So, the world didn't come to an end yesterday? Well, I'll be damned. I was banking on that one.
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
jay_app said:
It's my understanding the Macintel will not have a PC-Bios thus rendering any native drivers for the I/O Subsystem inactive.
Without a serious hack I cant see Windows running "natively" on a Mactel.
aznsal612 said:Hey! I'm also starting my job at an Apple Store (in San Francisco) very soon. I'm kind of worried about how I'm going to pitch a sale if someone brings up why they should fork over $$$$ to buy the current PPC line, especially the anemic portables....
Haha cool...yea I'm starting at the Apple Store in Burlingame this week...it should be interesting!
AidenShaw said:
I'm no computer expert by any means but I'm just stating what I'v read. The developers at WWDC (who are computer experts
) are of the opinion that 4 processors where used in SJ's test machine. This is of course a rumor at this point, but if you read the report on AppleInsider I would say that this sounds slightly plausable.And even if it is not (normally) possible to do 'something' with a computer chip, Im sure that Apple and Intel could throw something like a Quade G5 together for demo purposes if the put there collective minds to it. No?
MajorTom said:Read my post again.
Not a single P4 3.6 processor. Four P4 3.6 processors!!!!!!!!
From AI
AppleInsider (emphasis mine)
Foolish
Im fairly new to being a registered memeber to Macrumors, but I have been paying attention to the threads for a year now. I laugh almost everytime I read some of these. Sure they have good insight to what might happen. But these guys who claim to be "mac-know-it-alls" seem to be wrong with their predictions almost everytime. I feel like Im watching chats from the comic book nerd/guy on simpsons. They all think they know eveyrthing, and they don't. Its absolutley foolish to think that Intel has some alterior motive for Macs. Why would it be bad if Intel made processors? THey make chips that compute info, they have nothing to do with traditional PC's or Microsoft, they just make chips for them. Steve Jobs is right, IBM has failed, there genius G5 has failed almost all of its benchmarks. It was supposed to perform much much faster than it has, at this point we are supposed to be at 3.5. Not to mention, its a huge bulky chip, that they swore would be scaled down within the first year, and now its 2.5 years later and still nothing. Lets not forget the promise that it was a new chip, so it would run hot, and within a year that would be fixed too. My powerbook practically burns my lap when i use it, and its only a G4. In my opinion they have failed miserably. and if Intel is going to put out faster, cooler, smaller processors...then why are we complaining? Not to mention, any who thinks OSX will be running on Dells are just even more foolish than anyone thought. I think everyone will be surpised when they see how fast OSX will run, once the transformation is complete, and how Mac will totally dominate the market with the new Power book. A rumor from good sources say next Julys powerbook will be the thinest, lighest laptop to hit markets, with batterlifes in the 8 hour range. GO MAC AND INTEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Macmadant said:Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s
Im fairly new to being a registered memeber to Macrumors, but I have been paying attention to the threads for a year now. I laugh almost everytime I read some of these. Sure they have good insight to what might happen. But these guys who claim to be "mac-know-it-alls" seem to be wrong with their predictions almost everytime. I feel like Im watching chats from the comic book nerd/guy on simpsons. They all think they know eveyrthing, and they don't. Its absolutley foolish to think that Intel has some alterior motive for Macs. Why would it be bad if Intel made processors? THey make chips that compute info, they have nothing to do with traditional PC's or Microsoft, they just make chips for them. Steve Jobs is right, IBM has failed, there genius G5 has failed almost all of its benchmarks. It was supposed to perform much much faster than it has, at this point we are supposed to be at 3.5. Not to mention, its a huge bulky chip, that they swore would be scaled down within the first year, and now its 2.5 years later and still nothing. Lets not forget the promise that it was a new chip, so it would run hot, and within a year that would be fixed too. My powerbook practically burns my lap when i use it, and its only a G4. In my opinion they have failed miserably. and if Intel is going to put out faster, cooler, smaller processors...then why are we complaining? Not to mention, any who thinks OSX will be running on Dells are just even more foolish than anyone thought. I think everyone will be surpised when they see how fast OSX will run, once the transformation is complete, and how Mac will totally dominate the market with the new Power book. A rumor from good sources say next Julys powerbook will be the thinest, lighest laptop to hit markets, with batterlifes in the 8 hour range. GO MAC AND INTEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got it! I understand it, finally!
Apple made a smart move here, and it took me until JUST NOW to figure out exactly why they did what they did.
Yes, we all know that they will have better processors, better compatibility with new chipsets, etc, etc. They will be faster, better Macintosh computers running Mac OS X.
But that's not the only reason Apple made the move. They were smart - they realize that people appreciate the Apple industrial design and the name. Lots of people like Mac computer design, they love the iPod and they'd kill for a Mac. The only problem is, a Mac runs Mac OS X, not Windows (what they're used to.)
Problem solved. Apple is going after Dell, Gateway, and every other PC manufacturer. Apple will be selling "Windows" machines - their computers will be able to run Windows natively (as has been said by Apple executives).
All you have to do is install Windows on it (something a third-party provider could do before they ship it to your home/office) and all of a sudden you have a legitimate, powerful (you KNOW Apple is going to go after the high end of the market), well designed PC computers.
Not only are they going to be attempting to sell the OS X platform and other software, but they can be a hardware provider to all those PC users. Additionally, if anyone is using those PCs to run Windows and begins to encounter enough problems with the software (or just gets curious) they could switch over to Mac OS X in a heartbeat (it just takes an install, not a new machine buy).
This is a brilliant move for Apple - they get to attack the PC industry two ways at the same time.
Apple made a smart move here, and it took me until JUST NOW to figure out exactly why they did what they did.
Yes, we all know that they will have better processors, better compatibility with new chipsets, etc, etc. They will be faster, better Macintosh computers running Mac OS X.
But that's not the only reason Apple made the move. They were smart - they realize that people appreciate the Apple industrial design and the name. Lots of people like Mac computer design, they love the iPod and they'd kill for a Mac. The only problem is, a Mac runs Mac OS X, not Windows (what they're used to.)
Problem solved. Apple is going after Dell, Gateway, and every other PC manufacturer. Apple will be selling "Windows" machines - their computers will be able to run Windows natively (as has been said by Apple executives).
All you have to do is install Windows on it (something a third-party provider could do before they ship it to your home/office) and all of a sudden you have a legitimate, powerful (you KNOW Apple is going to go after the high end of the market), well designed PC computers.
Not only are they going to be attempting to sell the OS X platform and other software, but they can be a hardware provider to all those PC users. Additionally, if anyone is using those PCs to run Windows and begins to encounter enough problems with the software (or just gets curious) they could switch over to Mac OS X in a heartbeat (it just takes an install, not a new machine buy).
This is a brilliant move for Apple - they get to attack the PC industry two ways at the same time.
IMHO, Office is the killer app that has made MS as big as they are today. It is an absolute standard. When did you see a document floating around that didn't had the extension .docAgathon said:
Just consider all the people familiar with Word. Just imaginethe cost for a company trying to get every employee accustomed with a replacement. Wont happen...
Office is the big gun for MS, and they know it.
I share your believes that Apple never ever will become a competitor to MS. The main reason why they won't is just Office...
You can touch MS there.
G3-Pwnz-G4 said:
I agree!!!
I would at least expect some decent motherboard and case. If they could keep the current powermac form factor as it is and perhaps have a P4 (or parhaps P5?) inscription on the Heatsink, it would be great. I realy love the current powermac design!! DON'T LET US DOWN AGAIN APPLE!!! NEVER EVER AGAIN!!
Peace said:
It appears that AppleInsider has removed the article
You can still view the forum thread that they started if you register. see the thread: Extremely powerful Pentium system used to demo Mac OS X on Intel
EDIT: Not anymore you can't - Its just been removed also.
I'll shut up now
paulypants said:
That's why the new DRM scheme where remote access to your computer indepentent of the OS will be such fun. Imagine the fun a hacker will have with that one. Reminds me of the problems Cisco had with some of their Routers except on a much bigger scale once it has been out long enough to have a large base.
MontyZ said:
That's because Wall Street is interested only in how much money a company is going to make in the next five minutes. Stock price long ago ceased being an indicator of a company's long-term planning or prospects.
That is not completely true when it comes to Macs. or rather it hasnt been like that in the past. You would be surprised if you knew how many people that are running systems that in the Wintel world would be completely and utterly outdated.HyperMactive said:
Were are all the good processor gone.
My 2 cents:
The personal computer processor buisness (i.e. laptop, desktop, and entry
level work station) is now a 2 horse race (Intel/AMD).
Just as the Graphic Processor Buisness is a two horse race (i.e. ATI/Nvidea)
The processor landscape as it is now:
+ PPC/IBM:
IBM sold its personal computer buisness.
It is more focused on the high margin high end servers (POWER4/5).
IBM needs its microelectronics division to be at the forefront of
technology. This lead them to sign many agreements to fill thier fab
capacity (with Manefacturing for the likes of AMD).
Processor design cycles are in the 3 to 5 years period.
IBM has been working on variation of power PC for Console market
(Xbos, PS, Nintendo).
This point to few conclusion:
* Personal computers do not provide enough margin nor volume
to continue investing in them.
* IBM has enough "things" to work on to fill their capacity that
Apple is not at the top of their list
+ PPC/Freescale:
Freescale discontinued the Network processor buisness, and focused
on the communication controller buisness where they dominate
80% of the market. PowerQUICC is the leading processor for
communication equipement.
+ HP/Sun:
Both got out of the processor buisness (Sun is still working on SPARC)
and they are using Intel (HP) and AMD (Sun).
+ MIPS/ARM:
Both are fabless and are more in the IP (Intelectual property) buisness
than pure CPU Buisness. Mostly, these processors are targeted for
system on a chip with pure play foundry (like TSMC or UMC).
+ Others (transmetta, Via, ...)
Too small and not advanced enough to compete.
So most of these companies focus is on markets that are not aligned to
Personal computing. They are either too small with no production
capability or with fabs but interested in other markets.
It looks more like IBM/FreeScale changed focus/priority and Apple
was left behind.
If you look at the Investement required and the return you get Apple's
market was not big/lucrative enough for either of them to continue
investing on the Personal computer CPU buisness.
My 2 cents:
The personal computer processor buisness (i.e. laptop, desktop, and entry
level work station) is now a 2 horse race (Intel/AMD).
Just as the Graphic Processor Buisness is a two horse race (i.e. ATI/Nvidea)
The processor landscape as it is now:
+ PPC/IBM:
IBM sold its personal computer buisness.
It is more focused on the high margin high end servers (POWER4/5).
IBM needs its microelectronics division to be at the forefront of
technology. This lead them to sign many agreements to fill thier fab
capacity (with Manefacturing for the likes of AMD).
Processor design cycles are in the 3 to 5 years period.
IBM has been working on variation of power PC for Console market
(Xbos, PS, Nintendo).
This point to few conclusion:
* Personal computers do not provide enough margin nor volume
to continue investing in them.
* IBM has enough "things" to work on to fill their capacity that
Apple is not at the top of their list
+ PPC/Freescale:
Freescale discontinued the Network processor buisness, and focused
on the communication controller buisness where they dominate
80% of the market. PowerQUICC is the leading processor for
communication equipement.
+ HP/Sun:
Both got out of the processor buisness (Sun is still working on SPARC)
and they are using Intel (HP) and AMD (Sun).
+ MIPS/ARM:
Both are fabless and are more in the IP (Intelectual property) buisness
than pure CPU Buisness. Mostly, these processors are targeted for
system on a chip with pure play foundry (like TSMC or UMC).
+ Others (transmetta, Via, ...)
Too small and not advanced enough to compete.
So most of these companies focus is on markets that are not aligned to
Personal computing. They are either too small with no production
capability or with fabs but interested in other markets.
It looks more like IBM/FreeScale changed focus/priority and Apple
was left behind.
If you look at the Investement required and the return you get Apple's
market was not big/lucrative enough for either of them to continue
investing on the Personal computer CPU buisness.
Of course it is logical that Apple shares will fall. They will now have a harder time selling their current crop of G4 Powerbooks and G5 PPC computers as the market knows these have a limited shelf life. It doesn't matter that the computers will be useful for 3 years and that most of the software will run on them. If you know a new model of BMW is coming (and you are told when it will be in the showrooms) you will delay any purchase/upgrade.
ergo...Apple shares fall. And it will fall to the point where the market sees the iPod and other devices propping up Apple's profit and also the future impact of the Intel processors on the companies profitability.
Simple really. I say when it gets a bit lower, may be a good idea to buy to catch the benefit of the Intel wave.
He is guessing like the rest of us here...plusnouveau said:
- Status