Posted by
Hemos
on from the circle-round-round-and-again dept.
Stack_13 writes "Wall Street Journal reports that Apple will agree to use Intel chips. Neither Apple or Intel confirm this. Interestingly, PCMag's John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005. Are even cheaper Mac Minis coming?"
Of course, one could argue that Apple wouldn't want this news to be leaked
-- ... and I shall strike upon thee with great vegeance, furious anger and a slightly positive karma.
Re:Does this mean -
by
Oculus+Habent
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This could be the same tactic Dell uses with Intel... "We could go with AMD, but about those prices..."
Cheaper because of Intel? I doubt it. Even if Apple does start using x86 - or more likely x86-64 - they would still likely use their own controller chips (Note that Apple uses a single, integrated controller rather than a north/southbridge approach) and custom boards.
It's not impossible that Apple will switch to Intel processors. We already know they keep a copy of the OS up to date on Intel hardware, and even released Darwin x86. The problems come from all the things they would leave behind:
Compatibility - The PowerPC architecture emulates x86 better than the other way 'round. To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC. This would cause old software to run like death.
VMX - Much of Apple's current power comes from the AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine available on the G4 & G5 processors. It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro. Unless Intel tacks on a VMX unit, I don't see Apple switching.
Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.
-- That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:Does this mean -
by
Halo1
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The gigabit ethernet chip in my old G4/400 in fact is an Intel chip.
Re:Does this mean -
by
Kyro
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.
-- save the GNUs!
Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap
by
Phil+John
·
· Score: 4, Informative
100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -
You couldn't be more wrong. 100% of the next-gen console gaming world will be in the next year and a half, however, everyone who plays handhelds (nintendo ds, gameboy advance, sony psp etc) and all us PC gamers (of which there are considerable numbers) will still be using other chips besides PowerPC/CELL
That's an even funnier quote when you consider the mouse had been invented 16 years earlier at SRI. The mouse was hardly "experimental" in 1984, and was already in use in CAD workstations. Dvorak is another one of those dumbass media figures that people inexplicably listen to. Good gig if you can get it.
Re:Does this mean -
by
NMerriam
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Whether you call it an "upgrade" or a change is semantics. The PPC and 680x0 had different instruction sets and required completely different programming at the system level -- that Apple built 680x0 system-level software emulation (and later on-the-fly dynamic recompilation) and made it completely transparent to the end-user was a pretty significant feat.
Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware. If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.
Whatever. When Ferarri bulds a car with an automatic transmission, it's just an overpriced Taurus with a pretty body kit, right?
After all, what kind of crazy computer USER would buy a computer based on the USER interface? Everybody knows your decision should be based on whether the system is little-endian or big-endian!
-- Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Here we go again...
by
Momoru
·
· Score: 3, Informative
With a wireless card (no wires where my office is) on a 1.2ghz mac mini, the price is $578. My current computer, a dell with a 3 ghz p4, with monitor, keyboard, optical mouse etc was only $500. So the mini is still pretty expensive in comparision. But that aside, $580 might be an impulse buy for you, but $600 is an awful lot for some of us just to "try something out". And with those barebones specs of the mini, if I liked it, i would probably have to buy a "real mac" a couple of months later anyways. My point is that I already have some bucks invested in hardware...not having to scrap all that would be a serious selling point for picking up an x86 version of Tiger.
Apple possibly fed up with IBM internal PowerPlay(
by
Been+on+TV
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Having worked in Apple product management and been recruited to and used to work for IBM at a time when they wanted to put Mac OS on IBM PPC hardware (gosh, that's got to be a decade ago...), I would think that the article in the Post is a sign that Jobs has just about had it with IBM internal politics.
There are parts of IBM that do not give didley about Apple - actually a lot of IBM-ers talk about Apple as they wished it off the surface of the earth. There are of course folks in Microelectronics and some Linux on Power guys who care, but the rest...
If IBM really cared about getting more PPC based systems into the market, they'd have IBM Software make sure Apple was properly supported both on the client side, but also on XServe with their server software products. You don't see much of that.
The PowerPlay(TM) that is going on inside of IBM, and what is probably seriously hampering Apple these days, is that IBM is trying by all means to protect its high-end server business. In which the POWER processors (and dual core) play an all important role both in the iSeries (former AS/400) and pSeries (former RS/6000). These are low volume, very high margin products that sustain two ecosystems in IBM with revenues and margins that far exceeds any business IBM will do with Apple this century.
With Apple eagerly wanting to use dual-core PPC chips in, not only dual processor systems (customers chairing on the side), but possibly bringing both 4 and 8 processor systems - both workstations and servers, to the market, IBM's Enterprise Division will increasingly see this as a threat to the i and pSeries servers. Apple will, with a completely different price-point on servers in particular, significantly threaten to alter the margins IBM has on the low-end to midrange i and pSeries systems.
IBM got a very rude awakening seeing Apple XServe hardware finding the way into some of the worlds fastest supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of then priced IBM hardware.
Now, with a possible 4 and 8 processor XServe out the doors, the rocking of IBM's boat would still continue. Why?
Well, IBM is to a larger and larger degree touting both iSeries and pSeries ability to run Linux software both natively in AIX and OS/400, but also in logical partitions, as one of its major features and selling points. Guess what? Apple can run Linux software too.
The relative ease by which Linux software can be made to run natively under Mac OS X combined with much lower priced hardware, will make IBM's iSeries and pSeries customers increasingly ask why not to switch if all they want is the ability to run Linux software on PPC. Such a scenario could put tremendous strain on the Enterprise Division's margins. Which is why there are forces internally in IBM who do not want Apple to have the powerful PPC chips Steve Jobs needs to transform Apple into a success in the enterprise market. They probably try to put all kinds of restrictions on what systems he can build with those chips, if he gets them.
Intel does not play these games. Which is why a processor switch may be attractive for Jobs.
Of course there are all kinds of problems with the existing installed base in terms of binary compatibility of software, but they have lived through this before without too many problems. Apple knows how to handle a processor switch from before and I think the OS will handle another chip excellently given the long time Apple has had to prepare for this.
Now for the market? As another guy so excellently put it in a post; 95% of the market does not have the problem of binary compatibility of software under Mac OS X.
-- The future is in beta
Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap
by
wkcole
·
· Score: 3, Informative
As far as I know, Apple has had no involvement in ARM.
As you appear to be completely ignorant of ARM's origins, why bother making such a statement?
See http://www.arm.com/aboutarm/milestones.html and scroll down to where ARM describes their origin as an independent company. ARM was initially a joint venture of Apple, Acorn, and VLSI. Selling off their shares of ARM was part of what kept Apple alive in the late 90's.
Slashdot Mirror
The WSJ reports it, but no link to the WSJ's actual story? Well, here it is.
http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2005/05/23/apple _denies_intel_rumour
e ing-intel-chips.html
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/apple-denies-ey
http://www.dvhardware.net/article5037.html
Of course, one could argue that Apple wouldn't want this news to be leaked
... and I shall strike upon thee with great vegeance, furious anger and a slightly positive karma.
This could be the same tactic Dell uses with Intel... "We could go with AMD, but about those prices..."
Cheaper because of Intel? I doubt it. Even if Apple does start using x86 - or more likely x86-64 - they would still likely use their own controller chips (Note that Apple uses a single, integrated controller rather than a north/southbridge approach) and custom boards.
It's not impossible that Apple will switch to Intel processors. We already know they keep a copy of the OS up to date on Intel hardware, and even released Darwin x86. The problems come from all the things they would leave behind:
Compatibility - The PowerPC architecture emulates x86 better than the other way 'round. To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC. This would cause old software to run like death.
VMX - Much of Apple's current power comes from the AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine available on the G4 & G5 processors. It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro. Unless Intel tacks on a VMX unit, I don't see Apple switching.
Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The gigabit ethernet chip in my old G4/400 in fact is an Intel chip.
Donate free food here
The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.
save the GNUs!
100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -
You couldn't be more wrong. 100% of the next-gen console gaming world will be in the next year and a half, however, everyone who plays handhelds (nintendo ds, gameboy advance, sony psp etc) and all us PC gamers (of which there are considerable numbers) will still be using other chips besides PowerPC/CELL
I am NaN
That's an even funnier quote when you consider the mouse had been invented 16 years earlier at SRI. The mouse was hardly "experimental" in 1984, and was already in use in CAD workstations. Dvorak is another one of those dumbass media figures that people inexplicably listen to. Good gig if you can get it.
Whether you call it an "upgrade" or a change is semantics. The PPC and 680x0 had different instruction sets and required completely different programming at the system level -- that Apple built 680x0 system-level software emulation (and later on-the-fly dynamic recompilation) and made it completely transparent to the end-user was a pretty significant feat.
Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware. If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.
Whatever. When Ferarri bulds a car with an automatic transmission, it's just an overpriced Taurus with a pretty body kit, right?
After all, what kind of crazy computer USER would buy a computer based on the USER interface? Everybody knows your decision should be based on whether the system is little-endian or big-endian!
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
With a wireless card (no wires where my office is) on a 1.2ghz mac mini, the price is $578. My current computer, a dell with a 3 ghz p4, with monitor, keyboard, optical mouse etc was only $500. So the mini is still pretty expensive in comparision. But that aside, $580 might be an impulse buy for you, but $600 is an awful lot for some of us just to "try something out". And with those barebones specs of the mini, if I liked it, i would probably have to buy a "real mac" a couple of months later anyways. My point is that I already have some bucks invested in hardware...not having to scrap all that would be a serious selling point for picking up an x86 version of Tiger.
There are parts of IBM that do not give didley about Apple - actually a lot of IBM-ers talk about Apple as they wished it off the surface of the earth. There are of course folks in Microelectronics and some Linux on Power guys who care, but the rest...
If IBM really cared about getting more PPC based systems into the market, they'd have IBM Software make sure Apple was properly supported both on the client side, but also on XServe with their server software products. You don't see much of that.
The PowerPlay(TM) that is going on inside of IBM, and what is probably seriously hampering Apple these days, is that IBM is trying by all means to protect its high-end server business. In which the POWER processors (and dual core) play an all important role both in the iSeries (former AS/400) and pSeries (former RS/6000). These are low volume, very high margin products that sustain two ecosystems in IBM with revenues and margins that far exceeds any business IBM will do with Apple this century.
With Apple eagerly wanting to use dual-core PPC chips in, not only dual processor systems (customers chairing on the side), but possibly bringing both 4 and 8 processor systems - both workstations and servers, to the market, IBM's Enterprise Division will increasingly see this as a threat to the i and pSeries servers. Apple will, with a completely different price-point on servers in particular, significantly threaten to alter the margins IBM has on the low-end to midrange i and pSeries systems.
IBM got a very rude awakening seeing Apple XServe hardware finding the way into some of the worlds fastest supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of then priced IBM hardware.
Now, with a possible 4 and 8 processor XServe out the doors, the rocking of IBM's boat would still continue. Why? Well, IBM is to a larger and larger degree touting both iSeries and pSeries ability to run Linux software both natively in AIX and OS/400, but also in logical partitions, as one of its major features and selling points. Guess what? Apple can run Linux software too.
The relative ease by which Linux software can be made to run natively under Mac OS X combined with much lower priced hardware, will make IBM's iSeries and pSeries customers increasingly ask why not to switch if all they want is the ability to run Linux software on PPC.
Such a scenario could put tremendous strain on the Enterprise Division's margins. Which is why there are forces internally in IBM who do not want Apple to have the powerful PPC chips Steve Jobs needs to transform Apple into a success in the enterprise market. They probably try to put all kinds of restrictions on what systems he can build with those chips, if he gets them.
Intel does not play these games. Which is why a processor switch may be attractive for Jobs.
Of course there are all kinds of problems with the existing installed base in terms of binary compatibility of software, but they have lived through this before without too many problems. Apple knows how to handle a processor switch from before and I think the OS will handle another chip excellently given the long time Apple has had to prepare for this.
Now for the market? As another guy so excellently put it in a post; 95% of the market does not have the problem of binary compatibility of software under Mac OS X.
The future is in beta
As you appear to be completely ignorant of ARM's origins, why bother making such a statement?
See http://www.arm.com/aboutarm/milestones.html and scroll down to where ARM describes their origin as an independent company. ARM was initially a joint venture of Apple, Acorn, and VLSI. Selling off their shares of ARM was part of what kept Apple alive in the late 90's.