY higher. Why? Recent surveys have shown (Go search any of the major outlets. It was on news.com last fall.) that XP has NOT made inroads into converting people from Windows 9x, NT, and 2K. Why? Because people simply aren't willing to pay around $200 for an upgrade to XP Professional. (Anyone who knows windows knows that Home is a joke.) So what is happening? They are getting the upgrade from friends. They are downloading it themselves. They are getting the upgrade when they get a new computer. How much is this an issue? So much so that MS is going to start requiring people to authenticate their computer and verify that its a legit product when they download software off of their site.
What will be the difference between MS and Apple? Price. Its really that simple. Everything has been that simple when it comes to pirating. If companies wouldnt charge an outrageous price people wouldnt be downloading it from the net. Im willing to bet there is a formula as to the drop-off of pirating as the price of a product falls. You can never have 0% pirating. That just wont happen but as the price of an OS/song/movie/program drop so does pirating. As long as Apple doesnt price gouge their customers they will be fine. The problem is that will assume that they offer a version for the rest of their X86 brethren. If Apple does just offer it for specialized x86 Macs they are going to piss off a hell of a lot of people who want to go Mac but dont want to buy new hardware. So much so that if this happens I fully expect to see X become the most pirated software on the net. How many people would KILL to have X on their Thinkpads? Have X on their Alienware PCs? If Apple kicks sand in the rest of the x86 industry and takes their ball home a cottage industry is going to for around hacking X to work on other hardware. Trust me on this. With an OS like OS X so close yet so far. People are going to want it without shelling out money on more hardware.
Wall street is a group who experience brief moments of genius followed by extremely extended periods of foolishness and stupidity.
If this move by Apple is perceived to be party caused by wall street pressure, then you can expect that the day a x86 Mac is released, CNBC will have a line of analysts pressuring Apple to drop OSX and put Windows on the machine. There will even be stock downgrades because it doesn't happen immediately.
Folks, a move to x86 is a steep, slippery slope to the extinction of Apple OSs, and maybe the company itself. Look at Gateway.....
Max.
If this move by Apple is perceived to be party caused by wall street pressure, then you can expect that the day a x86 Mac is released, CNBC will have a line of analysts pressuring Apple to drop OSX and put Windows on the machine. There will even be stock downgrades because it doesn't happen immediately.
Folks, a move to x86 is a steep, slippery slope to the extinction of Apple OSs, and maybe the company itself. Look at Gateway.....
Max.
Could someone please explain how Apple could announce a PPC -> x86 transition without killing off the Mac sales until the transition is complete.
Moreover, how could Apple possibly ask for premium money if they in the future is going to sell more or less the same computer you can buy from Dell i.e. x86?
Just imagine how this site will look coming monday. Apple might not be genius in marketing, but really...
ok, it looks like the intel thing is going to happen in one way or the other, but what prevents intel from manufacuring PPC? ok, Apple is small player but the enitre consol industry is going PPC and intel have no PPC so far. It would be in intel's interest to get in that race.
Could anyone explain why an intel PPC is impossible, and if so, how is Apple going to survive as a computer manufactor in the x86 shark pool.
Moreover, how could Apple possibly ask for premium money if they in the future is going to sell more or less the same computer you can buy from Dell i.e. x86?
Just imagine how this site will look coming monday. Apple might not be genius in marketing, but really...
ok, it looks like the intel thing is going to happen in one way or the other, but what prevents intel from manufacuring PPC? ok, Apple is small player but the enitre consol industry is going PPC and intel have no PPC so far. It would be in intel's interest to get in that race.
Could anyone explain why an intel PPC is impossible, and if so, how is Apple going to survive as a computer manufactor in the x86 shark pool.
freechris said:
Since Apple is a publicly traded company, it is all about wall street and any **perceived** pressure it has put on Apple.
max.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
That's my question too. Of the huge amount of material written on this already, I don't see anything addressing this. I guess we'll have some idea tomorrow.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Whether it's possible or not, asking Intel to produce a PPC just for Apple leaves them open to the risk that Intel will regard it as lower priority than their mainstream chips; rather similar to the position they are in with IBM.
Yonah, the dual-core Pentium M built from the ground-up on 65nm, appears to be a crown jewel. Apple may well have an eye on this brilliant processor or on Intel's vast chipmaking capacity. Whether Apple contracts with Intel to produce PowerPCs or transitions to Intel's architecture, it is clear that Intel has the available fab capacity and the engineering resources to support Apple in full force. Unlike IBM, a diversified corporation, Intel's core business is semiconductors and they run their operations exceedingly well. Intel has very well-defined internal processes and operating discipline. Actually, so does AMD, but AMD does not have the fab capacity and would have to subcontract manufacturing to a chip foundry.
If Apple has rights to the PPC design and IP, they could simply become a design house and subcontract all manufacturing to foundries. ATI and nVidia are good examples of this. They develop their own highly sophisticated processor designs and subcontract ALL manufacturing to foundries. If Apple chooses to partner with Intel, it very likely means that Apple has decided NOT to become a design house due probably to cost issues (margins are slim in the PC business and supporting one's own chip design department could become cost-prohibitive). It's likely, then, that if Apple is partnering with Intel, it is to use Intel's chips or to have Intel take over both design and manufacturing of Apple's future processors.
As for the transition to dual-core, here is a snapshot of Intel's plans:
A look at Yonah:
If Apple has rights to the PPC design and IP, they could simply become a design house and subcontract all manufacturing to foundries. ATI and nVidia are good examples of this. They develop their own highly sophisticated processor designs and subcontract ALL manufacturing to foundries. If Apple chooses to partner with Intel, it very likely means that Apple has decided NOT to become a design house due probably to cost issues (margins are slim in the PC business and supporting one's own chip design department could become cost-prohibitive). It's likely, then, that if Apple is partnering with Intel, it is to use Intel's chips or to have Intel take over both design and manufacturing of Apple's future processors.
As for the transition to dual-core, here is a snapshot of Intel's plans:
A look at Yonah:
Challenging times
I actually went trough the +1500 posts so far in the different treads and must admit I learned quit a lot. I do however seems to have some remarks as to multiple comments.
First of all, when we look at IBM's PPC technology, they have had 2 lines, the Power PC (Apple G4 line like) and their current line Power 5. The current Power 5 line has 4 dual core processors integrated in one processor book (they can act like 16 when HT like is activated). I have seen the roadmaps for these processors going to 2012 and they just look amazing. IBM holds currently the best "real live" benchmarks on their high end Power 5 p595 (64 way physical).
I believe they have ample manpower to provide this processing power to the Apple line. They don't have heating problems and the size of the processor book is app 5 x 5 inch. IBM for me is also the only one who has been able to make near linear multi-processing scaling possible, and this without creating very little overhead.
When it comes to the Powerbook line, I'd be surprised if Apple doens't go for Freescale. What's to limit Apple to use 2 dual core G4's from Freescale? It would definitely provide more processing power then most of us need.
Just my $ .02
I actually went trough the +1500 posts so far in the different treads and must admit I learned quit a lot. I do however seems to have some remarks as to multiple comments.
First of all, when we look at IBM's PPC technology, they have had 2 lines, the Power PC (Apple G4 line like) and their current line Power 5. The current Power 5 line has 4 dual core processors integrated in one processor book (they can act like 16 when HT like is activated). I have seen the roadmaps for these processors going to 2012 and they just look amazing. IBM holds currently the best "real live" benchmarks on their high end Power 5 p595 (64 way physical).
I believe they have ample manpower to provide this processing power to the Apple line. They don't have heating problems and the size of the processor book is app 5 x 5 inch. IBM for me is also the only one who has been able to make near linear multi-processing scaling possible, and this without creating very little overhead.
When it comes to the Powerbook line, I'd be surprised if Apple doens't go for Freescale. What's to limit Apple to use 2 dual core G4's from Freescale? It would definitely provide more processing power then most of us need.
Just my $ .02
Loge said:
My point was:
option 1: PPC -> x86
This would IMO more or less terminate all Mac sales for two years. I doubt that Apple would survive as a Computer manufactor
option 2: Intel PPC
ok, Apple are small and intel wouldn't set high priority Apple chips unless there was another market for PPC. However, intel needs to develop their own PPC chip to be able to compete in this market. Apple is just a bouns for them.
The upside from Apples side is that they will have yet another chip company as a provider, which woud enable Apple to put pressure on the chip makers by threatening to switch chip provider.
This is the only feasible senario I can see that doesn't entail Apple being pushed out of the computer market.
yellow box
Its 'just' that yellow box Apple promised to deliver years back with the Next buyout. Its going to be a osX with a windows NT classic mode and an easy recompile for the cocoa apps. Now its just the question if it will run on all wintel hardware or only with Apple approved vendors with proprietary ROM or something.
Apple is clearly going for desktop domination this time, a fast 10-20 % of all newly sold desktops is more than possible. Can't wait till monday.
First time in 10 years i'm considering to buy a PC.
Its 'just' that yellow box Apple promised to deliver years back with the Next buyout. Its going to be a osX with a windows NT classic mode and an easy recompile for the cocoa apps. Now its just the question if it will run on all wintel hardware or only with Apple approved vendors with proprietary ROM or something.
Apple is clearly going for desktop domination this time, a fast 10-20 % of all newly sold desktops is more than possible. Can't wait till monday.
First time in 10 years i'm considering to buy a PC.
Apple To Open OS X To Intel '086 Machines
The smarter course would be for Apple to simply begin building bone standard Intel '086 machines, but to Apple's premium standards. Sell OS X to the world. And, offer a premium line of machines to compete with the mid and high end of everybody else's lineups. That would give Sony, HP, Alienware, and a few others real heartburn. And, despite the natsayers here, it would boost, not cut, Apple's market share... maybe by a lot.
The smarter course would be for Apple to simply begin building bone standard Intel '086 machines, but to Apple's premium standards. Sell OS X to the world. And, offer a premium line of machines to compete with the mid and high end of everybody else's lineups. That would give Sony, HP, Alienware, and a few others real heartburn. And, despite the natsayers here, it would boost, not cut, Apple's market share... maybe by a lot.