Slashdot Mirror
Apple Switching To Intel Chips In 2006
telstar writes "According to C|Net, Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems. This change was rumored last month. The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech." From the article: "Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines."
From the report IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story. How the hell does that make official?
I'm sure that others have surmised this. There is absolutely no way that Apple will invest the money in an expensive-for-the-consumer line of computers that will be partially obsolete in less than two years; who in their right mind would buy them?
It also occurs to me - another point that I'm sure others have already thought of - that this may be why they are forced to switch to Intel. They can't get chips small enough for a Powerbook G5 line.
You forgot that the Win in Wintel implies Windows compatibility, which this most certainly isn't.
I predict that Apple has gotten Intel to strip down its Itanium line of chips and bolt AltiVec on, as IBM did their POWER4. Remember, Intel does not necessarily equal x86 or x86-64. HP is selling iPods, and is also the premier Itanium vendor. Coincidence?
There's the Celeron M, which is based on the current Pentium M core (Dothan). A quick Froogle search will find boxed Celeron M processors selling for less than $100.
If the CNET article is correct and the Mac mini is one of the first to adopt Intel chips (in 2006), then I'm sure it will use the Celeron M. By early 2006, the Dothan-based Celeron M will be previous-generation technology, just like the G4 is today. Apple should have no problem fitting the Celeron M into the tiny form factor for less than $500.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
I really doubt they can run PPC code on an x86 faster than it is on the PPC. Not only are new PPC close to x86 at native code, but the translation isn't easy at all. I could see a PPC doing a decent job at x86 emulation, but for the reverse there's a problem: registers. If you have a piece of PPC code that uses more registers than the x86 has (I expect this is true of any decent code), then you need to replace registers by memory (L1 at least) accesses. That will cost a lot.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel to find problems in a C|net article, but why not?
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994...
Nitpick: More accurately, "Apple has used PowerPC processors since 1994." The way C|net wrote it, it sounds like IBM is the only game in town until you make it halfway down the page.
The earliest PowerPC chips were from IBM, the G3s were from either Moto or IBM, and G4s were from Moto (and now Freescale). Only with the G5 has it come back to IBM's PowerPCs in a big way.
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel
No, the Wall Street Journal did not. The Wall Street Journal's rumor page -- on par with such publications at The Sun and the National Enquirer, and not intended to be taken as factual -- printed this as a rumor. Not that this stopped Reuters or anyone else from reporting it as fact.
Keep also in mind that the shadowy mystery figures in the rumor are "two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies" -- not Apple or Intel employees. Maybe it's Darl McBride and one of his other personalities!
"I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.
Apple has changed architectures once, from the 68K to PowerPC. This change was, for the most part, completely transparent to users and developers. Why would they lose customers over something so painless? Next thing you know Detroit will be losing customers because their latest cars have a V8 and anti-lock brakes where last year's models had a V6 and a dashboard Jesus.
Even if you count OS 9 to OS X as an "architecture" change, nobody was forced into it and OS X did and does still run OS 9 -- and earlier -- apps.
Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.
In other news, transferring $1.07 from your checking account to your savings account is likely to raise your savings balance by $1.07.
WiMax? Sure. ARM? Sure. Hell, might Intel even be getting into the PPC biz? Stranger things have happened.
If Steve Jobs stands on the stage at the Worldwide Developers Conference and announces Apple's moving to x86, Satan will rise up from the underworld and devour the souls of every innocent puppy and kitten. And then emit the fart that ends the world. This is, of course, completely unlikely to happen, as we all know Satan prefers chunky peanut butter to the souls of small animals.
Well, one reason is that the PPC is based on the POWER architecture--which was invented by IBM in the first place.
Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?