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.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
chatin said:Apple has lost 5 billion dollars in market capitalization, since the news. That is essentially a no confidence vote from Wall Street.
Big deal, you say. Buy the rumor, sell the news!!
Like with any new venture, into unexplored territory, Apple will have a learning curve. The first machines are likely to be pretty scarry.
The vagueness that is PC is rather difficult to get one's hands around, straight away! Dell, MS and IBM (Lenovo) have been hammering at the PC for years, and still haven't got a clue.
Could Apple reinvent the PC? If so, BUY the stock now!!!!
If apple want to pull the race of.........they can and hopefully will
iGary said:
This makes me laugh. Whether or not you agree is besides the point. The facts determine the right answer, and you don't make those up.
IBM failed to deliver a mobile G5 or to make the G5 speed increases that Apple wanted and needed. IBM wasn't interested enough in one way or another to do something about it. Either that or they couldn't.
So that leaves Intel or AMD. There is no other reasonable option. If you don't like it, then tough. Go blub away in the corner.
And don't tell me that I don't know the facts. If you read back in the rumour threads, you will see that I knew about the switch way before you did.
jhu said:
Most people who said things like this were not being objective (in fact mose people who moaned about processors were wasting their time and talking about something they knew little about). A processor is a processor is a processor. Why does it suddenly make such a big difference that Apple is using the same kinds of processor as other PC manufacturers? After all they already use many of the same components that other manufacturers use. Unless it makes some objective difference to performance, there is no reason to complain about it.
The only reason you will be able to tell the difference between a PPC mac and an Intel mac will probably be the performance of the notebooks, which will be improved quite a bit. If you have some sort of objection to this, I can't see how it can be based on rational criteria.
And another thing. Intel needs this badly.
With the latest generation of consoles moving to PowerPC (IBM is now essentially a toymaker in this area), Intel may well be left out if these consoles become, as the XBox 360 is expected by many to be, hubs for digital entertainment in the living room. That's why Intel is keen on the Apple deal. Rumour has it that Intel has offered Apple extremely good pricing.
Who better than Apple for Intel to team up with if they are worried about losing in the digital entertainment war?
As iTMS and iPod statistics show, Apple has essentially won, for the time being, the first round of the digital entertainment war (MS must be hopping mad at its failure to beat iTunes).
With the latest generation of consoles moving to PowerPC (IBM is now essentially a toymaker in this area), Intel may well be left out if these consoles become, as the XBox 360 is expected by many to be, hubs for digital entertainment in the living room. That's why Intel is keen on the Apple deal. Rumour has it that Intel has offered Apple extremely good pricing.
Who better than Apple for Intel to team up with if they are worried about losing in the digital entertainment war?
As iTMS and iPod statistics show, Apple has essentially won, for the time being, the first round of the digital entertainment war (MS must be hopping mad at its failure to beat iTunes).
Agathon said:
I share same point of view but based on the fact that MS has joint forces with AMD to bring the 64bit xperience to the windows desktop world. Hence, the offering of windows x64 in xchange for current license.
So feeling left out in the world of really high end PC's (Dell is a dollar start, so doesnt count as high end) Intel seeks .. ta na! Apple. And Apple being hangry for market cap, gets rilled-in in secs based on chip price, without realizing that Intel is a lose wagon on the chip valley right now...
so, lets see what the future brings...
I don't have a reputation as a news or info person but for those that said that the Cell processor was NOT built for computer use and just simple machine use aka MRI machines, PS3, and so on here is a quick note by someone with the rep needed:
"We're positioning the PS3 as a supercomputer", he says, "But people won't recognize it as a computer unless we call it a computer, so we're going to run an OS on it. In fact, the Cell can run multiple OSes. In order to run the OSes, we need a hard disk. So in order to declare that the PS3 is a computer, I think we'll have [the hard disk] preinstalled with Linux as a bonus.--Ken Kutaragi
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23878
so now you can say (didn't say it to me but to so many other) 'everyone together lets say it : @#$%^ console chips are not computer chips' you are right but the CELL was actually built for computers use in first place!
"We're positioning the PS3 as a supercomputer", he says, "But people won't recognize it as a computer unless we call it a computer, so we're going to run an OS on it. In fact, the Cell can run multiple OSes. In order to run the OSes, we need a hard disk. So in order to declare that the PS3 is a computer, I think we'll have [the hard disk] preinstalled with Linux as a bonus.--Ken Kutaragi
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23878
so now you can say (didn't say it to me but to so many other) 'everyone together lets say it : @#$%^ console chips are not computer chips' you are right but the CELL was actually built for computers use in first place!
New iBooks?
Cmon, where are they? The current line of powerbooks and iBooks are pitiful. The G4 was old news four years ago...I cant believe theyre still offering it. The move to intel was a great one. My question is, what does apple still have remaining in the PPC pipeline for the upcoming year? Hopefully it will be something to help me forget the stagnating bog apple chips are currently wading through...a diversion before I can use my PPC as target practice and pick up an intel box.
My move to apple was motivated by the OS. All the idiots swarming this board saying the antichrist is going to arrise because of apple's move to intel should crawl back under their rocks. Power PC was going no where. Way back when the G4 came out I was less than impressed. It was a decent chip and held its own for a few years, but nothing that really got me excited.
Skip to 03...when the G5 came out I was very pleased. It looked to have great potential and move apple out of the G4 shiyte hole they were in. However, the G5's development quickly went awry...although a two seven dually is a smoker, we should have better by now. And the rest of Apple's line?? Forget about it. I wouldnt touch any of it as it stands, even the lauded iMac. Who would lay down two large for tech thats approaching three years old? Oh yea, the average mac user, forgot. The best part is, people buy into the Apple propaganda that attempts to ally the fears of the purchaser. "PowerPC G4 with a fast 167mhz frontside bus." The last time I heard 167mhz of anything being called fast was about ten years ago. Fortunatly, the software makes up for the hardware's lack, at least most of the time for most users.
The move to intel will certainly satisfy all us mac rumor geeks. There will be no more months of anticipation only to be let down by a two hundred MHz increase....and the chips will be better. Its logic..intel has and will continue to be the leading supplier of chips for personal computers. IBM is geared toward corperate and high volume sales...not the 300000 chips a year that apple requires. And lets face it, although the G5 is the hotness right now, it is aging and I've even heard reports its reaching its limit. This, and no hope of a mobile unit tells me IBM is not a satsifactory contender in the PC market. And Freescale, those slackers still making the G4 on all that dusty machinery..not even worth my time mentioning it. They should make G4s, sprinkle them with barbecue flavoring and bag them up for the supermarket because thats about all theyre good for in comparison with the rest of the sector.
Okay, Ill stop with the ranting. Needless to say, I have been consistenty unhappy with apple over the past year or so. Stagnating development, six month delivery time on my 2.5 (yea, you read it right)...cmon! Hopefully this transition to x will be a smooth one. However, I see the next year being rough for apple. I will certainly be very reluctant buying anything from them unless it as an intel. As Im looking for mobil right now, the G4 is way out of the question. Freescale should concentrate their efforts on the automotive computers they make. GM is certainly happy having an auto chip designed nearly ten years ago in their product line...****, thats cutting edge for them. However, apple users should be a bit less enthusiastic for the same set of circumstances.
In all, A plus for the switch apple, but how are you going to cater to us over the next year?
Cmon, where are they? The current line of powerbooks and iBooks are pitiful. The G4 was old news four years ago...I cant believe theyre still offering it. The move to intel was a great one. My question is, what does apple still have remaining in the PPC pipeline for the upcoming year? Hopefully it will be something to help me forget the stagnating bog apple chips are currently wading through...a diversion before I can use my PPC as target practice and pick up an intel box.
My move to apple was motivated by the OS. All the idiots swarming this board saying the antichrist is going to arrise because of apple's move to intel should crawl back under their rocks. Power PC was going no where. Way back when the G4 came out I was less than impressed. It was a decent chip and held its own for a few years, but nothing that really got me excited.
Skip to 03...when the G5 came out I was very pleased. It looked to have great potential and move apple out of the G4 shiyte hole they were in. However, the G5's development quickly went awry...although a two seven dually is a smoker, we should have better by now. And the rest of Apple's line?? Forget about it. I wouldnt touch any of it as it stands, even the lauded iMac. Who would lay down two large for tech thats approaching three years old? Oh yea, the average mac user, forgot. The best part is, people buy into the Apple propaganda that attempts to ally the fears of the purchaser. "PowerPC G4 with a fast 167mhz frontside bus." The last time I heard 167mhz of anything being called fast was about ten years ago. Fortunatly, the software makes up for the hardware's lack, at least most of the time for most users.
The move to intel will certainly satisfy all us mac rumor geeks. There will be no more months of anticipation only to be let down by a two hundred MHz increase....and the chips will be better. Its logic..intel has and will continue to be the leading supplier of chips for personal computers. IBM is geared toward corperate and high volume sales...not the 300000 chips a year that apple requires. And lets face it, although the G5 is the hotness right now, it is aging and I've even heard reports its reaching its limit. This, and no hope of a mobile unit tells me IBM is not a satsifactory contender in the PC market. And Freescale, those slackers still making the G4 on all that dusty machinery..not even worth my time mentioning it. They should make G4s, sprinkle them with barbecue flavoring and bag them up for the supermarket because thats about all theyre good for in comparison with the rest of the sector.
Okay, Ill stop with the ranting. Needless to say, I have been consistenty unhappy with apple over the past year or so. Stagnating development, six month delivery time on my 2.5 (yea, you read it right)...cmon! Hopefully this transition to x will be a smooth one. However, I see the next year being rough for apple. I will certainly be very reluctant buying anything from them unless it as an intel. As Im looking for mobil right now, the G4 is way out of the question. Freescale should concentrate their efforts on the automotive computers they make. GM is certainly happy having an auto chip designed nearly ten years ago in their product line...****, thats cutting edge for them. However, apple users should be a bit less enthusiastic for the same set of circumstances.
In all, A plus for the switch apple, but how are you going to cater to us over the next year?
Oh yea..
This is somewhat offtopic, but I just remembered a thread I was reading when the G5 first came out...I think it may have been the day it was released. Anyhow, the whole thread was going nuts over how crazy the G5 was supposed to be and thi one poster jumped in with "so what do you guys think, '06 for the G6?" We, of course, realized he was kidding, assuming the G5 had a development cycle much longer than three years. However, it turns out that the guy was on point...kinda ironic.
This is somewhat offtopic, but I just remembered a thread I was reading when the G5 first came out...I think it may have been the day it was released. Anyhow, the whole thread was going nuts over how crazy the G5 was supposed to be and thi one poster jumped in with "so what do you guys think, '06 for the G6?" We, of course, realized he was kidding, assuming the G5 had a development cycle much longer than three years. However, it turns out that the guy was on point...kinda ironic.
MacUser:
A sensible, rational, common-sense post.
I think you're one of the few who hasn't lost touch completely with reality.
I would have preferred AMD, myself, but they wouldn't have been able to support the required volume.
Still, what do you think about AMD's plans in light of this Intel-Apple deal?
A sensible, rational, common-sense post.
I think you're one of the few who hasn't lost touch completely with reality.
I would have preferred AMD, myself, but they wouldn't have been able to support the required volume.
Still, what do you think about AMD's plans in light of this Intel-Apple deal?
PowerPC architecture . . . fastest growing??
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9767106545.html
Very interesting article. Worth reading.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9767106545.html
Very interesting article. Worth reading.
Reading through many of the opinions in this thread, one quickly gets the impression most arguments are founded more on emotion than actual fact. So if I may digress for just a moment.
I have a 2ghz DP G5 PowerMac with 1gb of ram running OSX 10.3 and Cinema 4D r8.5. I have also just recently purchased a HP zd8000 notebook, 3.2ghz P4 with 1gb ram running WinXP Pro SP2 and Cinema 4D r9.1. I had just completed a rather complex (by my standards anyway) humanoid model prior to Apple's announcement, and stimulated by the PPC vs Intel argument of the past few days, decided to render the same file in Cinema 4D on both the Mac and HP.
Rendering time on the HP zd8000 (Intel P4 3.2ghz - 32bit / Windows XP SP2) - 9hrs 37minutes. Rendering time on the PM (IBM G5 2ghz - 64bit DP / OSX 10.3) - 14hrs 03minutes. (Imagine how many weeks it would have taken on the Mac if I used RenderMan)
Now I admit I might be dumb, but please explain to me once again, just how the IBM PowerPC is superior to the Intel Pentium.
I have a 2ghz DP G5 PowerMac with 1gb of ram running OSX 10.3 and Cinema 4D r8.5. I have also just recently purchased a HP zd8000 notebook, 3.2ghz P4 with 1gb ram running WinXP Pro SP2 and Cinema 4D r9.1. I had just completed a rather complex (by my standards anyway) humanoid model prior to Apple's announcement, and stimulated by the PPC vs Intel argument of the past few days, decided to render the same file in Cinema 4D on both the Mac and HP.
Rendering time on the HP zd8000 (Intel P4 3.2ghz - 32bit / Windows XP SP2) - 9hrs 37minutes. Rendering time on the PM (IBM G5 2ghz - 64bit DP / OSX 10.3) - 14hrs 03minutes. (Imagine how many weeks it would have taken on the Mac if I used RenderMan)
Now I admit I might be dumb, but please explain to me once again, just how the IBM PowerPC is superior to the Intel Pentium.
Agathon said:
on a purely objective basis, you're right, the processor, for the most part, doesn't really matter. but the whole apple following was based on the fact that apple was a different computer company. there is an unmeasureable but distinct "coolness" factor that somehow decreases by going to the "evil" x86.
If someone follows Mac because they are a different and chich company...well in my book thats pretty infantile. I go with apple because of superior software, well thoughout (although currently not the fastest) hardware, and a seemless integration between the two. The cool styles apple sports make the choice all the easier.
Let's remember, Apple isn't our best buddy, theyre out to make money and not to be different and make a statement. If they offer ****** G4 processors, sure, theyll dish out the MHz myth and the superiority of PowerPC to make profits. However, when you get that new one five powerbook and actually start using it youll see its a real dissapointment.
Now that people are getting wise to the game, they're doing what they have to and upgrading their line. This isnt to say apple is cheap and trying to get over on people, they make an ultra high quality system with quality components. However, when those compoents arent up to par in terms of productivity or speed, theyll give you some hogwash about how the architecture makes it twenty times faster until they can come up with a reasonable solution.
And about the whole "Apple dissing intel in 93 and IBM in 84." That was over twelve years ago in the first case, and twenty in the latter. In fast world of tech, that is about a century ago. The business ethic of all the companies involve has changed since then, not to mention the dramatic increase in technology that has occured in the meantime. Apple dissed intel over a decade ago, does that mean intel isnt on top of the game now? Christ, twelve years ago I was running a 50MHz Packard Bell for the love of God!
Let's remember, Apple isn't our best buddy, theyre out to make money and not to be different and make a statement. If they offer ****** G4 processors, sure, theyll dish out the MHz myth and the superiority of PowerPC to make profits. However, when you get that new one five powerbook and actually start using it youll see its a real dissapointment.
Now that people are getting wise to the game, they're doing what they have to and upgrading their line. This isnt to say apple is cheap and trying to get over on people, they make an ultra high quality system with quality components. However, when those compoents arent up to par in terms of productivity or speed, theyll give you some hogwash about how the architecture makes it twenty times faster until they can come up with a reasonable solution.
And about the whole "Apple dissing intel in 93 and IBM in 84." That was over twelve years ago in the first case, and twenty in the latter. In fast world of tech, that is about a century ago. The business ethic of all the companies involve has changed since then, not to mention the dramatic increase in technology that has occured in the meantime. Apple dissed intel over a decade ago, does that mean intel isnt on top of the game now? Christ, twelve years ago I was running a 50MHz Packard Bell for the love of God!
Not really sure what all the complaining about Powerbooks is about. Sure it would be nice for them to updated more than once a year (once a year is freakin' ridiculous!). But that being said, I am typing this on my brother's BRAND NEW PPC 12" Mac Powerbook and this thing works like a dream! Yes that's right, a just purchased PPC Mac! So while all of you sit around debating PPC and Intel, my bro has one super nice laptop to work on for about 5-6 years! Not in the least worried about software compatibliity! This is just the continuing saga of NeXTSTEP which keeps getting better and better! PPC , Intel, doesn't really matter!
skellener said:Not really sure what all the complaining about Powerbooks is about. Sure it would be nice for them to updated more than once a year (once a year is freakin' ridiculous!). But that being said, I am typing this on my brother's BRAND NEW PPC 12" Mac Powerbook and this thing works like a dream! Yes that's right, a just purchased PPC Mac! So while all of you sit around debating PPC and Intel, my bro has one super nice laptop to work on for about 5-6 years! Not in the least worried about software compatibility! This is just the continuing saga of NeXTSTEP which keeps getting better and better! PPC , Intel, doesn't really matter!
That is very true for many regular users, when they need a new Mac they will go ahead and purchase. The Mac will remain a Mac and still perform. The joy of using a Mac will continue.
Longhorn will just be a service pack.. M$ took out a lot of stuff, new file system ETC. just to get it out in late 2006.pdpardue said:
skellener said:Not really sure what all the complaining about Powerbooks is about. Sure it would be nice for them to updated more than once a year (once a year is freakin' ridiculous!). But that being said, I am typing this on my brother's BRAND NEW PPC 12" Mac Powerbook and this thing works like a dream! Yes that's right, a just purchased PPC Mac! So while all of you sit around debating PPC and Intel, my bro has one super nice laptop to work on for about 5-6 years! Not in the least worried about software compatibliity! This is just the continuing saga of NeXTSTEP which keeps getting better and better! PPC , Intel, doesn't really matter!
I bought the same computer last month and, as you say, it runs like a dream. I couldn't be happier with it.
Yes they're Intel---But Will they work well?
All this hype about the new Intel chips, but will they work well? Nobody's even asked themselves that question. The new computers might work without a hitch, but I'd still be a bit skeptical--just to be on the safe side. Despite what snakeoil salesman Steve Jobs has shown us all, I'm betting there'll be a lotta glitches in the new Intel machines, and the newly compiled software that's meant run on them. The new Intel machines haven't even been tested yet. They don't even have an established user base. So nobody really knows.
Remember--the new software has to run not only on OSx for Intel, but for the PowerPC as well. That's asking a lot. A tall order. Like asking Windows to run seamlessly on a Motorola based machine. Actually, I'd be more risk-averse and buy the 'old' G5s instead until the Intel Macs have proven themselves. I'm guessing that the new Intel Macs will take 3 or 4 generations (cycles of production--1-1/2 to 2 years) to get it right (Judging from past performance of prior Apple releases, that's how long it long it usually takes for all of the glitches to be ironed out). At which point, Apple could lose even more market share to the Wintel world to make themselves so obsolete as to be merged with their nemesis, Microsoft. At which point, you may as well go out and buy a Dell.
Personally, I'm going to buy the last of the G5s. Those are some very great machines. And they might well be some of the last good ones that Apple ever produces. Maybe some of the last. Potentially, I'd like to be 1 of the last users to be able to say that they owned 1 of the best Macs before they went out of production. At the riate they're going, Apple seems determined to lose more market share and get rid of its PC line altogether, in favor of becoming an entertainment company (ie -games, ipods, etc.)
All this hype about the new Intel chips, but will they work well?
Nobody's even asked themselves that question. The new computers might work without a hitch, but I'd still be a bit skeptical--just to be on the safe side. Despite what snakeoil salesman Steve Jobs has shown us all, I'm betting there'll be a lotta glitches in the new Intel machines, and the newly compiled software that's meant run on them. The new Intel machines haven't even been tested yet. They don't even have an established user base. So nobody really knows. Remember--the new software has to run not only on OSx for Intel, but for the PowerPC as well. That's asking a lot. A tall order. Like asking Windows to run seamlessly on a Motorola based machine. Actually, I'd be more risk-averse and buy the 'old' G5s instead until the Intel Macs have proven themselves. I'm guessing that the new Intel Macs will take 3 or 4 generations (cycles of production--1-1/2 to 2 years) to get it right (Judging from past performance of prior Apple releases, that's how long it long it usually takes for all of the glitches to be ironed out). At which point, Apple could lose even more market share to the Wintel world to make themselves so obsolete as to be merged with their nemesis, Microsoft. At which point, you may as well go out and buy a Dell.
Personally, I'm going to buy the last of the G5s. Those are some very great machines. And they might well be some of the last good ones that Apple ever produces. Maybe some of the last. Potentially, I'd like to be 1 of the last users to be able to say that they owned 1 of the best Macs before they went out of production. At the riate they're going, Apple seems determined to lose more market share and get rid of its PC line altogether, in favor of becoming an entertainment company (ie -games, ipods, etc.)
Art, you have obviously just jumped into this conversation and not read any of the previous posts. You have no idea of the history of this OS.artjones said:All this hype about the new Intel chips, but will they work well?
Mac OS X runs fine on Intel. Steve Jobs is NOT a snakeoil salesman. Mac OS X STARTED on Intel chips (well 68k, then Intel) !!! It was originally called "NeXTSTEP" and ran on 68k hardware made buy NeXT Computer (similar to the original Macs). It was ported to Intel in 1993. It ran just fine. NeXT then ported the entire OS as "Openstep" to Sun, HP, and continued Intel. All apps worked just fine. Apple purchased NeXT and began porting the OS to PPC. That is what you are now running on current Macs. A PPC version (basically) of Openstep. It has gotten a lot better in the years since Apple did the port. Meanwhile, in the Apple labs, they continued to keep the Intel version on par with the PPC version as Steve said "Just in case". Well, guess what? Every app Apple has released has been Intel compliant (Xcode). It's all ready to go. It's been ready to go!
You act as if this is something brand new. IT IS NOT NEW!! In fact, the OS has existed much, much longer on Intel than on PPC! There's no question the apps will run (if they were done using XCode). It's all new names (Universal Binaries, etc.) but it's all the same old thing that has been done a number of times before. Market share? Well OS 9 is dead. It's been dead for 5 years now. There is no market share for new purchases of that OS. Mac OS X (NeXTSTEP) has done nothing but grow the market share over the last 5 years since Apple released it.
Each time there has been a transition onto a new chip, the OS has gotten better and better. The OS is great, the apps are great. A new chip is the least of Apple's worries. Next time do a little research before you post any FUD about something you do not know anything about.
skellener said:
Ok, I'm tired of you talking about NEXT. We all know that you know about it, big deal, so does everybody. I still have my NEXT computer sitting in the closet from the 80's. It's NOT about the stupid OS, it's about the HARDWARE!!!!! So shut the F*&^ up already!
- Status