# Apple & Intel



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

Did everyone see this ?


----------



## Elias26 (Apr 19, 2005)

Welcome to the new era of Aptel.

I guess Steve wasn't too thrilled with the way IBM handled certain projects. Supposedly the time in production was a concern. Didn't Mr. Jobs suggest we would have had a 3.0 GHz G5 sometime last year, but didn't happen because IBM didn't come through? Heck, I have no idea. When it comes to this sort of thing I am naive and clueless.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

If true, I can't wait to see how Apple zealots will spin this one - given the response at this rumour last time on Ehmac...
Wow the X-Box gets IBM chips that are faster and more powerful than what is in the G5 and Steve decides to go with Intel... he could of at least tried for the superiour AMD chip...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> ...he could of at least tried for the superiour AMD chip...


Agreed.

In general I'm always skeptical of these rumours - but hey, you never know. Only time will tell eh?

One thing I've always wondered - what is stopping Intel (or AMD) from developing their own RISC processor chips?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seriously dumb move on the high end.
Maybe a toe in the water at the low end - Centrino etc as Moto has peaked and no dual core from them.

With the gaming system volumes that should benefit Apple by offering manufacturing scale for the PowerPC architecture.

Why now??

Unless he's going to port X.........


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Not gonna happen. 

Maybe the will announce a WiMax partnership or something. 

The would have to invest far too much in software recompiling. Developers would be pissed.


----------



## tizerfish (Jun 8, 2002)

Carex said:


> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Maybe the will announce a WiMax partnership or something.
> 
> The would have to invest far too much in software recompiling. Developers would be pissed.



Agree'd


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

A quote from John Gruber (Daringfireball):



> This rumor has gained traction because it’s fairly obvious that Apple is not happy with IBM’s G5 production. When the PowerMac G5 was introduced at WWDC 2003, Steve Jobs famously predicted they’d have systems running at 3 GHz within a year. It’s now two years later and Apple’s fastest system runs at only 2.7 GHz. That’s not to say a top-of-the-line PowerMac G5 isn’t a nice computer, but you certainly don’t hear any talk about them being the fastest PCs in the world anymore.
> 
> So, yes, there’s a motive for Apple to consider such a switch. But that doesn’t make it plausible. None of this week’s Apple-Intel rumor reports seriously address the enormous hurdles Apple would face if they made such a switch.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This makes WAY more sense



> Apple on Intel rumors surface again
> 5/23/2005 10:30:28 AM, by Eric Bangeman
> 
> One of the most persistent rumors about Apple is that they are contemplating a switch from the PowerPC architecture to x86. That particular rumor popped up again today in a rather unlikely place--the front page of the "Money & Investing" section of the Wall Street Journal. According to the article, Apple and Intel have been in discussions over moving Apple's CPU business from IBM to Intel. From the article (which is available online only to WSJ subscribers):
> ...


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I love Apple.. but they wouldn't survive this move. Honestly, think about it. Apple moving to Intel would be the biggest mistake upon mistakes. Not to mention, Developers would just say "[email protected]#K IT!, this is enough!" and take their expertise elsewhere.

really really really bad move, I don't think this will happen, for one reason, Apple is doing the best they've ever done in years.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Discussion on this topic on "ehmac" chatroom on AIM/iChat now.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The XScale is based on the StrongARM used in the Newton 2000/2100 family and is as far from x86 as you can get,


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

It'll draw them backward. I think they're gonna make a really nice portable hardware with Intel's chip. Maybe the successor of the iPod, a next big move on brain-washed die-hard-windows-users.


----------



## GreenBastard (Mar 1, 2005)

If they did use intel, atleast apple could make an OS alot better than xp, alot more efficient, but backwards compatibility would be awful... Backwards compatibility adds more unnecessary code in xp... I always thought to myself, If intel or IBM took there best processor and massed produced it, and someone wrote code, for an Os with out any support for parallel, serial, adb, or any other ports except firewire USB, the boards would be cheaper to produce, the software would need to search through 5000 drivers, pci-x are the only slots needed, and everything else could be based on firewire and usb, even the network port could be a usb, or firewire dongle. It would be a quick machine, it could be a risc processor, and everything could be adapted through the mentioned ports.

my idea (and run on sentences) anyhow


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

*Not a switch, this is "embrace and extend".*

Apple's not switching to Intel. They'll add Intel support to OSX and ship Intel boxes in addition to PPC, but I think they'll continue to support PPC indefinitely.

OSX has multi-architecture ("fat") binary support since NEXTSTEP days and it's trivial to build a single Intel+PPC Cocoa application that runs on either platform using XCode.

Once Apple has trained developers to build and ship fat applications, Apple can pick and choose Intel or PPC according to the price/performance du jour, and you won't really care whether you're running Intel or PPC.

-- C


----------



## Hypno (Sep 27, 2003)

If this were to happen i think it would be the end of apple for me....imaging the intel inside logo placed right next to the apple logo...."think different" no longer. The mac has always been about the PowerPC chip no matter how far behind in speed they were to Intel or AMD.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The question is what happens to sales of Apple machines if they plan a switch of processors along with what happens to the installed base? After migrating users to a totally new OS, it seems nuts to think of changing the inner architecture. There are dual core processors in the works in all CPU makers. Add to this the reasons Apple would have to give for switching - performance increases in Intel cpus - and they come out as liars for the past 10 years (remember the Apple ads showing the Intel Pentium as a turtle?). There would likely be an enormous backlash. Adoptiung Intel processors certainly did Silicon Graphics no good.

I wouldn't put it past Jobs, but such as switch campaign would make Belinda's cross-over look like a walk in the park. I guess we'll find out next week at WWDC but I hope my personal investment in Apple hardware isn't undermined.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

From reading this I can't see Apple changing architectures (PowerPC to x86) this soon. They've just put developers through 5 releases of OS X (average roughly one per year) and a transition to an entirely different architecture may cause quite a few complaints. It will be possible to recompile your application, but then you have to have the new machines to do Q&A on. Not to mention having to support two different architectures.

However, most of the rumours say Apple is talking to Intel about using some of their chips. Chips don't mean processors. For all we know Intel may be the new provider for most of the networking hardware or other hardware related devices.

I'm waiting until June 6th to figure out what is happening, but the Intel/Marklar rumour comes back about every 6 months. (Although this year it seems to be every 3).


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

The first line of the article ... :

"Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994" 

I thought the G5 was the first PowerPC processor from IBM that Apple has used ... seems unlikely that Apple would be so willing to dump IBM when they have only been dealing with them for such a short time.

I can see using Intel chips with other items that have been in the rumor mills already ... WiMax, PCI-E, tablet, etc ... Apple is less dependent on hardware sales (non iPod) than it has ever been before ... I think they are looking at other opportunities for revenue (web services, iTunes Movie Store, grid access) and have no need to pursue a change in architecture .

Apple is thinking several years ahead ... while they are not happy to have not hit the 3 Ghz mark or have a PowerBook G5 out ... just a few bumps along the way ... can't wait until Monday.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Do you guys know when the WWDC '05 streaming movie will be available on apple.com. I just can't wait!
Edit : I know that WWDC hasn't begun yet, but usually, how many time it takes.


----------



## parousia (Feb 15, 2001)

I think that it is very unlikely that just a month after introducing new pro-machines "G5's" that Apple would intro a new Intel processor approach at a major venue like this.

It is impossible in my view, not to mention a serious waste of R&D funds, Software maker partnerships, and sales force education and training, ie. the Apple Stores.

My bet is a new device that uses an Intel made chip.

Parousia

BTW imagine the beating that Apple would take on the Market if this was true, we would have seen big sell-offs from major Apple Exec's if this was true, before the stock tanks on these "new announcements".


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

What on earth are you talking about. How does this affect most of us anyway? The consumer needn't worry at all - the computers will still run the same, perhaps even faster and better and even maybe longer.

I really don't think that the stocks will drop, if anything they'll rise.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Derrick - Apple has been using PowerPC processors since '94 as the PowerPC line has always been developed jointly (to a certain extent) by IBM and Motorola (now Freescale as they sold their processor division). Apple has used the Motorola 680x0 line of processors (68k machines) as there original processor but then moved to the 60x line of PowerPC processors. They then moved to the G3 processor made by IBM, then to the G4 with AltiVec by Motorola, and now the G5 by IBM.

i_stole_this_name - We really don't know what the change will bring outside of the initial outset of despair and glee by advocates of various sides. It may be fine, it may not, it's all going to depend on the developers. But I believe the stock will also rise because the stock market is not the consumer market. The stock market likes money and numbers, consumers like quality and reality.


----------



## Elias26 (Apr 19, 2005)

They'll run longer? Most PCs I have used in the past don't have a long life expectancy to them. I have used Mac computers that last forever.. okay for the past two decades they been out. My Mac before my G5 is ancient and she's still going strong!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

For one thing, I don't care if my computer runs on Miss Vickies chips. OS X is the draw, not the underlying architecture.

For another, nothing about this rumour (that's all it is) says Apple will switch to x86, but to Intel-branded chips.

Anyway, my curiosity about WWDC is now piqued...


----------



## char (May 22, 2005)

Maybe Apple intends to put an intel chip into the machines along with the PPC chip? Then a mac could also run PC stuff. Sure would beat using Virtual PC. It would make switching to a mac pretty easy for the the PC gang ....


----------



## Todd (Oct 14, 2002)

My Prediction:

This rumour has nothing to do with Mac computers. Apple is not dumping IBM.

The announcement will be that iPods will be using chips made by Intel. (iPods currently use a chip made by Portalplayer by a company named Inventec who manufacturers the iPods)

There may also be suggestion that Apple will pursue it's home media center idea and Intel will be the CPU manufacturer.


----------



## GreenBastard (Mar 1, 2005)

I personally think apple is cheesed at IBM for not producing a processor in the 3ghz range, was there the "in 12 months we will hit 3.0 gig?". Also I can imagine apple is losing a huge amount of money when they can't sell g5 portables comfortably with the heat output. I can't blame them, right now laptops are selling better than desktops


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

My theory is negotiations with IBM. 

A big fire under big blue...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The big fire should be under developers to optimize for the G5 - it's plenty fast if the apps took advantage of it.
Course then there is dual core dual processor


----------



## theBlend (Jan 12, 2005)

After having the night to sleep on it; this can't be true. Would Apple really be as stupid as to say 'f#%k off' to all the people buying Macs now during an upswing in popularity?

This has to be about Xscale or something along those lines. The Slashdot crowd seem to think this is about Intel producing PPC. Hmmm


----------



## zurich (Nov 26, 2004)

Or Jobs could announce the "G6" processor, which is really just a rebranded dual core Yonah (Pentium M)?


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I really don't know what this means.

If this means that we will start to see Intel CPUs in minis, and powerbooks next year, then this may be a serious blow IF developers must rewrite code. I'm actually surprised how many have stuck around thru the different iterations of OSX. Very maddening. Expect developers and users to jump ship.

If code doesn't have to be rewritten, and an emulator works with the x86 version of the OS (Which is freely downloadable by any Apple developer), there may be some interesting developments. The Pentium M is a very cool running, and powerful processor, capable of outperforming some of Intel's 3.4 Ghz chips given the chance. It may be the G5 Powerbook that everyone has wanted for some time.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

I'm sure there isn't much to worry about. Apple appear to have some smarts about them. Multi-Process handling using FreeBSD (MacOSX is a variant) on x86 is decent, and a huge improvement over Windows XP.


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

My guess is that this 'rumor' is just that, a rumor. I tihnk it is a way that steve jobs is using to flush out those insiders that are providing leaks to websites. After this, I am willing to bet a few ppl will be fired, and we will get less leaks as a result. 

my two cents


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

*Whoa: CNET: Apple To Announce Mon Switch to Intel Microprocessors!!!*

 
What does this mean for all us Apple users (if its true)??? The sky is falling!

Check it out here:
CNET Article 

Is this for real? Will this mean any changes to the OS/platform we know and love?


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Maybe learned ones such as GordGuide could shed some light on this for me.

I was under the impression that Apple, when they first had the PowerPC on the drawing board, were touting major speed increases then and in the future because of the much faseter RISC architecture of the Motorola PowerPC chip. This move was supposed to leapfrog over Intel's slower CISC architecture.

Does this mean that the RISC/CISC thing was just a bunch of hooey from the beginning, or did Intel go "RISC" in recent memory? Or are future Macs going to be driven by CISC chips?

Mel


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Where are the elders when you need them  (just joking)


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> Maybe learned ones such as GordGuide could shed some light on this for me.


gordguide is the man, but unfortunately for us he has some kind of job where he doesn't have access to the internet during the summer months.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

I think the whole debate is a ploy to get IBM to cave to Apple's needs. All this Intel talk (which is probably about WiFi or iPod processors) is simply to gain leverage with them. The costs of recompiling software for x86 chips would be astronomical, especcially with Tiger jsut being released....


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

this is shocking news, if it turns out to be true on monday. the ibm chip design would be superior to the intel chips if they both ran at the same clock speed, however ibm hasn't made much headway in that respect, the the x86 chips are pulling away in this horse race.

probably a bigger factor is ibm's chronic delivery problems and nonchalance in general toward the mac platform, due to be compounded when the new console gaming chips monopolize ibm's resources.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Maybe Intel has an ace up their sleeve? All I can hope is that this will prove beneficial for all of us Mac users. But if, for some reasons, this means cheaper Macs, better speeds and performance then yay, to that, I say.

However, I shudder at the thought of an Intel Inside sticker on my Mac.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

Hello, I think this is just a distraction. Remember what happened to the dude at Think Secret? Why not get a fuss going on the boards just before the Monday keynote, hmmm?


----------



## RJaMmin (Sep 15, 2004)

Maybe I'm being selfish & fearful that I've recently invested a lot of money in a new Mac, but I don't think this move makes a lot of sense for Apple.
For one thing it would cannibalize any future Mac sales. You can't encourage switchers or upgraders, who although unhappy with windose or just thinking about upgrading & think they'll be happy to switch to the uncertainty of a major processor & software (OS & Programs) update & new computers which are incompatible without emulation.
Secondly, I don't see the speed difference between the processors to be compelling enough for such a major shift.
Apple has in the past been pretty savvy in marketing itself & this would appear counterproductive.
Just my 2¢ though.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> Ummmmmm there is already a long discussion on it HERE
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?p=233679#post233679


ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm must have MISSED it.  chealion will probably merge the two threads.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> chealion will probably merge the two threads.


You must be psychic


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

It is amazing how much discussion has been sparked all over the net about a single article ... and we all thought it was so quiet earlier in the week heading to WWDC 

If there is some merit to the article and since it doesn't specifically mention which chip ... I can see it being positive in a couple scenarios:

1) introduction of new technology (ie. WiMax, tablet, or any other item of speculation)
2) Intel becomes a producer of PowerPC processors - this would help Apple as to not be so reliant on a single supplier ... I am sure Intel would be very willing to get into the PowerPC line if they were allowed to (especially since all the game console makers are going to PPC).

I saw a line somewhere in the MacRumors forum that cracked me up last night ... I can't remember who said it ... but I thought I would pass it along to lighten things up a little:

"I sense a great disturbance in the Mac net, as if millions of users were suddenly pissed. I feel something terrible has happenned".

Monday is going to be interesting ... that is the only thing that we can be sure of at this point.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> 2) Intel becomes a producer of PowerPC processors -


this would be the best possible thing that could happen to the mac platform, though exceedingly unlikely. intel is the best chip manufacturer out there, only their designs aren't the best. if they could get the g5 into 4ghz territory - holy sh*t.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I'm really not sure what to make of the rumours. But I am highly skeptical that Apple will switch to a "pure" x86 processor. Maybe a PPC / x86-64 variant. Or maybe it has to do with an entirely new appliance-type device. After all, there are still a lot of empty slots in the WWDC session schedule.  

I'm flying off to San Francisco in the morning. My first trip to WWDC is looking to be an interesting one...  

- Martin.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

G5 + 4ghz= world domination 

Hmm...I think the US Government would have to suppress this technology to ensure no one could rival their super power status...

edit: speeling


----------



## G42G6 (May 21, 2005)

mbaldwin said:


> I'm flying off to San Francisco in the morning. My first trip to WWDC is looking to be an interesting one...
> 
> - Martin.


Lucky


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

It would be a very difficult choice to move the platform to x86 or IA-64 architecture and at this point not feasable for developers to have to spend a fair amount of money to re-compile their applications.

I'm betting that Intel will somehow through the help of Apple get a liscense to build PPC chips.

But it's just a guess.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

*What If...*

What if Apple had planned to make an eventual move to Intel all along. But in order to secure itself from losing PowerMac sales, they decided to expand their software selections (FCP, Motion, DVDSP, iMovie, iDVD, etc.) and develop offshoot products (iPod) in order to maintain solvency/profitability, not to mention relevancy in moving into the 800 lb. Gorilla's backyard.

What if Apple planned to bring the OS platform war to Microsoft's front step essentially removing the main reason that stopped the majority of MS users from crossing over -- hardware.

Sure, Apple would still produce their unique and attractive computers, but it would allow (new) users to keep/purchase/make other PC boxes that would run Mac OS X without a hitch.

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch... but it makes for interesting possibilities.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I'm pretty sure Apple is in talks with Intel to secure some new technology with regards to wireless. Wireless could mean cellphone technology or some new wireless gadget or just something wireless. Intel has some very powerful technology in all three of the above and this is where I think Apple is headed with Intel.

Would it actually make sense in a business sense to dump Moto, then dump IBM, switch to Intel and in one year if Intel doesn't deliver dump them too? If that is how Steve Jobs works, then he will run out of companies that make processors for his computers.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Didn't we have some rumblings not too long ago about major PC manufactures wanting OSX? Interesting developments. Maybe Apple is going to fight MS on their home turf? I think this could possibly be a great move for Apple. Microsoft makes billions and have never shipped a MS PC box yet. Why can't Apple sell as much software as MS and sell the Porche of PCs to a huge new receptive audience?

How many boxes of OSX for Intel would be sold to the millions of users locked in Microsoft Land looking to be set free from trojans, viruses, spyware?

To all the people that say this would be the last straw and they would abandon Apple, I'm just curious where you'd be going? Longhorn? Linux with no Adobe, Macromedia, Quark etc.?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

crispyking said:


> OSX has multi-architecture ("fat") binary support since NEXTSTEP days and it's trivial to build a single Intel+PPC Cocoa application that runs on either platform using XCode.
> 
> Once Apple has trained developers to build and ship fat applications, Apple can pick and choose Intel or PPC according to the price/performance du jour, and you won't really care whether you're running Intel or PPC.


I'm far from being an expert on these matters, but I think crispyking made the point earlier that this change may not mean that Apple has to go for another costly and difficult migration to use Intel. If it's easy to do and Apple can get cheaper and better, than what is the problem?

I guess Mr. Jobs has just made sure that Monday's keynote will once again keep Mac geeks on the edge of their seats.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> this change may not mean that Apple has to go for another costly and difficult migration to use Intel. If it's easy to do and Apple can get cheaper and better, than what is the problem?


Oh, it would be costly, and for a couple of reasons.

First, while the OS may be fat, that does not mean that PPC applications could run with an x86 processor. There would have to be an emulation layer written and implemented so that all existing software would be able to run on all the new machines. Sure, software vendors would recompile their applications, but that doesn't mean that all users would upgrade, or that the ones who would upgrade would do so right away.

Plus, as we've seen from VPC, x86 emulation is frigging slow.

Second, it would take time for developers to actually get their stuff together and recompile their apps.

Third, it would all but end Mac sales in the short term. Who would buy a PowerBook G4 now when they could wait and get a PowerBook Centrino next year? Only the uninformed (read: those living under rocks/those without access to the internet/those without television/those who don't read).

Fourth, it costs money to maintain an OS running on one architecture. It would cost more money to maintain an OS running on two architectures. Not to mention keeping it optimized for both.

Personally, while I don't count it out of the realm of possibility, i won't believe it until I see it. I think it's far more likely that either a) Apple is going to be using the Xscale in some kind of device, or b) Intel will be licensing PPC technology and become Apple's primary supplier of PPC chips.

Of course, stranger things have happened in the past.

And on a final note, the Wall Street Journal has seconded the C|Net story. Here is an excerpt, courtesy Paul Thurrott: http://www.internet-nexus.com/2005_05_29_archive.htm#111792724758537320


----------



## mr.muggles (Jul 27, 2004)

Ok, Maybe someone already said this: People are trying to make it sound like the Mac is going magically turn bad becasuse it is using an Intel processor. It's not like the Mac OS is suddenly going to become Windows just because of a processor change. Who cares what the processor is, as long as the OS that you want to use still runs on it. If Apple is switching because IBM/Motorla can't deliver, then I applaud the move. I am not sure that Apple can afford another architecture change, but if they think they can pull it off then go for it. I for one don't care who makes the engine under the hood as long as its reliable and goes when I need it to.

MM


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Oh and for all of you who thought that an x86 transition was impossible:

"after the transition to Mac OS X, Apple was reported to have kept an OS X on x86 side-project known as Marklar. The original article described Marklar as a "fall back plan" should the PowerPC fail to deliver."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This makes things very interesting



> Intel intends to publish a mid-quarter update on June 9, 2005. *From the close of business on June 3, 2005, until publication of the release, Intel will observe a “Quiet Period” *during which Intel’s published Business Outlook should be considered to be historical, speaking as of prior to the Quiet Period only and not subject to update by the company. Intel is currently in a Quiet Period.



There is the possibility there was a stealth program in place keeping X optimized for Intel and Apple figures it's software suite is strong enough to do without developers on the very low end and edu.

Apple has a 18 month lead on Longhorn - that's a big window.
I would say there is no question PowerPC will stay on the upper end - it's simply a better chip but the low end>??  

A foot in both camps is no bad thing if it does not lead to software issues. If Apple has a compiler already developed for its own apps then this could be an interesting move.

ALL the companies are topping out around 3 gHz as was predicted a while back - multi-core is the future in that area tho there are other technologies in the wings.

Time wil tell very soon.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This makes things very interesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why is the PPC the 'better' chip. More operations per cycle and the velocity engine is nice but with development frozen at a stand-still they will, if not already are, outperformed.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> Why is the PPC the 'better' chip. More operations per cycle and the velocity engine is nice but with development frozen at a stand-still they will, if not already are, outperformed.


you said it yourself. more operations per clock cycle. development is not frozen, where did you come up with that? dual cores are expected soon.

the g5 is superior in nearly every aspect in terms of its design - where it begins to falter is in the manufacturing of it - intel is better at getting the clock speeds ramped up than ibm is.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Ok, allow me to rephrase, its not frozen, but moving along so slowly few can notice lol.

really, 3GHz was meant to be out AGES ago. At a competitive speed, the G5 beats the x86's and AMD64 in SOME ways, with the exception of the P4EE which is superior to all others out there in 32 bit operation.

But really, where the G5s have a velocity engine, the AMDs have an integrated memory controller, the Intels use ultimately faster RAM (DDR2) blah blah blah.

So to be completely fair - at competitive speeds, the G5s are not superior but even, and at highest speeds, well the current intels will probably beat the G5s hands down. Unfortunately, there is no real way to test this as they both run different platforms..


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

i stole this name said:


> So to be completely fair - at competitive speeds, the G5s are not superior but even, and at highest speeds, well the current intels will probably beat the G5s hands down. Unfortunately, there is no real way to test this as they both run different platforms..


I stole, please check out the thread comparing Apples with Apples or this link
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Well, thanks - I was gonna have to dig up the old magazine that proved it for me but there we go


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Look - 3 gHz is a barrier period - it's been known for years due to speed of light considerations versus chip size.
Just look at the cost performance on the clusters the PowerPC shows much better and then there is the cooling aspect.

Progress will be made in different areas - multiple core etc.

BUT the applications are still not optimized so up the clock all you want it's window dressing....pun intended and once more the bulk of the population barely uses the existing processors.

Now some sort of a strategic move to put X on Intel boxes along with Intel on the low end Macs strikes me as a possibility given Apple's momentum and lead over Longhorn.

There appears to be a move to integrating video and CPU etc all on a single board ina small package and that may well be a direction Intel and Apple wish to pursue.

The Quiet Period for Intel is awfully indicative of something happening that is significant.
The two together indicate to meet there is something significant in the wind tomorrow.

••••

You don't have to look much further than the ClimateNet project for performance

*GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz *
Number of CPUs
1
Operating System
Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
Memory
509.98 MB
Cache
976.56 KB
Measured floating point speed
*1377.5 million ops/sec*
Measured integer speed
*4199.3 million ops/sec*


*Power Macintosh PowerMac7,3 Dual 2.0 G5 *
Number of CPUs
2
Operating System
Darwin 7.8.0
Memory
512 MB
Cache
976.56 KB

Measured floating point speed
*1116.2 million ops/sec*
Measured integer speed
*3579.6 million ops/sec*


*That's a 2.0 G5 against a 2.8 Intel.*

The 2.5 G5 I was using was a tad faster that the 2.8 - the 2.0 is a tad slower.
BOTH good processing.
( despite showing 2 cpus the results are on each individual processor )

and the 2.4 Intel and the 2.0 G5 are practically identical tho I know which one I'd rather live in the same room with.

GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz
Number of CPUs	1
Operating System	Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
Memory	494.73 MB
Cache	976.56 KB
Measured floating point speed	*1156 million ops/sec*
Measured integer speed	*3588.3 million ops/sec*

*Despite the 20% clock advantage of the Intel the G5 is for all practical purposes identical in performance.*

So the choice then comes down to the platform and intended use and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

And you only need to look at the cluster reports for cost per terraflop - the PowerPC architecture is much lower cost.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> and once more the bulk of the population barely uses the existing processors.


But many of us that make a living in Video, graphic, web and other fields need all the firepower we can get. We will often have CPU usage of 100% and more for hours on end.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yes let's switch to Intel and enjoy the Intel 'spyware'...LOL!

Intel's new chips:



> Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines *independent of an operating system.*
> 
> Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, *again independent of operating systems.* Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller.



Source Article


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes but my point is there is no gain going to Intel in the G5 realm - it's already more than competitive and costs less for the chip so the move would be in the lower end where there are other considerations and where the G5 is not suitable.

Stay on the point of a rational for Intel switch.

That the G5 is not at 3 gHz is NOT a rational for moving since the G5 chips already out power the equivalent Intel by a small factor.

It's not power and it's not cost......it's something else that would motivate a move and I suspect its inthe low end and portable area.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Its highly unlikely that Apple will sport the SAME intel chips that are used in Wintels now, so AMT isn't so much of an issue. Spyware on OS X is currently near impossible too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What OTHER chips might those be - the iTanium??? Not likely at it's cost.

The Centrino strikes me as most likely.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i stole this name,

okay, maybe not initially...how 'bout a few years after implementation?

Don't like the idea of AMT at all and if Intel knows what's good for them, they will continue to give customers a choise in non AMT chips.

I'm waiting for the styrofoam molecule chip...anyone here heard that news?


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Why are you confining the options to products on the market currently?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Someone mentioned that Microsoft has not released a PC. But the XBox 360 has processing power that exceeds most base systems (while its optimized for games, it is clearly targeted for much more). As a consequence, Microsoft will be competing with current hardware vendors for the first time as well as competing with Intel (since the XBox 360 chip is from IBM). The landscape is in flux. Jobs could well be testing the waters and keeping options open. Intel could even be releasing a new dual architecture chip that is ideal for Apple - specifically designed for semi-hardware emulation. Afterall, with the Sony and Microsoft wins for IBM and computer hardware sales slowing down, Intel is the company with the most to lose. 

There are lots of downsides but most of these could be mitigated as long as Apple is clear about a continuing commitment to PPC processors. Tomorrow shhould be interesting. One of our programmers is at the WWDC and will be touring the Apple campus. Am looking forward to the de-brief....


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Oh, it would be costly, and for a couple of reasons.
> Plus, as we've seen from VPC, x86 emulation is frigging slow.


As others are reporting (e.g. in MacRumor.com forums), Apple will use Transitive's QuickTransit JIT emulation to run PPC code with only a 15% penalty on x86. Steve Jobs will demonstrate it tomorrow on a new dual-core Pentium-D and from all reports, the emulated PPC OSX software runs vastly faster than it does on todays G4s.



PosterBoy said:


> Second, it would take time for developers to actually get their stuff together and recompile their apps.


Not that much time. The claimed number is an hour or so to recompile a well-coded app to be "fat" (x86+ppc), which is consistent with my experience with porting UNIX software to NEXTSTEP compiled "fat". I rarely ran into endian issues (which themselves are a sign of poor coding). Of course, regression testing will take most of the expense and time. It may work fine right off the bat, but you still have to test to be _sure_ that it will work fine, and that will indeed be an additional expense for ISVs. But it is insignificant compared to maintaining a completely separate version for a separate OS. I think most ISV's that offer Mac products will completely welcome the huge market opportunity that's open to them by simply doing a recompile and some regression testing.



PosterBoy said:


> Third, it would all but end Mac sales in the short term. Who would buy a PowerBook G4 now when they could wait and get a PowerBook Centrino next year? Only the uninformed (read: those living under rocks/those without access to the internet/those without television/those who don't read).


Not if Apple announces 3GHz dual-core G5's tomorrow  Why would you buy ANY hardware when you always know there's better hardware coming next year? Mac OS X will always support PowerPC and Apple will always keep the door open for faster PowerPC chips in the future (CELL?) Once applications are "fat", why would you close the door to PowerPC?



PosterBoy said:


> Fourth, it costs money to maintain an OS running on one architecture. It would cost more money to maintain an OS running on two architectures. Not to mention keeping it optimized for both.


Not that much. NeXT was a much smaller company and maintained NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP optimized for 4 architectures: m68000, i486, sparc and hppa/risc. Shipped them on "fat" CD's too that would install on more than one architecture.


PosterBoy said:


> Personally, while I don't count it out of the realm of possibility, i won't believe it until I see it. I think it's far more likely that either a) Apple is going to be using the Xscale in some kind of device, or b) Intel will be licensing PPC technology and become Apple's primary supplier of PPC chips.


This has been hashed to death on the MacRumor.com forums, and there's no question: Mac OS X for Intel x86-based processors (and AMD too, for that matter). Check it out. You'll know you have the right forum if it has more than 60 pages of comments since yesterday 


I think this is it: Apple's long-simmering final all-out assault on Microsoft and Windows. They know their core strengths are their software, industrial design and the Apple brand, and they are in the absolute tops in all 3 classes and can compete in the whole PC market place on all 3 strengths. Microsoft has never been in as vulnerable position as they are now, and pretty much the entire world is already cheering Apple on. It's now or never.

I think Apple has to really go full-bore with this and I hope they don't try to do any proprietary lock-in crap that's basically lack of confidence that they can compete on a level playing field. They need to release OSX for generic PC hardware and I wouldn't be at all surprised tomorrow to see registered developers receive a copy of Mac OS X for Intel, ready to build "fat" x86+ppc versions of their software on a generic PC (with fairly narrow hardware requirements, like Rhapsody was).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: Excellent analysis CK
Apple has always had two processor families on the go and it makes complete marketing sense to keep it that way AND perfect the the universality of the OS.

Was there not a move afoot anyway for configurable processor sets - Transmeta was touting that I believe.

Interesting times.
I also always felt Apple would run parallel strategies - they had in the skunk works before.
Motorola was just too unreliable and while IBM has paid off on the top end - Intel looks better on the low and opens interesting possibilities.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I've given some thought to this. If the rumors are true, and we'll all find out in less than day now, then I hope CK's analysis is correct. I also hope there's no Intel inside sticker on my next 'book. The bottom line for me is that I'm with Apple for OSX, software stability, and awesome design. As long as Intel fits into those requirements, then I'll be a happy camper. 

I don't think we're going to see OS X for every generic brand of PC. There's too many variations and to support them all the OS would become as clunky and slow as XP.


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> I don't think we're going to see OS X for every generic brand of PC. There's too many variations and to support them all the OS would become as clunky and slow as XP.



I think this was on another topic? "would you buy a PC if it could run OS X?"  


HELL YES!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Me too - I'd love to have a real build your own option for some applications. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Me too - I'd love to have a real build your own option for some applications. :clap:


How is different from the Apple clones (Motorola, PowerComputing etc) of the past. In what way is this better?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When could you buy motherboards and a build your own??.......very different.

Do I think it will happen ...... no.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

*Welcome crispyking!*

Your analysis scares me!
But keep it coming...

Sometimes too much knowledge is too much power!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*New PowerMac to be announced tomorrow!*

Exclusive picture ...


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

Heart said:


> Your analysis scares me!
> But keep it coming...
> Sometimes too much knowledge is too much power!


They're just guesses. I've been waiting a looong time for this kind of move by Apple, and I'm hoping, but the more I think about it and the more I learn, the more hopeful I become.

Here are some random thoughts in no particular order:

- I've used NEXTSTEP for Motorola, 486 and HP/PA RISC and saw how wonderful and elegant it was as a cross-platform OS and I've been frustrated ever since that Mac OS X has been so crippled by comparison. If I feel that way, imagine how Steve, Avie and the gang must feel about it! (Avie Tevanian was NEXTSTEP's and OSX's chief architect.) I feel sure they've been talking about it in private for YEARS and just waiting until the moment was ripe.

- Just found out that Transitive’s board chairman is Peter van Cuylenburg, who was the president and COO of NeXT Computer in 1992. He's probably been getting together with Steve and Avie for years too. 
http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel


- It seems pretty evident to me that Apple deliberately leaked the story to CNET after the markets closed on Friday to prepare the masses and lay the groundwork for Monday's big shock. (None of the rumour sites got it, CNET reported it with absolute confidence, and it was readily confirmed with great confidence by WSJ, NYT, etc by calling a top Apple executive on Saturday).
Now Jobs is not one to give away his big story, and from other rumours I've read (on MacRumors, AppleNova, etc), Monday's announcement is going to be Big. Much bigger than an Intel-based low-end Mac in 2006.

- Transitive's technology can be used to run Windows binaries on PowerPC hardware just as easily as running PPC OSX binaries on x86 Macs, opening up the possibility of running Windows applications on Mac OS X at native speeds on x86 hardware, _and near-native speeds on PowerPC hardware._ Much faster than VirtualPC (which is, not coincidentally, now owned by Microsoft).

- I can't see how Apple can release OSX for Intel without opening it up to being hacked to run on generic hardware. Darwin/x86 is already open-source and that's where all the low-level driver support is. I've been dreaming that Apple would release even a proprietary locked-up x86 version so I could just extract the GUI layer and run it on top of open-source Darwin/x86 on my Thinkpad. I can't think of any huge technical barrier to being able to hack this, short of Apple completely going back on its open-source commitment and getting rid of Darwin. I'm sure Apple has thought of this too (Jordan Hubbard, who used to be the top FreeBSD core member is now in charge of Darwin at Apple, and I'm guessing Apple is planning to leverage the open-source community to "hack" Mac OS X to work on any generic hardware while Apple will just stick to supporting real Apple Macs. You already need to give Apple your Mac's serial number in order to talk to any Apple Tech Support. I don't think that will change.

- Pavel Machek, a Linux kernel guru was offered a job by Apple a few days ago for ACPI/BIOS work. 
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pavelmachek/7323.html
Apple wouldn't need to worry about ACPI/BIOS unless they were targetting generic hardware (they could just put OpenFirmware in their Intel Macs and make them closed and proprietary).

- This has probably been in the works for a long time, and maybe was even planned for MacWorld in January. Would explain why Sony's CEO was there to merely demonstrate a camcorder and talk cryptically about maybe working together in the future with computers, and to "just stick to software".


My optimistic predictions for tomorrow are:

1. Mac OS X for Intel is not going to be locked to proprietary hardware. They're going to open up to the entire PC market. This is finally Apple's all-out assault on Windows.

2. Mac OS X for Intel AND PowerPC will be able to run Windows applications. (PowerPC via Transitive's technology). Think Red-Box (http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml) for the x86 version, and QuickTransit on PPC. I think this will be a binary-API level of compatibility like Wine, rather than running the full Windows OS like Virtual PC does. After all, this is supposed to REPLACE Windows, not generate more Windows sales 

3. Mac OS X for Intel Developer Preview will be available at WWDC tomorrow. Developers can take it home and start building and optimizing PPC + x86 "FAT" binaries of their apps. There'll be somewhat limited hardware requirements, much like Rhapsody was, and it will be strictly licenced to developers, just like Rhapsody was.

4. PowerPC isn't going anywhere. Apple is going to support PowerPC indefinitely. I think CNET's "switch" take on things was a mistake based on the fact that no one seems to get that it doesn't have to be a switch; an OS can support both PPC + x86 at the same time. I'm not sure how Apple would spin this, but they need to keep booking hardware revenue for the next year or two, as well as maintaining their reputation as a top-tier computer vendor, and keeping Apple's current users confident that they're going to be very well taken care of. They may say something like "We'll be continuing to release some GREAT PowerPC hardware over the coming years", or something, and then...

5. Steve's One Last Thing will be a 3.2 GHz dual dual-core PowerMac, shipping today. The world's fastest once again, and the perfect machine for doing those huge x86 cross-compilation jobs. 


We'll see in less than 12 hours....

-- C


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Eh. I'm with Gruber:

<blockquote>http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends 

Here’s my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I’m only betting one dollar.</blockquote>


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

Posterboy ... agreed ... it's the only scenario that makes sense.

The original CNET report talked about using Intel chips in lower end machines in 2006 and the rest in 2007 ... this would only make sense using the same architecture.

Way too much time has been spent thinking about this in the last couple days ... damn you CNET.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Indeed, announcing x86 based Macs a year in advance (that is what the rumour says) would likely destroy current sales.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

the day is upon us! I hope that i don't get intel inside stickers on future macs...


----------



## InsomniMac (Apr 1, 2005)

*Your assimilation is complete...*

Is it all that bad? Apple/Intel 


InsomniMac

-Apple snobs?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

It's making news on the radio this morning so I guess we'll all have to wait until 1pm EST for all the details once the press release is broadcasted. Very exciting news. I hope that my hardware still holds its value though...


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Another possibility is Apple moving to Intel for the Powerbook line. It looks like IBM is totally stuck with putting a G5 inside of a Powerbook. Perhaps Intel can deliver a much better solution for an upgrade to the Powerbook line? Intel is already pushing to double the battery hours from 4 hours to 8 hours by the year 2008 on its portables.

I will miss the whole WWDC keynote today. I will have to read about it in the late evening.


----------



## Bilbo (Jul 12, 2001)

*Does it REALLY matter?*

As far as I'm concerned, I could care less who makes the Mac's processor. It's not the Power PC chip that makes the Mac a Mac. It's the Mac OS, it's their hardware. If Intel can produce a chip that's better or cheaper I say that's a good thing.

As others have already speculated, my first thought was maybe Intel will simply be manufacturing Power PC chips for Apple.

If the world of Mac OS X goodness is opened up to Intel boxes in general, that could be good for Apple. I think that most of the "true Mac people" will still buy Apple boxes. Hopefully some of these Windows people will finally "get it" and realize that there is a difference.

One concern I have is will OS X be stable on umpteen different flavours of Intel boxes? Could this be a support nightmare waiting to happen? I always figured that it was the fact that Apple made the hardware and the software that helped them on the stability front.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i just saw BBC world report that apple will phase out IBM chips in favour of Intel. it was in the scolling tickertape thing at the bottom of the screen.


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> i just saw BBC world report that apple will phase out IBM chips in favour of Intel. it was in the scolling tickertape thing at the bottom of the screen.


I think most news channel source this news piece from CNET.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

I wish people would be finished rumoring. Theres 2:45 left for chrissakes.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> I wish people would be finished rumoring. Theres 2:45 left for chrissakes.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

The New York Times has it as well!!!



> As far as I'm concerned, I could care less who makes the Mac's processor.


I agree with this statement by Bilbo. As long as the quality of the chips are better than or equal to now, it wouldn't bother me if they were made in someone's basement or garage. 

It may matter to Apple's bottom line though depending on what they announce. Surely they are intelligent enough to ease or bridge the transition so that certain models don't end up not selling for 18 months waiting for a new chip.


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

I just heard on the business report that IBM's stock is falling because Apple dumped them. 

John


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

This just in.... Steve Jobs takes position of the new CEO of Intel as Paul Otellini steps down only after being in power since May 18, 2005. This news comes to a shocking Mac crowd after waiting days for speculation of Apple going all out with Intel processors. Now with Steve Jobs at the controls at Intel Corp. we can see a whole new era of Macintosh computers being built with the name "Intel Inside" slapped on them. Stay tuned for official announcements at this mornings WWDC.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I wish people would be finished rumoring. Theres 2:45 left for chrissakes.


i simply reported that bbc reported on the story (or lack thereof).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An associate with close ties to Apple just commmented to me that the info black hole at Apple extends right up to the VP level.

He also commented that were Intel to buy Freescale then along with Apple 2/3 of the PowerPC partnership is outside IBM. 
That immediately puts Intel and Apple in a close relationship for the lower end chips.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

OMG!! You don't say MacDoc, well then it looks like I might have to switch over to Windows


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

jlcinc said:


> I just heard on the business report that IBM's stock is falling because Apple dumped them.
> 
> John


Their stock should be rising given that IBM has reportedly only broken even on chips sales to Apple over the past couple of years. If it wasn't for the game console wins, IBM might have pulled the plug an bulk sales.

There is a large story in the report on business section of the Globe and Mail today (from the WSJ). It's remarkable how much attention Apple garners from the press for its 2.3% marketshare


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Then there is this interesting twist on the scenario. Apple buying Freescale  

http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/is_apple_ready_to_switch_the_mac_to_intel_chips/

Humorous clip


> Apple really wants to buy Freescale.
> 
> Think about it. Not only would they have complete and full access to the chip designing and building process, they’d begin to take back some of their own destinty and put it in Apple brochures (and products), where it belongs.
> 
> ...


Unlikely but one more piece of the puzzle - I've always wondered why Moto has not surfaced in these discussions as it's the obvious weak part.

•••••

The game is on......



> Investors Lift Apple, Intel
> 
> By TSC Staff
> 6/6/2005 7:57 AM EDT
> ...


http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/tech/hardware/10226602.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Here's Paul Thurrott's take on the story:


WinInfo said:


> *Apple Expected to Announce Move to Intel Today*
> 
> Paul Thurrott
> InstantDoc #46598
> ...


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

jlcinc said:


> I just heard on the business report that IBM's stock is falling because Apple dumped them.


This is one part of my prediction that's been bothering me: if Apple is going to continue delivering top-end PowerPC hardware this year (which I think they must), I don't think Apple would let their "leaked" CNET story have such a negative spin on IBM. It's going to generate some unnecessary bad blood between Apple & IBM, which is just bad for business, Apple's included.

Then again, maybe CNET simply put too much of a negative IBM spin on the story and Apple is just gritting their teeth until they correct it at 10:00...

The other part of my prediction that's bothering me is that Apple wouldn't disclose such a huge assault strategy on Windows unless they were ready to deliver right now, not with a Mac in a year.

The only way I can see that happening is if they announce third-party (e.g. Dell/HP/ Sony) products, shipping with OSX preinstalled available almost immediately.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

CK - analyst don;t think it's critical for IBM - just a blip 



> nternational Business Machines (IBM ): Reiterates 3 STARS (hold)
> Analyst: Megan Graham-Hackett
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reports today that Apple Computer may announce as soon as today that it is switching from IBM's Power PC chip, which IBM makes in conjunction with Freescale Inc., to Intel chips. We do not view Apple as a critical customer for IBM's chips, and note that over the past year, and again at IBM's analyst meeting in May, the company has emphasized its focus on supplying chips to the video game console market. No change to our estimates. We view IBM shares as worth holding, trading at a price/sales ratio of 1.3 times, in line with peer average


I think there is more to this.....WiMax, DRM, somebody is buying somebody 

•••

Good if a tad geeky ( from necessity ) assessment here.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824229,00.asp


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

People it's a done deal 

From Macobserver's Keynote coverage


> It will begin a Mac with Intel processors by June 6th, 2006, as reports said. It should be complete by June 2007.


Laterz


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Apple's PR:


> *Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006*
> WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005—At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple’s software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.
> 
> “Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I think there is more to this.....WiMax, DRM, somebody is buying somebody


Rush Limbaugh just echoed the same...
Make no sense to use Intel except in the context of DRM


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well it does in the sense of 

a) making the best processor of either chip line available for Mac products - ie Centrino in the low end and either in high end.

b) Bit a PR boost for Intel after losing the Sony and xBox for PowerPC

It just did not seem enough for Intel - more behind the scenes I expect. 

It's good for Mac users and the OS. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Is this the same MacDoc that said it would make no sense for Apple to drop the PowerPC chip in high end Macs?


----------



## saxamaphone (May 18, 2004)

*Wintel vs. Mactel? A ROM way to go...*

So the last barrier stopping hobbyists/enthusiasts from building generic intel pcs that can run OS X is the ROM and hw drivers. How long before one of the fringe motherboard makers brokers a deal to have a pluggable-rom unit? Im sure apple will be approached by pc hardware makers to create "clones". Do you think apple will take the bait... again?

MOst of us remember the clone wars (not you Lucas, sit down you've had your chance). Will tempation be too much now that 98% of an apple machine will be constituted of commodity parts? Of course apple will continue to manufacture custom motherboards (as does dell, hp, et all...) but its a short jump from creating a Tiger of a system with off-the-shelf components.

I certainly didnt think apple would switch to intel procs, but now I dont know what to believe and nothing would surprise me after this...

chew on dat


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They haven't and likely won't unless there is a clear technical or price advantage.

The value is in the low end - 2007 is a long ways away and Apple is a PowerPC Consortium partner.

Unless Steve can trot out a serious horsepower or cost benefit - why would he bother - margins are already good.

They NEED options in portables, minis and mass market devices.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> They haven't and likely won't unless there is a clear technical or price advantage.


The company says that all of its new Macs will be using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/06/apple.intel.ap/


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

saxamaphone said:


> So the last barrier stopping hobbyists/enthusiasts from building generic intel pcs that can run OS X is the ROM and hw drivers.


There's no ROM anymore. Mac OS X will already run on non-Apple PowerPC hardware: see 
http://www.genesi.lu/products.php
http://www.maconlinux.org/)

Nope, you forgot the most formidable barrier: the EULA. Apple will not permit Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware.

But I don't think there's going to be any technical reason stopping you.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Regarding OS X on non-Apple hardware:

<blockquote>http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.</blockquote>


----------

