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.
Really switching to Intel!!??
- Thread starter dodonutter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The question is, which chip would they pick? Itanium? Xeon? Pentium? Celeron? or ?
I can't see them picking a generic Intel chip. If they were, why not an AMD instead? No doubt they have some criteria, in my book some likely ones would be:
1. Something that lets them differentiate themselves from the herd. Either with dual, dual-core processors vs regular PCs with merely dual cores. Additional chips to speed things up or something.
2. Something with several manufacturers so that they don't get stuck with both Motorola and IBM sucking. Two, TRUE competitors so that they can source from either.
3. Announcing a year in advance is STUPID. It would grind sales to a halt - "I can make due now with my old machine and get the newest thing once the switch is complete." And the PowerMac last? That would be TWO years of people waiting for the update. An announcement this far in advance is the biggest thing that tells me it is untrue.
If Apple does this, it will be very tricky for them because people will be much more apt to say "a 2ghz Dell is $999, a 2ghz Mac is $1499" and they will completely ignore the DVD burner, modem, bluetooth etc.
Mark me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp and I doubt I'll see it.
I can't see them picking a generic Intel chip. If they were, why not an AMD instead? No doubt they have some criteria, in my book some likely ones would be:
1. Something that lets them differentiate themselves from the herd. Either with dual, dual-core processors vs regular PCs with merely dual cores. Additional chips to speed things up or something.
2. Something with several manufacturers so that they don't get stuck with both Motorola and IBM sucking. Two, TRUE competitors so that they can source from either.
3. Announcing a year in advance is STUPID. It would grind sales to a halt - "I can make due now with my old machine and get the newest thing once the switch is complete." And the PowerMac last? That would be TWO years of people waiting for the update. An announcement this far in advance is the biggest thing that tells me it is untrue.
If Apple does this, it will be very tricky for them because people will be much more apt to say "a 2ghz Dell is $999, a 2ghz Mac is $1499" and they will completely ignore the DVD burner, modem, bluetooth etc.
Mark me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp and I doubt I'll see it.
I think it would have to be something new. (That, or they're going with something like a Pentium-M for the PowerBooks to beef them up.) After all, if Apple went with Xeon or Pentium in their workstations, what would become of those PowerMac benchmarks on Apple's site stating that the G5s are "80% faster at this and 50% faster than that" against those very chips? 
Everybody Chill Out
No need to waste time speculating on X, Y, and Z without knowing the facts. The best thing to do is wait about 48 hours until Monday morning PST to see what comes of this story. It is interesting news considering that CNet posted that article but they don't even know the all the facts of the Apple-Intel discussions.
We're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Once we know the details then let's engage in a discussion related to the facts and details.
Just my 2 cents
No need to waste time speculating on X, Y, and Z without knowing the facts. The best thing to do is wait about 48 hours until Monday morning PST to see what comes of this story. It is interesting news considering that CNet posted that article but they don't even know the all the facts of the Apple-Intel discussions.
We're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Once we know the details then let's engage in a discussion related to the facts and details.
Just my 2 cents
That's no fun ... especially since those factual discussions usually revolve around a newly announced system's color, shape, lack of MHz (or G5 in the portable case), and the video card.amac4me said:We're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Once we know the details then let's engage in a discussion related to the facts and details.
Just my 2 cents
hehe why do all you guys talk about dell all the time? people aren't buying crappy Dells anyway, they're buying Acer and Asustek's machines. only suits buy crapy Dells. hell, Asus make the iPods and iBooks anyway.
looking at these pictures you can see this is true.
looking at these pictures you can see this is true.
fraggle said:Sun has not been mentioned I think
BTW: Of course Itanium makes the most sense as HP is using them and we have already seen how highly successful HP and Apple cooperate with the iPod.
Yeeh
Lets use SPARC!
They just released dual core Sparc64 in 1.94ghz. One of the fastest processor there is.
I dont whant to use CISC(x86).
RISC is a lot better. The processor may not be faster in RISC, but the programs are faster.
Since RISC is reduces set computer, a program is smaller than on a CISC. Complex set of instruction.
I still remeber when I Switched 3 years ago to Apple:
My 7000 dollar PC with 10000 RPM SCSI disks and 1.5ghz highend AMD could compress my MPEG2 project in 15 hours.
The same project on my Powerbook 667mhz took 90 minutes.
Its still the same. On paper X86 sounds good, but you are still looked to a complex processor and all that legency problems whit BOIS, IRQ and so on.
But people love buzz words
IDE SUCKS.. We need SATA (no better preformence IRL)
AGP SUCKS.. We need PCI-E (no better preformence IRL)
WE need XXX RMP Hard drives. (The RPM is not as importent to how much density of the platter on the disk. A high RPM disk has little density, thats why often a new high density disk is better.)
WE need GhZ frontside bus. (The CPU makers whant fast frontside bus so they dont need to put L3 cache. L3 cache is extremly expensive. Fast frontside bus = no L3 cache. Thats why a G4 is almost as fast per clock cykle as G5. 167mhz frontside vs 1ghz+)
And so on.
Apple should just do like AMD and brand a performence number on the CPU:
G5 2.7 ghz branded 5000+
SiliconAddict said:
"Apple was seduced by the dark side of Intel...they betrayed and murdered IBM."
"I've got a bad feeling about this...
"
LimeiBook86 said:"Apple was seduced by the dark side of Intel...they betrayed and murdered IBM."
"I've got a bad feeling about this...
That is actually starting to sound more like a Shakespearean tragedy than anything...
nagromme said:
No, actually, the very first ones were slower running 680x0 apps. That was kind of a big deal at the time, and a good reason for not getting a PowerMac unless all the software you used had already been ported to PPC.
You'd need an x86 chip that's at least 3-5 times faster than a 970 to make emulation speed consistently on par. Anyone who thinks such a chip exists, or will exist in the next couple of years, has left the realm of reality. One of the reasons why this whole thing makes no sense that I can see.
--Eric
bosrs1 said:And IBM isn't
And apple isn't a behemoth company either? Whether we talk IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Apple or AMD, we're all talking BEHEMOTH companies.
Just take a look at the money that flows in and out of these guys on a daily basis on wall street. Behemoths.
I don't know if this has been pointed out or not but just because Apple was using Intel MP's does not have anyrhing to do with things like running Windows on them or running OSX on your Dell.......I think that switching might just be smart after all........
Moxiemike said:And apple isn't a behemoth company either? Whether we talk IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Apple or AMD, we're all talking BEHEMOTH companies.
Just take a look at the money that flows in and out of these guys on a daily basis on wall street. Behemoths.
Aw, come on, Apple only has something like 6 Billion dollars in cash...
If Apple were moving to X86 why the hell would they have released FCP Studio (their marquee professional video suite) 2 weeks ago based on PPC technology.
Either Intel is developing a PPC chip for Apple
OR
Intel is developing a chip to run in a new type of Apple product (x86 based tablet PC with a watered-down version of OSX or something of that nature.)
Switching to x86 would be the death of Apple. To even speculate about such a possibility is idiotic and naive.
Either Intel is developing a PPC chip for Apple
OR
Intel is developing a chip to run in a new type of Apple product (x86 based tablet PC with a watered-down version of OSX or something of that nature.)
Switching to x86 would be the death of Apple. To even speculate about such a possibility is idiotic and naive.
apple TOASTS intel (remember this??)
wouldnt it be ironic?
http://www.billhusler.com/Public/commercials/toasted.mov
wouldnt it be ironic?
http://www.billhusler.com/Public/commercials/toasted.mov
On the upside, Intel chips != the messy IBM PC architecture.
But I, for one, don't see how this is good for Apple. People will just put off new computers because they don't want to have to replace their software (or run in a PPC emulator); I haven't been anything but pleased with the performace on a 1.6 GHz G5.
Hmmm -- should I buy a new iBook this year while my Office 2004 can still run natively, or wait until the new Intel-based one next year and get iWork for it?
But I, for one, don't see how this is good for Apple. People will just put off new computers because they don't want to have to replace their software (or run in a PPC emulator); I haven't been anything but pleased with the performace on a 1.6 GHz G5.
Hmmm -- should I buy a new iBook this year while my Office 2004 can still run natively, or wait until the new Intel-based one next year and get iWork for it?
cantaclaro said:
Indeed - Why would they have released any of the updates they did in the last couple of weeks. They would have held it back and announced it at WWDC to run on the new systems surely?
Looking at the itinery for the WWDC, I honestly cannot see anything like this happening. I think it's just bizzare that it's come from a reasonably reliable source.
No one posting here really knows... it's all just speculation. Since you've waited this long, either flip a coin and buy the machine today or just wait until Monday and then buy.BlairMALL said:
MacTruck said:
I thought all Macs sold in Europe were still assembled in Cork, unless that changed recently.
LimeiBook86 said:"Apple was seduced by the dark side of Intel...they betrayed and murdered IBM."
"I've got a bad feeling about this...
"Redmond.. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany, you must be cautious"
Turning to the thread topic, a lot of the posters in the huge slashdot thread on this topic seem to think that Intel will be manufacturing PPC chips-- so this may be no big deal after all.
say it with me..
"Dude, you're getting an Apple!"
I am sure if Apple does decide to make some transition to an Intel produced chip, it isnt going to destroy Apple in the process. Although Steve's personality is such that rather rash decisions can be the norm; they arent going to throw it all away.
Personally, I wouldnt mind a switch. I have been using a PC for some cad related stuff, and there is some fast hardware out there. Imagine that hardware with the quality of Apple componentry and OS.
Also, a lot of the PC market is moving toward laptop computers; and this is an area where apple is really struggling, and intel has made some serious strides. When I got my first mac (Powerbook Ti) it was an incredible machine, a desktop replacement without a desktop replacement sized enclosure. Now, I would not consider any of the Powerbook line as a feasible desktop replacement, unless I was replacing an Mini!
I feel the need...for speed...
"Dude, you're getting an Apple!"
I am sure if Apple does decide to make some transition to an Intel produced chip, it isnt going to destroy Apple in the process. Although Steve's personality is such that rather rash decisions can be the norm; they arent going to throw it all away.
Personally, I wouldnt mind a switch. I have been using a PC for some cad related stuff, and there is some fast hardware out there. Imagine that hardware with the quality of Apple componentry and OS.
Also, a lot of the PC market is moving toward laptop computers; and this is an area where apple is really struggling, and intel has made some serious strides. When I got my first mac (Powerbook Ti) it was an incredible machine, a desktop replacement without a desktop replacement sized enclosure. Now, I would not consider any of the Powerbook line as a feasible desktop replacement, unless I was replacing an Mini!
I feel the need...for speed...
rosalindavenue said:
Exactly - this may not end up having the x86 spin on it that some people are thinking/fearing. We'll know Monday, one way or the other.
However, the x86 chip architecture isn't the best out there.JeffTL said:
Yup, people will put off purchases if Apple switches to a non-PPC based Mac and the purchases won't pick up until enough Applications come out for the non-PPC chip. I think this is not likely... I think maybe an Intel chip or two for some non-Mac device.
What shape is your old iBook in? Maybe make a decision after the WWDC announcements?
At this point, if Apple was going to switch from PPC based chips, I would hold off on buying new hardware for as long as my current hardware holds out.
I hope the non-PPC chips for the Macs processor are wrong. CNet could use some egg on their face.