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

Does this mean -

[thewldisntenuff]

We'll see Mac OS X - x86 anytime soon?

Re:Does this mean -

[southpolesammy]

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

Re:Does this mean -

[Oculus Habent]

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.

Re:Does this mean -

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that sets Apple apart from all other companies in this area is that they aren't just a hardware company or a software company. They are both. Most people buy the hardware because of the excellent software they offer on top. It's the combined experience that makes their hardware stand above the rest.

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.

Re:Does this mean -

[/ASCII]

My guess is they really are planning on using Intel chips - just not processors. Remember, Intel produces wireless chips, Flash memory, Ethernet chips, and Salt and Vinegar chips.

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 -

[squiggleslash]

You'd be surprised how architecturally different Apple's regular offerings are from one another. I believe even Apple's latest PowerBooks use technologies considered obsolete in the rest of the line, such as ADB for the internal bus used for the keyboard and pointing device. The G4 and G5s have much bigger differences between them than the G3s and G4s, and Apple is trying to support a whole range of systems from the ground up.

In that respect, it may be easier for Apple to switch to an entirely new CPU architecture than you might think. The additional support wouldn't be dramatic, it could continue to have a lot in common with the rest of their systems (which heavily use USB and IDE, PCI and AGP, etc), making the CPU and a few other minor details the major changes. It certainly wouldn't need a dedicated department of any serious size to support this version of OS X, it'd just be an additional platform to test the recompiled version upon.

This is, of course, assuming we're talking about Intel chips being used in Macs (with an OS X compiled to run on it) and not a generic version of OS X being developed that'll run on IBM PC clones, which is an entirely different issue.

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:Does this mean -

[Halo1]

The gigabit ethernet chip in my old G4/400 in fact is an Intel chip.

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.

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:Does this mean -

[Kyro]

The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.

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:Does this mean -

[chasingporsches]

or Intel XScale processors for a video ipod...

Re:Does this mean -

[NMerriam]

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!

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:Does this mean -

[EvilTwinSkippy]

(Ahem).

I'm a computer professional. A router programming, server building, cable splicing, code hacking computer professional if you care at all. In college I used to build embedded systems and I've have more than my fair share or processor architecture courses.

When I go home, I just want to turn the damn machine on and have it do what I need it to do. And that machine is an iBook. I know it has a G4 processor running a 1Ghz, the memory bus, and most of the I/O architecture. My next desktop is going to be a Mac, because my wife, a professional computer teacher who specializes in Windows, feels the same way.

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.

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.

Re:Dvorak

[tbone1]

If Dvorak predicted it, you can bet it won't happen.

The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things.
- John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

Re:Dvorak

[Quiet_Desperation]

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.

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.

Re:Nope

[javaxman]

Plus I *REALLY* don't see how Apple can switch architectures at this point.

They could quite reasonably switch architectures. Or even support and produce both. This was a new reality starting with OS X, and it's strange, but it's true. Pretty much every single bit of the Apple hardware stack could run on a different gcc-supported CPU with a simple recompile. Darwin X86 is totally doable. Device drivers would be the biggest problem, but... just switching out CPUs with a slightly different motherboard and keeping everything else the same should make writing device drivers unnecessary. What wouldn't work would be very old OS 9 applications, but the vast majority of stuff would "just work" with a recompile. The structure already exists to distribute multiple-target binaries in OS X. It's been done before, with NeXTStep, it could certainly be done again.

If they were to do this they would need a damn good reason, and thats whats missing, whats the *REASON*?

Very insightful, that bit. It almost makes up of for the rest of your post... what, indeed, would be the reason ? Unless there's some sort of cost savings, or we're talking about a non-PC device, I don't see it. But it certainly could happen.

Apple hardware is expensive for two reasons, one being volume, and the other being the fact that Apple actually does R&D. But R&D is not the major factor. If they could increase volume... I'm going to guess that's going to be a difference of more like $200 between Linux on Intel and Apple on Intel, and to the average user, it'll be money well spent.

I am among those who are 100% certain that somewhere, in the bowls of 1 Infinity Loop, behind several layers of locked doors, is a PC lab with Darwin, Cocoa, and major portions of the OS X software stack running on Intel ( or AMD ) hardware. It may never see the light of day, but the simple fact that you *can* compile Darwin for X86 tells me it's there...

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!

Aw, jeez...

[Anonymous Coward]

...After everyone worked so hard to port Linux to the PowerPC...

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?

The article is quite worthless

[antifoidulus]

All it says is that "Apple will use intel chips", it doesn't state what kind of chips, but it does repeat itself over and over again. Maybe Apple will use Intel chips in an embedded device, maybe they are considering bringing back the mac/pc hybrid. There is really no "meat" to this story, but we can all speculate anyway.

Original source?

[ctr2sprt]

The WSJ reports it, but no link to the WSJ's actual story? Well, here it is.

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...

[Gilmoure]

Ya' really think Apple would release a generic OS X-X86, that would run on white box parts? Naw, they'd use Intel chip DRM to tie it into just Apple brand boxes. C'mon, they make money pushing plastic, not bits.

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.

Re:Here we go again...

[Momoru]

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 Denies

[nbharatvarma]

Some links I found some 30 mins ago in Google News

http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2005/05/23/apple _denies_intel_rumour
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/apple-denies-eye ing-intel-chips.html
http://www.dvhardware.net/article5037.html

Of course, one could argue that Apple wouldn't want this news to be leaked

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.

The Register says not.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Register already has an analysis on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/apple_inte l/

The conclusions are: Apple already use a lot of non PowerPC chips (iPod, AirPort base stations), so these talks may well have nothing to do with Mac's. Also, it could be a scare tactic to make IBM a bit more eager as a chip supplier.

I hate to like this idea.

[TempusMagus]

Well, for one, it would make the whole confusing use of clock speeds vs platform processor go away. It would also make it easier to emu windows software and port games. However, the new IBM PPC chips seem to kick all sorts of major ass. Why give that up? I'm betting anything this is for iPod chips.

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

Probably False

[SirStanley]

This is a rumor that keeps getting recycled. It could be true this time... just like it could have been true the last 50 times it's happened.

New headline:
Erroneous Wallstreet Journal Article causes Mac Fans through out the world to riot. Killing 15

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?

What really happened ...

[maxwell demon]

Steve Jobs said he liked the potato chips he was offered during an Intel presentation, and plans to sell the same chips in Apple's cafeteria as well. :-)

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:Intel make chips other than CPUs

[Loco3KGT]

I was led to believe we hadn't sacrificed enough virgins.

Summary of issues

[G4from128k]

Here's why this is not that likely:

1. It's just Apple trying to get better terms/service from IBM (think Dell's "talks" with AMD)
2. It will be the death of Apple's hardware division
3. Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs
4. Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term) will mean a revenue-less expansion of the install base

That said, Apple's done some strange moves in the past. If PC users can just buy OS X86 for $99, they might give Mac a try. It wouldn't take that high conversion rate for OS software profits to easily replace hardware profits. I'd bet that Apple makes nearly as much profit on a sale of Tiger as it does on the sale of it slower-end machines.

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.

Re:rumor?

[cgenman]

The WSJ does have an excellent reputation, but remember what it says... "Chips." Nowhere does it say x86. This could be an agreement for Intel to get into the PPC business, which would be a great supplier coup for Apple, or it could be an agreement to switch to cheaper Intel wireless networking chips. Maybe Intel will build Apple's ROMs. There are a lot more chips in a computer than the main processor, and nowhere does it say they're thinking about switching suppliers for that or the base architecture for that.

And maybe they won't be used at all. The WSJ says they are in talks that "could" lead to using Intel chips. It's known that at least one version of Apple's OS was up and running on an x86 chip, in the same way that Microsoft had Windows up and running on a PPC architecture. It's also known that Apple talks a lot.

I'd say the chance of a complete platform shift is slight, as backwards compatibility from x86 to PPC would be a nightmare. But Intel supplying PPC chips to Apple, after the years of languishing Apple went through before IBM could deliver a G5? That's a lot more likely.

Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs

[pizen]

Apple doesn't want to lose it's userbase.

ba-ZING!

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?

It's not about CPUs

[CptSkippy]

Who said this had anything to do with CPUs?

Intel = Flash Memory God

iShuffle = Flash Memory MP3 Player

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

[Phil John]

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

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: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!

John Dvorak predicted it?

[atomm1024]

Yeah, big deal. He predicts that every year. Maybe he was lucky this time. :)

Intel are more than just processors

[el_womble]

I can't imagine why Apple would want to move towards x86 hardware, but there are many reasons why I can see Apple and Intel having a lot to talk about.

• Intel make a lot of chips. Apple / IBM in comparison do not, but that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't want to. Intel could become a licensed manufacturer, and pick up the slack if volumes get too much for IBM to handle (in the wake of PS3 and XBox 360s).
• Intel know a lot about 90nm technology. They have several patents that would no doubt make IBMs life a lot easier when it comes to making a G5 that works in a laptop (without sterilizing the user) and pushing the G5 beyond the 3GHz barrier
• Intel make other technologies that Apple would be interested in, WiMax being the most obvious
• Intel, have the potential to be great innovators. They're reaching the limits of what they can achieve with x86 because Microsoft are unlikely to want to support a new architecture anytime soon. Apple could offer them an oppertunity to try something new, and maybe make the next big thing in processors (if they don't already have it up their sleves).
• I could even imagine a 'G6' or similar with a x86 instruction decoder. We all know that x86 instructions are internally reduced to RISC like microcode, why not bolt one onto the the front of a G5 and remove the software emulation in virtual PC? (ok, this is scraping the barrel)
• Intel inside sells 200 million units a year, maybe that badge could make a difference to Apple sales - even if they used a different instruction set

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

Dvorak

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Self-cancelling statement: "Interestingly, Dvorak predicted..."

Mod parent wrong

[calambrac]

This is false! Kids, listen: If you want to get laid, buy a Powerbook, get some black-rimmed glasses and a dog-eared copy of a Thomas Pynchon novel, and go find a good coffeehouse near a university. Grab a table near a napkin dispenser. Do not open the Powerbook but place it conspicuously on the table in front of you. Pretend to read the novel. Make eye contact with the grad student across the way and smile.

If things go well, she will decide that she needs some napkins, and while gathering them together will accidentally drop some on the floor. Help her pick up the excess paper and make a stupid little joke, something like "Oops, there go some trees." She will then say something like "I love Pynchon" at which point you reply "Have you seen Zak Smith's illustrations for Gravity's Rainbow?" You will then open the Powerbook and visit the site via a bookmark in a folder named 'Diversions'. It is important that she not see the folder marked 'Linux stuuf' or 'pron'. Spend the next thirty minutes saying things like "I really do think media is ultimately the message" etc. If you successfully complete this sequence of steps, sex is all but guaranteed.

Re:Mod parent wrong

[radish]

I don't know what's funnier - the post itself, or the fact it has a +1 Informative. :)

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.

Apple possibly fed up with IBM internal PowerPlay(

[Been on TV]

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.

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:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap

[wkcole]

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.

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.