Really switching to Intel!!??

[mannybianco]

If IBM doesnt have a clear commitment to making the PPC arch competitive for the desktop/laptop systems (console chips are not suitable! they dont count) then apple has to move. If they dont, that would be suicidal for sure. Moving over, and all the upheaval and uncertainity, just *might* be suicidal.

What better way to stay competitive than to tie yourself to the desktop big-boy. And leverage your control over the platform components to squeeze out all the available performance. They could easily build a multi-chip multi-core solution, while windows lags way behind due to the obligations of maintaining compatability with an insanely diverse platform.

IF (and that is the nub of it) IBM wants out, to dedicate the capacity to their console contracts, Apple has to move.

Its not about the apple-IBM partnership being unprofitable, its about it being LESS profitable than dedicating that capacity/R&D to the consoles.

This could all end well - like i said, with tight control over the platform, Apple would always be a few steps ahead of the generic windows platform. Imagine that - no more bulls**t benchmarks, no more questions, Apple tech would be the best - the current state of the art taken to the nth.

It all depends how well they manage the transition to not blow themselves to bits.

 

[d.perel]

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 would be a great path for apple to take. So far, the only comments that I have seen all refer to apple using 100% different / Power incompatible chips. I hope this possibility is true and the one that is chosen!

 

[CubaTBird]

what if like.. on monday.. steve comes out.. and like busts out the powerbook g5... and all these rumors are false about moving to intel.. i mean in an article last month.. didn't steve say something about not going with them?

 

[VanNess]

You're forgetting what WWDC is - WorldWide Developer's Conference. Hardware updates usually only include PowerMacs and PowerBooks, definatelly no iPods or iTunes.

Maybe, but Job's spent the better portion of the last WWDC with a Tiger feature parade, one of several to date for Mac confabs, so I don't think he can get away with yet another Spotlight demo this time. So what else is there to do? There have been non-powerbook/powermac product WWDC introductions before (The cinema HD display, isight), and the main thing Jobs needs to do with this keynote (any keynote really) is to energize the crowd.

I have a feeling that the "update" portion of the keynote that pertains to Apple's products ("since we last met...") is going to be more comprehensive this time around rather than just the usual collection of selected soundbites, performance and sales figures.

 

[zoltamatron]

Tablet!

Tablet! Tablet! Tablet!

What about an Intel based OSX running tablet computer? What better way to enter a new processor architecture than with a completely new form factor? This wouldn't be something that people would have to migrate to, but would add into their digital lives.

-z

 

[alexeismertin]

names

so if it goes x86 then POWERmacs & POWERbooks without the PowerPC processor will have to be called something appropriate to the CPU..

... I give you..

Mactium or Mactanium or even Mactel (urrgghh)

taniumbook / taniumMac

or simply Telbooks or Telmacs

and never rule out..

InMac inside (this has got a ring - like the intel jingle)

 

[tech4all]

Can't you just rip them all off, that is what I would do.

Yea you can. In fact one started to do that and it leaves behind a really icky residue. And I accidently started to peel off the Pentium III logo, but never did finish that - ha, almost sounds like a job in itself to remove these stickers.

Most PCs are just sooo bloated with these stickers it gets irritating, at least to me. Before we know it, PC users are going to start saying: "Macs suck cuz they got no stickers on them" or "Macs cost so much and they don't even put stickers on them". (well sometimes Apple gives you an Apple logo sticker, but at lest it's on a separate paper)

 

[ropbo]

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?

That's my situation. I'm planning on buying a Powermac Dual G5 2.7 and Final Cut Studio by the end of the year ...

 

[~Shard~]

what if like.. on monday.. steve comes out.. and like busts out the powerbook g5... and all these rumors are false about moving to intel.. i mean in an article last month.. didn't steve say something about not going with them?

Like others have said, maybe this is just a diversion to keep all of us rumor-watchers occupied so Stave can prepare for his REAL shocking announcements on Monday....

 

[spaceballl]

That moron Dvorak announced Apple should do it 10 years ago, and I think he wrote tons of articles on it.

I hate John C. Dvorak

 

[Spazmodius]

Have to wait and see. I can't remember who it was, but one analyst put it about as succinctly as possible: You never know what Steve Jobs will do when he's mad.

And we can all be pretty sure that promising us we'd have 3.0GHz a year ago, only to have us at 2.7GHz today, has put him in a rather persistent crimson rage. What I wouldn't pay to be a fly on the wall when the folks at Big Blue give Steve-O their periodic updates on "progress". I bet the flames peel paint off the walls.

Jobs has shown real accumen in his history as a once-and-future CEO of Apple. He's also shown flashes of maniacal anger and almost sociopathic vindictiveness. He's all about revenge. Just ask folks like Gil Amelio and John Wiley. I believe he'd do something this drastic just to deliver the biggest eff-you possible to IBM. Unfortunately, as nuts as such a move is, it's simply not outside of the realm of possibility...because Jobs is an unpredictable character.

 

[jellocat]

hof?

so uh, what's the most commented story ever on macrumors? we are almost to 1000, and I don't remember seeing that before.

yet another indicator of apple's increasing following?


(a newbie by posting only. a looooong time reader of the forum. well, at least back before flatscreen G4 imacs and g5's)

 

[Mac_Freak]

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.

And where are the hardware sales from that? Apple and upgradeable chips, no way. Anyway, why would you put a faster chip in 2-4 year old motherboard. That is just not thought out well dude. I don't mean to be rude. But hell no.

 

[hechacker1]

this just gives me a really good reason to wait for the next iteration of the powerbook before I get a mac. There is no way I would want to be locked into an older architecture.

Hopefully we get a powerbook with 6 hours battery life and a Pentium M behind it. Who knows, maybe intel will just make their own Pentium M PPC chip and keep compatbility.

 

[0098386]

And where are the hardware sales from that? Apple and upgradeable chips, no way. Anyway, why would you put a faster chip in 2-4 year old motherboard. That is just not thought out well dude. I don't mean to be rude. But hell no.

it isnt the Apple way.

ive somehow got a feeling that everything will be ok. i mean didnt Freescale make the G4? if im not mistaken (which i probably am) didnt IBM just make the G5? was there this much fuss when they stopped with Freescale?

surely intel would make PPC processors or has IBM got a hold on the 'PowerPC' name?

 

[Doctor Q]

Intel could build a Power pin-compatible chip without licensing anything from IBM or Motorola if they designed it from scratch.

I understand your point but can't believe that this would be economically sensible from Intel's point of view. Apple would not have a lion's share of their market and somebody has to cover all those costs.

 

[rabatjoie]

so uh, what's the most commented story ever on macrumors? we are almost to 1000, and I don't remember seeing that before.

that was the dual powermac g5 2.5 thread - when they were not shipping. I think that one hit 5000 at some point...

 

[brap]

And where are the hardware sales from that? Apple and upgradeable chips, no way.

True.

Anyway, why would you put a faster chip in 2-4 year old motherboard. That is just not thought out well dude. I don't mean to be rude. But hell no.

False. I know people with P3-1GHz chips running on the legendary 440BX. It's just a different way of doing things -- it is by no means "wrong".

 

[Stella]

The majority of users don't buy Apple because of the processor, they buy because of several reasons:

* the OS
* software
* nice looking machines
etc etc

They don't buy it because of the processor family that is, PPC .

If Apple had a Intel and PPC boxes running along side each other, you wouldn't know the difference.

 

[jubjub]

Here's what the Boss of Apple Sweden / Denmark / Norway (Finland?) said som weeks ago about the Intel rumors.

My translation:
"There are ongoing rumors about us changing processors. However nothing is final at this point. It's not really a big deal what kind of processor we use. Before is was Moto and now it's IBM."

In Swedish:
"Oscar Bjers, vd för Apple i Norden, säger:
- Det pågår ständiga rykten just när det gäller byte av processor. Ingenting är dock klart ännu. Egentligen är det inte en så stor grej vilken processor vi använder. Tidigare hade vi Motorola och nu är det IBM. "

Of course it's the "nothing is final at this point" part that I find interesting.

As far as I know.. he is still alive. Which means Steve does not care what he is saying.. or that Steve doesn't read Swedish articles

Article at idg.se (in Swedish)

 

[0098386]

If Apple had a Intel and PPC boxes running along side each other, you wouldn't know the difference.

that could very well be true. but i think people are pissed because it means upcoming apps would be suited towards X86/whatever Intel will make rather than PPC.

 

[kakophony]

There you go: confirmed.

Hey guys:

I bring you what "my sources" have just confirmed me:

Mr. Steve Jobs WILL be announcing on Monday an alliance with Intel and ditch IBM in two years time. Reason: Intel has offered Apple their brand new Pentium-D (dual core), and preliminary performance tests using QuickTransit have been successful enough to grant the move.

Mac OS X will run on these machines via JITcompiling. The processor-emulation will pay a penalty of around 15% of processing power, but even after that the performance will be superior to the current PowerPC single Macintosh.

This fairly reliable source (I will not say Intel engineer because I don't want to put her in trouble - I just said too much with that "her") reported that "the first joint-venture that Apple & Intel will make will be a laptop micro-processor". Specs of the microprocessor will be:

Intel Pentium D 820 @ 2.8GHz (Dual-Core) 800MHz FSB

which she told me is fairly priced and may be part of the new iBook line. It is expected that the Powerbook line will recieve a Pentium D 840 by next year (3.2 GHz Dual Core), plus the PowerMac line will see a Pentium Extreme Edition 840 with Hyperthreading (starting at 3.2GHz).

This is what she told me. She also said that performance tests using the 820 model were pretty successful and JIT QuickTransit technology made it possible to blow out of the water the current iBook models, even emulating Mac OS X.

I hope it is interesting to you.

P.S. I am a regular user of this forums, but she personally asked me to create a fresh and clean account just to post this message. She doesn't want any chances to get "caught" in leaking this. Obviously, she might even not be a "she". I hope you understand.

 

[loib]

good move 4 apple

 

[Mac_Freak]

False. I know people with P3-1GHz chips running on the legendary 440BX. It's just a different way of doing things -- it is by no means "wrong".

Well I based my opinion on the thing that I have read that current PowerMac's FireWire Ports/motherboard transfer is even lover than on a PowerBook when huked up to the exteranl drives, espacially Raid 0 setup.
If I am wrong, then pardon me. Technology is so complicated.

 

[0098386]

sorry if somebody else has already said this but.. i just died a little...

"Intel Inside!"

if i wasnt so excited about other things in my life id cry right now