# Apple on Intel Chips?!



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Apple Explores Use
Of Chips From Intel
For Macintosh Line

By DON CLARK and NICK WINGFIELD
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 23, 2005; Page C1

Apple Computer Inc. has always blazed its own trail, a tack that has helped turn the company into a stock-market darling lately. But a pivotal step toward the mainstream could be in the offing.

The computer maker has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, industry executives say, a prospect that may shake up the world of computers and software.

The idea that Apple Computer might use Intel-based products, which provide processing power for personal computers that use Microsoft Corp. software, has long been the subject of industry speculation and off-and-on negotiations between Apple and Intel. Two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

Neither company would confirm any change in their relationship. Nor is it clear, if Apple does proceed with plans to work with Intel, whether it will make a large-scale shift away from chips made by International Business Machines Corp., its longtime supplier. Talks between Apple and Intel could founder, as they have before, or Apple could be engaging in negotiations with Intel to gain leverage over IBM.

Still, Apple's consideration of Intel chips reflects what others in Silicon Valley see as a crescendo of commercial considerations for both companies. For Apple, which has struggled to expand beyond a tiny sliver of the PC market, adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc.

Macintosh users, for example, could benefit by getting access to Intel's power-saving chips for laptop computers and other new chips that offer the equivalent of two electronic brains on a single piece of silicon. Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, also could be more competitive -- particularly if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers.
[iPod Boost]

Using Intel chips also makes it at least theoretically possible that users could install Windows on Macintosh systems, though it is not clear that Apple will support software other than its Mac OS X operating system.

For Intel, already the dominant supplier of the calculating engines inside computers, winning Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters. Under Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive officer and co-founder, Apple has consistently delivered innovative hardware designs and blazed a trail in digital music.

Apple sells only about three million computers a year -- a small portion of the 200 million or so machines sold globally -- so a new relationship with Intel wouldn't increase that company's sales much. But Intel, which has long courted Apple, could benefit by an association with Apple and its hit iPod device, which may be luring more Windows PC users to consider Apple computer products. It could also continue the perception of momentum that has made Apple shares nearly quadruple since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.

Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., has long used so-called PowerPC microprocessors that were jointly developed by IBM and Motorola Inc. and now primarily sold by IBM. Apple has also charted an independent path by creating and refining its critically acclaimed OS X operating system. The company often promotes that software's resistance to the computer viruses that have bedeviled Windows users, though some experts say Apple has mainly benefited because it is a smaller target for writers of malicious software.

The idea of creating a version of the Macintosh operating system for Intel chips -- a vital step in introducing Intel-based hardware -- goes back more than a decade. Engineers from software maker Novell Inc. and Apple collaborated on a secret effort, code-named Project Star Trek, that was designed to create a product that Apple could sell to rival PC makers. They completed a prototype in 1992, but Apple chose not to release it for fear of hurting its hardware business.

Apple has subsequently created, but not released, versions of its operating systems that work on Intel chips, former Apple engineers say. That work has been aided by the fact that Mac OS X descended from software that Apple purchased from Next Computer Inc., Mr. Jobs's former company, which had already created a version for Intel-based computers.

One of the two industry executives said Apple isn't likely to market OS X for other PCs. Besides hurting its own hardware business, such a path would put Apple in more direct competition with Microsoft, whose application programs are important to the success of the Macintosh. Instead, the company is likely to package its modified software with its own Intel-based hardware, though it is not clear how the company will prevent users from shifting the software to other machines, the executive said.

Assuming that plan goes forward, consumers would need to get new versions of their application programs for Intel-based Macs. Software companies would have to convert those products, though that procedure should be relatively simple for companies familiar with OS X, former Apple engineers say. The industry executive said Mr. Jobs could announce the new strategy as early as June 6 at its world-wide developers conference in San Francisco, a place the company typically informs software and hardware partners of future directions.

An Apple spokeswoman said she would characterize the possibility of adopting Intel chips "in the category of rumor and speculation."

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology. The latter would be a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, though the big computer maker has had success in convincing Microsoft, Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. to use PowerPC technology in their next-generation video machines. An IBM spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Jobs has often praised the performance of PowerPC chips versus products from Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif. But he hasn't been able to meet a public commitment he made in June 2003 to offer a Macintosh with a PowerPC chip operating at a speed of three gigahertz within 12 months. IBM hasn't delivered a chip that fast yet for the Macintosh; the fastest system in Apple's lineup now operates at 2.75 gigahertz. IBM's fastest chip, the G5, also consumes too much power to be added to Apple's portable computers.

Apple's bread-and-butter Mac business has shown signs of vigor lately. While growth in the broader PC industry remains sluggish, Apple last quarter sold 43% more Macs than it did in the year-earlier quarter, quadruple the pace of the industry as a whole.

Yet, in a sign of how small a player Apple remains in the PC market, the strong sales have translated into only minuscule market-share gains. Apple rose to 2.3% of new world-wide PC sales in the first three months of the year from 2% the prior quarter. Windows PCs account for the vast majority of the rest of the market.


----------



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

Sounds like good news to me!

Centrino-powered iBooks...mmm...


----------



## mclenaghan (Sep 27, 2002)

I was under the impression that Powerbooks and ibooks had longer battery life numbers then their intel based counterparts. I don't think that Apple and Intel should partner up that would just open up the Mac to Windows and all M$ problems, and evertually lead to the demise of all thing Apple.

I am still going on my G3 333 so I don't see what all the fuse is about a 3 Ghz processor, for the average user. I have played with my father's G5 and it does seem faster in somethings but then it also has more integrated software in the OS.

I guess I just don't trust intel or M$ to much.


----------



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

Integrating Intel processors has nothing to do with MS, why do people always jump to that assumption. It'll still be the same stable OS that we love, and the same brand. Only now it'll run faster, and cheaper!


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Intel chips in Macs? Don't count on it. With the game consoles going to PowerPC platform, it doesn't make any sense for Apple to "switch". Also the developers would freak. 

No I think if there are Intel chips used, they won't be the CPU. However they may make an appearance in the high-end server line, though I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Todd (Oct 14, 2002)

I think people are making the incorrect assumption that Apple is interested in Intel's x86 CPUs. Intel makes many more kinds of chips than CPUs. We may find Intel network, USB or other chip types in the Macs of the future, but I doubt there will be Intel x86 CPUs.

Also being discussed on Slashdot.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

it'd be nice if ibm would license the g5 chip design so that intel could make it. that would be the best of both worlds. x86 stinks though.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I always thought one of the big benefits of using a RISC processor vs CISC is that one can get the same user performance with a much lower clock rate and thus much less power/heat dissipation. This was certainly true in the past, my 400M G4 runs about at the same "user speed" as the 1.2G Dell machine in the applications I use.
But then again, Intel could build a RISC processor.
Also, among the PC 'geeks' I know, nobody is really into Intel anymore - they all see to think AMD is the cat's meow when it comes to CPUs.
So moving to Intel Pentium, if that is what they are talking about, would be step backwards in my mind.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

As mentioned above, Intel is involved in many types of chipsets and transistors. Who knows what Apple/Intel may be discussing.

That being said, Apple, in the interest of it's shareholders is likely always looking for some cost cutting. I'm sure getting relatively small quantity of chips from IBM isn't really that cheap of an option.

FreeBSD runs fine on Intel x86 chips. I see no reason why Apple couldn't effectively move to the Intel platform.


----------



## dcsf (Jan 15, 2005)

*MacIdiots?*

why is it that there are so many shortsighted macidiots out there? really. just because the CPU is x86 does not mean the mobo is compatible with windows or that the chipset is the same as any current x86 offering. using the same engine does not mean the car is the same. the detamosa pantera used a ford 351 engine; does that mean it's a mustang?

if anything, the mobo would still be proprietary. the best thing to come from this are the faster chips that intel world offers especially wrt to centrinos. centrinos are cool running mobile chips that run just as fast as their desktop equivalents. the real kicker here is that dual core x86 laptops are just weeks away. where are the dual core chips ibm promised???


----------



## 1frozencanuck (Feb 3, 2005)

*"moving" to intel*

Personally i don't think its quite what the attention seeking media preports it to be. Why is it that automagically Apple has to be looking to switch the processors to Intel? Apple currently uses AMD for a lot of things like wireless, and some other things that slip my mind at the moment....., so why should they not use Intel processors for other areas where they are suited? But nope, of course they're looking to replace the G5/IBM processors.... hehe, no. Not gonna happen. 
Ah well, thats just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

*Intel Chips != CPU*

As noted by many others, Intel makes all kinds of chips, from network cards, to video, to RAID controllers (already being used in the Xserve RAID). There would be no benefit moving to Intel CPUs. The drawbacks would be the immense compatibility issues associated with the move as well as increased heat. Those of you drooling for a Centrino-based processor would be sorely disappointed. They draw much more power than G4's and produce a LOT of heat. My buddy Vexel has an iBook G4 and he gets 5-6 hours consistently on it, even when doing all kinds of stuff like iTunes, web browsing, and chatting on iChat with his iSight all at the same time. On the other end of the spectrum is the Centrino, while a very powerful processor, draws too much power and produces too much heat for Apple's designs. I used to work for HPShopping.com and we sold Centrino-based laptops. At best they would get 4 hours of battery, and thats if you had wireless turned off, the screen dimmed, and all you were doing was typing a document. They were better than pentium 4's for battery, but not much better.

Folks, we are at a good spot with Apple right now. The hardware is great, the design is arguably the best in the industry. If Apple moved to Intel you wouldn't see flat panel iMacs or super-thin Powerbooks any more. Apple are geniuses when it comes to heat dissipation, but it would take an act of God to get an Intel processor into a Powerbook and keep it the same thickness and same battery life.


----------



## Tenko (May 23, 2005)

One possibility no one else has touched on, is WiMAX. Of course WiMAX is still a while off from becoming available to the mass market, but it is still possible.


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

I agree. I think Apple has a pretty good stand right now, although it would be nice to see a G5 PowerBook, and/or a 3GHz PowerMac G5. To me, I don't think switching to Intel is the smartest move. Using other Intel chips though, like in the Xserve RAID, is great by all means, in my opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IBM chips are ruling the roost right now in performance AND value and rumour has it the incredibly expensive iTanium is headed for the dust bins. RISC may FINALLY be outrunning CISC as it long ago promised.

If you look at the cost/performance on the PowerPC architecture it is spectacular. The limiting factor is software exploitation of the speed - no wonder Linux ALSO rules the roost for performance.
We are well served by the chips Apple is using, not so well served by the software community making use of them.

Notice the Sony Gen 3 PS is PowerPC and so is Xbox - quitcherbellyachin........and get on the software developers to compile better apps.

BTW Intel is moving to multicore as increases in clock are now difficult. IBM and AMD I beleive are ahead on multi-core development and Moto/Freescale may offer multicore G4s for low cost highperformance mobile chipsets one of these days in a Mac.



> IBM Supercomputer Sets Another Speed Record March 24, 2005
> The teraflops are popping as IBM's Blue Gene performs 135.3 trillion floating point operations per second running benchmark software.
> By Aaron Ricadela
> InformationWeek
> ...


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

I think with WWDC coming up and the release of the new XBOX 360 and PS3 running on advanced PowerPC architectures in the 3GHz or higher range, we should see some serious upgrades to the G5 Macs. I don't see Apple waiting, considering how Jobs said we'd have a 3GHz machine by now.


----------



## Superchicken (May 17, 2005)

Odds are if this isn't a total lie. Any intel chips would either be PPC (which I doubt) or chips other than processors. The compatibility problems would be brutal.


----------



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

Try because nor the 360 or the ps3 run G5s!

i wish someone would just UNDERSTAND this. just because its the same underlying architecture does not in any way relate to development of the G5 cores.

And to who said that intels are hotter - you're kidding right? You can get an LGA775 into a laptop, thats a 3.2-3.4GHz EE, while you STILL can't get a G5 into a laptop hmm?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I stole, 

You could get a g5 into a laptop, just like you get the latest intel chip in a laptop - but the 'book would be butt ugly, fat, and a heat monster. 

No thanks. I'll wait for a solid design and a solid processor combo. Besides, my G4 is plenty fast for me. 

As for gaming though.. I'm considering getting a console, but I do want a PC badly to play Battlefield 2.


----------



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

Id rather put that money towards a PS3. All modern consoles sport it, PS2, Xbox, 360, PSP, PS3 and PC.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

TrevX said:


> On the other end of the spectrum is the Centrino, while a very powerful processor, draws too much power and produces too much heat for Apple's designs. I used to work for HPShopping.com and we sold Centrino-based laptops. At best they would get 4 hours of battery, and thats if you had wireless turned off, the screen dimmed, and all you were doing was typing a document.


Hmmm ... sounds like most of the Powerbooks I know (or have owned).


----------



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

Yeah exactly, very hot, short battery life... powerbook!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> IBM chips are ruling the roost right now in performance AND value and rumour


Don't discount AMD - CPUs are very cost effective in the lower end of the spectrum, 64bit and very fast for some applications.



MacDoc said:


> The limiting factor is software exploitation of the speed - no wonder Linux ALSO rules the roost for performance.
> We are well served by the chips Apple is using, not so well served by the software community making use of them.


The first thing should be the speeding up of OS X - the UI feels so slooowwww....
Linux may feel faster only because the UI is not as polished as Apple or XP. 
I have yet to use a Linux application that felt fast - ever try GIMP? it is not a PhotoShop killer.... Open Office, no thanks - does not feel finished. 



MacDoc said:


> quitcherbellyachin........and get on the software developers to compile better apps.


Doubtful - has not on PC, has not on the Mac - it's called bloatware and poor code optimization...


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> Yeah exactly, very hot, short battery life... powerbook!


I don't know which PB you use but I can have my 17" PB on my lap for 3.5 hrs (that's the battery life) and not worry about it getting too hot.

Even when it's wired, I've had it there for hrs with no undue heat issues.


----------



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

Wasn't it like 2 or 3 years back that some scientist guy had some burn on his penis from a TiBook.

Anyway - they don't run cool, and you have to admit.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> Wasn't it like 2 or 3 years back that some scientist guy had some burn on his penis from a TiBook.


Sure - but that's to be expected when you use your computer naked.


> Anyway - they don't run cool, and you have to admit.


Yes, I admit they "don't run cool" but that seems to be a far cry from what you are insinuating, isn't it?


----------



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

Well there are extreme cases in every bunch.

btw LMAO @ naked


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Just for kicks I went looking for the latest Mac vs PC performance test. The most current one i found is here:
http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

Bottom line the way I see it is that the 2.5GHz G5 holds its own with the rest of the pack. it's either number 1 or within the top three in most test.
Same on price, although I couldn't even come as high as the price on that web page with the current pricing of the 2.7 GHz G5.
Even the low end G5 today, the 2.0 GHz one does well in the pack.
The 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 was poorest in performance in every case except one - so why would Apple even remotely think to go with that processor.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Well, I guess I can check the "Apple going Intel" rumor off of my quarterly checklist. Must be a slow newsday for the news sites to post that.

I mean nowadays it really isn't about Mhz or Ghz anymore. Apple can sell a 5 year old chip in a newly designed case and people, even people who owned PCs flock to it. Apple has great low-power CPUs from Motorola - who's coming out with dual core CPUs soon. While the G5 is stuck in a bit of a rut, so are AMD and Intel with their chips. Of course the article doesn't show any negative problems with going Intel, which there are. 

Nah, just Apple talking to Intel about one of their other chips that they use in the Xserve, iPod, or something else.


----------



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

Apple would probably not use the same chips as the windows machines, if they were even talking about CPUs

They'd probably use custom made ones just like they do now with IBM


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Kosh how is the G5 "stuck in a rut" when dual core is right around the corner.
And BTW one of the best spots to check power over platform is BOINC.....hint hint.

C'mon people put the horsepower you DO have to good use. The team is currently at 129 in the world and can get to the top 50 or better.

Linux has a really low overhead interface - something I wish X had an option for.

But seriously the average person employs 3% of the processing power - at least projects like BOINC get some use from them.

The limiting factor for portables is battery/heat. Batteries have not improved the way cpus have. Micro fuel cell will help a bunch. OLED as well.
I would bet Apple is into the latter early via Samsung who is demoing a 40" OLED TV next month 

I tend to agree with AS there appears to be no great incentive for developers to compile better. Even computer manufacturers have little incentive as it means you'll buy their next round to get more power from a sluggish app. 

Only the gaming industry and video card industry seem really to be going after power and wow are they ever. 
If the computer industry does not watch out there is going to be an end run by the consoles. The PS3 and the new X-box are going to blow all the desktops off.

I mean the PS3 is into the 2 TerraFlops range with it's Cell processor rig.



> he PlayStation 3's Blu-Ray optical drive will support PlayStation 3 games and Blu-Ray movies, of course, but also DVD movies and optical formats such as CD-ROM, CD-RW, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, and DVD+R. The PlayStation 3 will include a removable 2.5" 20GB hard disk and feature MemoryStick Duo, Secure Digital (SD), and CompactFlash (CF) slots, as well as six USB 2.0 ports. It will sport 256MB of RAM, half that of the Xbox 360. On the other hand, the PlayStation 3's graphics processor will include 512MB of dedicated RAM and will be more powerful than two PC-based GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards


......what....for $500. 

Somebody needs to do BOINC for consoles - that'll compute some big time and most are online these days.

OS X for PS3 .........yum.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

They are probably going to have intel manufacture their chips. I dont think you will see a P4 CPU inside a Mac.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

WHO are THEY????


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> WHO are THEY????


I would think 'they' are Apple Computers.

But why even think of Intel other than for strategic positioning reasons?
IBM is providing Microsoft with a PowerPC CPU for their Xbox 360 that has 1 MB of L2 cache and three cores clocked at 3.2 GHz each with each core runing two threads for a total of six. So they (IBM in this case) seem to have the capability to take Jobs where he wants to be.


----------



## dcsf (Jan 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Kosh how is the G5 "stuck in a rut" when dual core is right around the corner.
> And BTW one of the best spots to check power over platform is BOINC.....hint hint.
> 
> C'mon people put the horsepower you DO have to good use. The team is currently at 129 in the world and can get to the top 50 or better.
> ...


don't know about you, but serious peeps buy computers for what is available TODAY... not tomorrow, not 6 months from now, not a year from now. try telling someone who needs something now to wait. apple and it's legions of cronies have been saying "it's around the corner" every single damn year. being optimistic and realistic are two separate entities.

it's almost a year past due and still no 3GHz G5 nor G5 laptop. no excuses... IBM cannot produce and that's the bottomline. in the real world, if you can't produce, then you're fired.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> But seriously the average person employs 3% of the processing power - at least projects like BOINC get some use from them.


Out of curiosity, where exactly did you get that number?


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Apple apprently went up $2 on this news/speculation. 

H!


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

MacDoc, "They" would be Apple since they are the only ones who have anything to do with Intel in this thread 

Also this 3% cpu usage nonsense is irrelavent. 3% CPU usage may be an average thats worked out in a standard users session when they sit at the computer but tell me this. Lets say that you're using 3% of your computers power on a 2Ghz G5 and seeing that this seems wasteful, we gave you a 300Mhz G3 instead. Maybe now you're using about 25% cpu usage. Much nicer and better use of a machine right? That would seem like the case until you went to go stuff something or run a game or encode anything or run a complicated filter in photoshop...etc. Now you're sitting at 100% cpu usage for way longer than you'd like and in the case of a game, it may render it useless (nobody wants a game to run at 6fps). 

Progress is good


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

3%?? - in one of the grid computing articles in one of the science mags and no I don't recall exactly.
Total available computational power over time worldwide is hugely underutilized.

••



> They are probably going to have intel manufacture their chips


This statement makes no sense whatsoever. You are implying that Apple designs a chip then farms it out for manufacture.

Optimal utilization of existing power is more effective as gains in actual performance by individual CPUs tail off.

Gaming console manufcturers and gaming software developers have worked for optimization across the board hardware and software for the specific use in a highly competitive/ high reward environment.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

"Total over time" implies that it counts all 24 hours in a day, which is bound to make the average bottom out. Plus, how much time are you counting? A day? A week? A year?


----------



## gundamguy (Mar 2, 2004)

I don't know if I'd read anything into this news, Steve has used this card before to give IBM a slap, it's possible they leaked this "news" to give their stock a boost to bring it back up. As far as the new consoles are concerned all I have seen are alot of promises and vaporware. If the technology in xbox 360 is ready they would have shown the games on a protoype not powermacs, same goes for the ps3, all weve seen of that is an ugly silver box. Sony is great at overstating perfromance, remember the revolutionary emotion engine of the PS2? Did anyone ever figure out how to get AA from that thing? and Microsoft will sell somthing they make for 2000$ for 200 if they think it will turn a profit someday or at least make them number 1. Right now it still looks like we are in the best spot with what we have. Right now Intel has stuggled with building new cpus more than anyone else. Still no x64 or whatever they call em.


----------



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

MacDoc said:


> I mean the PS3 is into the 2 TerraFlops range with it's Cell processor rig.
> 
> ......what....for $500.
> 
> ...


Ok, well if you don't know already, Sony loses a horrible amount of money on every system they sell, and they're still losing money from the PSPs. The fact is, the game producers have to pay so much for licensing and THATs where sony makes its money.

Besides, the PS3 is bound to release in about 10 months, the technology could drop in price two-fold.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Sony doesn't lose money on every console they sell; they've always turned a profit when it comes to hardware sales. During the <a href="http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info/presen/mr_keiho/index.html">FY2003 Sony Corporate Strategy Meeting</a>, <a href="http://www.so-net.ne.jp/sonyir/20030528/E/qa04/irview.html">someone asked</a> if the PSX would be sold at a loss. One of the executives joked that the person must be thinking of another company, since Sony has always made a profit on both hardware and software sales, not just software sales.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

gundamguy said:


> I don't know if I'd read anything into this news, Steve has used this card before to give IBM a slap, it's possible they leaked this "news" to give their stock a boost to bring it back up.


Unlikely. First of all, it's illegal and secondly, Apple's stock is doing just fine. It's $10-$15 above its historical average.


----------



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

You ever been to the playstation forums recently?

Besides: i didnt say that sony didnt make a loss off hardware sales, i said they make a loss off system sales. Sony makes alotta profit on peripheral sales but they DO lose money on systems.


----------



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

ShawnKing said:


> Unlikely. First of all, it's illegal and secondly, Apple's stock is doing just fine. It's $10-$15 above its historical average.


 Apple stock dropped 10 since the split.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

If you ask me, this is what Apple was talking to Intel about. Probably getting some input on where Intel is going with this standard.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Intel also makes the Xscale processor used in many PDAs and digital devices.

Feel free to start up the rumour mill on that thought.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

<p>From <a href="http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html">http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html</a>:</p><blockquote><p> Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per console profit.</p><p>Now, that is a bit high. This assumed that the average consumer continues to buy four games per console (so around $24 in royalties), and 2 accessories (about $30 in profit total). That reduces the $175 to about $120. Sony is making $120 profit per system.</p><p>[...]<p>It's not I saying that Sony has always made a unit profit on each PS2 sold, but Sony themselves claiming that. In both the press conferences for follow-up questions pertaining to the 2000 and 2001 stock report for investors, which were available online in audio files on Sony's website for months after the publication of their annual report, Sony openly discussed how the PS2 is profitable on each unit sold.</p></blockquote>


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> Apple stock dropped 10 since the split.


Yes it did. And it's still $9 above its $30 floor and $19 above its historical average.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

And cooler heads prevail http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/05/24/intelapple/index.php calming down the Mac populace once again..... at least for another 3 months.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It was once said that Apple and Motorolas relationship would also be "longstanding"...

I don't think that Apple will use Intel or AMD chips as a processors - but Apple has done things that were "un-Apple" like in the past.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It's amusing to compare what has been written in this thread and compare it to the latest Apple/Intel news....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Which is??? That Macworld article was May 24th.

The key in my mind is the Intel Quiet Period situation.



> Another anonymous poster noted that *Apple retains a large part of the intellectual property for the PowerPC design.* This information led other posters to wonder if Apple's talks with Intel were for the latter to produce PowerPC chips in Intel fabrication facilities, making the "Apple on Intel" rumor technically true, while not resulting in a platform switch for Apple.


xBox and Sony PS3........this scenario makes more sense.

'Course then there is this which would REALLY make sense of ther Quiet period.



> The deal that makes the most sense IMO is for Intel to acquire Apple via a stock swap. Jobs retires to Pixar, shareholders get $50-$60 per share, employees switch badges, and Intel gets a leg up on a new line of business in media and PCs that aren't beholding to the guys in Redmond.


 

How'd ya like them apples......


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1118030489-dfWPBM/OphymJyo11fwbCg">Sunday New York Times</a> ran a story on this, confirming the rumours as true. 

Having read the piece, it's clear that Apple's move to hire IBM to manufacture the G5 was a big mistake. The supplier has fallen far short of delivering on a steady upgrade of faster, cooler, and cheaper chips. And that's put Apple in this untenable spot where they have little choice but to bite the bullet and plead with developers to hang tight. 

Having said that, I can't imagine how they expect to keep selling computers for the next year until the big switch takes place.


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

Maybe I am missing something ... what I can't understand is why so many assume that a switch to Intel automatically means x86. I think there is a greater possibility that Intel will be allowed to manufacture PowerPC processors ... for Apple and potentially the 3 game console makers in the future.

The reasoning I have been seeing in various forums besides ehMac for making OS X available on x86 machines is to gain a bigger percentage of the Windows market. This is a big 'if' ... and even if it happens ... I don't think it is enough to cause a mass switch to OS X ... why? I see the bulk of the market is corporation based who are still tied to Microsoft proprietary formats. My guess is that Apple has other ideas on how to tackle this particular issue that have nothing to do with x86 chips. If Apple were to develop OS X for x86, I can see Microsoft withdrawing support for MS Office for the Mac in a heartbeat if they felt they were threatened.

My hope is that this apparent partnership is simply a way for Apple to have an ample supply of chips available (as well as access to new technologies) and for Intel to be able to pursue a new line of business.

I guess we will know in about 13 hours or so.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

(( p g )) said:


> The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1118030489-dfWPBM/OphymJyo11fwbCg">Sunday New York Times</a> ran a story on this, confirming the rumours as true.


They confirmed nothing. All they did was repeat teh same BS eevryone else is reporting. News is supposed to be based on facts, isn't it? Not, "I read it on CNET say it so it must be true."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Maybe I am missing something ... what I can't understand is why so many assume that a switch to Intel automatically means x86. I think there is a greater possibility that Intel will be allowed to manufacture PowerPC processors ... for Apple and potentially the 3 game console makers in the future.


yep - for Intel to go to a quiet period it has to be a bigger play in the works.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> yep - for Intel to go to a quiet period it has to be a bigger play in the works.


What is all this "Intel Quite Period" stuff? Who says Intel is in a "Quiet Period"? Do you even know what that means?

Companies who are about to release quarterly reports are mandated, by law, to not talk about the company for x number of days before the quarterly announcements.

Just because Intel (and Apple) aren't commenting on this rumor doesn't mean there is some sort of "Quiet Period".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes I do SK which is why it's significant and it's elesewhere in this thread before you go jumping to conclusions about unfounded statements



> 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.* None of the forward-looking statements in the Business Outlook should be considered as the current expectations of Intel.


http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/index.htm

Happy now.......

_None of the forward-looking statements in the Business Outlook should be considered as the current expectations of Intel._..........Wallstreet is not abuzz for nothing.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I guess we know for sure, now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Developers applauded Steve when he said that *both processors would be supported for a long time to come*, and the core to this will be universal binaries


the universal os,,,,,,,,,,oooooh


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Wow...I think this REALLY is a huge day in Apple history...

It doesn't affect consumers right now really, but maybe a year from now, people will be having to make the decision on whether they are going to go with an Intel or PPC


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> They confirmed nothing. All they did was repeat teh same BS eevryone else is reporting. News is supposed to be based on facts, isn't it? Not, "I read it on CNET say it so it must be true."


looks like celebrity interloper shawn king was wrong. but will he be able to admit it?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> looks like celebrity interloper shawn king was wrong. but will he be able to admit it?


TMR - You don't need to bait Shawn so much. However, I'm not sure what a lot of people are going to think about this because a lot of people couldn't conceive Apple leaving the PowerPC architecture that they've marketed for so long. Just how much fallout and exactly how it's going to work they still have a year before it goes live, so I think we can see Intel doing something that makes the new Macs faster and better then the older Dual G5s.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> It doesn't affect consumers right now really, but maybe a year from now, people will be having to make the decision on whether they are going to go with an Intel or PPC


Why would some buy a PPC Mac if they had the choice?

I thought Jobs made it clear, Intel has the roadmap to the future. A lot of people looking to upgrade are going to put it off until Mactels are available. 

So Apple may have to trim prices to keep PPC product moving until the Mactels are out, and may still be trimming prices until Intel can take over completely.

I want to know what's going to distinguish Mactels from Intels?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> looks like celebrity interloper shawn king was wrong. but will he be able to admit it?


Wrong about what? I never said the stories weren't true. I was saying take them with a grain of salt because there were no facts in any of them. I was trying to caution people about taking them too seriously.

I wasn't wrong about Apple moving to Intel because I had no opinion on the matter. I honestly don't care.

As to "celebrity interloper shawn king", for the 2nd time I ask you, what crawled up your ass and died? if you have a problem with me, say so up front. Stop being an jerk off.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Brainstrained said:


> I thought Jobs made it clear, Intel has the roadmap to the future. A lot of people looking to upgrade are going to put it off until Mactels are available.
> 
> So Apple may have to trim prices to keep PPC product moving until the Mactels are out, and may still be trimming prices until Intel can take over completely.


Yup - Maybe this was some part of the reason for Apple paying off all their debt. They're gonna float on the cash hoard for a year or two.


> I want to know what's going to distinguish Mactels from Intels?


Excellent question.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

Intel's "roadmap" includes a DRM-enabled CPU. There's the motivation. The idea that the PPC can't keep up with Intel is ludicrous. Sure, IBM has had some fab problems, but it doesn't change the fact that the current PowerMac G5s are plenty fast enough. Dual core and laptop-friendly G5s would've likely been available by the time Apple will be all-Intel. Its not like the x86 boxes out there are running circles around the Mac. I shouldn't be posting so much while I'm still outside of Steve's famed RDF (cuz I'll probably eat my words eventually), but this announcement has me a little disillusioned.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

ShawnKing said:


> As to "celebrity interloper shawn king", for the 2nd time I ask you, what crawled up your ass and died? if you have a problem with me, say so up front. Stop being an jerk off.


Hmmm.... so.... you're an American, eh?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Klaatu said:


> Hmmm.... so.... you're an American, eh?


What? What difference would that make? Would you treat me differently if I were? Would I not be allowed to participate on thse forums if I were? Would you be better (or vice versa) than me if I were?

I hope someone can explain this animosity soon. It's pointless and ridiculous.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ShawnKing said:


> I hope someone can explain this animosity soon. It's pointless and ridiculous.


Can't explain it, but I do agree it's pointless and ridiculous. Lots of baiting going on lately, and it's tiresome. I say just ignore 'em, YMMV.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Jesus... WTF difference does it make if a person is American?

God, this is getting old, real [email protected]' bad.

Edit: I happen to know where Shawn's from, but I'll save you the embarassment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't get it either


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I don't get all this friction against Shawn. WTF is up here? If people (or is it even just TMR?) have a bug up their ass about Shawn, SAY SO. Spit it out! Otherwise STFU! I'm getting tired seeing this crap pollute the forums.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Anybody who has bothered to take the time to listen to Shawn King will know that he is not a rumor monger and will not accept it as fact until he hears it straight from the horses mouth. I don't think he has anything to admit to being wrong about.

He has taken the same stand with the ihome, ipod video and would likely argue that 10.4.2 will never see the light of day until he sees it on software update!

Just kidding Shawn, keep up the good work! I love what you guys are doing down there.


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

Interesting - I've been off the boards for a while - and see what happens!
suddenly my dual G5 PowerMac starts to look less like the smart deal I thought I was making... 

We can discuss the merits/demerits of the POWER architecture over the Intel architecture till the cows come home, but...
the die is cast; looks like it'll generate some positive press for Apple and Intel. Technologically, it'll be a wash - the effort to port applications will be trivial, not sure if the price reductions in Apple h/w will be significant - since likely makes sense for Apple to still control the h/w platform - don't see commodity PC h/w being supported off the bat.

Don't believe there will be a significant impact to the end-user experience as long as Apple controls the h/w other than s/w stack availability - and that will likely resolve itself in the large part by the end of 2006.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

RISCHead said:


> Interesting - I've been off the boards for a while - and see what happens!
> suddenly my dual G5 PowerMac starts to look less like the smart deal I thought I was making...
> 
> We can discuss the merits/demerits of the POWER architecture over the Intel architecture till the cows come home, but...
> ...


As long as Apple does not hinder me from upgrading the CPU or other parts of the computer I don't really care if there is a Apple logo on that box or not I buy Mac for the OS not the hardware.

Laterz


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

First Belinda, now Steve ... wonders never cease.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I finally found this old great thread started by Chealion on Oct 13th, 2004, 05:04 AM where some of us got into a pretty heated debate on wheter OSX/X86 would ever happen.

Now would some of you like to go back to this thread and see where you went wrong?

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=7308&page=1&pp=10&highlight=PearPC

Laterz


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm at a bit of a loss trying to understand how a switch to Intel's x86 CISC processor family will do anything to improve the speed of the Macs. From a user perspective, a 2.7 Gig RISC (powerPC) processor will be as fast as a 6 Gig CISC processor and I don't see any 6 Gig CISC processor from Intel or anyone else on the horizon.
When my company switch from Macs to PC - I personally went from a 66 Mhz PowerPC to a 133 MHz Pentium...the Pentium was slower when running typical office applications even though the clock speed was double that of the Mac.
I realize there are other archtectural parameters in a computer that affect perceived speed, but is the latest CISC processor really expected to outperform the latest RISC processor?


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

CISC vs. RISC has become a much different, more blurry subject since 133 MHz Pentium. But one thing will stay true for a long time, and that's that each one shines in different applications.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

KRS - it's more on the low end initially the benefits are and a 2.0 G5 and 2.4 Pentium 4 are about equal so it comes down to supply and price.

There will be no 6 gHz with current technology ...dual and multiple core will rule. Basically the fact that the OS will run perfectly on BOTH with little effort gives Apple big advantages.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Basically the fact that the OS will run perfectly on BOTH with little effort gives Apple big advantages.


Except that you have to hope support for PPC will continue not only from Apple (as they are phasing them out) but developers...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's see .........Apple ran parallel for 5 years with no clear immediate advantage

There are several million PowerPC machines to sell OSes to and software to.

The "dual binaries" Rosetta concept makes it easy to go back and forth

Apple is a partner in the PowerPC Consortium........


naw they'll just dump all that....... 

They undertake a strategy based on hedging their bets........so now they'll just stop doing that........I don't think so.

The Holy Grail has been solid processor independent OS.........


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

AS: You're getting a little redundant with your posts -- quit stalking MacDoc and move on. 

Support for Mac OS X PPC and Mac OS X Intel computers will be support equally by both Apple and the developers with ease regardless of the fact that PPC Macs will stop at the end of this year -- it'll take several years after than (or more) before PPC Macs disappear from people's desks. Universal binaries and emulation will help those on either side protect their investment.

And if the PPC makes a comeback, Apple will surely use it to their advantage if and when it happens. It won't be the first time they've made the switch, and it won't be the last.


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

Oh boy...Dvorak the Mac-hater is really ripping it now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=824587


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> it'll take several years after than (or more) before PPC Macs disappear from people's desks


Why make that assumption??// They idea is BOTH chip lines are available as cost and performance are assessed - I doubt very much Apple will box itself in with Intel only - they just crawled out of one box...they won't get locked in another.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Apple stated they will be using Intel exclusively starting 2006. This means no more new PPC Macs. If there are no new PPC Macs to refresh the lineup, then what will customers purchase?

What am I missing here?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MannyP said:


> If there are no new PPC Macs to refresh the lineup, then what will customers purchase?


Why, used stuff from MacDoc, of course.


----------



## Bilbo (Jul 12, 2001)

ShawnKing said:


> I wasn't wrong about Apple moving to Intel because I had no opinion on the matter. I honestly don't care.


Exactly! The brand of processor doesn't make the Mac a Mac. Does anyone really give a dollup of badger snot what processor drives the Mac? Hey, as long as it'll do what I need it to do then I'm happy. The overall computing experience is what makes the Mac special not it's processor.

People are blowing this out of proportion... is it really that big of deal?

I for one, say no.


----------



## isergio04 (May 18, 2005)

i agree. as long as it is compatible


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2005)

Available one year today?

June 6th, 2006?

6/6/6?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Available one year today?
> 
> June 6th, 2006?
> 
> 6/6/6?


$666.00 price of the Apple 1

Laterz


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Bilbo said:


> The brand of processor doesn't make the Mac a Mac. Does anyone really give a dollup of badger snot what processor drives the Mac?


Actually Yes. 
After 10 years of telling us that Mhz don't matter, PPC is a superior chip etc, etc, Steve turns around as says: "Now pray to Intel"
Zealots in unison turn around and "Intel is good"....

No matter what kind of "rosetta" crunchy cocoa box embalms your application, changing over is not that easy for developpers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

which is exactly why I'm not going to sweat this. My G5 will still fly a year from now when people are trying out the new intel versions, so I think I have at least another 2 years of solid powerPC love before I should look over my shoulder. By then I'll think about upgrading there'll be something sweet to pick up all worked in and fast.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

K_OS said:


> $666.00 price of the Apple 1
> 
> Laterz


Actually it was $666.69


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Actually Yes.
> After 10 years of telling us that Mhz don't matter, PPC is a superior chip etc, etc, Steve turns around as says: "Now pray to Intel"
> Zealots in unison turn around and "Intel is good"....
> 
> No matter what kind of "rosetta" crunchy cocoa box embalms your application, changing over is not that easy for developpers.



Actually, from what's been show today at the keynote, the change is quite easy for developers -- in fact, it's easy as in a matter of an hour or two easy. It's easy in the fact that one can take their programs and create multiple binaries that will work on BOTH platforms easy.

The response in light of the change from the developers has been quite positive. What's the problem?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Geez! I'M even Nit-Pickier than YOU...*



Myrddin Emrys said:


> Actually it was $666.69


According to Apple History website,
it was $ 666.66

http://www.apple-history.com/frames/


----------



## Bilbo (Jul 12, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Actually Yes.
> After 10 years of telling us that Mhz don't matter, PPC is a superior chip etc, etc, Steve turns around as says: "Now pray to Intel"
> Zealots in unison turn around and "Intel is good"....
> 
> No matter what kind of "rosetta" crunchy cocoa box embalms your application, changing over is not that easy for developpers.



I hear what you're saying. Is this ideal? Of course not! I'd rather have Steve have the balls to admit that "You know what? We have come to the conclusion that the Power PC just ain't gonna take us where we want and need to go." Better that than pretending that it will only to have the rug pulled out from under us later.

My point was the Power PC chip does not make the Mac a Mac. A Mac running on an Intel chip is every bit a Mac as one running on a Power PC.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Actually, from what's been show today at the keynote, the change is quite easy for developers -- in fact, it's easy as in a matter of an hour or two easy. It's easy in the fact that one can take their programs and create multiple binaries that will work on BOTH platforms easy.
> 
> The response in light of the change from the developers has been quite positive. What's the problem?


 Just to add to your point Manny 

I would guess that most of the developers were AWARE this might happen eventually, and were prepared for it. It's been a rumor for quite some time. I would imagine most of them probably applaud apple for making it so nice. 

I don't think it's the current chips or idea's that Apple are worried about in this situation, as we all saw, X was running pretty smokin' in them tests. Imagine what new architectures might arise for so many things. Intel is far beyond just the CPU aspect. I for one, am ALL for it.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Vexel said:


> I would guess that most of the developers were AWARE this might happen eventually, and were prepared for it. It's been a rumor for quite some time. I would imagine most of them probably applaud apple for making it so nice.


No, this was a complete shock to most people here. I haven't talked to anyone who prepared for this. I think most attendees blew off the rumours.

However, it is true that Apple is providing a lot of support and has done a fantastic job on Rosetta. The performance on the demo machines is fantastic.

Still very weird to see a Pentium in a G5 case...

- Martin.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Available one year today?
> 
> June 6th, 2006?
> 
> 6/6/6?


Let's put this silliness to bed right now. Jobs said that there will be "MacIntel" machines available *before* the next WWDC.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mbaldwin said:


> However, it is true that Apple is providing a lot of support and has done a fantastic job on Rosetta. The performance on the demo machines is fantastic.


Are we looking at 64bit or 32bit processors?
Dual or single processor?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

iMatt said:


> I say just ignore 'em, YMMV.


Not in my nature. You have a problem with me, I'll *help you* bring it out in the open. I like shiny lights under slimy rocks.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Edit: I happen to know where Shawn's from, but I'll save you the embarassment.


Yeah, that's the best part of his ridiculous statement.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

andreww said:


> Anybody who has bothered to take the time to listen to Shawn King will know that he is not a rumor monger and will not accept it as fact until he hears it straight from the horses mouth.


Pretty much.


> He has taken the same stand with the ihome, ipod video and would likely argue that 10.4.2 will never see the light of day until he sees it on software update!


Shaddup!


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Bilbo said:


> I'd rather have Steve have the balls to admit that "You know what? We have come to the conclusion that the Power PC just ain't gonna take us where we want and need to go."


I watched the Keynote. He pretty much said exactly that.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Why assume x86?*



Derrick said:


> Maybe I am missing something ... what I can't understand is why so many assume that a switch to Intel automatically means x86. ...


Exactly, Derrick. I think x86 is a huge assumption, and most likely incorrect. My look into the crystal ball sees an Intel-made, Apple proprietary chip. No hacking to Windows. No loss of hardware sales. I think we'll look back at this as being similar to Apple's jump from Motorola to IBM. Well, hopefully more successful in the long term.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

SoyMac said:


> Exactly, Derrick. I think x86 is a huge assumption, and most likely incorrect.


The $999 Developer "transition" kit includes a Pentium 4.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SoyMac said:


> Exactly, Derrick. I think x86 is a huge assumption, and most likely incorrect.


Intel has confirmed that it will be x86


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

x86 is for sure. Pentium 4 is not for sure (except for the developer's kit). No reason for them to announce the particular _type_ of x86 implementation yet.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Feelings of doom and gloom*



ArtistSeries said:


> Intel has confirmed that it will be x86


Ah, crap.




*sigh*


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Intel has confirmed that it will be x86


Probably a new 64 bit x86 processor.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Bright point on the horizon?*



elmer said:


> x86 is for sure. Pentium 4 is not for sure (except for the developer's kit). No reason for them to announce the particular _type_ of x86 implementation yet.


Yeah, _type_ of x86. 
x86 is merely a _label_ after all. Okay, I'm starting to regain hope and the will to carry on... 



Geez, I'm really grasping, eh?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'd be willing to bet that they are waiting a year because besides the whole "need everything updated" issue, in about a year pretty much all Intels CPUs will be using the x86-64 extensions, and the higher end ones will be dual core.

One can hope, anyway.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

SoyMac said:


> According to Apple History website,
> it was $ 666.66
> 
> http://www.apple-history.com/frames/


Strange, I really thought it was 9 cents... oh well.



ArtistSeries said:


> Are we looking at 64bit or 32bit processors?
> Dual or single processor?


Right now developers will be using AI-32 to do there magic; since there are not 'real' 64 Bit apps for X at the moment then it should not be a problem.

I do agree with PosterBoy that things will be a better field, even as early as January.


----------

