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
nagromme said:
If this is the case...what happens to their sales numbers over the next 2 years?
Chaywa said:
I could not agree more. iPod will not be able to sustain that. They need to introduce it now, not just announce it and have an emulator ready to go to make it work like they did when they moved from the 68K macs to the PPC Macs.
nagromme said:
That's one of the things I don't like about PC notebooks (and desktops for that matter) is all those stickers they put on the front of them. The "Intel Inside" logo, the Windows logo. Heck on my PC laptop, it's practically a small billboard with all these stickers on it. Really makes it look tacky. In fact, that's one of the things I like about Macs, you don't get all those annoying stickers on them. Plus those annoying icons on PC desktops for "FREE AOL BROADBAND" or those trail apps and what not. When I first booted my Mac it was so nice just to see "Macintosh HD" icon on the desktop
tech4all said:That's one of the things I don't like about PC notebooks (and desktops for that matter) is all those stickers they put on the front of them. The "Intel Inside" logo, the Windows logo. Heck on my PC laptop, it's practically a small billboard with all these stickers on it. Really makes it look tacky. In fact, that's one of the things I like about Macs, you don't get all those annoying stickers on them.
Can't you just rip them all off, that is what I would do.
psycho bob said: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
I'm not saying the Pentium D is energy efficient, but I suspect your 310 watts at full output is a bit of an exaggeration seeing as the Dell Precision 380 only comes with a 375 watt powersupply. With only 65 watts left, you'd be lucky to run a stick of ram, a single HD, single optical, and maybe a 4 year old video card. Yeah, the Intel stuff is a pig for power consumption, but not that bad.
Agathon said:
"There's good reason to believe this. Someone from IBM basically confirmed to me a few weeks back that something like this was up.
Good riddance if it is true. IBM suck."
Freakin' A!
i thought i'd have to add to this post. I cannot believe after the years and years of apple promoting the PowerPC platform that'll it'll say that it was all lies and intel is better! No way! Plus with even Microsoft using the G5 in its Xboxes!
Oh well... Apple I may just leave your platform because you're not to be trusted again if all my apps wont work with my new system in 2 years time. Just like they didn't between OS 9 and X
Oh well... Apple I may just leave your platform because you're not to be trusted again if all my apps wont work with my new system in 2 years time. Just like they didn't between OS 9 and X
Abercrombieboy said:
A few possibilities:
1. Sales will plummet. Apple will fight a marketing battle of damage control, and survive on their other strengths, on people who appreciate Mac OS X and need something right now, even their cash reserves... but it will HURT!
But the same would result if PowerPCs from IBM go noplace. If PowerBooks and PowerMacs in 2006 have chips not much different from today.
So hypothetically IF that's the choice Apple is faced with, why not go the route that leads to a great recovery in 2007? Around the time of Longforlorn and the next Mac OS X?
Yes, OS X on x86 is bad in many ways--but if it's happening then it's because doing nothing is worse.
2. IBM and Freescale DO have great new chips coming, and Apple has a sensible compatibility/emulation roadmap, and they communicate all this clearly to users and developers. They make the transition work smoothly despite the hurdles, then reap the benefits. If Apple does this, they just MIGHT have a plan to make it work.
3. The likely truth would probably be somewhere in between that worst case and best case.
For example, what if I needed a new PowerMac station this year, but I know they'll be going to x86 in 2007? And what if I expect I may be forced then to upgrade to the next version of my apps, even if the current version is still enough for me?
If that's the case, I'd be very comforted if Apple demo'd a solution allowing current apps to keep running. Maybe emulation, maybe even a low-end Freescale "co-processor" thrown next to the x86 for legacy apps. Something. Whatever the solution might be, it doesn't have to be possible now--it has to be possible in 1 to 2 years, and we have to KNOW about it now. A demo that's a bit slow would be enough, even.
Still hoping none of it's true
Except maybe Intel PPC.
tech4all said:That's one of the things I don't like about PC notebooks (and desktops for that matter) is all those stickers they put on the front of them. The "Intel Inside" logo, the Windows logo. Heck on my PC laptop, it's practically a small billboard with all these stickers on it. Really makes it look tacky. In fact, that's one of the things I like about Macs, you don't get all those annoying stickers on them. Plus those annoying icons on PC desktops for "FREE AOL BROADBAND" or those trail apps and what not. When I first booted my Mac it was so nice just to see "Macintosh HD" icon on the desktop
That is right. Apple designers are pros and they wont allow any one to mess up their design. PC makers can't design something as elegant ac apple computers sso they try to cover it up with all those stupid stickers. Those cheap stickers are good for computer novice who gets exited every time he sees that boot up text in windows.
SpaceMagic said:
I don't understand what you mean.
Wouldn't it be "the PowerPC WAS better and IS better... but in the future it will no longer be better, and we're ready for it?"
Where are the lies in that?
I hope the PPC IS better in future, but if Apple knows something I don't, that's doesn't make anything about the past/present be a lie all of a sudden.
nagromme said:
I would agree if Apple does this they need to do it quick and let emulation let the software catch up with the hardware. Even if the performance takes a hit for awhile, it would be better for sales and marketing.
AND one last thing...I am just going to wait for Monday...but if Apple announces Intel by 2007, there is one good thing that will come out of it for Macrumors members...
No one will have to ask the question, should I wait or should I buy for the next two years!!! WAIT!
ewinemiller said:
Sorry I should have clarrified. The figures were taken off a site testing the processors in systems. Those figures are for the complete systems including NVIDIA 6800 GPU's. By comparison a dual 2GHz G5 (don't know with what graphics card) consumes around 180 Watts flat out. Regardless nearly 400 Watts would be considered unacceptable especially when better performance can be had for half that amount of power.
You have to consider this also...
Microsoft came to IBM, and has a PPC that broke the 3Ghz barrier, and Steve promised this to us umpteen years ago.
Microsoft working with IBM is every bit as bad / dangerous as Apple with Intel.
Who knows.... Apple may well be better off with an Intel / AMD solution (I like AMD much better). I couldn't care one bit about the chip maker; I care about performance, and if IBM isn't delivering (as Motorolla didn't) then maybe it's time we pack our things.
Sun Baked said:Actually it isn't about the CPU, it's about development dollars and MicroSoft. Two things Apple doesn't want to mess with.
OS/2 died because it was darn easy for people in charge to cut OS/2 from development and put the money into Wintel, and not lose a customer -- at the time you could run Window apps in OS/2.
If Apple switches to Intel, they may find a mass exodus of development dollars... unless they announce a Cocoa-only for x86 initiative.
Heck they could even make it run Cocoa inside Windows, and not shoot themselves in the foot.
Moving the full Mac OS to Intel, will put them into direct competition with Windows -- which is a bad thing.
---
We'll see Monday, but these guys aren't generally the most accurate in the world when it comes to Apple scoops.
Microsoft came to IBM, and has a PPC that broke the 3Ghz barrier, and Steve promised this to us umpteen years ago.
Microsoft working with IBM is every bit as bad / dangerous as Apple with Intel.
Who knows.... Apple may well be better off with an Intel / AMD solution (I like AMD much better). I couldn't care one bit about the chip maker; I care about performance, and if IBM isn't delivering (as Motorolla didn't) then maybe it's time we pack our things.
Abercrombieboy said:
They won't do it quick in terms of shipping machines--who would want them before there's software? Chicken and egg. And the performance to make this practical is probably not coming from Intel now--but rather in the 2006-2007 timeframe, according to the (questionable) article.
They COULD and should do it quick in terms of letting developers get started a year early.
Then the scenarios I posted would play out until the transition is complete, for better or worse. End users would not be affected until next year--at which time performance would be better than now (for all chip types) and software for the new architecture would start to exist. For pros, that timetable (in the article) is TWO years. A lot of important apps can get prepared in two years. Nobody WANTS to do it, but if they have to because IBM's not going anywhere, then they will. OS X is still better than Windows, and the press is finally picking up on that.
In the end the Mac will be just fine. Until then, we'd face some uncertainties. Sometimes there's no choice.
You're all way off.
IBM and the G5 are dead.
Intel headlines are disinformation.
Apple will go with Pontiac. They have the G6.
http://www.pontiac.com/g6/
IBM and the G5 are dead.
Intel headlines are disinformation.
Apple will go with Pontiac. They have the G6.
http://www.pontiac.com/g6/
Hmmm, I havn't seen anyone suggest that the move may be to switch to Intel chips that are pin-compatible with the current Power line.
This is the way I see it: Nowhere in the article does it actually say that Apple is moving to x86 processors. Only that FreeBSD can run on x86.
What I believe will happen, and it will be a good move for Apple if they do, is they believe Intel can create a faster chip than IBM at higher volumes more cheaply, but this chip will be pin-compatible with the Power line.
Pin compatible means that the behavior of the two chips is exactly the same, but the internals of the chips are different.
For example, let's say we have a four bit architecture, and the motherboard inputs "high-low-low-high" into the CPU and waits for the output, "high-high-high-low". The motherboard doesn't care how the processor arrives at that answer, or what exactly goes on inside the CPU, just that it gets a specific answer for a specific input. I think this may be what Apple is looking at. If this was the situation, then a few years from now, you'll be able to remove the G5 processors from your Powermac G5 and directly insert the new Intel chip, and absolutely nothing will change except your Powermac will run faster. All of your software and everything will run exactly the same.
This is basically the exact situation that AMD and Intel have going. AMD and Intel build and design their chips differently. However, if you input a specific string into either an AMD or an Intel chip, they will both give you the exact same output. What actually goes on inside the chips differ, but the motherboard doesn't care about that. Hence you compile one application for "x86", and that application will run on both AMD and Intel.
Intel could build a Power pin-compatible chip without licensing anything from IBM or Motorola if they designed it from scratch. There would be no need to recompile current Mac apps to run the new Intel chip unless the Intel chip has more registers, and even that would be a simple, optional fix. Apple would continue their lifelong focus of tight hardware/software integration since, just like now, they will continue to have control over the hardware platform. Apple would ditch IBM, which has consistantly failed to provide the speed bumps Jobs was promised when Apple initially went with IBM for the G5. Intel, which has over 80% of the CPU market share, would have no problem producing the number of chips Apple needs. Plus Intel has now shown to be the world leader in producing effecient, low power chips. The Centrino architecture is awesome, and Apple would tap Intel's talent to create very powerful laptop processors as well, all the while maintaining pin compatibility with the current Power line. Jobs probably considers an Intel promise to deliver higher power chips seriously, while IBM has failed repeatedly.
Intel can produce chips at higher power, with lower cost, and in higher numbers than IBM can. I would welcome a change to Intel chips, but only in the situation I've outlined here. A switch to true x86 architecture would not be the way to go. Keep the Power architecture and switch manufacturers. Apple did it once when going from Motorola to IBM, and this wouldn't be any different.
This is the way I see it: Nowhere in the article does it actually say that Apple is moving to x86 processors. Only that FreeBSD can run on x86.
What I believe will happen, and it will be a good move for Apple if they do, is they believe Intel can create a faster chip than IBM at higher volumes more cheaply, but this chip will be pin-compatible with the Power line.
Pin compatible means that the behavior of the two chips is exactly the same, but the internals of the chips are different.
For example, let's say we have a four bit architecture, and the motherboard inputs "high-low-low-high" into the CPU and waits for the output, "high-high-high-low". The motherboard doesn't care how the processor arrives at that answer, or what exactly goes on inside the CPU, just that it gets a specific answer for a specific input. I think this may be what Apple is looking at. If this was the situation, then a few years from now, you'll be able to remove the G5 processors from your Powermac G5 and directly insert the new Intel chip, and absolutely nothing will change except your Powermac will run faster. All of your software and everything will run exactly the same.
This is basically the exact situation that AMD and Intel have going. AMD and Intel build and design their chips differently. However, if you input a specific string into either an AMD or an Intel chip, they will both give you the exact same output. What actually goes on inside the chips differ, but the motherboard doesn't care about that. Hence you compile one application for "x86", and that application will run on both AMD and Intel.
Intel could build a Power pin-compatible chip without licensing anything from IBM or Motorola if they designed it from scratch. There would be no need to recompile current Mac apps to run the new Intel chip unless the Intel chip has more registers, and even that would be a simple, optional fix. Apple would continue their lifelong focus of tight hardware/software integration since, just like now, they will continue to have control over the hardware platform. Apple would ditch IBM, which has consistantly failed to provide the speed bumps Jobs was promised when Apple initially went with IBM for the G5. Intel, which has over 80% of the CPU market share, would have no problem producing the number of chips Apple needs. Plus Intel has now shown to be the world leader in producing effecient, low power chips. The Centrino architecture is awesome, and Apple would tap Intel's talent to create very powerful laptop processors as well, all the while maintaining pin compatibility with the current Power line. Jobs probably considers an Intel promise to deliver higher power chips seriously, while IBM has failed repeatedly.
Intel can produce chips at higher power, with lower cost, and in higher numbers than IBM can. I would welcome a change to Intel chips, but only in the situation I've outlined here. A switch to true x86 architecture would not be the way to go. Keep the Power architecture and switch manufacturers. Apple did it once when going from Motorola to IBM, and this wouldn't be any different.
The WSJ Online has an article (new) on this, although I can't access it. Can someone tells us if there is any more news in the article? The title did not make a statement of fact:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/exte...791696757050994,00.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/exte...791696757050994,00.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
