Really switching to Intel!!??

[fpnc]

Update:
"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule."

Source: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology (paid subscription required)

Yes, this WSJ confirmation is pretty much sealing the case shut. It looks like Apple is moving to x86, it's all over except for the crying. I hope it works out for them, but I suspect that it is going to be a disaster.

And by the way, assuming that there isn't complete stunned silence at WWDC, I suspect that there will be vocal expressions of displeasure. That's one reason why I originally believed that an announcement at WWDC would be unlikely.

 

[Mac_Freak]

Assume that the transition is true.
Assume that we are talking about x86.

The chip is apparently going in the consumer Macs in 2006 and then later into pro Macs in 2007.
Wouldn't that kill ALL sales of Macs until the new chips arrived?
Could Apple really survive no Mac sales for two years?
Who would buy a very expensive Mac after two years of no sales?

I don't see the logic... I just don't see it

What would prevent Intel from starting to manufacture PPC's?
All the console makers are going PPC. This must have been known in the Intel camp for years. Hence they should have had enough time to design/manufacture a PPC.
I doubt that Intel would sit around and do nothing.

However, if the x86 rumor is true, it might be the end of Mac...

Well, most consumer will have no idea of processor switch, only a hand full will. Not that many people know much about computer and hardware that is in it. If they like what they see, they buy, ohh a nice sales person also helps

 

[Brundlefly]

why oh why

if they were really looking for an alternative wouldnt they go to the AMD chip line, as far as I know the intel chips are not 64 bit yet.....


something is happening, and it could go either way.

 

[runninmac]

Update:


"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule."

Source: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology (paid subscription required)

Anyone feel like posting the article or is that illegal???

 

[macinfojunkie]

Apple 2 Go Intel.... I Hope so!

Dear All,

This thread (whether Apple should switch to Intel), has actually motivated me to register with this site so I can post my thoughts. First of all let me state this. I’m 100% committed to Mac. I’ve been using Macintosh since the LC. I’ve probably spent $25,000 on Macs (for personal use!) But, what did piss me off though, was having to pay over the odds for every computer, add on peripheral and software component I had to purchase, because of my platform choice. I realise you can’t get a BMW for Generic money, but I’m not the only one who probably feels that at times during Apple’s reign of beign the maker of best-of-breed computers, that I’ve been paying BMW money for Generic performance, not to mention stability pre-OSX.

Professionally, I’ve been using Wintel machines for the last 10 years, but continue to use Macs for personal computing and hobbies. At one point I did switch over to a Windows ’98/NT build in order to try and standardise on a single platform for personal and professional use. What a disaster L. My music/audio setup just completely failed, and I wasted well over $5000 trying to get a PC to run my home studio as well as my LC and PowerBook 100!

But I stayed with Windows for all but music use until OS 10 came along. I jumped back into the Apple camp with both feet when I got a 17” 1Ghz iMac, and have not looked back since. All 3 of the PCs I’ve purchased over the years are now gathering dust in a loft! I’m hoping to buy a fully “maxed” G5 system soon, but have been holding off until after the WWDC so I can be sure I’m investing in a long-term strategy (from Apple’s perspective).

Having said all that. When I started reading the (recent) rumours (after all this story comes around every few years) that Apple might be switching to Intel, this time I hoped it was true. This is why:

1) Switching to Intel will ensure solid processor supply for Apple, as well as enable them to increase the range of offerings. PPC is slowing down relative to Intel in the processor growth curve. And don’t retort with PPC is better than x86. It might well be, personally I don’t care. What is important is the relative speed increments per quarter ad on this count, Intel is winning.
2) (Personally, I’m convinced) that IBM are looking at ways to trim overhead from areas where they don’t make high margins or high volumes. Just look at the sale of their PC/laptop business to the Chinese for evidence of that. On this score alone, I would like to see Apple switch so that they are not at risk from IMB reducing investment in the PPC platform. Which would in tern impede the performance growth curve.
3) By being on Intel, Apple will once and for all level the GHz argument, and enable die hard Windows users to see that it’s not the overall speed of the system that matters when you use Mac OS, but the quality of they system. This in turn should see more Windows users move over to Apple.
4) Remember, at the end of the day, it’s the front end that makes the difference at the end of the day. I.e. Tiger. What an OS!!!! Long may it live, and all it’s children.

Macs rule. And I think Steve has finally got the OS to ensure Apple can make money from just the software alone. Switch to Intel and license the Mac ROM. Then watch that market share climb.

 

[robotjustin]

Even if it's false...

I'd just like to reach out and thank whoever made it up.

What a great discussion!

It's so funny how involved I am with my computer, and who makes the chips.

What a ridiculous thing to be nervous about!

I hope that it's true, that it sucks, that Apple becomes just as unreliable/crapola as a PC, and I'm left with no choice but to give up on computers and go back to film.

Ah, what a lovely thing it would be.

No more "hot balls" from the damn Powebook G4.

No more strained eyeballs, stress headaches, carpal tunnel.

No more wasting 2 hours reading gossip sites to find out if everyone's favorite, user firendly billionare will make another group of billionares richer with his millions in "chump change."

Come back to me, Bolex! Come back to me, leader and mag track!

Viva la revolution!

(pure crap all around)

 

[runninmac]

Macs rule. And I think Steve has finally got the OS to ensure Apple can make money from just the software alone. Switch to Intel and license the Mac ROM. Then watch that market share climb.

On the good side... Im an apple share holder so it will shoot up.

On the bad side......... There could be MANY viruses/spywear becuase of that and that would SUCK

 

[gorkonapple]

I don't see the switch the Intel chips as a negative. Everyone complains of the lack of speed in the PPC chips. Apple could/should/would make an x86 box that is as closed as the PPC box is now, for the sake of system stability. They could do some sort of special chip that would not allow OS X to be bootable on anything other then an Apple box.

This may help also bridge the concerns switchers have about not being able to run Win apps. Plug-in a second drive, with Win Xp - and have a dual boot system.

A win-win if I ever heard of one.

I don't complain. PPC is BETTER than Intel. ANYDAY.

I DO think that if Apple goes this way, what will happen is they will have their BIOS locked in such a way that you can't load Windows or even Linux easily. Then again, I may be wrong.....this COULD be a way for Apple to get access to the faster graphics cards quicker then waiting for ATI and Nvidia to make a PPC compatible version.

 

[intrepkid21]

Yes, this WSJ confirmation is pretty much sealing the case shut. It looks like Apple is moving to x86, it's all over except for the crying. I hope it works out for them, but I suspect that it is going to be a disaster.

And by the way, assuming that there isn't complete stunned silence at WWDC, I suspect that there will be vocal expressions of displeasure. That's one reason why I originally believed that an announcement at WWDC would be unlikely.

How is the WSJ reporting on what someone else reported a confirmation?

 

[nomore]

Switching to Intel will ensure solid processor supply for Apple, as well as enable them to increase the range of offerings. PPC is slowing down relative to Intel in the processor growth curve.

From what I've seen, Intel has not increased overall performance in the past two years any faster than IBM/Apple have with the G5 system... so I think you're wrong.

 

[macmaniac_pr]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I THOUGHT I WAS SPECIAL WHEN I SAID I HAD A MAC WITH A POWERPC PROCESSOR!!!!

if all this is true, i will truly miss the good ol'days of rolling my eyes to intel commercials.

 

[cosmicsoftceo]

"Vocal Displeasure"? Hardly.

Yes, this WSJ confirmation is pretty much sealing the case shut. It looks like Apple is moving to x86, it's all over except for the crying. I hope it works out for them, but I suspect that it is going to be a disaster.

Again, it's not for sure that they're switching to x86; it just seems very likely they're moving to Intel. It still is very possible (and I feel, likely) that Apple will simply contract Intel to produce PPC 970s, using Intel's advanced technique.

And by the way, assuming that there isn't complete stunned silence at WWDC, I suspect that there will be vocal expressions of displeasure. That's one reason why I originally believed that an announcement at WWDC would be unlikely.

No there won't. This is WWDC; the audience is developers, not Mac fans. Developers won't be pleased, but they're not going to boo Steve. Heck, many of them will be happy--a major frustration with Apple has been unwillingness to work on the perception of the Mac's speed as inferior (which it is, in many cases).

 

[bellis1]

that settles it.

Now I won't have to buy a new computer for at least two years. Glad I already feel cozy with my current ibook and imac setup. Their computer sales are going to tank over the next two years. Anyone want to sell me some shares in the coming months?

 

[gedto]

Why is thinksecret so silent?? It is pretty much the only site not posting a word about all this. :O

 

[pontecorvo]

Why is thinksecret so silent?? It is pretty much the only site not posting a word about all this. :O

Because they know better?

 

[Flying Llama]

So we would have to download or buy new software for our mini? Rebuy photoshop? word? all my programs? one version for x86, one for ppc? oh, the confusion... unless intel makes the chips but they stay ppc. sorry, i haven't been able to take the time and read all 40 pages and all 1000 posts, most of them including wow! oh no! cool! and other one-word posts...

 

[rockthecasbah]

On the good side... Im an apple share holder so it will shoot up.

On the bad side......... There could be MANY viruses/spywear becuase of that and that would SUCK

no no no, this would not create more viruses! Viruses target holes in OPERATING SYSTEMS, not hardware. OSX would still be a small community and thus more resistant to viruses since nobody would write ones for 5% of the computing world. A processor switch will not change this.

 

[cosmicsoftceo]

On the good side... Im an apple share holder so it will shoot up.

Not necessarily. Wall Street is already nervous about Apple's weakness in recent iPod sales. This announcement might kill short-term sales and could be perceived as a major change of course after a bad decision.

On the bad side......... There could be MANY viruses/spywear becuase of that and that would SUCK

What in the heck are you talking about? Spyware and virii have absolutely nothing to do with the chip they are running on, and just about everything to do with the OS. We'll still be using Mac OS X; the only difference will be the chip in our G5 (or G6, or whatever they call it). There will be no change whatsoever in spyware/virii unless the Mac platform becomes more popular.

 

[bosrs1]

Because they know better?

They're not the end all know all of Apple info... otherwise they'd have said something about the new iPods on Monday.

 

[Mac_Freak]

Why is thinksecret so silent?? It is pretty much the only site not posting a word about all this. :O

Maybe they just can't process such big chink of news at once

 

[fpnc]

How is the WSJ reporting on what someone else reported a confirmation?

They didn't just report on the CNET story, it looks like WSJ got confirmation from their own sources. Of course, the WSJ source could be wrong too, but the WSJ report and a few other items have convinced me (well, almost) that the switch to x86 is going to happen.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

If the rumor is true (and with the WSJ confirming it, it seems more likely), then Apple can't help announcing it this early. There's a reason it's being announced at WWDC--the World Wide Developer's Conference. Each and every one of us Mac developers have to recompile our Mac apps for Intel, or face sub-par performance when Intel Macs are released (presumably with some kind of PPC backwards compatibility).

If Apple just announced a switch to x86 and shipped it the next day--like they usually do with other products--developers would jump ship, massively. It's not going to be cheap to recompile all these apps as it is, with a year's notice.

Personally, however, I don't believe a x86 jump is going to happen; I'm a fan of the theory that Apple will simply contract Intel to produce more advanced PPC 970s. I've heard that Apple has the right to do so if IBM doesn't live up to its contractual obligations--which allegedly it hasn't.

Finally, x86 or not, this is certainly not the "end of the Mac". You can bet anything that Mac OS X will never run on any PC. It will require Mac ROM on a Mac motherboard, with checks up and down a million ways to make sure you aren't running it on a regular PC. Nothing will change except the endianness of the chip inside.

Let me clarify.... I dont see could make this switch and survive as a computer company

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Because there will be less apps that will run on the Intel chips at first. Prosumers will still need all apps so they'll need the most lead time for recompiling software to run on the new Intel cores.

How many prosumer machines do you think there will be sold in 2006-2007?

 

[macuser05]

no no no, this would not create more viruses! Viruses target holes in OPERATING SYSTEMS, not hardware. OSX would still be a small community and thus more resistant to viruses since nobody would write ones for 5% of the computing world. A processor switch will not change this.

Learn some things about buffer overflows and X86. Then read about them and PPC. Notice they are less problematic on PPC (ie: they won't let you run code).

That's why Intel and AMD have been scrambling to add buffer overflow executeion prevention into their new chips.

 

[LaMerVipere]

I really don't believe what I'm hearing from so many of you about Apple talking Intel into producing a PPC chip.

Intel would never invest the huge amount of capital needed for something like that. They'd have to spend money on research, fabrication, etc... And for what? Apple isn't a big enough customer to justify all that.

It's x86 or bust.