Slashdot Mirror
Apple/Intel Speculation Running Rampant
6031769 writes "ZD Net are reporting a rumour that Steve Jobs will announce Apple are going to move to an Intel chip base at their worldwide developer conference today. Still just a rumour, but could this be the masterstroke Apple have been promising or is it a blind alley?" Lots of submissions about this one, but no one knows for sure - there have been stories about how AMD is hurt by this - but I think my favorite debunking of it is the piece by John Gruber on Daring Fireball.
HMMM???
This is all just rumors to get Apple users upset. Its being going since the 1980's, and its never happened. The G5 is too much of an asset to dump for the hell that is the P4. Even diehard Windows users are all migrating to AMD64 these days, Intel is just trying to get some free advertising and FUD to play with.
Do you play with your Willy?
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/04/ 1329257&tid=176&tid=141&tid=1
Semi-Dupe?
At this point pretty much everyone is saying something about it: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UT F-8&ncl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4612 951.stm
the worst thing in the world would be for a Mac to have an "Intel inside" sticker on it, or even on the packaging. but as annoying as their stupid campaign is, would Intel make an exception to their rule for Apple? Apple's design is one of their biggest assets so I can't see them giving in either.
If they are going to announce it today, why don't we just wait and see instead of posting that "it could happen" right before?
Can you say binary incompatability?
When Apple last changed processor families, there was a big problem with binary incompatability. Needless to say, there were a lot of very pissed off Apple users. The transition from PowerPC to Intel could be very painful given two different processor families.
The LAST thing Apple needs to do is to piss off it's user base.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
I'm a bit sentimental about PPC, but I guess this move probably makes some sense for Apple (see here)
I have a few questions that I haven't seen raised anywhere else though:
1. Will Windows run on these machines?
2. Will Apple offer some kind of Window compatibility using something like WINE?
3. What will happen to Yellow Dog Linux?
But, you know, we have at least five or ten years of people debunking this particular rumor. Describing this list as the best ever is jumping the gun a little. Maybe we'll have another five years of the same, and then we can judge better.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I heard Dvorak on the episode 8 twitcast basically bragging he "called" this x86 switch a couple of years back.
he's completely extatic about it, and discuss the x86 switch as a done deal.
He's also going off on his blog.
I'm still not sold, and the debunk arguments by Gruber seems reasonable.
I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I don't think they're THIS stupid. The compatibility problems that will cause alone..
:(
I dont' even want to think about it
The Register weighs in with two articles this morning.
Apple shifts to Intel: What is all the fuss about
Apple to announce Intel 'Switch' - WSJ
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Switching the Mac over now would be really weird: for years Apple struggled with the G4's performance - then I might have understood. Now they've got IBM as a partner - one of the world leaders in CPU architecture, silicon fabrication, etc. It would seem truly bizare to ditch out from PPC at this point, especially given IBM's huge commitment to PPC world domination (and their manifest triumphs over Intel in another volume market - games consoles).
Using an XScale, I could understand. Intel are *the* market leader in high end portable processors at the moment (try to find a powerful PDA that *doesn't* have an XScale). An XScale would be the sensible choice for an Apple PDA or, indeed, the iPod / Phone combo that has been so talked about.
This "leak" might about buying Intel might a be deliberate publicity stunt but I find it really hard to believe the Mac will move away from PPC in the foreseeable future.
The third possibility is that Apple will introduce something new - something else they've not mentioned before. An ultra Apple / Windows friendly UNIX server? An appliance computer (e.g. a cross between iPod and a {web,file,database}server?) A set top box (*cough* *pippin* *cough*)? Personally, I think Apple could be good with appliance computing.
Could It not just be one of Intels mini chips the pxa27x etc.? As used in pocket pcs and palms? They might be using one in an iPod? THey tend to have WiFi and some nice multimedia and communications controllers onboard.
This Wired article could be on the money, but if Apple's switching to get Intel's DRM technology the odds of them ever releasing another Darwin source tree are pretty slim. What good is a DRM scheme on an open-source operating system?
I have to say that this is the most depressing reason for a processor switch ever.
Can't help it but it just don't feel right with an Apple box with a "intel inside" sticker on it.
For some reason Apple OS X released for intel/amd hardware just has such a better ring to it.
-- This SIG is recursive (goto beginning of SIG)
Apple is building an updated version of OS X called "Mac OS X Extreme", which uses the Windows NT kernel as its underpinning (essentially Darwin is going away, and being replaced by the lower layers of Windows XP, witha BSD-type POSIX layer for reverse compatability)
This will ensure Apple can still produce high quality and different computers (it'll still have the OS X GUI, for example) while migrating to more popular, and hence better tested, cheaper, technologies. The first machines will be Pentium M based, and we'll see the Mac mini Extreme in 2006, with others following using a forthcoming so-far unannounced 64-bit version of the Pentium.
These are exciting times.
I love the article about how this hurts AMD, it begins by saying how damaging Apple's announcement is to AMD. ...wait a second, Apple has announced nothing yet, its all rumor and speculation. That right there made me quit reading and probably should have made you quit, too.
Here goes: 1. Yes, they switch, and yes, OS X will still be closed to Apple machines. 2. Apple will provide hooks for all published MS API's, allowing 90% of Windows programs to run natively within OS X on Intel. 3. Apple will open source the Cocoa API's. They will provide the API's for Windows, leaving others to port them to Linux, etc. 4. Steve will claim to have saved the world by freeing the world from Windows.
Performance is irrelevant to most consumers. Even if they care most of them would not notice the difference between 1 GHz and 2 GHz.
:
The real performance figure should be computing power per Watt usage.
So the move from lower powered PowerPC to high wattage (gas guzzling) CPUs seems extremely short sighted. I fail to see the advantage in changing chip architecture from one that is well designed and powerful and cheap to run, to the poorly designed, high energy wasting x86 design.
They should concentrate on the things that they are good at
system design, the os and software.
Yes, I do think the G4 was more than good enough for almost all people. The high end gamers would not have bought a G5 system anyway, most of them will continue to purchase x86 PCs.
The AMD link isn't really about how it'll hurt AMD, but about how Apple couldn't choose AMD because AMD can't reliably keep up with that level of demand.
That's a lot more interesting/reasonable, since a switch to Intel architecture for Apple would be *good news* for AMD, since then going from Intel-made chips to AMD ones would be possibile sometime later.
The "debunking" link sounds reasonable -- "Here's my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I'm only betting one dollar." Another possibility along those lines would be that Apple is switching to Intel *graphics chips*, which would make sense given the comment in the original rumors that the switch would happen on low-end computers first.
Might be a couple Itaniums around that Intel wants to sell cheap ;)
Fact: NeXT used an i860 (64-bit RISC) graphics accelerator. Manufactured by Intel.
Fact: Intel manufactures ARM (Advanced RISC Machine) processors.
Intel knows a thing or about RISC chips. Intel manufacturing PPCs is far more probable than Apple jumping to x86.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
fired? if he ever worked for apple that is...
after reading all the forum posts here, arsforum, and the macrumors board, and then the daring fireball post, I too have concluded that Intel will produce ppc chips, and/or be in on a killer app type product like the iPod. a tablet iPad?
either way it has to have huge buzz to compete with these rumors, and Intel HAS to be involved.
maybe intel will license or buy from freescale the rights. maybe it is OS X on a pentium m in a mobile tablet for video, etc. Either thing would rock. The latter would have the same killer app quality as the iPod has, I think
so why are you linking to crapola doubting the deal will take place? No offense, but the reporting of a real newspaper -- who actually gets out there and interview people -- is not equal to the rants of some uneducated blogger who would crumble to dust if they saw the light of day.
The reporting on this sort: real media 1 million, ill-informed blogs (including slashdot) 0.
Just curious, since after the big intel logo comes up on the screen behind steve, my guess is it wont be in the same place next year ...
-GenTimJS
Let's review:
IBM marketed its cell processors to xbox and ps3 that outperforms older super computers. And is rumored to be the next generation CPU platform for PCs.
AMD's Athlon 64 technology out performs current CPU sets shipped by Intel by leaps and bounds while still maintaining cheaper price margin.
x86 archetecture wont be compatable with Apple's older codes (OS and applications)
It makes no sense for Apple to move to Intel. It's baffling why anyone would leave an optimized platform, switch to another, and choose the most expensive yet not the best solution.
Isn't today meant to be the day Debian Sarge is released as well? The end of days is approaching, I tell you.
Here's my theory:
If any of this is true, which I'm not at all sure it is, why does everyone think it's going to be an x86 chip?
Apple IIRC has the ability to license the PowerPC chip to others. What if Apple is licensing PowerPC to Intel because IBM can't deliver? No incompatability. The current chips are already made by two differrent companies.
If there is ANY fact to this rumor, and it all seems to be rehash of the cnet story, this where where I think the most logical answer lies.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Rumor is, he's been fired.c id=12732030
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151621&
Minor point, but the X-Scale wasn't an Intel design (at least not at the outset) - its one helluvan evolution of the venerable old Acorn Arm Chip.
I'm intrigued by this possible chip change though; there must be some pretty good reasoning going on in Jobs head (ie. there has to be some "cool factor" going on somewhere?).
This might has something to do with the Mac tablet.
I guess such a tablet mac would be much thinner than a *book, so a G4 would cause too much heat (let alone a G5).
Just a speculation...
PPC roadmap is brilliant.
Low end? Game consoles, dumb terminals
Desktop? Macs (this is the best they can do, the Wintel monopoly is tough to crack).
High end? RISC unix, Linux if so desired -- the basis of their AIX platform.
The portability of the PPC architecture is fantastic, and taking a long view IBM has a great strategy in place.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
And it will wipe the smug grins off the mac nerdies, thats for sure.
I bought my new powerbook last month after a year of pondering
It seems likely that this frenzy of speculation will affect the stock price in the short term. It seems like no matter what Apple announces at WWDC today, the headline will be related to this speculation. The folks who drive the stock price probably don't read Slashdot, and the headline "Apple did or did not switch to Intel" may drive some pretty big buy/sell movement as soon as the keynote is over.
Which direction will it move? If it moves down, how long will it take to recover?
There is enough uncertainty in such a move that it sure seems to me -- a slashdot reader who doesn't affect stock prices -- that it could only move down if such a switch is announced. However, when I think about it from the perspective of a trader who probably doesn't know all that much beyond the headline that shows up on his pager at say 11:01 PST today, I wonder if a switch would be considered good, and a series of PowerPC related announcements would be considered as a sell indicator.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
He's busy preparing for his keynote, duh.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Well, as someone who works at Intel's inter-corporation licensing center in Austin, Texas (we're responsible for licensing Intel properties for use in OEM products) I would be surprised if this is announced considering I haven't heard anything about this. If my vice-president comes up to me this afternoon and says, "I need you to meet with XXXXX at Apple tomorrow to hammer out this deal," I will be a a loss. These kinds of contracts takes months and sometimes years to hammer out and involve a phalanx of attorneys.
Why does this necessarily mean and arch move? People have been clamoring for years to get OSX on an x86 chip; maybe that's all apple is doing. Getting ready to release osx for x86 along side their main ppc arch.
Not that I can see that being particularly sucessful, as I'm sure it would be crippled ( both intentionally and not ). At best, apple would view it as a gateway drug to get people hooked on OSX before they make the switch to the PPC arch.
Anyway, this is all speculation, and I doubt any of us are going to be close to the mark.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The AMD link isn't really about how it'll hurt AMD, but about how Apple couldn't choose AMD because AMD can't reliably keep up with that level of demand.
Since a producer that has 16.9 percent market share, can't support a producer that has 3.7% market share? Sounds unlikely at best. Granted, there would have to be a ramp-up, but with a commitment from Apple, I dont see how a 25% capacity growth is a lot.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why hasn't M$ popped up yet? If Apple's OS starts running on Apple x86s, well I guess, the day isn't far behind when it can run on _any_ x86s. What'll happen to Winblowz is anybody's guess! (Unless ofcourse, as someone mentioned, it is used as Apple's base, which is a pretty stupid idea anyways)
I cannot understand that some people think that Intel would manufacture PowerPC chips. There is no sane people who would believe that, people only say it because they want it to be true and don't want to see the reality.
There are a lot of reasons for this. One obvious reason is that it would take atleast 3-4 years for Intel do have a PowerPC product ready for Apple. Intel cannot just take an existing PowerPC design and manufacture it. It doesn't work that way.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Microsoft bought Connectix (authors of the VirtualPC software that lets Macs emulate Wintel boxes) and then quickly dropped their main product for no readily aparrent reason (other than pure spite). Now we know that the Xbox360 is PPC based, that acquisition suddenly makes a lot of sense, since backward compaitbility with the Xbox is an issue of getting x86 code to run on PPC, and Connectix's business was all about doing exactly that.
This leaves Apple with a VirtualPC shaped hole in their 'switch' marketing campaign.
Conclusion: Apple are going to revisit the x86 co-processor idea. The launch could be a PCI card, but that's not really all that 'sexy'... I'm guessing something like a headless PC running Windows that will talk to it's host over that nice thick gigabit ethernet pipe that Apple have in almost their whole range now, just like OSX server does with headless Xserves. A pentium-M in a Mac Mini-sized box maybe? Relying on the host for drives, ports and graphics means the box would need only processor, ram and ethernet and some glue in it, making it cheap (and quite possibly fanless too?).
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Seems odd to me that all the next generation gaming consoles will be going with PPC, or some other non-intel architecture, while all the desktop PCs are going over to Intel. Makes me wonder what these companies are basing their decisions on.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
1) Chip supply. IBM and Motorola have had repeated problems supplying Apple with the number of chips that Apple needs. Intel will not have this problem.
IBM is now something like two years behind on its promised 3 Ghz chips.
2) Laptops. Apple needs a low-heat G-5 chip for it's laptops. From all accounts, it may be as long as two years before IBM or Motorola will be able to provide these chips.
3) Cost. Apple, according to today's NY Times, in its latest renegotiations with IBM wanted a discount on the price of the PowerPC chips. IBM essentally said forget about it.
4) There's no way Apple will NOT have a way for users to run their old applications on the new Intel/Macs. There will be some form of emulation available -- count on it.
- dj
Because it's fun. How about a new rumor, since we've only got a few more hours.
How about... Intel cut Apple a sweet deal on Itanium chips for the Mac line?
I know there has been speculation about Apple taking PowerPC into the Intel fab, but IMHO that seems even less likely than OS/X running on x86 chips. Apple has been struggling for years from a weak point. Even though at the moment they're behind the performance curve, Intel is still dealing from a strong point. Doing PowerPC chips, even from a foundry contract, would be another coffin-nail for Itanium, on top of doing x86-64, and I don't think Intel would do that, at least not right now.
But it's worth remembering that Steve Jobs has been more able than most to turn lemons into lemonade. Despite his "reality distortion field," Jobs is one of the few CEOs to focus on growing his markets, rather than just cutting costs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06app le.html
The New York Times reported this morning that industry executives were informed Sunday of Apple's decision to switch from IBM and Motorola to Intel for chips -- and the article specifically says "Intel processors for [...] Macintosh computers" -- and that there are obvious and reliable indicators that Apple will in fact announce this today.
The article cites reports by CNET News.com on Friday of the planned announcement and the Wall Street Journal's earlier article that Apple and IBM were in negotiations (neither party commented on the latter article).
Analysts interviewed for the NYT article said that Apple is "increasingly alarmed by IBM's failure to deliver" a cooler-running G5; the company currently uses the older G4 processor made by Freescale Semiconductor, which spun off from Motorola last year. The article makes it appear that a switch by Apple would be balanced by the earlier decision by Microsoft to switch to IBM for its XBox 360 video game system processors.
IBM's Apple processor production represents less than 2 percent of chip production at their largest production facility, but Apple gets about 50 percent of their processors from IBM; the rest come from Freescale, which makes the cooler-running processors for the Mac Mini and the iBook and Powerbook lines of notebooks. IBM's "technology group" accounts for less than 3 percent of revenue and 2 percent of pretax income this year, according to an analyst interviewed in the article, indicating that the company would not be hurt by Apple's switch to Intel. IBM barely breaks even manufacturing Apple processors, according to industry analysts.
The company began using IBM and Motorola chips in 1991 to "counter Microsoft and Intel," but -- as we all know -- Apple owns a rather small share of the computing market. This may change, however, with rumors that Apple programmers have been working on a project known as "Marklar," an Intel-compatible version of the Macintosh operating system possibly dating back to Steve Jobs' Next Inc., the company which Jobs left Apple for before selling the company to Apple and returning to his former employer. If true, this could mean that Apple is trying to give Microsoft a run for its money again by targeting their users directly, rather than by selling MP3 players.
In a sense. The iPod contains two ARM CPU cores. Intel makes them, though the ones in the iPod might have been made by PortalPlayer. I'm not sure whether PortalPlayer would have paid Intel for the privilege, or if they would have paid ARM.
If PortalPlayer pays Intel, or if Intel does their chip fabrication, then there's already an Intel CPU in a product that most people would say is quintessentially Apple.
In any case, as a member of the AIM alliance that essentially controls PowerPCs, Apple adopting Intel technology is "Apple planning to use its major competitor's technology". Microsoft isn't, yet, a full competitor, it even supports Apple's platform right now through Office X.
It makes perfect sense. If Microsoft shouldn't have a monopoly, why should IBM have a monopoly? Multiple sources, or at best a source you control.
... when on a slow news day, speculation and rumor is now regarded as fact, not fiction.
Let's wait for official word from Apple. Then you can call that news.
Of course, Mac is going to create a new linux open source project which will run on any processor platform called Linx. Ya know, the big cat....
MacRumors.com is providing a live transcript of the keynote speech at MacRumorsLive.com.
Two points:
.. essentially .. portable to whatever targets GCC gives them, give or take a few drivers...
#1: Apple have been fighting 'rumour mills' for years, this could all be a big ploy to distract the rumour sites from some other, grander hardware announcement.
#2: Apple on Intel? Big deal. It could just as well be Apple on ARM, since OSX is
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
AFAIK the XScale was an Intel-designed derivative of the StrongARM, which was in turn a DEC derivative one of the ARM chips. Complicated!
:-)
Relative to the StrongARM, the XScale has a few extra pipeline stages and some MMX instructions.
To make the matter even more ironic, Acorn actually wanted to license parts of the 286 core from Intel. When Intel refused, they had to design the ARM. Later on, Apple wanted to use it in the Newton and had a key influence in making it a low power mobile chip. Fastforward to the recent past and ARM has become the only company to license processor IP back to Intel
Hmm? I'd spread rumours about if I was looking for a better deal.
Deleted
I think the point of the grandparent was to be humorous. Lighten up a bit, eh?
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
what about the good powerprocessor chips and chipset from ibm and connected manufacturers? will they simply let go of the apple market?
i wonder why apple wants to switch to x86...
lot of features of the x86 world is pretty ok and neat, but there are still many bottlenecks, the isa legacy, lack of high io-plane (ports (assembler level), memory mapped stuff and all that backwards compatibility legacy crap...
i wonder if apple damagers (managers) actually know what kind of platform and what problems they are are so eager to impelement....
x86 is much more that just gigahurtz.. see apple and the current dualcore/multicore movement, cos the x86 familiy just cant speed up their platform any more just easily as in the past....
i'd rather say the current x86 platform is rather a dead end and already at its limits....
If Apple "switches" to Intel x86 on their desktop/laptop line, I'll stand on my head and spit nickles on the town square. Now, if the statement is Apple to "use" Intel, that I could see. Since Apple is rumored to possibly have a tablet, a PDA and a PDA/phone in the works, any of the three could quite possibly use an Intel chip (Centrino, XScale, etc.).
This is great. Now the dupe articles have comments that are dupes of bits of the previous article...
Yes, but the best thing in the world would be a Mac you could run windows on. Think of the number of people who buy iBooks to run Linux on. Now think of the number of people who would buy a shiny new Powerbook to run windows, or the number of companies that would buy iMacs to be store window displays if they ran their POS NT software.
I'm still doubtful, but this could be quite interesting.
The ______ Agenda
Ironic, don't you think? Apple is not happy with the mindshare they get from IBM, so they want to move to Intel where they will be a much smaller piece of a much larger pie? I can't see Jobs being happier with Intel...
The good news is that if this happens, Apple can finally catch up in that software arena that Windows currently dominates... I'm speaking of course, of malware...
I think that all of this rampant talk of Apple and Intel is about Apple adapting the XScale chips for one of the following: Airport, iPod or a possible new Newton. What is wrong with the G5 beside it nto getting to 3 GHz? Have we not all learned by now that you don't need a 3 GHz processor....even for doing heavy video? Isn't the Virginia Tech supercomputer, the fact that they are using Xserve for render farms and the bioinformatic server clustes they are selling now evidence enough that the G5 is plenty fast? The ONLY Apple/Mac thing I MIGHT accept is Intel has figured out how to make a mobile G5, with IBM's blessing. Other then that, I am ALL for bringing back the Newton in a combo PDA cell phone deal. With all the fallout of the carriers wanting thier piece of the pie of iTunes if they sell music on it it would not surprise me in the least to see a combo device with a iTunes component as well as making it so carriers can sell music/ringtones.
Gorkman
Okay, laugh at me in a few hours if Apple does switch to the x86, but I don't think it's doing to happen. The x86 is too backward, too much of an old-school PC processor, for the crowd that Apple has been courting of late. And they key point is that it isn't worth running *all* software through emulation for *years* just to make a crazy switch like this. The emulation issue will make Macs seem much slower than equivalent PCs, regardless of price.
It's going to be one of the following:
1. PowerPC chips manufactured by Intel, in an effort to bring down the price and increase the clock speed. This is the most likely option.
2. Itanium. Maybe. Possibly. Intel desperately wants Itanium to succeed ant it *does* give ultra high performance if you blow off the x86 emulation nonsense.
3. ARM. Some kind of low-power alternative for notebooks. Doubt it, though.
I am an Apple die hard, and I won't dump my Mac becuase of the addition of Intel chips. It is all about the OS and applications that Apple provides.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
If this comes to pass, M$ are about to one of the biggest kicks to the nuts in history. ;)
The threat from Linux will be but a pimple compared with Apple venturing into Intel territory.
Just think, big name, good apps, reliable, secure and geek free pre-packaged "PCs" with Apple inside will make a big dent in M$s revenues.
Then there's maybe Apple selling the OS to all for a little touch of world domination
Haha, Steve Jobs is talking to the Intel CEO right now saying "Damn it, we weren't going to go with an Intel CPU, but now if I don't go out on stage an anounce that our stock will plummet!"
I don't know what is going to happen during Steve Jobs keynote today.
But we do have to recognize that he knows what he is doing when it comes to public relations.
It might even be possible that Apple has been encouraging these rumours, just so that all eyes will be on Steve Jobs when he does his keynote.
There's a number of people that populistically is claiming that Apple will move to Intel CPU's.
Most fans of Apple thinks that it is a bad idea.
So, if his big news during the keynote is Mac OS X 11, then that will be hailed as the best news ever, if for no other reason that they didn't go with Intel.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
I'm glad that at least one person isn't taking this "Apple goes to x86" thing as gospel.
There are dozens of possible situations where an Intel/Apple partnership could work. Apple using x86 processors in Macs just isn't one of them. Though there are some good points, it seems like a shot in the foot.
Pro:
1. Cheap(er) to mass produce
2. Name recognition
3. Could run MS Windows code natively through translation layer (much the same way that "Classic" mode works)
4. Higher clock speed
5. No fabrication quantity worries
These points don't even begin to offset the problem with binary compatibility. Apple is already in a transition from 32bit to 64bit and the only reason that that is working is because the G5 can fall back and run the old code natively. Trying to emulate the PPC would be technically possible but real world performance would be terrible. Commercial software vendors would be outraged.
I still believe that this alleged announcement is for something else (net hardware, iPod chips, set top box, etc) and there is really no need for speculation on something that will be offically announced in mere hours, but there is one way that this could work.
If Apple owns much of the PPC, they could work with Intel to create a "G6" that could continue to run older code and still reach speed goals. If they are simply going to retool factories to pump out G5s then I could see them getting chips out the door by early 2006 but this may take a while. This would be a win for everyone; Apple, Intel, and the users... everyone except for IBM.
I hope I'm right.
Probably thinks he's like John Galt of Ayn Rand fame, taking his proverbial ball down to Hades.
I suggest you read Slashdot
I'm hoping Jobs announes this today, if only because it would be a huge kick in the nuts to zealots and fanboys of so many platorms at once. It will be the troll of the year.
Mac fanboys rationalising the shift to *hiss*Intel, AMD 'enthusiasts' offended Apple went with the inferior technology, Windows um, supporters pissed off because everyone hates their shit (no change there), and Linux zealots pissed off that Apple is stealing their x86 desktop Unix thunder. The flamewar could see out the decade.
It would just be so, so right. Anyway, now that SCO looks like going down in flames, the Unix world needs a new holy war, right?
Didn't Steve just promise that no changes would be made to the core over the next couple of years? This was at the release of Tiger. It would be sorta strange to have not known about this...
I'm with you on the XScale. A small useful tablet or rhin desktop would be ideal for eductaion, and most users needs.
Some quick points. . .
Macs with X86 processors probably wouldn't be able to install and run Windows, and Mac OS X probably still won't be able to run on a Dell. Somebody will of course try to hack it and make it work, but Apple will be against them. Generally, a Mac will still be a Mac, and a PC will still be a PC.
X86 will raise the possibility of WINE becoming practical on the Mac. Whether this is good or not depends on your viewpoint. Some would say a single box that can run Mac programs, Java programs, Windows programs, and a lot of Linux programs (via Fink, etc.) is the Holy Grail. On the other hand, it might decimate Mac software development. Why spend money developing a Mac version of your app when users can simply run your Windows version under WINE?
Wired Magazine raised speculation about this all being a DRM ploy, saying what Apple really wants is the Pentium D so they can sell movies over the internet (just like iTMS) with DRM up the wazoo. I agree with the guy who said this is the worst possible reason to switch processors.
On the balance, I'm against it, and I hope this all turns out to be merely a rumor that ran out of control. The DRM aspect worries me the most -- as a die-hard Mac lover, this is the one thing I can imagine that might possibly drive me to Linux.
time?
Only about 200 minutes left before the keynote. Never enough time to insert all the rants, flames and predictions I feel brewing inside me...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Some posts argue that Apple switching to Intel would mean switching byte endianness, and that would piss off a whole slew of Mac developers and require enough software rewrites to be extremely uncomfortable.
That's a good arguement, but it's interesting to note that IA64 can go both ways. I'm not saying they'd go IA64, but that Intel is capable of making that a non-issue.
Personally, I think this while notion is awesome entertainment no matter what happens. And I don't think Apple will be going Intel any time soon.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
What Apple gets from IBM is more than just parts, they get a solid future in R&D. This is why they left Motorola 68K family: no future.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Things aren't all that rosy between Apple and IBM right now. Consider that when the G5 was announced, Jobs said they'd be at 3 GHz by the following summer. It's now 2 summers later and they're still topping out at 2.7 GHz. Not only that, Apple's top-of-the-line laptop is still being forced to run on a processor that was abandoned 2 years ago in their professional desktop line..and no one has any sort of timetable for when IBM will be able to deliver a G5 cool enough to run in a laptop. I don't think Steve is very happy with the current situation.
According to this:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ RTGAM.20050605.wapchips0605/BNPrint/Technology/ it's a done deal. It's amazing to watch the progression of the Apple/Intel stories go from total speculation, all the way to "it's a done deal!!" (see link above). You would *think* that major newspapers would wait until there was something a bit more solid than "according to published reports" (The story is posted on the front page!!!)
But....considering the downhill slide of news reporting lately, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
If anything is causing Apple to go single-vendor with Intel I think it is either their willingness to sell a lot of parts are really low margins or chipset support or some other intangible. Right now AMD's CPU division is too profitable to give too many concessions to a new vendor, even a large one. Personally I think there is a decent chance that AMD will be in the PowerMacs of tomorrow since they are so superior in performance. But that will play out over the next year or so.
obviously i spent time reading that article (even though it was in that time window when i was writing mine), and then i actually spent effort on duping it up. true /. style, isn't it.
http://efil.blogspot.com/
>IBM is now something like two years behind on its promised 3 Ghz chips.
It's one year overdue and while they haven't delivered on that promise they have increased their clock speed at a better rate (2.0 to 2.7) than Intel has with the P4 during the same period (3.2 to 3.8 GHz).
2. Laptops
I believe the G5 would be fine in the same sort of big, heavy and hot package that P4 laptops are acceptible in. They are not however acceptible to Apple that has a tradition of thin, stylish laptops with good battery life.
I grant you that Intel's Pentium M would however be attractive if compatibility were not an issue.
3. Cost
Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y., told Ziff Davis Internet News;
"...Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average."
4. Emulation
It is very inefficient to emulate a RISC processor with it's small fast instructions on a CISC system. The PowerPC also has many more registers than x86. You'd be lucky to see 400MHz G3 performance on a 3.8GHz P4.
[)amien
I'm not sure I believe all this non sense just yet but I'll play devils advocate:
Here's my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I'm only betting one dollar.
Is that a dollar for everyone that reads your blog? Intel doesn't have a cheap consumer ready power pc platform lined up, if they did that would be more of a shock than anything else.
From Peter Glaskowsky: "Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average"
If find this claim to be dubious at best, I'm almost certain that Apple could find some economies with an Intel platform that they currently cannot with IBM. The chips could possibly cost less, but what about the engineering costs for motherboards that are always custom, in a market with fewer suppliers?
There was an article on Wired.com which provides a very solid argument for this new development. If we believe the garbage about chip emulation, there might be some meat to this. The DRM angle is definately the most convincing.
As an addition there have been multiple sources that talk about IBM's ability to deliver quantity on time. If there is anything to this it would explain why AMD hasn't been a part of the news - It is for similar reasons that Dell will not engage AMD to supply chips. AMD appears to have a bad rap for delivering quantity on time.
I'll believe all this when I see it, but the links provided don't fully cover the reasons for or againts.
I just read that article is that guy on the same planet as me? Why on Earth would Apple ask Intel to make a chip based on the PowerPC arch? That makes no sense and would defeat the #1 purpose of going Intel in the first place. Ecconomies of scale, Apple would theoreticaly be able to get chips at the same price Dell is getting them, and would then be able to compete with Dell. Most people think Dell/Apple/HP computers are all the same things just priced differently, like Honda/Toyota/BMW, and few realize there is a technical difference. This would allow Apple to compete on a even play field with the rest of these companies, and have OS X up its sleve. Macs are still going to have a premium over thier PC counterparts, but not as large as it had in the past, the difference is the premium Apple gets will stay approximatly the same, and users will be able to get their Powerbooks, and iMacs for a much better price. I doubt they will go with AMD(I wish they would though) for the same reason Dell doesn't, and because unlike Dell Apple is a "whole solution" company, they like to support both the hardware, and the software. I mean that Apple actualy maintains the OS, and a good amoutnt of apps for their systems, unlike Dell that just takes the hardware and installs the software on it. Buying from Intel means they only have one company to RFI if there is somthing wrong with the logic(PC/Chipset) end of the software/hardware equation. If they used AMD the would have two AMD and nVidia/VIA leaving room for deniablity, and even greater inefficiencies. This is a very shrewd move for Apple, does it have risks? Of course, but if they execute it well, and Apple has shown in the past that they are fairly likly to, they stand to substantialy increase their market share. -manno
Well, if it is on CNNs ticker tape, then it must be a true rumour.
Oh well, what the hell...
It's not debunking. Gruber has been going back and forth on this - not because he doesn't know which side to stand on but because as it stands now, more than in any other previous rumor round like this, this could really go either way. The "Odds and Ends" are really just odds and ends, interesting anecdotes. He's written more about this - just go read the current front page which has them all: http://daringfireball.net/
I think it's dumb to take an absolutist stand for or against "Intel and Apple". It depends on what chip they'll use, where they'll use it, when they'll use it and if it even happens at all. Then there's - among other things - the bigger company politics (OS X in ordinary PCs, partnering with other PC makers, etc) and what transition the developers and existing apps will have to go through. The questions about the chip is not at all where it ends, it's where it *starts*.
Lets see:
1. Apple stops using PPC and uses Intel - majority of users will notice very little since Apple will provide good emulation technololgy to smooth the transission.
2. Few years down the line OpenOffice gets good enough to replace MS Office.
3. Apple releases version of OSX that runs on standard Intel boxes.
4. Windows users flock to Apple who for a limited time is offering free upgrades to anyone who have a copy of Windows (and by chance this upgrade reuses their old version of Windows to provide a Windows session like VMWARE).
Total world dom?
Oh, and...
As OSX becomes the defacto standard operating system Virus writers start to Target OSX leaving people looking for ways to migrate to the Windows Underdog.
where all those Alpha harware engineers who seemed to have mysteriously disappeared after Intel acquired the Alpha technology from the Dec/Compaq merger are busy working on morphing the Alpha processor into a PPC ISA.
Think of it this way, once it happens, there will no longer be any endian issues to deal with! Once the Macs are little endian, the big endian user base will go pretty much to zero, and only in the servers.
I suspect that Apple (if they are to pick an X86 core) will be picking a high end Intel or more likely AMD part (probably because of hypertransport and the built in RAM controller). BUT... they are waiting for virtualisation code (Vanderpool or Pacifica) Each virtual machine will either run the Tranistive code morphing tech for native PPC apps or run in x86 mode (and it's going to be AMD64 based). The OS itself will run elsewhere and probably just be recompiled for the x86-64 platform. They also have the advantage of 2 very good x86 compilers.
Porting apps is probably less work than you can imagine. Apps people really need are likely to be portable via recompilation (as most are raw C++) those that contain assembler sections (such as photoshop filters, audio plugins etc) usually have a windows or linux x86 version anyway and therefore the optimised x86 code is already available.
All of which means this change won't happen soon. They're waiting for virtualisation but it's still less work than the 68K->PPC port or even MS's 16bit to 32bit transition which took nearly a decade and was, frankly hell (I was writting Windows drivers at the time!!!)
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Since the XBox 360 uses a PPC core, will its sales be enough to make up for Apple's switch?
If not, could this be a way for Apple to derail the XBox 360 by either pushing CPU prices up or forcing a delay and switch back to an x86 CPU? Microsoft has put a lot of investment in to it, and it wants badly to be in homes that don't need or want a PC.
The ability to run Windows quickly would be a big plus. Even though it's difficult to provide the Win32 APIs (as the Wine project do), it would be (relatively) easy to make VMWare run competitively on this system.
Personally I can't really see Intel producing PPC chips in the foreseeable future. Whilst it'd be nice if they did, the fact that x86(_64) is horribly ugly doesn't really hurt its performance these days (sky high transistor densities mean that the cost of handling the ugliness is relatively low). Another factor is that they'd like to see IA-64 competing effectively with POWER (even that is a long way off, assuming IA-64 doesn't die in the meantime).
After reading the above posts, there's no obvious gain in Apple switching to Intel-only x86.
More interesting and more profitable for Apple would be to port OS X to x86. Actually, I've seen rumours over the last year that Apple keeps an up to date image of OS X that will run on x86--sort of as a stick to threaten IBM with.
How much does it cost to burn a CD or DVD image? a few cents? a few bucks? How much could they sell OS X Tiger ported to x86 for? There's a lot of fed up Windows users out there that would probably be willing to make the jump.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
> Microsoft bought Connectix (authors of the VirtualPC software
> that lets Macs emulate Wintel boxes) and then quickly dropped
> their main product for no readily aparrent reason (other than
> pure spite).
Huh?
Microsoft still sells Virtual PC for the Mac. In fact, they bundle it with Microsoft Office Professional.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're using it for XBox 360 compatibility. They've been selling it to do sand-boxing for Windows servers for a while too.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
This sounds like a press release from the .com glory days . . . mindless banter that uses some fancy buzzwords (Internet, RFID, URLs, Website) in hopes that unsuspecting folks won't realize that this analogy is poor at best, blatantly wrong at worst.
I could use the same analogy for my house. The house is the internet, each power outlet is a URL and each appliance's use of electrical current is the associated data for that website. Now with a bunch of multimeters, I have an "internet."
Analogies in the hands on the misinformed are a very dangerous thing.
Everyone is basically parroting what everyone else said... Except for 'The Enquirer' - they at least seem to have some sort of other source that confirms this...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I always here that AMD can't "meet demand"? How of this is actual truth and not FUD? From what I've noticed over the last several years is AMD made chip announcements and were far more reliable in delivering in comparison to Intel? AMD supplies chips chips to every major OEM save Dell, and Apple isn't in top 4 right now largest retailers how is it that AMD can't meet demand of large OEM's? Clearly, they do?
So, I guess I want to know how much of it is truth that AMD can't keep up with demand?
Well, there's this guy who supposedly was offered a job by Apple working on ACPI & BIOS. He's a contributor to the linux kernel.
Not that I want to fan the rumor flames. And yes, if I was a firefighter, I'd be on the 'fight fire with other fires all over the place' bandwagon.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
It's people like you that make Slashdot increasingly unpleasant: you mod anything a "troll" that challenges your views, anything you don't understand, or anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of what the world is like.
Could Apple be doing to IBM what IBM intended to do to them so many years ago with the XP?
One theory says that IBM got 3 companies to build PC prototypes and they picked the worst of the 3 because they didn't want it to hurt their mini computer business. The idea was to flood the market with IBM made computers, wait for Apple and Tandy to give up because they had much slower computers and then apologize to everyone for their junky computer and give them a huge discount on the trade in on a brand new real computer.
I've heard different versions of that story and it fits in with what IBM did in other industries and a friend worked in the factory for the 1st run and claimed there was a letter in there that mentioned that if the computer didn't meet the customers needs they should contact their IBM dealer about a 360 (or whatever was their mini at the time)
Now what would happen if Apple introduced a new computer that would dual boot out of the box with both OS X and Windows . Then after they get a bunch of people using them, they decide to drop the windows side of things. The result could be an increase in market share.
Of course to make a pc that does both windows and os x, someone will have to start shipping a 2+ button mouse so it will never happen.
The case for the Itanium is that the reason it failed in the Wintel world was the difficulty of programming for it, notably its ramant use of out of order instruction capability. And when Windows did not really embrace it that was the death sentence. But Apple has a unique position of controlling the hardware and the OS. Thus they could potentially master this beast. Going Itanium could let them leapfrog the x86 world and have more headroom for growth. I also wonder if the itanium has, like the Power series, support for both big/little endian, thus making the transition easier?
Pentium-M. Well this is no brainer. They need a new chip for the laptop and there's none on the horizon. The interesting thing here is that if they went with a hybrid strategy of Pentium-M in the laptops and G5 in the desktops they have a good transistion strategy available. The graphic artisits and application-specific power users will not settle for emulation of their favorite applications. Thus they have to keep G5 on the desktop till all the applications like Photoshop and Maya have swithced over.. But that class of folks wont be using Laptops as their main machine. And the laptop users might be well satisfied with a fast pentium-M machine that occasionally had to run some applications in a slower emulation mode.
Surely intel has some response to the Cell. Are they going to cede the entire video game/ digital hub market to xbox, sony and the cell? I suspect not. But to enter that market they need a partner. And who better than the maker of the ipod and the only company with a coherent home digital hub strategy (think iLife). Well that would be apple. You cant argue market share dictates windows since the ipod proves that wrong and Microsoft already has its bets on the xbox.
So maybe this is about a video console and not about general purpose computers???
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
http://tinyurl.com/dygn3
"Something more likely, though not much more, than an Apple switch from PPC to x86 would be Intel announcing that it will begin fabricating PowerPC CPUs.... The most likely Intel/Apple partnership would actually be the use of ancillary Intel chipsets in Apple products."
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
What's changed between this article and the one on Friday?
Alex.
I hope this is all just hype. I have several computers at home. I've got my Linux development box running an AMD Barton w/gentoo, I've got an Apple G3 w/gentoo (it's my firewall, webserver, mail, imap, and Linux PPC dev box). I really like the PPC architecture.
To all of you people who are speculating that IBM has to give PPC IP to Apple who would then pass it on to Intel... You seem to be forgetting one important fact: IBM does not have sole ownership of that IP. It's shared between IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola).
Really, it's just a silly proposal. Both Freescale and IBM have many, more lucrative, sockets for PPCs than Apple. Apple doesn't have enough clout to cause either IBM or Freescale to give away the farm to the competition...
...would be to have Jobs introduce a new machine, show it kicking ass and taking names and give out the SpecInt/FPU numbers. Then have Jobs do his, 'and just one more thing..' thing.
BOOM! Up on the screen 'Intel Inside' and that damn jingle 'dong! du du du dong!' I think that if Jobs can immediately prove that things will just work - even with a major architecture change, the devs will go for it.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
they want some of the things Intel /does/ have going for them. Say, Pentium M (fast, low power, and getting cheaper in a hurry) or StrongARM.
I heard a blip on the radio about it, so it probably IS true, but that doesn't mean Macs will switch to x86. Maybe Intel will crank out PPC chips. Or Itanics. Or something new.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
..., because it keeps the doctor away, no.
I bought the Mac because of the PPC in it and because of the somewhat decent hardware around that, although I'm sure I can get PCI-X in PCs as well, also the dual banked DDR-DRAM. A nuissance would be to use SSE instead of Altivec though.
My favourite apps Photoshop, Eagle, OO, run under Windows. Linux runs on both.
To me they would loose all discriminating features , and GUIs never made a convicing argument in that debate to me anyway. Gee, I have used so many different window managers that that switch won't hurt.
Well lets hope some cheap CELL desktop workstation comes along one day. When my G5 runs out of juice this may actually be a very viable alternative.
They'll actually be announcing that they'll be moving to Transmeta processors. They're not the Transmeta processors we're used to, however. They're the same Transmeta processors which have been in development for the last 10 years under top-secret raps.
Yes, they are indeed the Cell processors that IBM and Sony are said to be developing (actually funding). It will revolutionize the PC industry. Leave such a development to Transmeta - they've definately got the "think outside the box" mindset to make a big step like that work.
This is also why we haven't seen the Cruesoe chips performing competitively; they've not been doing mcuh development on them.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Is it safe to say we will have MS Office for BSD on x86 now? This will only lead to MS Office running on linux. Very Interesting!
The Itanium supports both big and little endian. thus switching to this processor would be simpler than X86.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Here's my current 2-cent theory:
I could definately see a situation where Apple and Intel could compromise and design a custom x86 platform based on the Pentium line but not entirely compatible with. By removing a lot of the crufty legacy hacks put in to support two decades of of 8 and 16-bit apps (and Windows) as well as locking down the rest of the architecture to avoid compatibility issues with the taiwanese whitebox outlet, not to mention hard wiring all that DRM that the media companies want, this could be a win-win situation for both companies.
Apple gets a reliable, high powered partner that can meet their demand; Intel gets to renovate an architecture that's been bogged down by years of compromise to history. They both look like heroes to the entertainment industry. And the technical market -- hey, there's a new platform that's going to need a ton of new applications developed.
you can see for yourselves:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf05/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
Who is going to buy a PPC Mac, if they announce a switch to x86? HW sales will plummet.
This is the biggest reason I think the rumors are false.
Unless they have x86 HW ready to go, they are toast.
Did no one read at least part of the massive ARS technica article on Tiger just a few weeks ago? Its not something that can produce a lot of mainstream hype like dashboard widgets, but half the point of Tiger is that the APIs have FINALLY been stabilized with a gradual deprication system. So future upgrades to the OS will no longer break existing software. It has taken us SO LONG to get this far, would Apple really toss 4 years of development out the window a month after Tiger hits the shelves? That makes no sense. Think people, think.
Armands Leimanis has an article about the possibility of Apple using Intel or AMD 64-bit processors on his website and explains why this may not be technically feasible:
http://www.areems.com/
According to the NYT (registration required), Mr. Jobs is expected to announce the transition to Intel chips at Apple's annual developer conference. Further it explains why this will not hurt I.B.M. much since this apple only accounts for about 2-3% of its revenue. It will be interesting to see if Apple can get the developers on board to change their software to use the Mac OS-Intel platform. I for one do not think Microsoft will go since this will represent a treath on its market.
I've noted that the rumours and speculation don't actually specify the use of x86 architecture - but if Apple do switch to x86, or even just to chips made by Intel, don't we get 'Trusted Computing' whether we like it or not? So no major hardware supplier or mainstream distributor would provide general purpose PCs that don't have DRM. AFAIK, PPC doesn't have DRM, and as long as theirs a minstream merket for non-DRMed machines, it makes it harder to impose DRM on everyone. Once both Apple and Wintel run (for all practical consumer purposes) only on DRMed chips, don't we have a problem?
And apparently Apple is considering the jump to help out Hollywood: "Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet."
If this report is true, and Apple is switching to x86 based CPUs, then it's the first nail in Power's coffin. Despite the marketing push, IBM doesn't sell nearly as many power boxes as intel boxes. And if Apple drops them, that'll radically cut down production at IBM chip fab plants. We may even see the day when IBM has to change cpu architectures for their big iron. I've often wondered if IBM simply wouldn't purchase a big chunk of Intel and move their mainframes to an Itanium family of chips. HP would support it just to get Itanium in wider use. And this would fit IBM's trend from a company that actually engineer products, to a services-mostly company, a transistion that seems to be well underway at IBM.
Oh, and Apple should have gone for the Athlon 64 instead...but Steve Jobs is such a label whore, he probably coudn't bring himself to do it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So, when's MacOS X for i386 due? :)
Funny -- IBM seems to have no problem promising 3.2 GHz triple-core and 8-core PPC derivative cpus to Microsoft and Sony, in pretty huge volumes -- but we'll have to wait until year-end to see if they deliver on those promises.
IBM seems to have dropped the ball on supplying the dual core 970fx chip to Apple, which was probably the last straw, on top of IBM's continuing lack of interest in pursuing low power G5 designs suitable for notebook use.
IBM has also said that their fab capacity is "booked" for the foreseeable future, which pretty well rules out any chance of Apple being able to achieve any kind of market share increase via IBM.
Looks a lot like Apple is being squeezed out, similar to the days when Microsoft would gain market share by consuming all the shelf space in stores, except that this would be IBM doing the screwing in collusion with Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Sony. I expect Sony to get most of its CELL processors either in-house or from Toshiba). Once upon a time, IBM had "allocation rules" to prevent smaller customers from being squeezed out by larger ones.
Maybe Apple will start using Intel XScale processors inside the iPod.
4)no need for developers to worry for the change right now http://www.transitive.com/
- - - - - .
When Apple bought Universal Music? No? They must have, everybody was reporting on it. Instead, Apple presented the iTMS.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Why are so many articles lately apparently written by people who can't figure out subject/verb agreement?
/. editors if they don't fix mistakes like this?
"HAS" and "IS" is for singular subjects, such as "Apple IS going to announce..." or "Apple HAS been promising..."
Apple is a single company. They are not multiple entities, and therefor call for a singular agreement. Do people actually talk like that? Do they really say "Apple have been promising..." when talking? Do they not realize they sound like uneducated trailer park people? Judging from the fact that the submitter used "rumour" as opposed to "rumor," I suspect they are from the UK or there abouts. As such, what's the equivilent of a trailer park in the UK?
Remember, folks, HAS and IS are for singular subjects. HAVE and ARE are for plural subjects.
Why do we even have
It just occurred to me that there's another upside of Apple switching to Intel.
Currently, if you want to switch from Windows to the Mac you have to buy a powerpc-based machine that runs only OS X (and linux). If you switch and decide it was a mistake and you really would rather have a Windows PC, you are pretty much stuck.
I assume that there would be no reason that an Intel-based Mac could not also run Windows.
If that is the case, you've just made switching to Apple hardware a much more compelling option. You get the chance to try out the Mac, without the risk that you may regret it later.
If you don't like OS X, you can just install XP.
- dj
A big-endian x86 would buy Carbon compatibility and disallow the white-box "try-before-you-buy" crowd.
A bi-endian x86 would allow a reboot for the "I need Windows at home" crowd.
Small correction:
Motorola stopped making PPC chips a long time ago. They dumped the whole thing to concentrate on the embedded market.
IBM is the only PPC producer at this point.
In British English, companies are referred to as plural subjects: e.g. "British Telecom have...". I'm not sure why, that's just The Way It Is.
Well, since you decided to be a grammar nazi, I should point out that Apple is not a plural entity. Apple is a single entity. Therefore, you should have written IT is not multiple...
>>Apple is a single company. They are not multiple entities, and therefor call for a singular agreement.
- dj
I think Intel will be building PowerPC chips, exclusively, for Apple, here's why:
IBM & Apple wanted out of this arrangement:
(a) IBM can't meet the demands of Apple; cheaper chips, new & faster chips, supply and demand problems.
(b) IBM's new top priority is meeting the demands for the console market.
(c) IBM's current R&D is focused on developing the Cell processor.
Look, Apple is only going to announce that the junk inside the pretty Apple boxes are going to be changing, and only computers geeks will care about that. For the end user, they'll still be booting up an Apple Mac, booting into OS X, and haveing the great user experience they are used to. OS X, if anything, will gain more by moving to a more common hardware platform. Apple will still have a custom BIOS, that's way better than anything on a PC.
Additionally, I find it hard to believe that IBM is willing to sell G5's to Apple for less than what it costs Intel. Intel is without a doubt the best bulk microprocessor manufacturer in the world and they have best cost to processor ration that can be achieved.
I'm not going to post my reasoning here since I just did on my blog, but you can read it here. Apple switching to x86 just doesn't make sense.
The Register weighs in with two articles this morning.
Correction: The Register weighs in with one opinion column, and one echo of a Wall Street Journal article.
Real papers occasionally print news that they get themselves, not just wire reports and "stories" which say "WSJ reports that..." in the first paragraph.
The Register sucks. Sorry, it just does.
It's no secret that Apple rumor sites receive a large spike in traffic during events such as the WWDC. I found it interesting that this year, one rumor site is attempting a new approach to reduce their bandwidth consumption Mac Rumors (http://macrumors.com/) has teamed up with Equiknox to deliver update via Javascript and XML (recently coined AJAX http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ar chives/000385.php). They believe that this technique, combined with a lightweight http server, will allow them to serve 3300 hits/sec over three servers and to withstand the any severe spike.
If you want, you can read more about this on their technology reviw or on my blog.
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cou
That's my prediction. Apple will take over the PPC design and drive it forward, while Intel will do the production.
The only thing that seems odd is why they would not move to the Cell processors - that always seemed a natural path. I guess we'll find out what is what shortly.
As for X86 OSX boxes I don't put much stock in that, like other have said the "sources" would have more real detail, and the developer outcry would be too great because of Indianess.
On the other hand (just to stoke the fire), perhaps this news would seem to make the president of Intel's recent comments (buy a Mac if you want security now) make a lot more sense!!! Heh!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I heard some time back that the PPC was able to run two or more OSs concurrently, i.e. not as a dual-boot, but actually run them concurrent. Is this true?
Fanning the flames...
Looking back a short while the chief of Intel basically said "buy a Mac if you want security now". Well if Intel is manufacturing Apple's chips for them (even if not x86) doesn't that just make a WHOLE lot more sense now?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think that it will almost certainly be the case that Intel will simply be taking over production of the PPC 970 architecture from IBM
Running Mac OS X on Intel will not be a difficult transition. In fact Darwin, the core of Mac OS X, already runs on x86 hardware. It will be very disappointing, however, if Apple--a company that has distinguishes itself with innovative products--looses its identity in the x86 washing machine. What about the Cell processor? If this process is based on the PowerPC core doesn't that mean that the new PowerPC IS the Cell? Why abandon the PowerPC just when massive speed advances are on the horizon? Why abandon a chip that seems perfect for multimedia applications when Macs are THE platform for creative purposes?
The company is in better shape financially now than just about any time in it's history. If you are gunna do something this dramatic then right now is the best time. The Ipod (and derivi will float the company for at least another year.
They are un-pissable. They will like Apple no matter what. They have been selling the idea they are somehow superior to everyone else because they use the Mac for 2 decades. It is like a Fiat owner finally admitting that Fiat's are a POS and buying something better. Not to say a Mac is anywhere as bad as a Fiat or anything mind you. Apple users are generally smart as well. They realize nothing is forever and you must migrate from time to time. Just pack up all your crap into tar files, migrate them to the new machine and never use the old stuff again like everyone else.
I think Apple's going to release a Tablet PC.
Watch The Incredibles; made by Pixar, shares largely owned by Steve Jobs. The special features show Jobs sitting at a meeting with the creative staff of Pixar, so he seems to be at least marginally involved.
The computer Mister Incredible gets his secret mission on at the beginning of the movie is a Tablet PC. No big deal, might not have anything to do with Apple. Could just be a very cool form factor.
BUT...
The Tablet PC had an iPod SCROLL WHEEL ON IT! That's very strange, especially because the iPod scroll wheel is so distinctive -- and patented by Apple.
After watching the movie and seeing the iTablet, I saw the Slashdot story mentioning Apple had received a patent for a Tablet-looking device. That just added strength to the rumour.
Would Jobs and Co. be so cocky that they'd telegraph their future product lines like this? Nobody seems to have noticed it but me. This clue has slipped unnoticed under the radar of everybody until now, it seems.
I may be right, I may be wrong. It's just a possibility. A strong possibility. Apple made music over the net work when nobody else could. They made MP3 players move when nobody else could. Now are they going to start the Tablet PC revolution everybody's been expecting for the last 5 or 10 years?
[I just hope they've dumped Broadcom for their wireless cards; my PowerBook's wireless is useless under Linux because Broadcom are complete A$$holes who won't release any specs. I won't be buying another computer with Broadcom in it until they get a clue and start supporting their customers.]
No, Motorola spun off their PPC business to FreeScale http://www.freescale.com/ who produce the G4 chips used in PowerBooks, eMac, iBooks.
They also have a roadmap for faster G4 processors.
[)amien
Apple, via its purchase of NeXT, had a working x86 version of OS X. It is likely they still do internally. NextStep was great for supporting multiple architectures (up to 4 were implemented and shipped -- 680x0, Intel, HP PA-RISC, and SPARC). Only endianess was much of an issue, and even that wasn't much. The people who are comparing this to the Mac OS 680x0 -> PowerPC switch are greatly exaggerating the difficulty.
This isn't huge rafts of specialized assembly code and it isn't for an OS that has not previously handled fat binaries. It sounds like a huge leap, but Jobs already did all of this with NeXT. It also isn't as big a change as going from Mac OS -> OS X. This time, it is the same OS, ported to a different architecture -- and where it has been ported previously.
The real problem, were Apple to move OS X to general x86 hardware, is that it would eat their non-x86 hardware business, and they probably could not make enough money from selling just the OS at a price that people would actually buy (in a quantity that would matter). Worse, every OS-only sale would be 1 less potential hardware sale.
NeXT tried that back in the 1990s when they dumped their hardware. NextStep was better, but MS Windows was too cheap, already shipped installed on the Intel machines, and it was too close to a monopoly already. Jobs was right there at the attempt to be an "OS only" company. Trying to reverse that now would be even harder, even if Apple could also sell some application software as part of the package.
No, it only makes sense if either Apple is talking to Intel about making PPC chips instead of or in addition to IBM, if it is some other architecture tweaked to include AltiVec, or if it has nothing to do with desktop systems at all (e.g., XScale for handhelds or tablets). "Apple on Intel" does not mean what people first think. Though technically possible, I can't see how it would make any economic sense.
Oh, and if Dvorak is gloating now about predicting Apple's switch to Intel years ago, that's a pretty solid indicator the simple interpretation is wrong.
There's also embedded uses for PowerPC processors. I have an IBM RAID controller with a PowerPC chip that does all the heavy lifting here.
The current (11:11 am) headline from the Wall Street Journal online states the switch as fact:
"Apple will start shifting its Macintosh line next year to Intel chips, in a major change of strategy for the computer maker. The move could be a blow to IBM and Freescale, which now supply Apple's PowerPC chips."
From the front page of
http://online.wsj.com/public/us
The actual article is in the paid section.
In fact, a quick look at Apple's stock price reaction here
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5d
seems to imply this was mostly a done deal on Friday.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Yellow dog is based on red hat linux, and as far as I know... ...Linux does run x86
Intel should still have Digitals designs. After all, thats where HyperThreading supposedly came from.
It's about time the folks at Apple admitted defeat and left the dark side for the saving light and grace of the real PC world (Nasty troll dig I know, but it had to be said ;). Of course I think many Applites will be shedding tears as it will remove one of their large arguements as to why their machines are so much better, the power processor.
My question is, if the current line of processors Apple uses are so much better than the Intel or AMD lineups, then why is Apple switching to Intel? To go to a worse CPU? I think not. I think Steve Jobs just pulled the rug out from under his overtly fanatical section of his following. Then again, perhaps that will aslo work to his benefit. It is hard to sell a machine to a person who perceives that association with it is bad. Many perceive the Apple as just such a beast. Quell the overspoken fanatical left and right wings and perhaps your product becomes more saleble to those in the middle. Contrary to what many current Apple followers may believe, this may actually broaden Apple's markets and allow it to become more than just the niche product it has so long been sequestered to.
"...Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average."
Uhuh, now try to explain the whole quote:
"Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities."
So the price argument is out... Except we are not talking about the netburst/p4 chips which are by all acounts expensive megahurts marchitecture scrotum burning machines when used in laptops. Especially when compared to the g5. We are talking about intel`s pentium III design based yoham`s. These would be an answer to IBM and freescale`s inability to create energy-efficient g5`s. Supply has been good enough for everyone else who makes laptops. So the question is, how long has apple been waiting to do g5 level performance laptops that aren`t hot and noisy? I doubt apple think they will sell many less if the price is a bit high compared to G4 laptops.
I am expecting a Fedex shipping number for my new Powermac dual 2.7/2GB/400GB/wifi/ATI Radeon 6560 TODAY!
I got one, but it was DOA. I returned it and they built the replacement end of last week. In fact I have the shipping number, it just doesn't work yet. I've literally been pressing reload in my browser on that page every few minutes.
So on the day my $4000 PowerPC based Apple workstation ships, Steve Jobs is going to tell me it's soon going to be obsolete? Gah!!
I will be very interested to hear how he spins this!
I was reading MacSlash and came across this. link
It looks like some pretty solid evidence that Apple is working with Transitive Technologies, the company that allows binaries from one platform to execute at near native speeds on another platform.
Very interesting days indeed.
The Itanium angle is interesting, especially considering that the Itanium was jointly developed by Intel and HP, and Apple already has a partnership with HP, selling iPods.
However, one of the bigger problems that Apple is having with IBM is that laptop sales are overtaking desktop sales in the PC market, but IBM has yet to furnish Apple with a low-power G5 suitable for laptops.
Is the Itanium any more suitable for laptops than the G5? It's supposed to be more of a server chip, so I'm guessing not. And if Apple has to fall back on the Pentium M for its PowerBook line, then that pretty much wipes away the advantage of the Itanium, as all software will have to be recompiled for little endian x86, anyway.
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
;)
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
P.S., we'll probably learn that it's just a matter that Intel will start making some non-important chip for them (i.e. the RTS clock or something), *NOT* the processor
do() || do_not();
I've just gotten done having a conversation with a friend of mine who works in middle management position with Apple and he confirmed the rumor for me that they *will* switch to Intel x86, not some Intel made derivitive of the PPC. He gave as reason's IBM's failure to meet Apple's goals and also Intel's ability to mass produce the chips:). It's nice to finally have it confirmed :)
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
I'd call that Powerbook a technological wonder. 1 GHz is approximately 751 times faster than 1.33 MHz by clock speed alone and their performance was comparable?
By the way, where did you get such a beast? I've never seen a G4 running at such a low clock cycle.
Currently the itanium is held up by Linux as the only alternative, this is ok for expansion in the server market but will not make it appear in desktop machines (as originally planned) in the forseeable future.
Yes it is an expensive chip NOW, but what if you mass produced it in larger numbers.
Apple gets a high performance chip and intel finally get a viable itanium partner.
Hold your breath to see that happen yet again!!
Mac OS X for x86 is coming out.
All those who write Cocoa apps - imagine your user base now!! - vineet
No, not at lunchtime...AMD is getting pounded into the ground by Intel like a tent stake in July. AMD might be turning out some pretty good products but no one is buying the high-end AMD stuff and the Intel-Apple deal is another example of a computer maker turning their back on AMD's excellent products. Dell, Gateway, Sony, and IBM/Lenovo are already 'Intel only' oems. HP still sells AMD but only for a few models. The result is that AMD is not not making any money selling cpu chips and it is only a matter of time before they have to fold their tent and leave the field to Intel. Sure, the AMD flash memory business was a loser for them recently but, according to the article, the cpu sales were only $750 million for Q1 2005. AMD's market share for Q1 2005 was 16.9 percent of a worldwide market of approximately 120 million units. That means that AMD's average selling price was only about $37. Obviously, AMD is selling mostly the ultra-cheap low-powered 32-bit Semprons and only a relative tiny handful of the high-powered 64-bit $200+ units. AMD has some excellent high-end chips are but no one ever seems to actually buy them in the kind of volume that might allow an innovative company like AMD to survive in business.
IBM's recent opening of the Cell specification seemed to be totally lack sense, given that both Sony and Toshiba are crazy about the chip.
Intel could very well make a Cell clone based on those specs. The Cell would be the perfect chip for Apple's future if you ask me.
Okay lets set the record straight, this would be the best move Apple could make and it isn't as hard as everyone thinks. Why you ask?
First if they are going with the intel's x86 line they already have Darwin and OpenDarwin running on it. So much of the change on the software side as would be as simple (or as hard) as port from like NetBSD PPC to NetBSD x86 or even linux.
Second even with out recompiling they could do binary conversion from PPC to x86 and then an emulation layer (really just an API wrapper). Something similar is already being worked on in Darwine. The diffrence in that project is they are converting Windows x86 binarys to PPC then running them through Wine's emulation layer.
Third, Apple already can run virtually any Linux and obviously any BSD applications. And with this move could very easily run any Windows program as well under their system. This is already going on under Linux with Wine and made extremly easy with CrossOver Office. I mentioned what some very smart people were already trying to do this on the PPC and binary conversion with Darwine above. I had thought Apple should have supported this group when they are on the PPC but their efforts are somewhat moot if this goes through. However if Apple wants to make things right I think they should buy CodeWeavers who are the creators of CrossOver Office. But either with Apple support or not a x86 would enevitably result in a version of Wine for MacOS X.
Now the one thing I think no one is thinking about is what if Intel is making a new chip that will act almost like a PPC. I mean AMD did it to Intel, why can't Intel do it to IBM.
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
recall that apple just patented a design for an oversized PDA/ undersized tablet. But what processor wwould it use. there are no ultra-low-power Power PC chips. On the other hand Apple loves the ARM chip (which they pioneered for the Newton and later sold to intel)
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
....gossip rag.
Seriously though, I wrote the Inq piece, and I do have it from an independant source, and I had the info before CNet broke theirs, so it isn't a case of someone seeing CNet and running to me. I didn't get times though, which is why I was waiting.
On a related note, it would not surprise me if the be-turtlenecked megalomaniac had a hissy fit (a given), and put off the announcement. He can't cancel it, but putting it off to screw the journos would not be out of character.
There is more to this story though, and I will put some up as soon as I get bac from Computex, plane in 6 hours. Aargh.
-Charlie
I don't see why everyone thinks they would switch the entire product line to x86. Three or four years ago I believed it was possible they would segment their product line into low-margin x86 boxes for the consumer market, and stay with the pricey IBM chips for the high end. With dual core G5s coming down the pike, I would expect them to split directions in this way. It also lets them cut power in portables (and clusters - I so wish Apple had bought Transmeta! Not like Steve to let that one go.)
you had me at #!
The third possibility is that Apple will introduce something new - something else they've not mentioned before. An ultra Apple / Windows friendly UNIX server? An appliance computer (e.g. a cross between iPod and a {web,file,database}server?) A set top box (*cough* *pippin* *cough*)? Personally, I think Apple could be good with appliance computing.
I always think of this when Intel and Apple are mentioned together since iPod. As Apple has shown, they don't have to use PowerPC in their products, only in their computer line (thus, the death of Newton). iPod uses non-PPC and non-Mac OS X operating system, and yet Apple is capable of making iPod and Macs beautifully, seamlessly work together. In fact, to an extent, iPod works beautifully on x86 too.
Apple prepping a consumer device running on Intel and x86 Darwin (they may need much more functionality than iPod) and a new GUI that bolsters the Mac as the hub of digital convergence is not a far-fetched idea and much more credible than Mac OS X on Intel. Nobody will complain about backward compatibility since no such device existed much like nobody complained about the iPod. Third party developers don't care either and they have a new market to play in and make money from.
The points are
- Apple is expanding to new markets and make more money
- Apple is not pissing off Mac users (on the contrary, it makes us happy)
- Apple is one step closer to digital convergence
- Intel sells millions of chips
- Developers make money from new markets
- Users get a brand new toy in the living room to make entertainment more entertaining.
- Microsoft got a big competition in the living room
In short, if designed properly, everyone is happy.
Your guess is as good as mine as to whether this pic is real... I'm guessing no. But regardless, if it's real, wow, if it's not, it's pretty funny:
http://forum.macosx.nl/album_pic.php?pic_id=7142
-Daniel
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/227238_appl e06.html
This one almost sounds like a press release confirming the rumor.
Pooty tweet
The reason AMD is not mentioned, I believe, is that this is move is all about mobile processors.
Faster desktop processors from IBM have been slow in coming. Faster laptop processors are just nowhere in sight. The point has been reached where more people are buying laptops than desktops.
Add to that that Apple is not a large customer for IBM, and you get a switch in the making.
Stephen
rumors say tablet,
rumors say intel,
facts say PPC rules (and used in next-gen consoles),
facts say XScale rules,
facts say Apple no profit in using Pentium,
sum up all this and you got "Apple presents XScale based tablet"... so simple
and don't forget, facts say world wants rumors about Apple making OSX on x86
In the past, Apple has sold x86 daughter cards for the Mac that would run Windows at the same time as MacOS (not dual boot). Kind of like TrueBlue for classic under OSX. They were not very successful.
Draw your own conclusions.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I don't care how restrictive the NDA's were or how quiet Apple tried to keep it, if there was a release-grade version of OS/X for x86, someone would have leaked the news "anonymously" long before now. It's just too big, both in terms of impact and in terms of the number of people needed to get it to release quality, that it only starts "leaking" now.
That's not to say that it's not in the works. Announcing a public beta, or even just a developer beta (and who wants to run the pool on how many minutes it would take for the developer beta to hit the various file sharing nets?) would be at the outside of the realm of possible.
But going gold with OS/X for x86 would have to be at least 9-12 months out, during which time IBM could finally get "scared straight", resolve supply issues, and the beta is as far as it ever goes.
I'd LOVE to see OS/X for x86. But I think I'll see CNN's live broadcast of the sloooow video conference between second-term President Jeb Bush and the first American to land on Mars before I see OS/X commercially available for x86.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I think the big assumption everyone makes here is that intel will be providing x86 chips for the NEXT-gen Macintosh. It seems everyone is overlooking the possibility that Apple is recruiting Intel into the PowerPC field and is hoping that Intel will create a new faster ppc compatible chip. It could be that with Intel's large R&D to develop faster chips, that Intel could actually find better answers to the clock speed stumbling block in PPC.
Well, according to this interesting thread he's been fired. Whether it's true is another matter, but the AC in question seems fairly convincing.
3. Could run MS Windows code natively through translation layer (much the same way that "Classic" mode works)
I don't think they'd be able to pull that one off - not from a technical standpoint, but from a legal one. There is no way they could try a stunt like that without Microsoft raining lawsuits on them. Considering the strides the Mac has made over the last few years, I doubt the folks from Redmond would stand idly by if Apple tried this. They'd find something in there, if not a lot of things, that could be construed as IP infringement. It would be one hell of a court case, what with the lawyer teams on both sides, but win or lose, this isn't the kind of thing Apple needs to deal with right now.
Or they could just cut out the middleman and start using FPGAs.
Then again, there is probably a bias on my part because I want to use FPGAs damnit!
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
I guess we're all equal now... :)
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
What's the highest-performance CPU in the ARM line? How much would an ARM architecture lend itself to making high-end workstation CPUs (on a par with the PowerPC 970)?
IIRC, Apple own AltiVec, and could graft that into a desktop-grade ARM. Also, given how compact ARMs are, putting multiple cores on a die may be reasonably easy. Perhaps the goal is to build multiple ARM cores, with extensions, into a Cell-style multiple processor?
(Which, of course, is fairly wild speculation, though, IMHO, it'd make marginally more sense than Apple moving to a x86-based architecture.)
Apple used to sell a dos card for macs - it was a 66 MHz 486 that plugged in and used the mac's screen peripherals.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Jobs has no choice but to do this because the most critical issue being the PowerBook line is frozen in terms of upgrades. IBM won't produce a cooler faster CPU at least from what I hear and you can be sure Jobs tried everything to encourage IBM, given the effort involved maybe IBM just walked away from the business? Already IBM has lost the Ghz race to Intel, OS X is gonna smoke on a Intel 3.2Ghz box !!
Haha, Steve Jobs is talking to the Intel CEO right now saying "Damn it, we weren't going to go with an Intel CPU, but now if I don't go out on stage an anounce that our stock will plummet!"
I haven't started trading yet, but if I did I'd place limits to buy as well as sale Apple. A movement of a few points up or down would make it worthwhile.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't think most Apple users give a damn what's inside, as long as Apple continues to provide a slick user interface with no-hassle plug and play. People buy Apple because they have better things to do with their lives than pore over specs and argue about chips.
Whose Line rules... I was thinking the same thing
no one has any sort of timetable for when IBM will be able to deliver a G5 cool enough to run in a laptop.
Who the hell cares? There's nothing wrong with the G4 that a faster memory bus wouldn't fix, and Freescale has a timeline for that!
"There are many metrics about what makes a good laptop and as long as the speed does not suck it's not necessarily to critical factor."
If so why drop the the G4? I mean think about it I really doubt that a Pentium M could emulate a PPC faster than a G4 can run native? It then makes no sense. I think Intel building PPCs seems more logical than that.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
News.com and some of the other sources are gunna look like clowns if nothing is said...
:)
I can just imagine it...a whole room packed full of people....and the jobs says the BIG announcement is a bump in the storage capacity of the ipod shuffle
Yep! I thought about that too! Honestly though, I can't see Apple using an Itel CPU in their hardware unless it's a specially designed model for them. I imagine they'd request custom versions of Itaniums for their PowerMac line, and custom Pentium-M's for everything else. That way, they'd be able to create a CPU that's "bound" to the Mac motherboard and OS X, so you couldn't just run out and buy OS X and install it successfully on any old PC.
On the flip-side though, perhaps the new Intel-based Macs would natively allow installations of Windows (dual boot being a likely scenario), or at least allow a new Virtual PC version to run with MUCH more speed than it has today.
As long as Apple is specifying a customized CPU just for them, they could put a "hold the DRM" order on it too.
I remember before the G5 was announced when most sensible people agreed that the PPC P4 was no longer competitive with Intel's latest. Apple kept telling its users "megahertz myth", etc, and talking about "pipelines". Then they switched to the P5 architecture--finally competitive with Intel. That made all their statments during the end of the P4 era suspect.
When the G5 was announced I was watching Steve live. He said something about 3 GHz in a year. I'm still waiting.
Mac users have it in their head that Intel is bad. That will confuse the Mac loyalists. I remember a conversation I had a few weeks ago. There was a Mac user working on Photoshop. He shouldn't care what CPU his computer used as long as it was fast enough. He was watching me do some custom video stuff on an Intel computer.
"I thought the Intel was bad for video", he told me. "It'th got a thegmented architecture." (Lisp was because of a tounge piercing, which seems more common among Mac users.) Now, I don't know where he heard that, or why it matters to him how the Intel chip addresses memory. But somehow he was duped--sucessfully--by the Apple PR machine that Intel is inferior.
Apple has an advantage because of their "closed box." By controlling both the hardware and software they can select the best technlogy available and integrate it. For low power, and perhaps for dual core, Intel may be the best choice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel used effectively by Apple for:
- Headless Servers
- A Mini-Mac "ilife" machine
- Some sort of Tablet machine
That would make a lot of sense.Best Buy can have you arrested
It could be that IBM (recent massive layoffs announced, and has sold their PC line) - is struggling worse than they've let on, and is about to sever the PPC agreement with Apple, leaving them high and dry.
(I don't think this is likely, I'm just suggesting it as a possible explanation).
Such an event would send shock waves through the entire IT industry, of course. I'm sure that long term, it would at long last, mean the final demise of Apple as a systems manufacturer (they'd live on, perhaps, solely on the iPod and related music business).
As a long time Mac user, I have just two words to describe the snatching of Victory from the Jaws of Defeat that switching from the G5 to x86 would represent: The horror. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Apple will introduce the new G6. The G6 will leapfrog the X64 by having two G5 style cores with the new 128 register Altavec from the XBox360. It will also incorporate the new Cell technology with no less than 16 Cells. The new G6m will have the new Altavec and multiable integer cores without the cells.
Intel will provide the integrated wifi chip set for the new Airport and a new XScale chip for Apples new ITVPod.
I am of course making it up but then so is everyone else.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
they spin a company off that just does x86 Apple software.
"Wired Magazine raised speculation about this all being a DRM ploy, saying what Apple really wants is the Pentium D so they can sell movies over the internet (just like iTMS) with DRM up the wazoo. I agree with the guy who said this is the worst possible reason to switch processors."
I think Apples quotes when they went with iTunes show they wouldn't do that. They know that no DRM can work.
"Why spend money developing a Mac version of your app when users can simply run your Windows version under WINE?"
or
Why spend money developing a Windows version of your app when users can simply run your Mac version under WINE?
Meaning as a developer I gt to develop my product for what ever platform I enjoy developing it on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Intel chips can run in either big or little endian mode.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Just in case this is true, and Steve Jobs is reading this Slashdot post, while doing some soul searching prior to delivering the keynote:
DON'T DO IT! It's the craziest most fucking foolish thing most of us on this web site have ever heard of. I mean really, did some Intel marketing guy insert a brain parasite into your rectum or something? What the fuck are you thinking?!
On the other hand, if Steve Jobs *is* reading this post, and the rumor is not true. . . um. . . sorry Mister Jobs. Good work on the dual G5 Power Mac, by the way. It's the most ass-kickingly awesome desktop machine I've ever used.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm not sure how much switching over Photoshop will take, given that Adobe markets a Windows/x86 version already.
Maybe Adobe told Apple we're only going to make one 64-bit version of the application suite.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Podcasting will be built into iTunes.
Users can subscribe to video podcasts at iTMS
Gruber is gay.
Well, the one thing that does make sense in that strategy is that they would potentially be on a common hardware DRM platform with the Wintel market and that has huge advantages if the play is to get into broader media distribution. If it isn't that, then I really don't get why they would go that way. And if you wanted to change CPUs, why not AMD?
Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO--June 6, 2005--At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs' keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple's software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.
"Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years."
"We are thrilled to have the world's most innovative personal computer company as a customer," said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. "Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come."
"We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform."
"We think this is a really smart move on Apple's part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.
The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.
Intel (www.intel.com http://www.intel.com/> ), the world's largest chip maker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating system, and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital music revolution with its iPod portable music players and iTunes online music store.
You cant argue market share dictates windows since the ipod proves that wrong and Microsoft already has its bets on the xbox.
Look at both iPod and iTunes. It was several months before Apple released a version of iTunes for Windows yet in the first, I don't recall whether it was week or weekend, Apple sold more than a millions songs. This showed that with only a small percentage of the market Apple was still able to have a significant impact.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Apple is going to Intel chips officially.
Jobs: "We've been through many transistions. 680x0 to PowerPC, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Today we begin a third transition. It's true; We are switching to Intel."
10:25 am @ WWDC - Live coverage @ newwin.net
10:26am PDT - "Now, let's go to the big topic: Transitions."
10:27am PDT - 1994-1996 Moto 68K -> PowerPC. "I wasn't hear then, but from everything I hear the team did a great job." 2001-2003: OS9 - OS X.
10:28am PDT - "It's time for a third transition. And yes, (puts up slide that says): It's true." Next slide is one word: "Why?"
10:29am PDT - "I stood up two years ago and promised this (3.0G PowerMac), and we haven't been able to deliver." Steve says it's bigger than that, though. No roadmap for the future based on PowerPC - they can't see a future.
10:30am PDT - Intel offers not just increased performance, but reduced power consumption. Transition will be complete by WWDC '07.
- sigs are for wimps.
Rumours fly over Apple-Intel deal
Emphasis mine.
-- I like the cut of your thinking, young man. - me.
For American audiences substitute 'Ford' for 'Fiat'.
Indeed, Apple's user base may be unpissable. It's developers - or at least it's commerical developers - are less unpissable. Anyone with an investment in hardware for PPC is not going to have an easy transition. Though, I expect it will come out as a wash: Apple will lose some and gain others; maybe Adobe will come back to the fold ?
according to MacWorld's live update, this is the real mccoy.
It seems to be true:0 05_keynote.shtml
http://live.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/wwdc2
Just now in the keynote - "I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you. But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap." - Steve Jobs
I don't think it is running Mac legacy SW as most imply, it is convincing anyone to keep buying the dead PPC architecture. (Osborne effect)
I never owned a Mac but will seriously consider one if there is a way to run Windows PC Legacy SW at full speed or tri boot, windows/osx/Linux...
"In British English, singular words like family, team, government, which refer to groups of people, can be used with either singular or plural verbs and pronouns." (learnenglish.org.uk)
To get my amd64 running os x.
Probably need a new motherboard, new bios, new chipset.
But...I want I want I want I want I want!!!!
WINE ON MAC OS X ON X86 NIRVANA HERE I COME!!!
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
They will be using intel chiops and just showed osx running on a p4. How long until the next version of osx is cracked to run on any x86?
or else!
"Press releases from left-wing groups"...that's funny.
The press has been nothing more than a stenographer for the far right for years now. Consider whitewater, the starr report, the lies about the white house being trashed, the lies about wmd in Iraq, and so on. Try to imagine what the press would be saying if, for example, Bill Clinton had given phoney press credentials and a fake name to a gay prostitute so that said prostitute could derail press conferences with softball questions scripted by the white house. Then consider that this actually happened with Bush and the press has hardly said anything about it.
Sounds to me like you're just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his clones. Keep watching Rush, maybe he'll tell you how to think about Intel chips in Macs, too.
The rumors are true: Intel will be inside
Jobs talked about the major transitions in the Mac's life -- starting from the Mac's Motorola 68000-series processor to PowerPC. "The PowerPC set Apple up fro the next decade. It was a good move," he said.
"The second transition was even better -- the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X that we just did," he continued. "This was a brain transplant. And even though these operating systems (9 and x) vary only by one in name, they are very different, and this has set Apple up for the next 20 years."
As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward."
"I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you," said Jobs. "But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap," said Jobs.
Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained.
Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists
"Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors," said Jobs. "This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007."
Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar."
Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."
Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.
Apple needs developers' help to complete the transition
"We are very far along on this, but we're not done," said Jobs. "Which is why we're going to put it in your hands very soon, so you can help us finish it."
The future of Mac OS X development is moving to Xcode, said Jobs. Of Apple's top 100 developers, more than half -- 56 percent -- are already using Xcode, and 25 percent are in the process of switching to Xcode. "Less than 20 percent are not on board yet. Now is a good time to get on board," said Jobs.
Pooty tweet
Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar." Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Steve Jobs steps down. To be replaced by Carly Fiorina.
This is quite remarkable. http://live.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/wwdc20 05_keynote.shtml
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
Well, at least you won't have to buy a frigging $3000 box to have a top of the line Mac System.
Go buy an E-Machines with an AMD x2 Dual Core CPU,
Load up a box of Mac OS X x86
And have fun.
I imagine the desktop market will go the other way,
with Microsoft adopting the PowerPC - 9Core Cell CPU for Windows Longhorn - Apple has sealed it's fate.
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are now much more powerful than any Mac ever made.
How soon before one of you guys port Linux to the PS3?
Wow, it's true - from MacObserver.
[1:43 PM] We're getting a demonstaration of Mathematica at work. It's quite impressive, of course, and it's working on an Intel Mac. - posted by Dave
[1:42 PM] According to Mr. Gray, it took two hours to do this port. "We're talking about 20 lines of code out of millions from a dead cold start where he didn't even know why he was going." - posted by Dave
[1:41 PM] Mr. Gray is joking about getting "the most crazy calls from Apple," where Steve asked him on Wednesday night to come out to Apple and port Mathematica, one of the most complex apps on the planet to Intel by Monday. - posted by Dave
[1:39 PM] Asked a long time developer (Theo Grey of Wolfram Research, the makers of Mathematica) to come out to Apple and work on Intel. - posted by Dave
[1:38 PM] 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. - posted by Dave
[1:37 PM] In a chart, Coca apps had half the "tweak" time as Xcode, but Steve emphasized that it will be easy. - posted by Dave
[1:37 PM] "Cocoa apps: A few minor tweaks and a recompile, and it just works. Widgets, scripts, and JAva just work." Xcode will take a few more tweaks. - posted by Dave
[1:35 PM] Looking at the developer's apps now. Everyone is on the edge of their seat. - posted by Dave
[1:34 PM] Steve confirmed all this, BTW, by saying the rumors have been true about how Apple had an Intel project. - posted by Dave
[1:33 PM] Today's demonstration has been done entirely on an Intel Mac. Steve is showing us how everything works. - posted by Dave
[1:33 PM] Every project done at Apple has been mandated to work on PowerPC and Intel. - posted by Dave
Steve Jobs steps down. To be replaced by Carly Fiorina.
Xserve/Itanium?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journali d=28066841&brk=1
Programming for it is like any other chip- you use a compiler. Now, writing compiler back ends for it is very difficult because it's a VLIW design, meaning each 'instruction' is actually a bundle of multiple instructions, one for each exposed unit (I think there's 2 integer, 2 fp, and 1 branch per bundle). This also makes your other point very, very wrong- the compiler is responsible for extracting the instruction level parallelism from the code stream, not the CPU with such tricks such as out of order execution.
Wrong. look the problem with VLIW is scheduling the out of order instructions. It is not a solved problem and its highly environment specific. therefore since the compliers CANT solve it it is a matter of humans programming for it.
even the ppc has this same problem with its out of order scheduling. as a result a large fraction of PPC executions are NOPs.
The itanium is a clean sheet design and one supposes it has a lot more headroom than the x86. Someday when the VLIW problems are solved by compilers then that expoit will be available. We cant just keep making memory busses faster and wider. That's the main trick with the opteron.
other than paying off the research there's no intrinsic reason why an itanium costs more than an X86. indeed if it can do the same job with fewer transistors all the better.
>>Intel is CISC, PowerPC is RISC. It's a heck of a
No. Modern x86 are RISC chips that emulate the CISC instruction set.
>>lot easier (and faster) to emulate CISC on a RISC (building complex instructions by using a huge pile of really fast, really simple instructions and tons of registers) than it is to do the opposite.
Right. That's why Intel build x86 chips that way!
If Apple has the balls for it, this is a genius play. Apple is never going to be anything but a bit player in the hardware industry. They have what, 2%?
Now - imagine when you go online to order a Dell, if after choosing your processor speed and memory, you can choose "Windows XP Home" or "Macintosh OS".
There will never be a better time for Apple to make a play. Windows reputation is low, but will get better over time. The beast is weak. The time is now to move. Which company is bigger, Microsoft or Apple? Uh huh. Why? Because the margin and the money is in the software. Apple has market heat right now, iPod is going, OS X has decent street cred... now is the time.
Of course, I don't think it will happen, because Apple has too much preening hubris to admit defeat to the PC. But they could go from bit player to big player, still make cutting edge hardware styled to the nines like now, and inroad into the OS market and have an enormous opportunity to be more than a cute footnote.
As soon as they said "Leopard" I knew that's what it was all about.
Press releases from Greenpeace, Amnesty Internalional, the NAACP, and other left-wing groups
How does this press release sound, and who released it? "Iraq has weapons on mass destruction."
I'm still waiting to see those wmds, glad I didn't hold my breath.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The announcement by Apple
More than 1,900 comments already on some forums!
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
Apple Confirms Plans to Switch Its Macintosh Line to Microprocessors Built by Intel
By GREG SANDOVAL and MATTHEW FORDAHL s
The Associated PressThe Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO Jun 6, 2005 -- In a risky move that could further shrink its minuscule slice of the PC market, Apple Computer Inc. announced plans Monday to switch its Macintosh computers to the same Intel Corp. chips used in systems that run Microsoft Windows.
Apple, which for years suggested its users "Think Different," will join all other PC makers in using microprocessors built on the x86 architecture. The technology took root when IBM launched its first PC in 1981 and eventually turned Apple into a niche player. "Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Taking over the G5 line doesn't seem that farfetched. In today's NY times article on the subject, they reported that losing Apple isn't considered a major loss for IBM; and no one else out there is buying PowerPC chips.
Jun 6 2005 Cupertino Ca..-Today Apple Inc. announced its new marketing campaign to coincide with its announcement that it will be switching to the ubiquitous x-86 Intel platform. It will feature small vignettes with middle managers from 3 prominent global companies talking about their golf memorabilia and their collection of khaki pants from the Gap Store
The LAST thing Apple needs to do is to piss off it's user base.
Well it has:
Apple Takes On Intel
Arik Hesseldahl, 06.06.05, 1:18 PM ET
NEW YORK - Mark your calendars. Today is the day that Apple Computer killed the Mac as we've known it. Today, Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) confirmed reports that it will shift away from using chips from IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ) and Freescale Semiconductor (nyse: FSL - news - people ) With the confirmation of the change, Apple is embarking on a transition that could well hurt its computer sales between now and 2007, frustrate software developers and ultimately drive loyal customers away from the platform. The news came in a speech by Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs at a software developers' conference in San Francisco. Switching to Intel may not even save Apple money. "IBM has been losing money in its semiconductor business," says Shaw Wu, analyst at American Technology Research in San Francisco. "IBM has given Apple very good price points. I don't think Apple can get a better price from Intel than its getting from IBM. The prices at IBM have been competitive with Intel's prices, because they have had to be." Indeed, since Apple accounts for less than 3% of annual PC sales, it will have a hard time competing for Intel's attention from the likes of Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) and Hewlett-Packard (nyse: HPQ - news - people ). "Every time Apple tries to make a transition like this, many people simply decide it's not worth the effort to try and keep up," says Nathan Brookwood, analyst with Insight64, Saratoga, Calif. "The companies behind the PC platform have paid a lot of attention to stability and backward compatibility than Apple has." More immediately, by announcing a transition that is going to take place during 2006 and into 2007, Apple can't help but hurt its computer sales during the transition period. In its two most-recent quarters, Apple's computer sales have accounted for about 46% Since Mac users are habitual upgraders, many of its traditional customers will put off purchases until the new Intel-based systems are on the market. This wariness has happened during previous transitions on the Mac platform, when Apple was shifting away from its established Mac OS 9 platform toward the newer Mac OS X. During that period, customers shied away from buying new systems in part because many important software applications weren't available for OS X, in part because the new operating system software wasn't fully baked. "There is a risk of a buying freeze among established customers and new potential customers," Wu says. Then, there's the questions of the developers of the software that has made the Mac the computer-of-choice for so many devoted users--especially designers, videographers and everyone for whom style is as important as substance. Still, many are reserving judgment. "It can be a big deal," says Adam Fingerman, director of Mac software development at Roxio, a unit of Sonic Solutions (nasdaq: SNIC - news - people ), whose products include the Toast line of CD and DVD burning software. "I'd like to believe that Apple has thought all of this out and will make the transition as easy for developers as possible. Apple has already pushed developers through a series of transitions." Apple certainly has the cash to withstand the hit to its sales over the course of a year. It had about $3 billion in cash and cash equivalents, plus another $2.5 billion in short-term investments at the end of the quarter ended March 26. Plus, there's also the iPod business. But the iPod is turning out to be more of a seasonal cash cow. The music player accounted for nearly 35% of sales in the first quarter of 2005, which included the holiday season. While iPod sales were higher by volume in the second quarter, they accounted for a smaller percenta
Should there be a Law?
...bet more than $1.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
One note on parent post; SOI is a process technology--not a particular RISC or Power architecture. I'll agree that IBM has more patents and has better tech. But Intel has better production experience in FABs. X86 architecture will have a lot of junk that Mac OS X won't use--but everything else is pretty similar (except for being "registry starved" on the PC).
The main issue with moving to Intel is drivers and support for applications that don't use xCode. In a year + 1/2, I think Apple will have addressed that. I think the transition will be smoother than the one to OS X.
Short term, IBM's multicore should be much faster than Intel's. Intel's latest chip seems to be a slapped together to beat AMD's which is superior. Also, if games are any indication, all 3 console manufacturers moving to Power chips has to have some effect. I guess I would have to go with Job's prediction that Intel had a better roadmap--he has more details on this. I heard some discussion that the "trusted computing" or DRM security on-chip for Intel CPUs in the future was the reason--but I'd have to say it would only be a consideration. Apple could always add a custom ASIC to secure DRM to become a future video platform. The move to Intel is too massive a transition for just DRM. One good piece of news on this is that this means Apple will get WiMax--which is set to create yet another sea change in wireless data transfers and possibly be a means for Internet Services in the future.
My guess is that Apple might choose to go with a modified Intel chip--but I doubt it. Jobs has fallen into the pigeon hole too many times. So what Jobs said was the reason is most probably the reason--power per Watt. I'd have to say, that give and take all pros and cons of every chip--the current AMD multicore 64 bit chip is the top performer. I still lament that lackluster use of Altivec-- it showed such promise.
The big downside of this is, of course, vendors and developers who invested in the platform. Cross-platform vendors will be delighted to be X86-only--but some of the others may become disenchanted (short term). Big endian and little endian may be some issue, but I think Apple has abstracted from this well enough. Marklar is hardly a surprise--I would have thought Apple silly to not keep up a cross-platform development. Supposedly they are using the services of a company that boasts no speed penalty on emulation--but that sounds like a bit of fairy dust.
I really hope that Apple, even though only their computers will run OS X, doesn't make the mistake of making a box that couldn't also run Windows--that would be dumb.
One other issue will be, namely; when does this kill computer sales? I could see buying the next updated Mac in a month or two, but not a PowerPC Mac in July of 2006. What will Apple do to keep people buying? I would hope they'd offer a really good trade-in policy. Like; buy now, and you will be able to upgrade to the latest Intel/AMD machine later for 30% of retail price--kind of the cost of depreciation. If Apple did this (and the really, really should), they could restore consumer confidence so that sales don't tank.
Overall, I'm kind of mixed. Intel and AMD have benefits of mass scale and a lot of designs referenced for the platform. But the PowerPC was cheaper to build and lower power and is overall the most advanced chip (even though it could really use some improvements, most of those are due to GCC and other compilers not being as well optimized as the Intel line).
But once the transition is over, I think Apple can then take advantage of simply improving the OS without having to optimize all the hardware to keep up. Mac OS X just seems to be a better design model to update and improve than Windows--and just wait until you see what third-party developers do with Core Graphics and Core Video. The CEL chip should take advantage of these abstracted processes no matter which platform Apple uses. CEL is where the real power boost of the future is going -- at least where Video and 3D are
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I'm an American. I thought of putting Ford instead of Fiat when I realized nearly everyone would know about Fiat and I consider them worse than Ford. Fiat's need to be worked on more but Ford's seem to take pride in cutting whoever works on them. Lots of sharp edges to cut yourself on.
Adobe is the company I would like to get a few of their exec's in an office some day, one with only one exit and a rather large intimidating security guard by the door and explain the facts of life to them. As much of my money I have spent on their stuff and the support is crap. Best I get from them is a "I'm sorry." (after great effort to get their attention in the first place) Then - it is fixed in our next release, pay to upgrade when it comes out. I get better support out of Microsoft - and for those that don't know, that is saying a LOT.
I'd love to see them dump Mac and make Linux products. Especially for their video suite. After all, the Mac crowd has imovie and other stuff for that. I bet they would make a lot of money with a Linux port for many of their products. After all, there are more Linux machines out there than Apple now.
"I love it. It seems every time rumor mongers throw out a silly rumor about Apple, and then it doesn't happen, the excuse is that Steve Jobs threw a hissy fit."
I didn't say that, I said the anouncement could be delayed, not the product.
"Have you ever seen Jobs throw a hissy fit? Certainly nobody's managed to catch one on camera."
Yeah, go to an Apple store and try to buy a 'For Dummies' book.
"Apple could be talking to Intel about a wide variety of things.... but that never stops you guys from making this claim every 2 years or so that Apple is going to switch."
Nope, this was my first crack at it, and looks like I was right. Also, looks like you were dead wrong.
"Why would Apple want to pay MORE MONEY and have MORE HEAT ISSUES to deal with in its processors?"
Because the G5 is overpriced, underperforming, and totally unsuitable for a laptop. Getting your ass kicked in every performance metric is only bad until your anemic CPU won't even fit in a laptop anymore.
"If you really were at Computex, maybe you saw the AOpen Mac Mini "competitor" that was bigger, and costs $200 more than the Mac Mini when you include OS.... IF PCs are so cheap, why couldn't they compete on price with the mini?"
Yeah, I did, and it was really mediocre, enough so that I didn't write it up. The Intel one, 'Golden Gate' was much better, as was the Japanese companies one that I forget the name on. Both should be written up on the Inq in a day or three, I have to spend the next 30 hours on a plane.
-Charlie
SAN FRANSISCO, CA- Years of rumors culminated in an electric moment at this year's Apple Developer's Conference on Monday when Steve Jobs, the brooding turtleneck-clad CEO of Apple Computer, announced that the company would be switching from IBM's PowerPC to an Intel-based architecture over the next two years. Not only will the move save the company money and potentially expand its user base, it will also do a great deal to stop the teasing the company has endured for so long.
"You people don't know what it's like," said Jobs told the mainstream press. "Being different from everybody else, being the oddball, is no picnic." Jobs went on to describe in detail the petty acts of torture and revenge inflicted upon himself and his staff: Apple Stores defaced with binary graffiti, the wedgies in the bathroom at last year's CES convention, the hateful slam book hosted on a backwater page of Microsoft's website. No wonder the sensitive computer company decided to join the rest of the world.
"It's been a good run with PowerPC," said Jobs. "We tried so hard and got so far but in the end it doesn't really matter."
For years, he said the pressure to conform had been the greatest incentive to do just the opposite, but with age has come a certain level of wisdom for the computer executive who advises his company to "grow up and get practical."
The CEO's inspirational words have already had a direct impact on Apple's legions of loyal fans. Mark Patsy, a 20-year-old art student from Rhode Island removed his piercings and enrolled in accounting courses at his local community college after hearing Jobs' keynote address.
"Steve helped me realize that I'm not really Vlad, Prince of Melancholy," he said. "I want a nice house, a wife and kids just like anybody else. There's a tax consultant in me struggling to get out. Thanks to Steve, I'm able to live as I really am."
Far beyond embracing ubiquity, users have plenty of reasons to be excited about the change. After all these years of deriding Intel's architecture, they finally have the chance to argue over why CISC is better than RISC after all. Also, in the middle of all this change users will be able to enjoy the same performance level to which they've grown used accustomed. While the last chip change meant an enormous speed boost, the move to Intel represents an opportunity to buy a whole new computer that runs just as fast, or perhaps a little slower, than their current setup.
"Just imagine," mused one Apple fanatic after the press event, "a Mac with 'Intel Inside(TM)' booting into WindowsXP, running Office and sporting a bigass Apple logo on the side. I'm going to MSPaint like the wind."
Even more than the company's customer base, the biggest winner in all of this would have to be the developers, as evidenced by this transcript from Monday's announcement:
Apple fans still clinging to non-conformity need not despair over the ch
I'll bet you're one of those important 'mail room' employees.....
Please welcome your new Intel Overlords.
We battled and battled.
You made me your enemy.
Now, on your knees before me.
I pity you.
Pathetic mac zealot.
This is a glorious day.
I will treasure it always.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
The keynote was just about what I said it would be. Demo the box in real time... Fun!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."