Really switching to Intel!!??

[SiliconAddict]

Take anything they say with a grain of salt. They have predicted the demise of apple and the iPod so many times it is hard to count.

Yah but the thing is this is their front page. Top of the crease if you will. If they are wrong they sure as heck are betting the bank on this. I mean they went as far as to whip up a quick and dirty graphic....

Not saying they aren't wrong but they sure are pushing this headline for something that might not be true. If this turns out to be false consider any credibility to be spent.

 

[TDM21]

Well, people were complaining about the lack of rumors leading up to WWDC and now this shows up. You now have one of the biggest rumors rekindled.

Right now I see this whole thing as a ticking time bomb. There is no way to defuse it. All you can do is wait to see. the bomb could go off like Hiroshima or turn out to be a dud. What are you going to do: run for you life or wait and see the out come? The timer is set for Monday.

Do you feel lucky?

 

[MacTruck]

Duff man,

Your presence is cracking me up. Duff man funny.

 

[Mr Maui]

Why can't we all just get along ...

 

[SiliconAddict]

PowerBook M coming ...Fall 2006

For that? Yah I can wait another year and a half...hell I've already waited two years...mmmm nice Mac Mini to tide me over...


Dang. I can easily see this becoming the biggest thread in Mac rumors history. Its going to be a VERY LOOOOOONG weekend. We are already at 300 and the post is only 4 hours old!

 

[Mr Maui]

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter who makes the internal hardware as long as the cool looking boxes work hard, fast and run OSX? If Intel helps OSX's arse-whupping of Windows continue, I can say ... GO FOR IT STEVE!!

 

[nagromme]

Skeptical but in suspense

* I won't be at all surprised if C-Net gets burned here... but at least there's some WWDC excitement and suspense now!

* Slow transition: yes, that's the way to do it if the change is for real.

* Prepare for a massive marketing challenge as people fear buying the "last of the old" and play wait-and-see.

* There's a marketing benefit too--AFTER the change. It sounds a but empty to me, but a certain type of person sees x86 and doesn't think "1980s" they think, "maybe I CAN try a Mac!"

* Sounds like Apple might be getting Intel chips about when they really hit a brick wall, and giving up PowerPC just about as they're really taking off

* Hooray! Built-in DRM control from Intel!

* I hope it's not true, but they've got 2 years to reveal the details and convince me. Thank goodness I'm not in the immediate market for a Mac! By the time this affects me it will all be better laid out.

* Apple has a history of surviving these big transitions AND bringing a lot of devs along. 680x0->PPC, Classic-> UNIX.

* Some devs would get lost in transition, but new ones would be gained too.

* Yes, using Mac OS X is FAR more important to me than the CPU. But I do like PPC and the future that still sounds possible for it. And I don't like transitions and software-compatibility issues if I can avoid them.

* 200+ posts? It's a Friday, people! What are you doing online? Oh, wait...

 

[Mr Maui]

Well, people were complaining about the lack of rumors leading up to WWDC and now this shows up. You now have one of the biggest rumors rekindled.

Right now I see this whole thing as a ticking time bomb. There is no way to defuse it. All you can do is wait to see. the bomb could go off like Hiroshima or turn out to be a dud. What are you going to do: run for you life or wait and see the out come? The timer is set for Monday.

Do you feel lucky?

I still say it is a Steve J gimmick designed to throw the whole Mac community into an uproar and distract from either the awesome things he is going to announce on Monday, or to cover up the nothingness that he will announce on Monday. Either way, it seems to be starting out well with 300+ posts in a few hours.

 

[neutrino23]

It would be really odd for Apple to adopt Intel processors now. G5s are faster than Pentiums. Pentiums are probably not cheaper (at least not dramatically cheaper) than G5s for Apple. Especially now when computer sales have increased so much year on year why would Apple risk everything? If they switch to the Pentium now they may lose a huge group of their developers if they are forced to go through one more platform change. How long would they support two platforms? OS X still runs quite well on many G3 based computers. If the future for Apple is x86 how long will they support the PPC platform? If this is really true then it may be time to sell my Apple stock.

 

[w_parietti22]

Does anyone here actually want that crummy "intel inside" sticker on their mac?

I DIDN'T THINK SO

Lol! If that happens I'm pulling it off the second I get a new mac with a Intel Inside sticker on it. I'll will also pull off all the ones at the Apple Store while no body is looking!

But does a little sticker really matter that much to you? I mean what matters more is the quailty of the computer and speed right? If IBM can't give Apple a Dual 3.0ghz within 2 years as promised I would dump them!

I wouldn't mind it and if this means making our notebooks faster than that is fine with me.

And imagine... what if Apple did it all at once. A New Mac Mini, eMac, iMac, PowerMac, PowerBook, and iBook all in the same day. But thats never gonna happen. And if Apple annouces it on Monday it will give devolpers 2 years to start to work on transfering their software. And Tiger most likely wont be on x86. if its 06 or 07 than it will be 10.5.

But one question... someone was saying that if Apple switches to intel, than they wil be open to all the viruses of PCs, which didn't make sence to me. isn't it the OS that matters not the processor. if the OS can't read the files than whats wrong with intel? can some clear that up please?

 

[Mr Maui]

I don't care as long as the hardware is still being manufactured. I love OS X, but I don't want it running on a Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc.. f@#k that crap.

I want my ******* elitist Powerbook. I want my beautiful Powermac and 30" ACD. And although some might not want to admit it, I think that's the general consensus with most Mac users.

Can you see what's inside your a**hole elitist Powerbook? What you see on the screen and how fast your see it is what matters, no?!?! If IBM can't deliver the goods, why not go to someone who can. I'd personally love to see IBM meet their promises, but if they can't, dump 'em like Moto and I won't shed a tear. I want the best hardware available running the best system (OSX) available.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Prepare for a massive marketing challenge as people fear buying the "last of the old" and play wait-and-see.

Which is why I think you will see the first production device at MW if this is announced. Mac Mini's, and eMacs prob first. Take the lowest of the low end and get them over to the "dark side" now so people who want to convert won't be worrying about "last of the old". 2Ghz Pentium M Mac Mini's anyone???

* Sounds like Apple might be getting Intel chips about when they really hit a brick wall, and giving up PowerPC just about as they're really taking off

As I've stated before we don't know what is going on behind the doors of Apple. They may be running into supply issues from both sides. IBM still can't ramp up G5 production and Maybe Freescale is dropping the ball AGAIN with delivering a solid test chips. Who knows. Steve may have said enough.

* Hooray! Built-in DRM control from Intel!

Keeping in mind that you need software to support that hardware. If Apple says screw you to Intel's DRM they certainly don't have to use it.

* Apple has a history of surviving these big transitions AND bringing a lot of devs along. 680x0->PPC, Classic-> UNIX.

Apple was also in a more dominant position then. 3-4% isn't exactly a good position to be in when doing a transition

 

[Mr Maui]

It would be really odd for Apple to adopt Intel processors now. G5s are faster than Pentiums. Pentiums are probably not cheaper (at least not dramatically cheaper) than G5s for Apple. Especially now when computer sales have increased so much year on year why would Apple risk everything? If they switch to the Pentium now they may lose a huge group of their developers if they are forced to go through one more platform change. How long would they support two platforms? OS X still runs quite well on many G3 based computers. If the future for Apple is x86 how long will they support the PPC platform? If this is really true then it may be time to sell my Apple stock.

I don't believe the post said anything about "Pentiums", only that Apple would be switching to Intel. Intel makes chips. They can make anything they are licensed to make. Even PowerPC. Keep that in mind.

 

[MacTruck]

Previous report of Apple and intel


Wall Street Journal: Apple to use Intel?
Monday, May 23, 2005 @ 8:35am


Apple has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel chips in Macs, The Wall Street Journal reported today. Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman characterized it as "rumor and speculation." Apple's pricing could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said. Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology, the newspaper said. The latter would be "seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business."

 

[SiliconAddict]

I don't believe the post said anything about "Pentiums", only that Apple would be switching to Intel. Intel makes chips. They can make anything they are licensed to make. Even PowerPC. Keep that in mind.

The prob is that as far as I know they have NO experience with the PPC architecture. Why would you go to a chip manufacture that has NO experience in the architecture you use??

 

[Mr Maui]

Maybe now is not the best time to start the " 'I'm Tired of Their Whining!' ... Steve Jobs sells Apple to Bill Gates" thread.

 

[Mr Maui]

The prob is that as far as I know they have NO experience with the PPC architecture. Why would you go to a chip manufacture that has NO experience in the architecture you use??

Intel has lots of experience fabricating chips, and if they obtain a license to fabricate what has already been designed and/or previously manufactured by IBM or anyone else, then manufacturing would be a snap. It would merely require setting up their plants to manufacture a pre-existing design. Apple may be in talks with Intel only to use their fabrication plants to produce more of what they already have designed.

 

[MaCaDDiCT21]

I think the switch would make sense, however I would hate to see it happen. Intel has recently launched their new EMT64 processor, which enables 64-bit support. However, im sure the architecture between the G5 and EMT64 are totally different.

watch, maybe tomorrow Apple and AMD are gonna make headlines...

 

[DeepIn2U]

Wow I'm this late for the party..

Whered everyone go?

I do remember in the late '80s & early 90s that Intel did make RISC based cpu's for several computer manufacturers. I doubt Apple is considering their Itanium lineup though.

Maybe this coming announcement will be for Lenovo's partnership in the current AIM (Apple IBM Motorola) Alliance.( LAIM?) Anyway, is it possible for Apple to cancel all binding contracts with AIM; since they're the key to this alliance? And if so and what cost? AMD and Intel both make enough money without Apple, I dont think they even need the cost of R&D and fabs to create cpus JUST for Apple; since hardly anyone else is looking for a RISC chip from either of them - even considering Intel's Itanium cpu; they had to give those away for free for a short time mid 2004. Transmeta on the other hand could make much needed money from Apple; since they already make RISC based cpu's and low power one's at that??!

I would love to see a huge announcement of IBM making headway with the 970 and Apple would see the fruits of that secretive labour shortly. Now THAT would be a real Earthquake.

 

[afields]

Apple is going to the dark side!

 

[Lazy]

Because your customer won't buy it. Doesn't matter how good it is, if nobody will buy it, it won't sell. So Intel may just make PowerPC chips because they can make this off of it: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (that's a crapload of money)

That makes no sense at all. If everyone stopped making PPC chips suitable for use in desktop computers, do you think everyone who "wanted" a PPC-based desktop would just not buy a computer? If PPC went away Intel and AMD would gain about the number of sales formerly garnered by PPC. Or to look at another angle, there's no way Intel would make more money selling a PPC chip instead of a Pentium. As for additional sales, it's not like Apple is selling 50% of all computers and getting Apple as a customer would result in a huge sales increase for Intel. They don't need at all the 3% sales gain they could get from having Apple as a customer let alone need it bad enough to 1) create a horrible market perception by making PPCs and 2) supporting a minor (at the moment...) threat to their market dominance.

On the other hand, they would love deeply to score Apple/Macs as an x86 customer/niche, and cherish that just about forever. And since they could force Apple to use x86 (assuming PPC were dead) by merely not providing any alternative, that's what they would do.

BTW, people are buying hundreds of millions of x86 processors, whether they want to or not, because that's what the market reality dictates. (Sort of like, oh, say, what is that thing called? Oh yeah, Windows.) So your potential reason that their "customer won't buy it" can't be concerning them too much.

Lazy

 

[Mr Maui]

Kewl. A LAIM (lame) alliance. Just what Apple needs more of!

 

[rockthecasbah]

I have something to throw out there. Now im not for or against this, I haven't quite decided. However, for those who don't support the switch because you think the PPC is better than what intel will deliver consider this: the hardware may not be inferior to PPC, it is just running on a crappy OS that doesn't utilize everything fully like Mac OSX. So, if the switch would occur, it could be that Mac is better than ever and it shows how bad windows really is at utilizing all the power of the machines. Chew on that one

 

[Mr Maui]

I'm tired of chewing.

 

[Sedulous]

Steve Jobs hates the reds (communists) thats why he made the video 1984. IBM is in bed with them. They are partners with Lenovo which is owned partly by the chinese govt. Steve will be damned if he is going to let the new Russia (China) make chips for his systems. He is going all american here and going with intel.

Now Jobs can kick out systems with Dothan chips that run for 9 hrs and cool as ice in the powerbooks and with dual core too. On top of that if IT staff could put osx on their existing server and workstation boxes they would do it in a heartbeat. The world is about to change here folks, and it will be overnight.

This will be exciting.....

What are you talking about? IBM sold its PC business to them. Taiwan is technically still part of China. This rumor has nothing to do with the "Reds" or a basis in reality.

Furthermore, as most people know, the PPC achitecture is superior to Intel chips for multitasking. PPC has fewer buffer overflow security issues.

As a few people have already pointed out, this is all a ruse.