Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fender said:
Well of course the vast majority don't care about what's running inside, but are people going to rush to buy a PPC based system when they know for a fact there's something entirely different in the pipeline?
I think the problem for many these days is that although there is something new in the pipeline (there always is), when will IBM be able to deliver. 3 GHz in a year went out the window a LOOOONG time ago, and many people remember that. Steve Jobs ESPECIALLY!! I don't think he likes waiting (or being made a liar).
 
Let's not forget that...

1) Apple worked for years with IBM to create the G5. They aren't just going to throw that all away.

2) The G5 is a 64-bit chip. Intel has stated publicly that they will not manufacture a 64-bit consumer chip until the market (Microsoft) demands it. I highly doubt Intel will create a 64-bit bit consumer processor just for Apple.

3) The PowerPC's power is far from being fully utilized. Why else would Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all choose PPC derivatives for their high-end gaming consoles?

4) The PPC is what sets Apple a part from other personal computers. Apple has also spent years convincing people that that the PowerPC is superior to X86 processors. From a PR standpoint, moving to Intel would be a PR disaster.

5) All current Mac software is going to have to recompiled for the X86 platform. Even with the best emulation software available, current Mac software will never perform as well as it would if ran natively.
 
MacTruck said:
pop quiz...

What runs fast on an intel box?
a.) Windows
b.) Linux

Answer: b. Linux



OSX is going to smoke the hell out of Microsoft on an intel box. Also it puts Microsofts Virtual PC for mac out of business.

I think its a great move as long as we are not subjected to PC viruses. If we are I say it then SUCKS.

That's because Linux isn't bloated like Windows. I love OS X but it's just as bloated with all of the pretty eye candy.
 
SiliconAddict said:
That's the dang scary part of all of this....the timing is too perfect. If this happened at Paris or at MW....I'd be shrugging it off but at a developers conf?

Yep, my thoughts exactly. After all, when was the IBM G5 first unveiled? ;)
 
Originally Posted by kingjr3 said:
This seems more plausible than x86 and intriguing. If Apple can go from Moto to IBM (or more acurately AIM), why not from IBM/AIM to Intel?

Now imagine the debate if it truly was an x86 conversion - no more Mhz myth - wouldn't that be weird? I wouldn't mind if in the end it means faster machines over a shorter period of time with no additional cost, but I wish it was AMD winning out instead...

[Full speculation=on]
I think they will. Once the platform has been successfully moved and things are settled I'd watch for Apple to break from Intel with their desktop line and go AMD. Their Opterons simply can not be ignored. Laptops may very well stay Intel unless AMD actually comes up with a viable competitor to the Pentium M. Intel is simply a stepping stone to the platform. I’m willing to bet that if this does happen Apple is locked into an agreement with Intel for x86 chips for a handful of years. Intel isn’t stupid. They would know that AMD would be a VERY tempting target for Apple.
[/Full speculation=off]
 
joshuawaire said:
4) The PPC is what sets Apple a part from other personal computers. Apple has also spent years convincing people that that the PowerPC is superior to X86 processors. From a PR standpoint, moving to Intel would be a PR disaster.
Actually, I have to disagree with you here. It's OSX that separates Apple from the rest of the blinded world, not the PPC.

or was that the iPod. :eek:
 
Mr Maui said:
I think the problem for many these days is that although there is something new in the pipeline (there always is), when will IBM be able to deliver. 3 GHz in a year went out the window a LOOOONG time ago, and many people remember that. Steve Jobs ESPECIALLY!! I don't think he likes waiting (or being made a liar).


I don't like waiting either :D
 
Like every other Apple-Intel rumor, this one's just not happening. This is C|net fer cryin' out loud. They have a worse track record than Spymac! It's not on ThinkSecret, which has had an excellent record ever since MWSF '03, except as a repost of the original WSJ article, which they clearly note is uncorroborated by their sources.

Now, that said, I would not be surprised in the least if Apple announces AirPort Max at WWDC, featuring Intel(!)'s new WiMax chip. Or even AirPort Ultra, featuring Intel's 802.11pre-n chip (if they have one). But a switch to IA-64 is absolutely out of the question, especially using Intel's chips.

(Now, a Apple tablet I could go for, but if PC tablets sold in the thousands, not even tens of thousands, last year, why on earth Apple would ever want to enter the market is beyond me. Heck, a Newton 2.0 using Intel-fabed ARM chips is more likely than a tablet.)

EDIT: Woo, 1200 posts!
 
If Apple switches to Intel, does that imply the 970MP is dead? It was reported here that IBM posted a note on a 970MP thermal diode on March 15, so if the 970MP died, it would have had to have happened after March 15. So when the 970MP is released, would Apple choose not to release a new 970MP PowerMac because they've decided to take their business to Intel? And what about the changes in software allowing for more processors? Would that code be abandoned?

I think the 970MP exists, even if it may be delayed, and I think this Intel rumor will force Apple to state their intentions at WWDC in relation to the 970MP so that the G5 PowerMac will not look like a dead end line. (Unless it really is.)
 
J-Ray1000 said:
Intel will not make PPC for the same reason IBM is slacking: apple's volume isn't large enough to warrant a specific chip (which is a more profitable market? 2 million ibook/pbook vs 20 million xbox/nintendo/playstations?). Thus, Apple will use x86.
That's reasonable. x86 will stay the big-volume chip line in the world. BUT... what if Intel sees a future in PPC too? Why? Several possible reasons:

1. Marketing: the mindshare of being associated with a cool, visible company like Apple.

2. They see the chance that x86 may hit a wall sometime, and would like to diversify a bit--well in advance--or at least dip their toe in.

3. Apple getting slowly bigger and Intel wanting to be part of that. Volume is low... for now!

4. Linux on PPC.

5. Embedded market.

6. Game consoles (PS4 on Intel PPC? :p )

7. Larger partnership, with CPUs being just ONE aspect of a deal that interests Intel in other ways. Joint wireless projects? Intel chips in iPods? Even Intel hardware DRM to allow iTunes subscription model with iPods?


Between all those possibilities, I think it's POSSIBLE that Intel might get into making PPCs--and might (along with Apple) even swallow some cost to keep the cost down at low initial volumes. It would be bizarre, but so would Apple on x86! (And so would C-Net being wrong on the front page... but not THAT bizarre :D )

And some Intel rep just this week said they'd pretty much "do what it takes" to get Apple using Intel chips. I don't have the link, but it was today or Thursday. Sounded like future musings to me, but something to think about.



SiliconAddict said:
There is a substantial difference between knowing an architecture and fabing a chip. Of course Intel has the plants to build the hardware. What do they know about POWER and its PPC offspring? What? You think IBM pulled the design of the G5 out of their butt?
I've toured the IBM plant, and that is precisely what they do. It ain't pretty.

I agree that suddenly making a new chip line is easier said than done. But perhaps Intel could have been working with Apple on this for longer than we know. They COULD (cue Twilight Zone theme) be turning out PPC test chips already, and impressing Apple with the results.

IBM could even be involved, licensing Power5 or something. I don't know how that all works and who owns what. (Can you tell I don't want to let go of Power5? :p )
 
greenstork said:
That's because Linux isn't bloated like Windows.

Yes, but at least Windows is (relatively) more secure than Linux. And what's technically the most secure OS out there? Ah yes, good old OS X / BSD. ;) :cool:
 
Abdesai said:
The smartest thing anyone has said all night.

BASTARD! HOW DARE YOU COMMENT ON THIS "SMART" THOUGHT!

IMPOSSIBLE! DIE YOU RATIONAL FREAK! WE MUST SPECULATE FOR NO END! NO END, HEAR ME???

Stupid rationality. Who needs it.

No. I didn't take my medication. What're you looking at? :confused:
 
J-Ray1000 said:
Here's how I see it:

Intel will not make PPC for the same reason IBM is slacking: apple's volume isn't large enough to warrant a specific chip (which is a more profitable market? 2 million ibook/pbook vs 20 million xbox/nintendo/playstations?). Thus, Apple will use x86.

Not if Intel wants in on all these gaming systems using Power architecture. The console makers might also want more options in chip suppliers...
 
magi.sys said:
Well, it this is true it's a sad day for Apple. I'll be making the move to OpenSolaris or Linux.

just bcuz their proccessors are made by a diffrent company... im mean as long as they keep getting faster does it really matter who makes them.
 
I believe we will know Monday. <I'm not sure exactly what we'll know> But, I'm sure we'll know Monday. :D
 
GeeYouEye said:
Like every other Apple-Intel rumor, this one's just not happening. This is C|net fer cryin' out loud. They have a worse track record than Spymac! It's not on ThinkSecret, which has had an excellent record ever since MWSF '03, except as a repost of the original WSJ article, which they clearly note is uncorroborated by their sources.

Yeah, I've been waiting to see what Thinksecret has to say about this most recent story.
 
GeeYouEye said:
Now, that said, I would not be surprised in the least if Apple announces AirPort Max at WWDC, featuring Intel(!)'s new WiMax chip. Or even AirPort Ultra, featuring Intel's 802.11pre-n chip (if they have one). But a switch to IA-64 is absolutely out of the question, especially using Intel's chips.
Xserve RAID boxes also have Intel Inside® (chum, buh-doo-doo-dong!), and WWDC would be a reasonable place to announce additions to that product line.
 
nagromme said:
I agree that suddenly making a new chip line is easier said than done. But perhaps Intel could have been working with Apple on this for longer than we know. They COULD (cue Twilight Zone theme) be turning out PPC test chips already, and impressing Apple with the results.

IBM could even be involved, licensing Power5 or something. I don't know how that all works and who owns what. (Can you tell I don't want to let go of Power5? :p )
Exactly the point I've been trying to make tonight.
 
fabsgwu said:
Not if Intel wants in on all these gaming systems using Power architecture. The console makers might also want more options in chip suppliers...

That's possible, but only if Apple is allowed to license PPC architecture to Intel.

Regardless, Intel would still have to create a whole new fab just for these chips. And that's buco bucks.

Really, the whole point of "Apple on Intel" is to get away from a company where Apple is an afterthought. If Intel goes into PPC-for-gaming, then Apple still has the same problem: where are the laptop chips? Apple's volume isn't large enough to warrant ANYONE making chips exclusively for them. That's why they've got to go where the power is.
 
omg
even if intel chips can run OS X
how about classic?!
i dont think classic would be work fine under intel chips (CISC based?)
:mad:
 
Mr Maui said:
Actually, I have to disagree with you here. It's OSX that separates Apple from the rest of the blinded world, not the PPC.

or was that the iPod. :eek:

Agreed with a couple addendums...
Several things sets Apple apart:

-Its software design for ease of use
-Its hardware design for its well beauty and little extras. (Still nothing like the backlight on the PC laptop side of things.)
-Its OS for being fully crafted around the PC.

All of this can be transparently moved over to x86 with some (Scratch that) LOTS of work.) Apple could still have control over the software design. Apple could still build the hardware, the motherboard with its open firmware, and its little extras. And continue to craft the OS around the hardware something that NO other OS (Even Dell who is as close to MS as you are going to get without going to bed with them...then again...) on the PC can claim.

Without getting all Jedi on anyone Apple still controls its destiny and I wouldn’t consider this a degradation of the Mac platform. Done right it could easily be a victory. Done right.
 
leftbanke7 said:
I am mixed about the whole thing.

I am totally cool with Apple making moves that will help it in the short/long run.

However, because of the marketing of computers nowadays, Intel is synonymous with Windows (ie. at the end of almost every PC commercial, you hear the famous chime and get the Intel Inside logo).

We all gripe about how Microsoft's dominance sways the computing industry and plead for people to "Think Different". With Apple possibly switching to Intel, this essentually leaves 2 chip makers as PPC for computers will essentually die. With Intel's even larger market share lead, should we not be as wary of them as we are of Microsoft? Or is it cool because we are finally on the "winning team"? Kind of hypocritical?

And I suppose you sang a sad song about Motorola too, please...
 
SiliconAddict said:
Agreed with a couple addendums...
Several things sets Apple apart:

-Its software design for ease of use
-Its hardware design for its well beauty and little extras. (Still nothing like the backlight on the PC laptop side of things.)
-Its OS for being fully crafted around the PC.

All of this can be transparently moved over to x86 with some (Scratch that) LOTS of work.) Apple could still have control over the software design. Apple could still build the hardware, the motherboard with its open firmware, and its little extras. And continue to craft the OS around the hardware something that NO other OS (Even Dell who is as close to MS as you are going to get without going to bed with them...then again...) on the PC can claim.

Without getting all Jedi on anyone Apple still controls its destiny and I wouldn’t consider this a degradation of the Mac platform. Done right it could easily be a victory. Done right.
And Apple has had a history of doing it RIGHT ... EVEN if it means dropping or changing who is supplying their parts. ;)
 
Let me reiterate my vision for Apple's domination of the world:

=Apple builds x86 boxes that can run Windows.
=Seamlessly transition of OSX to intel macs (without support for 3rd party boxes, which is what will most likely happen anyway)
=Then, the mac double-boots both Windows and OSX and allows an Expose-like switch between the GUIs.
=Finally, a program like Synergy http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ allows easy file-swapping between the two - hit a button, both windows shrink, drag and drop files between.
=$$$ profit.

I, for one, welcome our black-turtlenecked overlord.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.