Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Maybe... if this is about CPUs... it will be something like Apple using Intels fabs to manufacture PPC chips because Intel probably have greater capacity than IBM.

I really don't think Apple are moving to x86 for a number of reasons.

1. Even if they create a new, closed x86 system architecture, emulators will find a way to enable OS X to run on standard PC systems... and since the most important performace part, the CPU, is native, there will not be much, if any performance loss.

2. This would allow people to build their own PCs and run OS X... and I wonder, how many people actually buy their OS for their homemade PCs? I bet it's a very low percentage. For example, on many forums when people spec up PCs to compete against the Mac Mini, they always leave off the £250 for Windows XP Pro. So most OS X users would be using pirate versions.

3. based on point 1, Apple would loose all control over hardware... and point 2, would loose all control over which computers OS X runs on... thus leading the way to more piracy of general Mac OS X applicatons.
 
I would just like to say how impressed I am with MacRumors' new servers handling this thread on Friday :)

Now imagine if the news broke on a night when people were home!
 
I swear some of you people are retarded in your opinions. I’ve read the last 20+ pages since I went to bed and the BS is astounding. The whole more susceptible to viruses? WTH? That is astoundingly lame. The whole I’m going to convert back to Windows if they do this. Umm no you aren’t. I can say that with full confidence. I’ve seen this behavior in 5 year olds. They threaten the most ludicrous things. That’s what you are acting like right now: a 5 year old child. The reason many of you went Mac is one of four primary reason (With a few others but these are the main ones): windows is frustrating, windows is insecure, windows costs more in the long run, and on older versions Windows is crash prone. Do you think that has changed since you moved? No. A relative of mine just got a brand new spiffy Dell. I recommended a Mac Mini but was overridden by the teen of the house because “Those macs at school suck” (Wonder how old they are. OS 9?) They are under the illusion that this new system will cure all their woes. No you have a brand new nice spiffy clean OS. Give it 6 months and watch performance degrade because of adware, corrupt registries, etc. I’m waiting for the call from them that they can’t share their printer with teens computer downstairs. (I know this will happen because MS’s firewall that is on by default blocks this activity.) and I will tell them they could have avoided this by getting a Mac. So get over yourself. IF. (Again I stress I’m in the same boat as everyone else and am not making claims to KNOW what Jobs is going to say.) But if this happens all of you will suck it up in the end, roll with the change, and in 5 years you will be praising Apple for the decision. Because that seems to be the typical pattern I’ve seen with Mac users. Some of you abhor change. If its more then 10-20 degrees off from what is the norm you will bitch about it. IF this happens this is a 180* spin on Apple’s part. We saw the same crap when the iPod came out. What were they thinking? Stupid..idiots. Well witness the bling bling that came from that decision. That bling bling is what is going to support this makeover.

Something you seem to keep missing. One core fact. If this does happen it’s not because Steve lost a poker game to Intel’s CEO. Its not because Steve likes shaking his antfarm every once in a while. If this happens it will be because the BUISNESS saw a need. Jobs and the BOD saw something that your average Mac user or Mac zealot does not see. So please keep that in mind when you start spewing forth such phrases as “that would be the stupidest thing Apple ever did.” In point of fact Apple has made some VERY smart moves over the last 6 year or so. To be blunt. Everyone sit down. Shut up. (Except for rational discussion of course.) And enjoy the ride. Apple is driving and they have the map. All you guys are doing is back seat driving and you don’t even know where we are going.

Note that this wasn’t an all encompassing statement about everyone on the board. There seems to be a select few that are just plain being stupid.
 
barney17 said:
It may indeed be the correct business/industrial/technical choice to switch to Intel. But I would urge Jobs not to do it. Intel is too associated with Microsoft Windows. It'll leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths knowing that their beloved Macs have chips made from the supplier of Windows PCs. If Apple is so into image—and we know they are—have they considered the negative consequences to their image of a switch to Intel?

I know it's only hardware; the individual parts don't really matter; they already have used Big Blue (their former nemesis) and it didn't tarnish their image with the Mac faithful, etc. But this is Intel. They make CISC chips that overheat. How are they going to fit into the Mac motherboards? Distressing and depressing news.

G5 Power output is a lot more than the latest PentiumDs and insanely more than the PentiumM.
 
akac said:
Big Endian and little endian hardly factor in 90% of the software out there.

Again, developers have a year. 90% can probably get their code working on x86 in a few hours.

but Apple sells 50% of their units in the mobile market and that's growing..


I love it when people pick percentages out of thin air without any actual facts to back them up.
 
dongmin said:
Disagree. The main reason I'd say is for Intel's mobile processors. That's where the action is these days. Apple already sells more laptops than desktops. And if you add the eMac and Mac Mini, Apple basically does 60-70% of its business on a mobile platform. Intel's mobile offerings are leaps and bounds better than the G4. Not with the desktop processors; the G5 can more than hold its own in workstation uses.

The G5 should've made it into the PowerBooks a while ago. The fact that it didn't means there are some serious, fundamental problems with getting it in there. Most likely, IBM just isn't willing to develop two lines of processors for Apple (a dekstop line and a laptop line). Apple sells 3.5 million Macs a year. That's not nearly enough volume for IBM to develop multiple processors and keep updating them every year or so. All the talk about the Cell and XBox is irrelevant. Even if they use Cell technology, IBM would still have to develop a custom processor for Apple and run a separate line of manufacturing just for Apple. It probably doesn't make sense for IBM to devote such resources to Apple anymore, now that it has bigger fish to fry.

Five or so years ago, Apple was in a similar crossroads. The G4 platform was going nowhere and Motorola just said a f-you to Apple regarding future development. Apple, at that point, considered going x86. But IBM came along and made all these promises about how far the GP-UL and GR-UL would go. 3 ghz in a year--easy. Mobile G5--in two years tops. Obviously, things haven't worked out and we're looking at the worse-case scenario (stuck at 0.7 ghz increase in two years; no mobile G5). If there was still viable future with IBM and the G5, I think Apple would stay. But I don't know if there is anymore.

So x86 is basically our only option. It'll be painful for a lot of people (mostly developers), but what choice does Apple have. No one cares about developing a custom line of processor for such a niche player. Not Motorola. Not IBM.

I'm not sure why people aren't understanding this, but if the rumor is true, it's exactly what's happening. Apple is well down the list of priorities for IBM, behind the Power server chips, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Apple is a highly demanding customer with small volumes. IBM can only staff so many development projects and Apple processors keep getting the shaft. Apple doesn't have the money to demand as much as they do from IBM. If IBM is looking to save some money, killing it's Apple chips would be a good place to start.
 
If Steve drops the bomb on Monday, I can almost promise sales of the current products will drop through the floor. There are many people that do not want to buy a computer only to have no future operating systems available for it in a year or two. If they are going to switch it needs to be right away across the whole line. I am thinking eMacs and Mac Mini's if they are still made will be powered by some form of the Celeron processor. iMacs will be Pentium 4 territory and Power Macs will probably go with something better, but maybe just single processors. Pentium M will be the natural choice for the Powerbooks and who knows where the iBooks will end up. This will be a mess anyway you look at it.

Plus all those years Apple has talked about Mega-hertz myth and Velocity Engine are gone. Basically Apple will say our technology was old fashioned and way behind x86 and now we are finally catching up by COPYING everyone else. Sounds funny for any company to do that.

Plus they have been bragging up the G5 compared to the x86 alternatives....REALLY BRAGGING IT UP. Look at the benchmarks on their own site...Now they are going to replace the processor they claim is faster with one of the processors it shows getting trounced. Marketing NIGHTMARE!
 
The problem is that G5 *still* has not reached 3ghz at the 2 year anniversary of the WWDC promise.

I wonder what kind of promise will be made if there is an Intel announcement.

SiliconAddict said:
Not to detract from your post but no company is going to ditch a platform because someone MAY have made their CEO look bad on stage.
Last I checked no one was on stage with a gun to his head forcing him to make such a claim. That was all Steve. He could have just as easily said we are working on 3Ghz which is just as valid. Its Steve’s over inflated ego that had him throwing out a timeframe but egos aside IF this happens its going to cost Apple a crap load of money. Its not going to be easy. They stand to lose some market share from this and alienate some hardcore mac users.
All of this based on a personal dislike of IBM? I'd bet that Jobs hates Moto more then IBM and they are working with them on a phone. Personal feelings have NO place in business. I think Steve lets those personal feeling in too much but a architecture jump is a hell of a long way from something like chastising ATI because they let the cat out of the bag for your iMac. If Apple does this its going to be because there is a systemic problem at work here that they are trying to fix.
 
dongmin said:
No one cares about developing a custom line of processor for such a niche player. Not Motorola. Not IBM.
You drive a hard bargain, but the logic here feels true: market share = better bargaining with chip developers, and Apple doesn't have the numbers to compete. Everyone complains that Apple hardware is pricey, and I wonder how much of this is chip development - if it drives down cost, increases market share, and still runs OS X, then Intel is a better business decision.

Suppose Apple puts Intel in its portables and keeps some version of PPC in its desktops... Is this likely, or would it just drive everyone insane? Or, if it moves to Intel for the portable market, would desktops naturally matriculate down this path because the vendor (Intel) would want to increase its business with another client (Apple)?

Not really holding my breath till Monday, but it might certainly be an interesting day in Apple history.
 
aldo said:
G5 Power output is a lot more than the latest PentiumDs and insanely more than the PentiumM.


Maybe dual G5's. Show me stats on single core G5's that blow away dual core Pentium D's and keep in mind that Apple could possibly put dual CPU, dual core D's in a PowerMac. Bet money that would take down even a 2.7Ghz PowerMac.
 
I said it earlier but no one listened, Steve plays golf with the Intel dude. Also as many have stated Intel could be making anything for Apple including PPC. I still would like to see how OSX on a AMD Athlon64 3500 does. iTunes runs like a champ! Anyways its better then no rumors at all. :D
 
tromboneaholic said:
The problem is that G5 *still* has not reached 3ghz at the 2 year anniversary of the WWDC promise.

I wonder what kind of promise will be made if there is an Intel announcement.


Yes. If you are talking from specs point of view. They are starting to lag behind. From your post I read you saying this is because Steve was made to look the fool. If this is because of the chips I accept that. If this is because of someone's ego. Personally. I don't think so.
 
daveL said:
The only thing that *might* make sense is if Apple goes x86 on the consumer line, where nearly 100% of the apps come from Apple themselves, but even that's a big maybe. I really don't want this to be true.

And you see, I disagree entirely with that... If anything, a move to x86 on the *server* line makes more sense.. Not making their hardware x86, but making MacOS X Server available on x86... Shrug... NT4 support is no more, and M$ licensing for Server 2003 is so much higher than MacOS X Server Unlimited.. Shrug.. I'd much prefer Apple stay the corse in their PowerMac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, eMac, and mini lines.. experiment if they have to with Intel in the Servers... See what 3rd party devs jump on... Then *maybe* make MacOS X x86 an optional line.. not replacing *anything* in their current line up... then again watch to see if 3rd party devs make enough sw available for users to justify switching... Only after that, should Apple talk about *switching*

Shrug.. If SJ does this he needs a little vacation to a mental hospital..
 
SiliconAddict said:
We saw the same crap when the iPod came out. What were they thinking?
Should I break out Thread 500? What the heck:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=500


Secret Sauce said:
If IBM is looking to save some money, killing it's Apple chips would be a good place to start.
What evidence is there that IBM is losing money on the Apple relationship?


Abercrombieboy said:
Now they are going to replace the processor they claim is faster with one of the processors it shows getting trounced.
No, they would replace the PPC with an Intel processor from 2007 - two years from now. THAT is when C-Net says the pro transition would occur. Today's benchmarks aren't relevant.

This is obviously not about Apple thinking CURRENT x86 chips are better. It's about Apple thinking FUTURE x86 chips will be better.

Disclaimer: The above discussion is about Apple moving to x86, which I still have trouble buying and sincerely hope is not true. IF it's true, of course I won't bail on Macs--OS X is the best OS out there.
 
alandail said:
or it could be why now's the time. Little, if anything, that's an advance in Tiger is depenent on the fact that there's a PowerPC underneath. It'll all port, includine graphics acceleration like Core Image, to x86 based hardware. Given that OS X is so far advanced, isn't now the time to make a bold move to make it easy for windows users to try it out?

Once again, I don't think so...

The PPC altivec instruction set, which is utilized by much of OS X (and OS X apps) wouldn't be trivial to port, at least fully intact given what might be utilized on the x86 architecture as an alternative.

And Windows users can easily try OS X out today, without the need to port anything. For as little as $500 bucks you get the latest OS X, the iLife multimedia suite, and the opportunity to save a huge amount of space on your desk. :)
 
Abercrombieboy said:
If Steve drops the bomb on Monday, I can almost promise sales of the current products will drop through the floor. There are many people that do not want to buy a computer only to have no future operating systems available for it in a year or two.

If he did drop the bomb (if it even really exists) do you really think they wouldn't have thought of this? Do you really think they would present it in such a way that anyone would even remotely come to this conclusion? Do you think Apple just formed yesterday or what?
 
I just got back from the new Apple Store in Toronto (Yorkdale), and it's crazy how many people are aware of this news. It seemed every conversation I overheard between the sales staff and the visitors was on this Apple-Intel news, and how it would effect their possible purchase. And those weren't even at the Genius Bar.

All I heard from the staff was a variation of "no comment" or "I don't know."

I'd just love to hear from anyone who works at any Apple Store about their experiences with customers today.
 
SiliconAddict said:
Yes. If you are talking from specs point of view. They are starting to lag behind. From your post I read you saying this is because Steve was made to look the fool. If this is because of the chips I accept that. If this is because of someone's ego. Personally. I don't think so.

I don't think it is only becuase of ego, or a broken promise, but I think they do come into play at some level. Mainly, I think it has got to be about the chips. If Apple is switching, they have got to be looking at the speeds of the processors down the road.

As an aside, the consoles going to IBM would also be a factor.
 
Never Happen

There are a number of new products being lined up for release after the conference and in the fall. An x86 version of OSX is not one of them. Apple will never release a version of OSX for x86 hardware, period! It has nothing to do with actual hardware, but rather a commitment to developers to continue with the existing line of . If Apple were to make a change, which they won't, it would have to be phased in over a number of years (likely 2011 for the desktop). Otherwise they would be opened to litigation.

a). Lack ability to secure contracts to deliver consumer or highend PC to market and emulation of PPC is slow. Very slow.
b). Further, what would they offer as an office package? Open Office? iWorks? They are wed to Microsoft for office solutions.

It is likely that Steve Jobs is having a little fun with this. This is not the first time that this rumor has been floated, nor will it be the last. It, however, will never happen. What can one expect from the conference:

1). Power PC G5 MP core version for Power Mac
2). Power PC G5 for Powerbook
3). No updates to eMac, iMac, or iBook (other then possible speed bump)
4). iPod Shuffle II
5). Quicktime 7 Windows Preview
6). iTunes 4.9 released and iTunes 5.0 demo (later, fall release)
 
The GPU is what matters anyway

I haven't read all 800+ messages in the thread yet, so apologies if i'm duplicating something. But the switch to Intel (if it does happen) is a relatively minor shift all in all.

Did it leave a "bad taste in your mouth" when Apple switched from NuBus to PC-standard PCI? How about from SCSI to PC-standard ATA? ADB to USB? AppleDisplay to VGA? We've been using PC-standard equipment in our Macs for years. If you look real carefully on the logic board, you'll notice AT LEAST one or two Intel chips on there already.

But most importantly, Apple uses PC-standard nVidia and ATI GPUs.

This is where all the excitement is these days. The GPU is taking more and more tasks away from the CPU. The GPU is where the innovation is happening. The CPU, more and more, is the traffic cop. Why do you think Apple offloads more and more tasks to the GPU with every OS X release (think CoreVideo and CoreImage in 10.4)?

Still, it seems like a bizarre time to make the switch. G5s are once again tying or beating Xeons in DV speed tests, Apple is even catching up in the GHz game, and, in general, even Intel is de-emphasizing GHz because they realize the difference between a 2.8GHz and a 3.4GHz chip doesn't mean much to the average consumer.

And finally, Sony and Microsoft are using PowerPCs in their next-gen video game consoles. It seems like the PowerPC is once again ascendant. Which leaves two options:

1. Apple's Board, having totally lost their minds, is concerned company is making TOO much money, and so they're making this move to intentionally drive down the stock price and piss off Wall street, OR

2. They know something about the future of the PPC that we don't.
 
Fender said:
I'd just love to hear from anyone who works at any Apple Store about their experiences with customers today.
That's got to be fun.

Even more fun will be if this doesn't come up at ALL in the keynote :D

And I wonder how non-Apple resellers are handling the issue? Like, say, Best Buys?

blank_stare.jpg
 
People! If this rumor is true I guarantee Apple will make it such that you may not even realize if your mac is running using an x86 or PPC. Darwin already runs on x86's so why do people think this is such a big deal!?!?! You can download it right now at:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

Wake up and smell the coffee!
 
aldo said:
G5 Power output is a lot more than the latest PentiumDs and insanely more than the PentiumM.

Really don't know where you get that info on Pentium D power consumption form. The 3.2 Pentium D consumes over 210 Watts at idle and over 310 at full output in an average system. That is is more power than a single 3.6 P4 and more power than even dual G5's require. The Athlon X2 is the real power consumption champ at full power it uses less than 190 Watts in a system.

You want energy efficiency than once again you don't go to Intel. Couple that with the fact the Athlon X2 wipes the floor with the Pentium D and I can only hope Apple are going for custom chips. Or we want macs with Opterons ;)
 
Kinda sad...

Too bad that after Monday I might have to change my Avatar from the PowerPC logo to this one...

I suppose Intel will make Apple stick these nasty logos on all their hardware like PC have....arrrgh...
 

Attachments

  • p4-logo.gif
    p4-logo.gif
    2.1 KB · Views: 789
tromboneaholic said:
The problem is that G5 *still* has not reached 3ghz at the 2 year anniversary of the WWDC promise.

I wonder what kind of promise will be made if there is an Intel announcement.

Is there some application or project you have that's waiting in the wings for that extra 0.3ghz that simply can't be done with a 2.7ghz machine? This is the point when this whole discussion gets absurd...

And Jobs did something that few corporate executives ever do: he stood up in front of the world and acknowledged the promise he made a year earlier and explained why it didn't (and couldn't) happen. He didn't try to put a contrived, self-redeeming spin on it, and never announced a revised time frame for 3ghz for those of you who like to mark your calendars with this stuff.

Sheez...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.