Intel Developing Next PowerMac for Apple?

[heisetax]

Apple Designed

So much for "Designed by Apple in California".

But, I suppose if it makes PowerMacs cheaper for us, then good.

But if the quality suffers or innovation slows, then bad.

Does Apple design all thier own motherboards now?

I don't want to lose features or be locked into Intel only tech though.

And this article implies that the Intel transition will be complete by 3rd quarter this year. That seems awfully optimistic to me, especially since we still don't know what is going to shake out in MWSF.

The only part that Apple does any more is the designing. Everything else is made in China by contract manufacturers. Just buy an iPod or PowerBook from the Online Apple Store & you can track the package from manufacture in China, to Alaska & on to your home or business. I have not checked to see if the G5 PowerMac is made in an Apple owned & run factory. At one time all of the Macs were actually made by Apple in an Apple factory. Now Apple is just a designer & erverything else is contracted out. Even my copy of Aperture was made in Canada. I used to think that they at least produced their own software. But I guess I have been proven wrong again.

Apple at the present time only seems to be a designer, not a manufacturer. But they still consider themselves as a computer hardware manufacturer. Having Intel design the Intel PowerMac logic board seems to not make a lot of sense. The only way Apple gets the wanted features into their computer logic board designs is to do the designing themselves. The PowerMac is where the most inovation needs to be done. I would think that they will work very close with the Intel/Mac group like they once did with IBM & Motorola in the design of the PPC. Apple contracts out the manufacturing of most all of their hardware, so they would probably not show a clear difference between design & manufacturing.

The change from the present PPC Mac to the Intel Mac was said to not be finished until sometime in 2007. This will allow Apple to use a generation later Intel cpu in the PowerMac. That is what was first indicated by Apple & what I think will still happen. Many PowerMac User's need to use software that runs natively on the computer processor. For that additional reason Apple will want to stay with their original stated plans.

I could easily be wrong as I thought that Apple would stay with a FW interface for the iPod. But they want to milk the iPod for every last dollar. So my new 60 GB black iPod suffers because of it. I'm also left with a lot a FW cables for the iPod that will only work as a means to chage the battery. If they told us a story about FW being better than USB like they have told us in the past that the PPC is now was better than the Intel/AMD line of processors. The only thing they have left is that your new Mac is Apple designed. They always told us they designed better computers than anyone else. BAut maybe they were only telling us a story about that also. We have to remember that Steve Jobs is a saleman, maybe a great salesman, not a computer engineer.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[rockthecasbah]

Finally, an interesting COMPUTER rumor... My take on the situation is this: It really doesn't matter who makes what part, as long as it is still a Mac, and a better one at that. I am not buying a Mac because Apple designed the Motherboard, i'm buying it for OSX's benefits, the beauty/styling, and computer function (not in any particular order, just sayng... ). If it is still the same type of Mac I love, I am fine with other companies developing elements, including Intel.

 

[gnasher729]

What??? I completely disagree with your logic. I would, in fact, be willing to pay some extra for an Apple machine that can capably run Windows. I don't know if Apple is going to take over the world - let's face it, people are cheap and a Windows machine is 'good enough' for most things. But for me, I would love to have the elegance and stability of a Mac OS X machine, coupled with the ability to run effectively some of the scientific and engineering applications that are only available on a Windows machine.

My estimate is that Apple could easily get between 0.5% and 1.0% of the Windows PC market if they sold Macintosh computers with Windows installed instead of MacOS X as a build-to-order option. Especially the MacMini and the iMacs would sell very well; there is nothing comparable in the PC market at the moment.

 

[satty]

I am less and less convinced of the Intel move.

First, the news about the Intel CPU move, now the message about the mother boards designed by Intel. It looks the next one will be the case design will be outsourced to Dell and to save some more costs we will get cheap plastic instead of our nice titanium, aluminium cases. Who knows what other news come up?

I have the feeling that even then some people here try to convince themselves, what a great decision by Steve Jobs and Apple it is, and swallow whatever pill offered.

Looks more and more like a PC with the Apple logo on it.

I know... I also prefer OS X to Windows or whatever they call it in the future, but the hardware, specially the quality of it, is very important to me.
If there is no distinction between a Mac and a Dell anymore, why should we not prefer Mac OS X being able to run on whatever hardware on the market?

[Added]
Looks like "Intel inside" would be more appropriate than an Apple logo on it[/Added]

 

[amateurmacfreak]

Ok. If Intel iMacs come out in January I am going to be more pissed than I ever have been in my whole life. I just got a new one for Christmas (which I am in total love with, by the way). That would be the worst thing ever if new ones came about 20 days after. But that's still fairly unlikely, right?
I also really hope that Intel iBooks come out at MWSF. If they don't, I'm screwed there also. I have someone waiting to get their husband an iBook because of that rumor. And their 15 year-old son (the computer nerd of the family) is already annoyed because I decided to get an iMac instead of having him build me a computer. Anyways, what does everyone think is going to happen in January?
And will it be a good month for me? No new iMac and new iBook (or Powerbook would be fine)?

 

[amateurmacfreak]

Well it's starting to look like Intel and Apple are really confusing the public leading up to MWSF

Hana, you can say that again. Like the signature and the avatar by the way.

 

[RBR2]

I don't understand why so many people have voted "negative" on this article.

Apple's motherboards, with some notable exceptions, are generally at least a generation behind the rest of the industry in features and performance. The notable exceptions are generally in the area of slots, where the old 9x00, being the first computer sold to offer more than 3-4 PCI slots, and the new PCIe Macs with their 8x PCIe slots, are industry leaders. The other exception is in weird form factors, which don't apply to PowerMacs anyway. In all other respects the Mac motherboards have tended to support the latest features later and slower than their Intel counterparts.

I see this as a great move on Apple's part. They'll likely get the motherboard way cheaper, have it perform better, and get it released sooner than doing it in-house. Since, except for slots that go mostly unusued, Apple hasn't been much of an innovator here, it makes a huge amount of sense.

Boy are you kind to Apple! Apple is almost always dead last in adopting new industry standards and frequently bastardizes them anyway. For example the not quite PCI slots in Blue & Whites that have terrible throughput or the wacked out Firewire in the B&W and some others as well as continuing Firewire problems. Then there is the example of the Airport cards which changed the pin out from the industry standard PCMCIA cards and then crippled the port so that it would not support the throughput of a wireless G connection anyway. Oh, did I forget Apple being dead last or close to it in adopting AGP graphics cards or USB 2 or...well, yea, most things.

Sometimes Apple has actually paid more for old hardware than the going price for current stuff. Part of the problem is the arcane management structure and, yes, occasionally, Steve who gets in the way of some of the technical stuff.

Some of the hardware design is "half baked", such as the temperature sensors for G5s that were placed in the cool spots which lead to the machines overheating.

Does anyone wonder why Apple needs to devote more resources to getting the job right the first time? How many people have "Rev A" horror stories or machines that have continuing logic board problems?

 

[amateurmacfreak]

The only part that Apple does any more is the designing. Everything else is made in China by contract manufacturers. Just buy an iPod or PowerBook from the Online Apple Store & you can track the package from manufacture in China, to Alaska & on to your home or business. I have not checked to see if the G5 PowerMac is made in an Apple owned & run factory. At one time all of the Macs were actually made by Apple in an Apple factory. Now Apple is just a designer & erverything else is contracted out. Even my copy of Aperture was made in Canada. I used to think that they at least produced their own software. But I guess I have been proven wrong again.

Apple at the present time only seems to be a designer, not a manufacturer. But they still consider themselves as a computer hardware manufacturer. Having Intel design the Intel PowerMac logic board seems to not make a lot of sense. The only way Apple gets the wanted features into their computer logic board designs is to do the designing themselves. The PowerMac is where the most inovation needs to be done. I would think that they will work very close with the Intel/Mac group like they once did with IBM & Motorola in the design of the PPC. Apple contracts out the manufacturing of most all of their hardware, so they would probably not show a clear difference between design & manufacturing.

The change from the present PPC Mac to the Intel Mac was said to not be finished until sometime in 2007. This will allow Apple to use a generation later Intel cpu in the PowerMac. That is what was first indicated by Apple & what I think will still happen. Many PowerMac User's need to use software that runs natively on the computer processor. For that additional reason Apple will want to stay with their original stated plans.

I could easily be wrong as I thought that Apple would stay with a FW interface for the iPod. But they want to milk the iPod for every last dollar. So my new 60 GB black iPod suffers because of it. I'm also left with a lot a FW cables for the iPod that will only work as a means to chage the battery. If they told us a story about FW being better than USB like they have told us in the past that the PPC is now was better than the Intel/AMD line of processors. The only thing they have left is that your new Mac is Apple designed. They always told us they designed better computers than anyone else. BAut maybe they were only telling us a story about that also. We have to remember that Steve Jobs is a saleman, maybe a great salesman, not a computer engineer.

Bill the TaxMan

Yeah, Apple's starting to bother me more and more because of the huge focus on design. Don't get me wrong: I think it is wonderful that Apple computers are beautiful. But after a while, if Apple becomes more and more about sales and design and loses touch with having cutting edge technology that they design themselves, it's going to be tough, and very sad. I have always had great admiration for Steve Jobs, but this Intel move has started to seem to feel a little rocky to me, and perhaps seems a lose of too much of Apple's control over their own product. Maybe I'm just stressed about MWSF coming. But this is starting to be less exciting and about innovation, and more about buisness moves and profits it seems.

 

[amateurmacfreak]

I think it's a smart move by Apple. The PowerMacIntel will be pretty much the same as the new dual core G5's. DDR2, PCIe, etc. - other than the Intel chip and any TPM/custom modules. Don't you think Apple's evaluated the situation and is well aware of the higher "leak-potential" of contracting the PowerMacIntel mobo design out? The MacIntel hype will be pretty much past its peak by the time the PowerMacIntel is out. Like the article says, we'll be seeing Intel iBooks, iMacs, Mac minis, and PowerBooks before the PowerMac. I'm assuming that it'd be easy to estimate the PowerMacIntel's specs based on the specs of the other MacIntel introductions.

So it's a good move by Apple - no need to spread themselves thin. It may also have been in the original contract too, who knows? It's a win for Apple, and a win for us users - it should translate into lower costs for us.

Oh no. I'm starting to feel nauseous if my new, beautiful iMac is going to be outdated in the matter of a few months. Sorry I'm posting so much but... soooo stressed.

 

[steve_hill4]

Found this on digg.

As already stated, old news. Interestingly though, I hadn't seen quite the array of P4 stickers. They are going to look very messy and confuse consumers more. Previously, look for a P4 and see the little HT in the top corner, now it's all text and less easy to spot if it's HT or not.

Also, one thing that has bugged me for a while now is the usage of Pentium D. Previously we had effectively Pentium 4 D and Celeron D, (along with their M equivalents), but now we have a Pentium D which isn't just a desktop processor, but Dual Core. I have already asked me what the D stands for, (as they see it as a substitute for where the 4 normally is), and I explain it's dual core. They then look at a Celeron D and ask whether that's just a cheaper dual core and I have to point out it means desktop. Intel are going to confuse the consumers who are techies more and more if they carry on like this.

 

[liquidh2o]

Sounds like good news to me.

1. eliminates Apples R&D costs to design and develop a motherboard.

2. sourcing intel for motherboards might lower the cost to buy cpus.

3. having a reputable company that has already established itself in the x86 motherboard market might go a long ways to speed up Apples rollout of Mactels.

All in all, hopefully this helps to keep the cost of prices for Mactels in the same price range, or if we're lucky, lowers the price.

 

[steve_hill4]

Finally, an interesting COMPUTER rumor... My take on the situation is this: It really doesn't matter who makes what part, as long as it is still a Mac, and a better one at that. I am not buying a Mac because Apple designed the Motherboard, i'm buying it for OSX's benefits, the beauty/styling, and computer function (not in any particular order, just sayng... ). If it is still the same type of Mac I love, I am fine with other companies developing elements, including Intel.

It will obviously still be a Mac, but I think more people here are concerned that the Mac is becoming too close to a biege box PC for comfort. It would degrade the whole OSX experience if we knew that that intel designed motherboard would be easily and cheaply obtainable, fit into any old case and run OSX, in much the same way as running it on a PC without the hardware we will apparently need. Many will feel that they are then buying a Mac merely on looks, and are less willing to buy something that can be anything up to twice the price as a same spec PC, (however many disadvantages it will still have), just because it looks good.

It's just a good job it's intel. They should be the company most wanting OSX to run on Macs exclusively, (behind Apple of course), otherwise this intel switch would turn out to be a flop and both companies would have wasted billions, just to kill off the Mac. If they develop a motherboard which ensures no others will successfully run the OS, it will be mutually beneficial for the pair, and of course us.

 

[rxden]

not sure i agree with this move

intel is known for rock solid motherboards but cutting edge with features such as abit and asus supply they will not deliver. could be advantagous if apple uses intel to supply cpu and boards for cost - that is if apple chooses to pass the savings on to customers or decide to pad there margins. not sure if this makes sense.

 

[ja0912]

x

 

[shamino]

Yeah I do. EFI is required for 64-bit intel itanium processors, and will be used in Vista. I didn't say that EFI will be required exclusively per se, but it will be used. BIOS will be slowly grandfathered out, most likely non-existant by the next version of Windows after Vista http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/default.mspx

Nice knee-jerk reply that ignores context.

The post I was replying to was claiming that Vista will require EFI, meaning incompatible with everything else.

Any OS that is unable to function without a specific kind of boot-loader is broken by design. And even you just said that Vista is not broken in that way.

 

[Tupring]

iMacs as well in the first 4 months? Interesting, particularly for a close friend of mine who wants to get a new iMac in Feb.

Thanks for the mad dash. All that hyperpasta gave you the necessary carb-boost.

Tell them to hurry before its too late.

 

[Randall]

Nice knee-jerk reply that ignores context.

The post I was replying to was claiming that Vista will require EFI, meaning incompatible with everything else.

Any OS that is unable to function without a specific kind of boot-loader is broken by design. And even you just said that Vista is not broken in that way.

The only context that has been ignored is my own original comment by you. I made no such claim, if you look back you can see that I don't. You can, however, be sure that BIOS will slowly be phased out.

 

[riversky]

Interesting?

A few points.

1. Apple is devoting so much development time to the iPod and software that it makes sense to move to Intel based development. And it would be far easier then to license the designs to Dell and others if that time comes about and Mac OS X is released for all Intel system by anyone.

2. I really hope the days of opening and closing the PowerBook and having every thing just work are not gone but I fear some of the reliability in the boot and sleep process will be lost.

3. If this really is the debut schedule, iMac, iBooks, PowerBooks, and mini all in the next four months I feel for those that got Macs in the last few months (especially the holiday) because you can bet on much higer performance in the CPU (dual core) and the latest graphics GPU's even if all other components remain the same (ie drives etc)

 

[shamino]

The kernel cannot be completely ROM-dependent.

I assume you mean ROM-independent. And it's simply not true.

ROM code is software like anything else. Anything it does, a disk-loaded piece of code can also do.

As for booting XP, the ROM code only is responsible for getting the boot-loader up and running. Microsoft would clearly need to rewrite the OS Loader code, but that's a tiny miniscule part of the OS. The remaining parts of the firmware (like power management) can be ignored, or can be used with a new device driver.

It's the rumors on the internets. In any case, if Apple was going to use EFI, it would have been in the Intel developer machines. Hardware developers need to know what kind of firmware is in the machine, and unless there is a very secret set of EFI-based Intel Macs at NVIDIA and ATI, you can bet that at least the first wave of Macs next year will use a regular-old BIOS.

Please post a link to one of those rumors. Every rumor I've seen posted here is saying the exact opposite.

As for the developer machines, Apple has said that developers should not make any assumptions about the ROM code. They have explicitly said that with regard to firmware, gestalt codes and disk partitions, developers should assume that nothing in the developer boxes will be present in the shipping boxes.

Using EFI would certainly be an extarordinary measure preventing you from installing Windows! If the Macs used EFI, Windows just wouldn't install on it, any more than it would install on a G5 PowerMac.

You have a very low opinion of what software developers are capable of. Writing an OS loader that uses EFI calls to bootstrap the Windows kernel is something that can probably be done in a week or two. It might even be possible using existing code (from various open source OS projects.)

If that was the case, saying "we won't stop you from installing Windows" would be a meaningless statement. They wouldn't have said it then.

You still seem to think that "we won't stop you from installing Windows" is exactly the same as "we are going to guarantee Windows compatibility".

If you seriously think that those two sentences mean the same thing, then you need to take some classes in basic English and logic.

 

[DavidCar]

I read where Conroe is now expected in July 06, which may mean we could see a Intel PowerMac announcement at WWDC.

 

[GregA2]

Trust me when I say these people will wipe OS X off the system within a half an hour.

 

[shamino]

I've had more people who are geeks who are seriously interested in an Apple laptop. Not because of OS X but because of the design. Trust me when I say these people will wipe OS X off the system within a half an hour. They simply are not interested in the OS right now. What? You think the iPod's hardware is superior to everything else? Its not. Its the design of the thing is what sells the iPod and what will sell i/PowerBooks to Windows users.

You've got a lot of friends that are pretty stupid if they're going spend over $1000 extra just to get a fancy case and undersized power supply.

The problems with Windows PC's isn't with the hardware, it's with Windows. Anybody who installs Windows on a Mac will have all the same problems as they would on any other hardware platform. Possibly more, since Apple won't be shipping any Windows device drivers for it.

 

[Peace]

Boy are you kind to Apple! Apple is almost always dead last in adopting new industry standards and frequently bastardizes them anyway. For example the not quite PCI slots in Blue & Whites that have terrible throughput or the wacked out Firewire in the B&W and some others as well as continuing Firewire problems. Then there is the example of the Airport cards which changed the pin out from the industry standard PCMCIA cards and then crippled the port so that it would not support the throughput of a wireless G connection anyway. Oh, did I forget Apple being dead last or close to it in adopting AGP graphics cards or USB 2 or...well, yea, most things.

Sometimes Apple has actually paid more for old hardware than the going price for current stuff. Part of the problem is the arcane management structure and, yes, occasionally, Steve who gets in the way of some of the technical stuff.

Some of the hardware design is "half baked", such as the temperature sensors for G5s that were placed in the cool spots which lead to the machines overheating.

Does anyone wonder why Apple needs to devote more resources to getting the job right the first time? How many people have "Rev A" horror stories or machines that have continuing logic board problems?

HUH?

I believe Apple invented Firewire and USB..

 

[bigandy]

methinks this is a good idea for apple because otherwise they'd be stretched a little too far with redesigns for the intel platform. now if they just make sure that intel aren't allowed to do anything other than the motherboard and processor, and slap them until an EFI goes in there instead of a BIOS.

if they produce all MacIntels from the word go with EFIs, there'll be pretty much no chance of people grabbing OSX and running it on their crappy dells

 

[Peace]

I for one wouldn't mind if people grabbed OSX and installed it on crappy Dells or any other "PeeCee"..But there are going to be folks trying to do it anyway.

If people installed it on some generic PeeCee they might decide it's time to buy a REAL Apple!