Apple to Use Intel Chips?

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?"

Comments

Dvorak

[Anonymous Coward]

"John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005."

Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.

Dvorak

[taskforce]

If what Dvorak has predicted is about to come true, I fear the space time continuum will rupture spewing forth a hoard of evil flesh eating time daemons.

Nope

[fr0dicus]

ARM for iPods maybe, but otherwise, absolutely no chance. Only a fool would even think this was likely.

O really?

[yurigoul]

Stuff like this keeps coming up. Seems to be part of the Apple rumour cycle. Can we trust the source??? Using the G5 is par to of the advantage in marketing terms, as a far as i can see: think different!

Re:Does this mean -

[southpolesammy]

More likely it will mean that you'll see better pricing on PowerPC-based Macs in the future.

Why move now?

[JabrTheHut]

Why move now? Everyone's been hearing about the dual-core PowerPC chips for months, PS 3 and Xbox 180 will be running 3-core versions of this chip, so why go Intel?

Here we go again...

[tliet]

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain? Who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell. Does anyone seriously believe Microsoft would release Office for Mac OS X for Intel?

The Mac would die the day the CPU would be the same as in a generic PC. Not from a architectural standpoint, I think they could make it happen, but marketingwise.

Re:Here we go again...

[Rasta Prefect]

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain? Who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell.

Maybe someone who doesn't want his Tech support calls forwarded to Bangalore? (Not that I don't have my complaints about Apple support, but at least I could figure out what everyone was telling me, leaving out the ambiguity of figuring out whether they really sucked or whether I just thought they sucked because I couldn't figure out what the hell they were saying.)

Re:Here we go again...

[poot_rootbeer]

Well for one thing, anyone considering using OS X would only need to buy just the OS, not a whole bunch of expensive hardware as well.

You'd have to buy OS X and all the software you'd run under OS X.

C'mon, dude. The Mac mini is only $500. Apple has put out a product that seems to address your complaints about "a whole bunch of expensive hardware" as a barrier to checking OS X out, and yet you still complain about the barrier that's no longer there.

Why cheaper!?

[jerde]

And why, now, would Intel CPUs be any cheaper?

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

Unless Apple thinks that neither IBM or Motorola are ever going to catch up, I just can't see them justifying the huge cost of a major architecture change like this.

- Peter

Re:Why cheaper!?

[daviddennis]

Every company in the world supporting the Mac platform would have to recompile and reissue their software for x86. This would be a huge burden on Mac software makers.

That alone seems like a good enough reason for this not to happen short of major disaster for the PowerPC platform. And with the dual cores well on the way, according to most sources, I don't see this as a major problem.

D

Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs

[Dominatus]

Are you serious? The G5 generates a ton of heat. Why do you think you haven't seen G5 powerbooks yet?

Re:Does this mean -

[/ASCII]

Apple may be planning on using Intel network cards. Or maybe one of intels hardware raid chips. Flash memories, Cellular processors, wireless chips are al possible. But processors? I doubt it.

Predicting the future ain't what it used to be

[NMerriam]

Well, I suppose since Dvorak predicted it every year since 1988, he might well be right sooner or later. I guess that would be about the third or fourth thing he's gotten right in all that time.

Re:Does this mean -

[garcia]

This has been discussed before. Apple uses their x86 kernel as leverage against MSFT so that there is still Office for OS X.

The second that Apple moves into the market with OS X for x86, MSFT is going to pull Office and render OS X basically useless compared to Windows. Yeah, there are open alternatives that sorta work but in the real world people want to use what they are comfortable with. Unfortunately that's Office.

MSFT knows that if they pulled Office for OS X that Apple could easily release OS X for x86 and enter a new competitor into the OS market.

Re:Does this mean -

[geoffspear]

Please explain the process whereby Apple will convert everyone's old applications into fat binaries. Without access to the source.

Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs

[TylerL82]

I'm sure that Apple could make a 2.5" thick MegaBook to compete with the high-end desktop-chip-in-laptop offerings of Dell n' Friends.

Is that what everybody wants from Apple?
An unwieldy leviathan with an hour battery life?

Re:Does this mean -

[/ASCII]

Yeah that really sets Apple apart from other companies like Sun, IBM and HP... NOT. All the Unix providers have exactly the same control.

You got it backwards. There are many closed architectures with one company dictating hardware and software. It is in fact the x86 that is unique in that multiple companies provide each part of the computer in an open architecture. And though this solution has it's problems, I think it has shown itself to be vastly superior to a closed system like the Mac.

Also keep in mind that if Apple where the dominating computer provider, they could probably had squished open source efforts like Linux in the cradle by closing specs and making new hardware incompatbile. The X86 may not be pretty, but I'd prefer it over a closed architecture any day.

Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Apple

[adzoox]

Apple no longer owns a stake in ARM (sold it all to Intel), but they do have experience and could easily hire/rehire programmers that worked on Apple/ARM devices (read as Newton)

My guess is that this will be for a new ARM processor for the iPod - the custom chip is probably too weak for advanced features.

Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -

Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple) - this is the processor in the majority of PocketPCs, Palms, and GPS units. So - this Intel processor is most likely for a new device or even the iPod.

Also take into account that USB2.0 chipsets are currently made by Intel (and others) and that Apple uses Intel chips in the XServe line for RAID I/O.

Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs

[TylerL82]

I mean, honestly, what about this graphic says "fairly cool" to you?

The fact that those are large fans that aren't spinning at full speed.
They keep the computer as cool as it needs to be while being much quieter than the 2-3 fan PCs with fans spinning their lil' hearts (motors?) out.

Re:Does this mean -

[shaitand]

The transition to powerpc was not a change of architecture, it was an upgrade in architecture. x86 is an entirely different architecture with an entirely different instruction set.

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.

Re:Does this mean -

[Shisha]

Valid point. They won't of course. I've been assuming that the major players would release appropriate versions sometime in the future. I know there are problems with this:
- Quark Xpress might take ages (again, remember how long OS X version took).
- Microsoft might actually not want to release office at all.

(actually maybe they could convert things on the fly and then cache the results, sort of a better emulation process... there is some mention of something along those lines on macrumors.com. It'll be a bit like running Java bytecode. They could then profile the things on the fly and optimize the most used parts of the program... JVM do all sorts of clever trickery nowdays.)

Anyway this is all purely hypothetical. Apple's not moving to x86 CPUs. As other people said, it's probably some random chip they might want from Intel.

Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs

[imroy]

Intel bought the StrongARM processor design from Digital a number of years ago. They now produce them under the Xscale brand. They've been used in heaps of devices, including the Compaq iPAQ, and lots of small embedded boards. Apple has previously used AMD's MIPS-based processors in some of their Airport AP's. Given the Xscale's low power/heat and relative processing power, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple use the Xscale in another funky little portable device.

Re:unbelievable

[Kjella]

It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86.

I don't. But it is considerably much more "on par" than the G4 ever was, and they weren't changing then, why would they now? It is almost impossible to emulate PPC on x86. I don't know if x86-64 is any better, it should be because of the added registers but it'd probably still run slow.

I'm sure apple has a drop-in ready box for running x86/Mac, but it'll essentially be the same box as today except for the CPU socket, at the same price (no, the CPU is a damn little part of the total box). How would that bring any new customers at all? Not to mention x86 OS X is so much easier to pirate than PPC OS X. Chances are if you are running OS X, you probably paid for it at least once every HW upgrade.

Kjella

Re:Does this mean -

[Anonymous Coward]

Going out on a limb here: yes.

Keeping my feet on the ground here: No.

We will see Windows on PowerPC long before we ever see the full OS X on x86. There's absolutely no advantage to changing platforms at this point.

Sure, the Intel/AMD world looked very attractive when Apple was relying on Motorola and lagging way behind in CPU speeds, but current PowerPC technologies from IBM are outstanding. The G5 is a terrific chip. Multi-core PowerPC chips offer a great deal of promise in the very near future.

If Apple does move away from the G5 archetecture, it will be to go to Cell chips, not Intel-64.

Re:Does this mean -

[lokedhs]

If you could buy the parts and build your own Mac they'd be alot more appealing to people...

In so many words: No, they wouldn't.

Very few people build their own computers. Most buy a box from their local computer store, or order it online from a company like Dell.

Also, no one would run OSX on a standard PC. Just like no one runs BeOS, or ran OS/2. An x86 Apple would probably be a proprietary Apple with an x86 in, and no one would care. Just like no one cares that there is a PowerPC in them today.

Re:unbelievable

[AKAImBatman]

It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86.

I'm amazed at how many people still think that any performance gap (real or perceived) actually matters. The majority of your PC's performance now comes from the size of the bus, the transfer rate of your disks, and how much memory you have. No one really *needs* a 5GHz processor to run a wordprocessor, email client, MP3 player, or even something more intensive like a graphics editor, video editor, or sound studio. Even games now rely far more heavily on the GPU than they do the CPU.

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap

[adzoox]

Apple Sells ARM shares after discontinuing Newton, upon Steve Jobs return to Apple

Apple WAS a MAJOR developmental partner in ARM for the Newton - the processor line was GREATLY enhanced during the Newton run.

So was Sharp - probably shoulda googled before that statement!

Re:Does this mean -

[arloguthrie]

Most notably, the XServe Raid runs on an Intel processor. There are tons of reasons Apple would be meeting with Intel. One day, perhaps "the news" will actually be news and not gossip based on "a friend-of-a-friend told me..."

Re:Does this mean -

[Austerity Empowers]

No I think he meant to say their architecture. The PPC is a pretty well defined processor, I've used it on a number of designs way outside that of a traditional computer, but it's just a processor. You can string it to just about any impossible chain of stuff imaginable, trust me, I have. None of them were compatible with Apple's Macintosh however.

PCs and Apple's have an "architecture" defining how the chips are strung together, how expansion is expected to work, how the interrupt controller works (and yes, which interrupt certain hardwired devices are on), etc. Unlike Apples, for the PC it's not one but many standards defining their function, not one of which defines how the processor should work. Worse still, it's essentially defined as "Be backwards compatible with an PC AT from 20 years ago". No single company really owns it, although many would like to. Even the evil empire has relegated itself to "putting up with cooperation" in this regard.

I find it more likely that Apple will define their own computer architecture using Intel chips. Maybe they will do their own north bridge, in fact much of the traditional PC architecture is emulated in this device, and changing it with something else would make an incompatible system. Let's not forget that much of PC legacy crap is software as well as hardware. If Apple throws all that out the window, they may as well have defined a new Intel based system. You aren't going to install windows on it, nor will you get a regular x86 build of linux to come close to working.

Re:Apple Denies

[neo]

Historically when news agencies leak Apple news, they end up in court. If Apple hasn't sued anyone about this, then it's not true.

Re:Fat Binaries my not solve everything

[fitten]

Technically, those PPCs that can flip endianness on the fly are actually native in either mode. Set the mode and until you change it back, the PPC *is* a little endian CPU (or big endian, depending on how you set it).

Data storage is an issue but not one that is that complicated. In fact, it's not that painful to do endian swaps on x86-64 processors, for example, because there's a dedicated instruction in the ISA to do it. If the binary data files have an identifier in them (version number, etc.) then the swap can be done on the fly pretty fast and easily. I worked on a product (back in the early 90s) that had to have all I/O (network, HDD, etc) able to handle endianness issues on the fly because our product ran on both big- and little-endian machines and all were expected to work together in any combinations (server side on either type independently of client side being either type). It's not that hard if your software is written reasonably well (all particular I/O handled in libraries inside your code instead of spread out all over Hell's 40 acres).

And I agree with you about XML being a pig... it uses a lot of CPU cycles but at least it's a memory hog, too /rolleyes

Re:Summary of issues

[Dun Malg]

# It will be the death of Apple's hardware division # Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs # Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term) will mean a revenue-less expansion of the install base

Why is there always the presumption that a system with an x86 CPU will be PC compatible? Someone postulates that Apple may be considering using Intel CPUs, and everyone makes the giant leap of (il)logic that Apple is considering adopting the PC platform as a whole. It is entirely possible to use the same CPU in a totally incompatible system. Look at the Original 68000 based Macs. Were they compatible with the 68000 based Amiga? It is only logical to assume that were Apple to dump IBM and adopt (say) the Pentium-M as their new CPU it would be installed on a proprietary Apple motherboard, not a $40 Abit or Tyan from Taiwan.

Intel fabbed PPC chips?

[parvenu74]

Doesn't Intel have all kinds of chip fabrication capacity that could -- in theory -- be converted over to stamping out PPC chips instead of x86 chips? IBM would need to license such a move or sell the IP, but is that such a reach considering that IBM has been spinning off their hardware businesses (Hitachi hard drives, Lenovo Desktops) of late?

And if Intel were going to produce a CPU for Apple, why is the assumption x86? Mac OS X Server on Itanium, anyone?

Mostly likely, though, is that Intel's wireless chips are on the menu. WiMax is around the corner and we all know how Apple oh-so-loves to be on the bleeding edge of technology...

PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone

[AHumbleOpinion]

Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware.

Not true. Apple has two edges. (1) Complete control of hardware and operating system. (2) Mac OS X. Neither of these are PowerPC dependent.

If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.

Also not true. An x86 Mac would not be yet another PC clone. Apple could keep much of its current proprietary design and ignore IBM PC compatibility. A computer's architecture is much more than it's CPU.

Oh, for Pete's sake..

[jcr]

This same rumor has popped up just about every year since 1984. Dvorak has been predicting that Apple will go x86 every time he wanted to troll for ad hits.

Apple buys a bunch of parts from many companies, including Intel. If Apple execs are meeting with intel execs, its' just as likely to be about ethernet controllers or wi-fi transceivers.

-jcr

Re:Does this mean -

[javaxman]

Please explain the process whereby Apple will convert everyone's old applications into fat binaries. Without access to the source.

If you're going to have a different CPU, clearly you're going to have different binaries. However, I'm not sure you need to be so flippant about it. Do you know about NeXTStep for Intel ? Do you know how hard it was for most companies to recompile their binaries for it? They opened up their projects, pressed "Build" in Project Builder, and it was done. That's how hard it was. The biggest problem was for folks who wrote binary data files ( the endian issue ), but that's pretty easily worked around or avoided, really. The hurdles Apple and it's third party developers would face to provide binaries for *any* gcc-supported CPU are not as huge as many folks seem to think

Yea, if you had a huge investment in current OS X software, you'd have to buy new copies ( more likely upgrades ) if you bought a different machine. That typically wouldn't be the case, though. I'm going to be using my current Macs for years. Most new Macintosh purchases ( like most new WindowsXP purchases ) require buying some new software.

However, just because it could be done doesn't mean it will be done. I just don't think they're going to start making Intel-based Macs any time soon- I can't think of a good reason. If they're in talks, it's likely to be about one of the many other types of non-CPU chips Intel makes.

Re:Does this mean -

[LionMage]

In fact, I worked for Informative Graphics when there was a project underway to get a native port of their Myriad software working under NT on the DEC Alpha processor. The native port worked, but it was substantially slower than the FX!32 emulator running the x86 version, at least after running the x86 version of the app under emulation a few times. (Like the grandparent poster speculated, the emulation cached the results of opcode translation for future reuse. Eventually, almost 100% of the original application was translated and stored in a disk cache.)

Then again, the Myriad code was pretty horribly written, and optimized to only compile well under Microsoft's Visual Studio environment. I was stuck on a horrid project porting the code to HPUX and Solaris using MainWin (which basically was a Win32 implementation on top of X11 / POSIX, a porting library for lazy companies that didn't want to invest time and effort in writing truly portable code or rewriting their UI code). Granted, HP's C++ compiler sucked -- it was AT&T Cfront based, and had to be told how to instantiate templates because it had dain-bramaged template support -- but even when we got this stuff working, it wasn't very performant.

Which brings me to another thought -- if Apple switches to x86 or Itanium, we might be in for similar performance surprises. Some code will obviously benefit from a native recompile, but other code might be more performant with a caching code translation mechanism.

Punditry

[hey!]

The chief measure of successful punditry is not accuracy, but credibility. Credibility is not based on any particular insight on the part of the public, but on three factors:

(1) Telling people what they already know or are being told by other credible sources.
(2) Being considered a credible source.
(3) Thinking of arguments that sound good suporting what everyone thinks is going to happen.

If there is a bit of recursion going on here, it's simply because the basis of credibility is so flimsy. It also means that credibility is self-reinforcing, which means the hardest thing about being credible is getting on the credibilty gravy train. Which is good, because there are limited spots avaiable.

Mr. Dvorak used a time honored method for obtaining credibility of getting in early, on the ground floor.

From a technical perspective he's a bit late on the Mac/x86 speculation though, which has been rife for nearly twenty years now. However, this is actually a highly sophisticated bit of punditry timing. Apple had been off the punditry radar screen for nearly a decade at the time. You simly cannot excercise punditry on something nobody else is thinking about -- novel ideas have no basis for sounding credibile (see above).

However, by 2004, it was apparent that Apple was no longer irrelevant, that it had not only stopped the bleeding but had built a successful business, established valuable and powerful brand identity, and had reasserted its influence as a design leader, not only in the computer field, but beyond. So people started thinking about Apple again. And, in the same way that old English roads still bear the ruts of Roman chariots, their thoughts naturally fell into the grassy ruts of the MaxOS x86 idea.

Mr. Dvorak's 2004 prediction bears the hallmarks of expert punditry. First the conclusion is public property so well broken-in that nobody is apt to mind if it takes a bit of additional abuse. Secondly , of course, is the exquisite timing that only an ear planted firmly on the ground of public opinion can execute, falling on the heels of Apple's successful iMac by a mere six years. This is probably, ifyou will permit me a bit of nelogizing, the minimal period needed for effective punditric credibilogenesis. Any shorter and you're talking about something that nobody is thinking about yet -- disaster. Any longer and all the good theories for what everyone expects to happen will have been taken, and the whole idea will have to be put back on the shelf for five or more years.