Really switching to Intel!!??

[Xtreme]

Apple -> Intel

My oppinions, is that if Apple switches to Intel, it will be to Itanium.. Here's why I think so:

Intel invested BILLIONS of dollars into Itanium, they knew x86 technology was going to hit a wall, and thought this was the next big thing, from servers down to workstations.

The original Itanium, contrary to myths, didn't hit it off, because it didnt provide backwards compatibility with existing apps, requiring all apps to be re-written. Also, it's x86 emulation was super slow. This is why market adoption never took off, and not because it's a slow chip. On the contrary, its an extemely fast chip.

Everyone seemingly gave up on Itanium, when in my personal oppinion, it never really got a chance to strut it's stuff, especially out of the server arena, and in the workstation market... I do think that salvaging all the billions Intel put in R&D on the Itanium to use with Apple would be lucrative to them.

Intel could easily port any technologies and designs used in other product lines, like the Pentium-M's, and make a low power, Itanium laptop chips.

Remember, all it would take Intel to do would be to cut the cache on the server Itanium chips sold for servers and add the ativec processing unit to itt to make it a desktop chip, suitable to Apple (instruction set aside)... which is just like IBM did to it's Power4 line to make Apple G5 chips.

Itanium with Altivec processing unit anyone?
Sounds good to me ;-)

 

[Panoctopi]

EXACTLY Someone besides just me (j/k) gets it. Who is to say the chip is optimized for Apple's architecture and OSX?? Why not OSX being optimized to run on existing chips?

Tap
**being a forum whore tonight, this is pretty fun**

I see you! at this rate you'll graduated to demi-god status in a single thread!

>>editt:
it's past 5 a.m. est and i finally caught up **panting** but must have sleep, so everyone stop posting now, please, i don't want to have to spend saturday catching up again, thanks! much ado about nothing kinda comes to mind.

 

[MacTruck]

My oppinions, is that if Apple switches to Intel, it will be to Itanium.. Here's why I think so:

Intel invested BILLIONS of dollars into Itanium, they knew x86 technology was going to hit a wall, and thought this was the next big thing, from servers down to workstations.

The original Itanium, contrary to myths, didn't hit it off, because it didnt provide backwards compatibility with existing apps, requiring all apps to be re-written. Also, it's x86 emulation was super slow. This is why market adoption never took off, and not because it's a slow chip. On the contrary, its an extemely fast chip.

Everyone seemingly gave up on Itanium, when in my personal oppinion, it never really got a chance to strut it's stuff, especially out of the server arena, and in the workstation market... I do think that salvaging all the billions Intel put in R&D on the Itanium to use with Apple would be lucrative to them.

Intel could easily port any technologies and designs used in other product lines, like the Pentium-M's, and make a low power, Itanium laptop chips.

Remember, all it would take Intel to do would be to cut the cache on the server Itanium chips sold for servers and add the ativec processing unit to itt to make it a desktop chip, suitable to Apple (instruction set aside)... which is just like IBM did to it's Power4 line to make Apple G5 chips.

Itanium with Altivec processing unit anyone?
Sounds good to me ;-)

I like it. I think this might be the one.

 

[alexeismertin]

Video iPod

Video iPod with intel inside


lol.....

 

[nagromme]

My oppinions, is that if Apple switches to Intel, it will be to Itanium..

Beats me, but thanks for another theory to kick around

It could also be some new chip that may--or may not--technically fit the PowerPC specs but has a high degree of PPC compatibility regardless (and maybe emulation in software for full compatibility).

This assumes Intel finds some return in that investment, which is a question mark--but they have publicly said they WANT Appple. And the return could be long-term or indirect. Or maybe they think they can make actual money selling to Apple... since IBM and Motorola have A lot of money? Maybe not. Enough to eventually pay for the new chip? Maybe. And along the way, the marketing benefit of the Apple relationship.

I think some totally NEW category of chip is the most fun prospect as rumors go Intel PPC is #2... and OS X on x86 doesn't sound that fun at all.

 

[Xtreme]

Apple -> Intel (Followup Post)

Here's more reasons I think Apple, if they switched to Intel, would choose Itanium.

It would prevent piracy and OSX being installed on generic x86 boxes, because there simply is no generic Itanium workstation box out there. This would also fit into Apple's usual pattern of having some sort control over the hardware.

Let's say the PPC emulation speculation is true... Intel has already implemented an x86 emulation layer on the Itanium, which also makes it completely possible to include some sort of layer to provide some sort of PPC emulation.

Intel will NOT create a new chip line, especially when they spent so much on Itanium... and besides, if you go to Top500.org, and see the current list, you will see that the #2 computer is running Itanium2 chips... not to shabby for a chip that people generally like to regard as "dead"... Who wouldn't wanna base their workstation chips on a beast like that?

So i further state, that if Apple does indeed switch to Intel (which im HIGHLY skeptical about at the moment), i think it's to Itanium!

 

[rdowns]

Couldn't sleep and decided to catch up on MR. Man, I love how rumors get everyone in such an uproar.

Personally, I don't see Apple moving to Intel but you never know. Jobs took a long time to learn that it's the software, not the hardware (see NeXT, Pixar, rebirth of Apple since 1997) that brings success.

Maybe Apple finally is ready to release a media center or some such device and try and take over the living room and is using Intel there.

ANyway, for those of you ready to take the plunge off the edge, feel free to use as much of the purple Kool Aid you need.

 

[jiggie2g]

My oppinions, is that if Apple switches to Intel, it will be to Itanium.. Here's why I think so:

Intel invested BILLIONS of dollars into Itanium, they knew x86 technology was going to hit a wall, and thought this was the next big thing, from servers down to workstations.

The original Itanium, contrary to myths, didn't hit it off, because it didnt provide backwards compatibility with existing apps, requiring all apps to be re-written. Also, it's x86 emulation was super slow. This is why market adoption never took off, and not because it's a slow chip. On the contrary, its an extemely fast chip.

Everyone seemingly gave up on Itanium, when in my personal oppinion, it never really got a chance to strut it's stuff, especially out of the server arena, and in the workstation market... I do think that salvaging all the billions Intel put in R&D on the Itanium to use with Apple would be lucrative to them.

Intel could easily port any technologies and designs used in other product lines, like the Pentium-M's, and make a low power, Itanium laptop chips.

Remember, all it would take Intel to do would be to cut the cache on the server Itanium chips sold for servers and add the ativec processing unit to itt to make it a desktop chip, suitable to Apple (instruction set aside)... which is just like IBM did to it's Power4 line to make Apple G5 chips.

Itanium with Altivec processing unit anyone?
Sounds good to me ;-)

Not gonna happen i'll tell u why. The Itanium is a super powerful and super expensive CPU, cost more then Xenon , runs as hot as Power 4.

This would create another IBM situation all over again. Apple dependant on one supplier. with a technology one one else uses. plus it' not compatible with anything , not PPC or X86. not a wise choice. If there were gonna use a whole new architecture from the ground up they might as well go with Cell.

They don't call it the Itanic for nothing this is a still born CPU , had potential but , it's day has passed. Intel keeps it around like Sony kept Beta Max forever unwilling to concede it's defeat.

Intel has about as much chance to put an Itanum in a notebook as the G5.
atleast with x86 u have the choice to let AMD in the fold when Intel starts slacking off. Plus you have hardware that is very widely supported. Imagine being able to shop at newegg for a Sound Blaster card or the newest ATI/ Nvidia card for your new Powermac

If Apple does this I will buy a Powermac + Powerbook myself.

 

[c0n]

performance claims

if true , how will apple explain this then

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

true it wont be hapening till 2007 but that would suggest the ppc will be coming to a stanstill.

are they really going to be putting x86 in a powerbook , we would get lovely lap burning thick laptops.

 

[Jesus]

Here's more reasons I think Apple, if they switched to Intel, would choose Itanium.

It would prevent piracy and OSX being installed on generic x86 boxes, because there simply is no generic Itanium workstation box out there. This would also fit into Apple's usual pattern of having some sort control over the hardware.

Let's say the PPC emulation speculation is true... Intel has already implemented an x86 emulation layer on the Itanium, which also makes it completely possible to include some sort of layer to provide some sort of PPC emulation.

Intel will NOT create a new chip line, especially when they spent so much on Itanium... and besides, if you go to Top500.org, and see the current list, you will see that the #2 computer is running Itanium2 chips... not to shabby for a chip that people generally like to regard as "dead"... Who wouldn't wanna base their workstation chips on a beast like that?

So i further state, that if Apple does indeed switch to Intel (which im HIGHLY skeptical about at the moment), i think it's to Itanium!

Um, here is the to 5 on top500.org:

1 IBM/DOE
United States/2004 BlueGene/L beta-System
BlueGene/L DD2 beta-System (0.7 GHz PowerPC 440) / 32768
IBM 70720
91750
2 NASA/Ames Research Center/NAS
United States/2004 Columbia
SGI Altix 1.5 GHz, Voltaire Infiniband / 10160
SGI 51870
60960
3 The Earth Simulator Center
Japan/2002 Earth-Simulator / 5120
NEC 35860
40960
4 Barcelona Supercomputer Center
Spain/2004 MareNostrum
eServer BladeCenter JS20 (PowerPC970 2.2 GHz), Myrinet / 3564
IBM 20530
31363
5 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
United States/2004 Thunder
Intel Itanium2 Tiger4 1.4GHz - Quadrics / 4096
California Digital Corporation


The first and forth a PPC, and only the fifth is Itanium, so, by your argument about supercomputers, Apple should stay with IBM, because, with Blue Gene,

Who wouldn't wanna base their workstation chips on a beast like that?

Jesus

 

[mannybianco]

This will kill apple.

If it is true,it will be a move to x86, not intel ppc. Intel have no experience with the ppc design, and would take time to adjust to it, but then apple would be back in the same position of being reilant on a company whose main interests are not aligned with theirs. Intel PPC development would always be a poor relation to that of the x86.

And this means that all the current mac line has a lifespan of however long it takes to goto intel. Who will buy a ppc powermac a week before the intel version comes out - nobody. Take that back 6 months, still very few will buy. Take that back to the intel announcement, very few wil buy. If the apple hardware sales drop like a stone, apple will starve. They cant sell enough ipods to get through the lean periods.

I wonder what will happen with those who use both platforms - a lot of people. If i had to cough up £3000 for an x86 apple platform, i would pretty much demand that it be able to boot into windows (not necessarily vice-versa). Anything else would be buying the same hardware twice,and that would just stick in my throat.

 

[VanNess]

There is no chance OS X will end up on a Dell. Apple didn't expand into retail around the world so they could sell iPods, Tiger and Final Cut Pro.

What on earth do you mean? lol

 

[Loge]

And we also hear that maybe Dell are going to start making high end premium computers

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5730030.html

What is going on with the world?

 

[rdowns]

Thinking ahead, would this be appropriate for my new avatar?

 

[ssamani]

My screen is now redundant too. Wo is me!

I think I'll just throw it out the window now and save me some time later.

iMac G5 motherboards are replacable. Everything in an iMac G5 is replacable / upgradable, except for the video card which can only be upgraded by changing your entire motherboard.

 

[jiggie2g]

if true , how will apple explain this then

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

true it wont be hapening till 2007 but that would suggest the ppc will be coming to a stanstill.

are they really going to be putting x86 in a powerbook , we would get lovely lap burning thick laptops.

Pentium M is cooler then the G4 and much faster cock 4 clock, and Has a PCIe chipset. i'm sure Apple can make it even slimmer then anything u can think of.

 

[hulugu]

This will kill apple.

If it is true,it will be a move to x86, not intel ppc. Intel have no experience with the ppc design, and would take time to adjust to it, but then apple would be back in the same position of being reilant on a company whose main interests are not aligned with theirs. Intel PPC development would always be a poor relation to that of the x86.

And this means that all the current mac line has a lifespan of however long it takes to goto intel. Who will buy a ppc powermac a week before the intel version comes out - nobody. Take that back 6 months, still very few will buy. Take that back to the intel announcement, very few wil buy. If the apple hardware sales drop like a stone, apple will starve. They cant sell enough ipods to get through the lean periods.

I wonder what will happen with those who use both platforms - a lot of people. If i had to cough up £3000 for an x86 apple platform, i would pretty much demand that it be able to boot into windows (not necessarily vice-versa). Anything else would be buying the same hardware twice,and that would just stick in my throat.

I think you're right about Intel becoming a problem akin to IBM, except that Intel still has so much invested in the x86 platform that they would have to keep a large part of their focus there—unless x86 itself is well and truly dying. However, Apple has cash in the bank and could survive a lean period if it could succeed after that period. However, I can't imagine an Apple machine would be able to boot into Windows—people buy hardware twice now already (few know what a KVM switch is for example)—and I think that would stick in Jobs' throat.
IMHO, this is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, Apple is talking with IBM about chips besides processors, this is probably as a stick to poke IBM in the eye with as well, possibly for some new products—video iPod seems like a good bet. Intel, however, may be abandoning the x86 platform—see all the next-gen consoles on PPC—to invest in that new market.
Strange things indeed, but I don't think Apple is ready to make the jump, unless something is really wrong with IBM and Freescale.

 

[rdowns]

Boot screen?

 

[Eric_Z]

Hmmm.... [lazy mode=on] time to copy my reply from another forum over I think.

I'd just like to note to those that drag up the "swich" to the 68040 and PPC, that a swich to x86 would be nothing like that of yore, at all.

The 68040 is an ISA "shrinked" 68k CPU, all you needed to do was to provide an emulation file (triggered by exception) to make all old code work. And due to the greater efficeincy of the 68040, the old "proper" 68k code would actually run faster on it. The 68k --> PPC swich is a slightly better analogy, but still moot. Old PPC had extra instructions to help the emulation of 68k code, that and the much, much better speed of said CPUs enshured that all old code would run well, and programmers could take their time learning to make the jump from 68k to PPC.

Now over to PPC emulation on x86, it's what, a slowdown of x100 or so currently? Even if a much, much better emulator is released, there still is the problem that x86 chips aren't al that much faster then PPC ones. There is no great speed up that can be expected like with the PPC swich.

And to add some more to the "flames":

Then there of course are other problems. Say that Apple makes a custom chipset x86 box, that guarantees no piracy, right? Wrong, all you'd need is MOL and a copy of OSX (pirated) and off you are running OSX for "free", and in full speed.

Then there is the reaction of people with a heavy investment in legacy, those that have just swiched, just bought expensive equipment etc. What do you think those will think of seeing their Mac being pronounced with no future. Some people buy machines hoping they will last 3-5 years, do you think they will ever concider buying a Mac again if there is an ISA shift?

Then there is all the fun for developers, having to sit on the sidelines waiting to if the swich is sucessfull or nor, or having all the fun (and extra cost) of supporting to ISAs.

Is that enough resons to justify why I don't think a "swich" will happen? And I've not started to mention consumer confusion, the new chips from IBM (Cell) etc...

 

[iJaz]

This will kill apple.

If it is true,it will be a move to x86, not intel ppc. Intel have no experience with the ppc design, and would take time to adjust to it, but then apple would be back in the same position of being reilant on a company whose main interests are not aligned with theirs. Intel PPC development would always be a poor relation to that of the x86.

And this means that all the current mac line has a lifespan of however long it takes to goto intel. Who will buy a ppc powermac a week before the intel version comes out - nobody. Take that back 6 months, still very few will buy. Take that back to the intel announcement, very few wil buy. If the apple hardware sales drop like a stone, apple will starve. They cant sell enough ipods to get through the lean periods.

I would rather have a G5 Mac than an x86 Mac so I would still buy a PowerMac the day before they went Intel.

I wonder what will happen with those who use both platforms - a lot of people. If i had to cough up £3000 for an x86 apple platform, i would pretty much demand that it be able to boot into windows (not necessarily vice-versa). Anything else would be buying the same hardware twice,and that would just stick in my throat.

Who are you to demand such a thing, do you think Apple would make it dual boot just because you demanded it to be so? You must have some great powers!

 

[mvc]

After reading this lot (well, most of it), and hearing all the pros & cons and technical issues I am inclined to think this C|NET article is incorrect, or not even close to the whole story.

Just doesn't make sense the way C|NET describe it. Intel chips used by Apple in all sorts of gear, even major gear - sure. Intel chips replacing PPC as the main processor in their main computer range with all the chaos and cost that would ensue to all current Apple users and developers - naaah.

There, I said it.

I think a direct jump to competing directly with Windows on the PC platform is marginally more likely (or unlikely) than C|NET's scenario.

Roll on the 6th of June.

 

[HasanDaddy]

lol -

first Motorola, then IBM... now Intel!

I can't wait until Jobs becomes pissed off at Intel

Who will Apple turn to for processors then? Mattel?

 

[c.hilding]

Well...

As you can see below (especially the text in bold), we can only hope that this is a trick to try to get IBM to respond to Apples demands. I truly hope so, or else we'll have cheap clone companies all over again, a problem that hasn't been with us (Mac enthusiasts) for a decade. IBM is capable of producing the processors that Apple wants, but has been reluctant to set up a new manufacturing process for such a niche, low-profit product as a Mac. It's more profitable to work with Microsoft on the Xbox, Nintendo on the Revolution, and Sony on the Playstation 3. But if Apple switches to x86, anyone can create cheap clones, that's not a good thing as it would mean the downfall of Apple, and I also happen to like the quality of the PowerPC processor and wouldn't want to run my studio on Intel architecture.

Krewell added that Apple machines wouldn't necessarily perform better on Intel chips. IBM can produce dual-core chips for Apple--it just produced a three-core chip for Microsoft's upcoming Xbox. The design of the Xbox chip, partly conceived by Microsoft, is owned by the software giant, but IBM could spin a similar chip for Apple. It also built the Cell processor, a Power processor with eight helper cores, for the PlayStation3. Both of these chips run at more than 3GHz, close to Intel's current speeds.

Low power is also something IBM likely could conquer, said Krewell. If it has to, IBM could license technology to make it happen. Sony, for example, licensed energy efficiency technology from Transmeta for Cell. And IBM actually had a license for some Transmeta technology for years.

A switch to Intel also would raise cultural issues for Apple, which for years has maintained that the PowerPC architecture is better suited to the graphics-intensive tasks performed on most Macs. Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller has done many Macworld demos showing Photoshop and other programs running faster on a slower-clock-speed PowerPC chip than it does on a top-of-the line Pentium.

Most likely, the leak over the negotiations is a bargaining ploy by Apple, Krewell said.

"Apple is feeling ignored and feeling that IBM is paying too much attention to the gaming guys," he said. "This is just a maneuver by Apple to whack IBM. Do you know how you can tell that Apple isn't serious? Has Apple sued the Wall Street Journal for releasing trade secrets?"

Earlier this year, Apple sued a blog site for reporting product information before the product came out.

Source: CNET: Apple to Intel?


Best Regards,
Christopher H.

 

[HasanDaddy]

anyhoo...

I deeply support a switch to Intel chips

first off, Intel would LOVE to work with Apple --- Apple is currently the only computer maker, I believe, that is putting 1 ghz bus on their consumer desktops, in addition to top notch DDR RAM, etc

clearly, the Intel chips could show off their best potentials on a Mac system with OS X

and after all, why not Intel??? In the grand scheme of economics (and believe me, I am all for competition), the best chipmaker out there is INTEL --- they spend the most R&D on chips, have the longest and most successful history, etc

I think its getting rather ridiculous that we keep going to companies like Moto and IBM, who clearly are not investing as much into chip making, nor have the history behind it

unless Apple was developing a 'better' chip with Moto and IBM, but it seems that Intel's are faster and cheaper

I say go with Intel - I'm supportive of this move!

 

[Sabenth]

lol -

first Motorola, then IBM... now Intel!

I can't wait until Jobs becomes pissed off at Intel

Who will Apple turn to for processors then? Mattel?

Theres always the early learning center better still that leap frog system for kids that could be really neat