Apple/Intel Speculation Running Rampant 623
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.
Its all just talk. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stock price? Re:Its all just talk. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Its all just talk. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its all just talk. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its all just talk. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its all just talk. (Score:5, Insightful)
Laptops are the fastest growing, most important segment to the company, and the iBook and PowerBook lines are both hurting for serious updates. The continued failure of these updates to appear suggests that their are serious issues preventing their appearance. If Apple's portable lines were projected to be stuck with the moribund G4 line for the foreseeable future, they'd react in the only way possible to ensure the continued relevance of their computers in their most important market; they'd switch to someone who could supply the mobile CPUs they need to survive, even if that meant some tough times in their immediate future.
"The IBM can't deliver a mobile G5" theory even explains the rumored roll out time line; the low-end minis and the portables will have fallen furthest behind the rest of the industry in another year or two if they're stuck with the G4, and be most desperately in need of an upgrade the soonest. The desktop G5s, thanks to the G5's excellent performance as a desktop CPU, will keep pace with the industry longer, and thus be in far less need of an upgrade than the heat- and power-constrained lines.
Very rampant... (Score:5, Informative)
At this point... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is The Inquirer, Enquirer is that trashy... (Score:5, Informative)
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
But only Dvorak has suggested Itanium (Score:4, Interesting)
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???
Itanium is Endian agnostic (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Very rampant... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Very rampant... (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno, those Elbonian's got me pretty bad recently. Had to get my tighty-whiteys surgically removed.
On the other hand, as a Mac zealot, I'd like to say that Apple will never shift to Intel. It would be business suicide. Unless, that is, Steve announces a shift to Intel today. In which case, it will be the most brilliant business decision made since he invented the MP3 player.
branding POV (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:branding POV (Score:5, Informative)
Today... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today... (Score:4, Funny)
a) update to this story
b) actual announcement
c)
d) trolls reposting comments from this story to the next
e) all of the above
As long as we're speculating in the dark... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 c
Re:Today... (Score:4, Funny)
- Predictions of future news
- Polls
- Medical warnings that get contradicted the next day/week/month
- Celebrity sex/activism
- New movies and music
- Protests
- Press releases from Greenpeace, Amnesty Internalional, the NAACP, and other left-wing groups
- Diet books
Re:Today... (Score:4, Funny)
Uh huh (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Could be a disaster.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Funny)
Can you make a point without phrasing it as a question?
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Funny)
Can you make a point without phrasing it as a question?
Can you?
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Funny)
Can you make a point without quoting The Simpsons?
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I hope this is the last architecture change they ever make. I really want to be using x86 20-50 years down the line.
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:2)
Basically, I'm dismissing that as marketroidish bullshit lies, until proven wrong.
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been told that Apple managed to put some very tough clauses into its contract with IBM over the chips. If IBM were unable to meet certain criteria, Apple would be able to take some of the intellectual property, basically allowing Apple to take the design and have somebody else make the processors.
I've noticed that the reports on C|Net don't say Apple will use Pentium chips. They say Apple will use Intel chips.
If you RTFD (D="Debunking") from the blurb, it's mentioned there that Apple pays a lot less for the chips it gets from IBM than it would pay for comparable Pentium chips.
It's also interesting (mentioned in the "debunking") that Apple has NOT been warning its developers about a pending change of endian-ness, as you might expect them to if a change to little-endian Pentium chips from big-endian PowerPC chips.
But... if it's true that Apple can take the chip design to Intel, then Intel could conceivably make PowerPC chips for Apple. That's about the only way I can see this rumor being true. It would still be tough, because I don't think it would be easy for Intel to get production of a new chip going at the required volume within a year, but I am not a silicon expert.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Insightful)
From Intel's point of view, they need to diversify. Itanium is finally going the way of the dodo. On the x86 side AMD has them beat, and as soon as the market realises that they're in trouble. Getting into
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:4, Informative)
Possible but problematic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Informative)
They could just have their dev tools use "fat binaries". These are binaries that support both architectures.
They could then (theoretically) have PPC chips in some computers in the product line, and x86 chips in others. IIRC MacOS supported fat binaries duiring the original transition in the early 1990s. NeXT (the progenitor of OS X) also supported them.
It could be a nightmare for developers when it comes to testing, though.
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Insightful)
On BeOS, it was a constant annoyance to find that xxx cool program was only available to BeOS PPC users or BeOS x86 users because the author of the package didn't write code that works on both big endian and little endian machines. BeOS may not have been hurt too badly from it because most of its users were geeks who were willing to try an altOS anyway
Re:Could be a disaster.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The bad part: this will also allow far easier binary compatibility with Win32 binaries. OS/2 made the mistake of emulating Windows too well: everyone ran Windows pr
a few questions... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:a few questions... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. No
2. That would be interesting, although it's likely to face similar problems to regular WINE. Perhaps they could join the WINE development effort though.
3. I'd say there'd still be room for it, as even if the processor changes there would still be differences in the architecture between Mac and PC.
Re:a few questions... (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, a PC must be intel, but an intel based computer need not conform to the PC specifications.
Re:a few questions... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Will Windows run on these machines?
I seriously doubt it. Regardless of these machines were to have Intel chips, they will not be PCs. Apples have always had some kind of bind between their hardware and OS via firmware that is unlike the standard PC architecture. If Windows were to run on a new Mac, it would be some kind of a hack, it would not be likely that it would run out of the box.
2. Will Apple offer some kind of Window compatibility using something like WINE?
Why would they? There has been Virtual PC and whatnot for years, I doubt that Apple would waste their time with windows. Yuck.
3. What will happen to Yellow Dog Linux?
Nothing. Well, maybe Yellow Dog proper will go away, but Linux will always be the whore OS to run on any given machine with a CPU. That will not change.
My guess is that if Apple were to go to Intel it would be with their low voltage Itanium offerings. Apple is a marketing machine, but I don't see how they could pull off being a nonPC compatible PC with the same specs as any generic white box (aside from the peripherals) out there. Granted they do have the best OS out there, but its clear the people don't care about that. Apple is also at a big disadvantage in that there is not nearly the amount of 3rd party software out there for their systems. Take a look at my
Again, this is a big if, I would guess that they would go with the low voltage Itanium chip. Once they are offered at the higher clock rates, they will be excellent for a very fast PC. It would also be cool in that the price of the Itaniums should drop.
In looking at the issues Apple have had with their G5s, heat, heat, and heat. And there does not appear to be any signs of this changing any time soon. Intel has been working hard the past couple of years by reducing heat from their chips with things like the Pentium M, and the low voltage Itaniums.
It seems like most people assume that they are just going to throw Pentiums inside of their boxes. I seriously doubt that. If so, I believe that this would be a big flop for them.
The best of this wave of debunkings, you mean (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Dvorak is bragging (Score:5, Informative)
I heard Dvorak on the episode 8 twitcast [www.twit.tv] 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 [dvorak.org] on his blog.
I'm still not sold, and the debunk arguments by Gruber seems reasonable.
Re:Dvorak is bragging (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dvorak is bragging (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, along with every two-bit prognosticator in the business since 1985.
Unless we start to calculate batting averages, this game is really too easy. You just spout a lot of things that are likely, a few things are possible, carefully leaving some wiggle room so you can argue that you were right, but your timing was off. Or maybe your idea was right, but it turned out that they decided to do what you predicted, but with somebody else.
Re:Dvorak is bragging (Score:5, Insightful)
> since 1985.
Absolutely. It's a pretty easy prediction to make. Back in 2002, I posted how Mac OS X could allow Apple to switch to x86 [slashdot.org] on Slashdot:
Clearly, I'm no expert. I think the AMD part I wrote is unlikely in the extreme, and I don't think Apple will be switching to become a software-only (item 5) business since their combination of hardware/software allows them to have a finely-tuned user experience. However, making such a prediction is pretty easy (particularly if you leave out the specifics), so Dvorak gloating about it is just silly.
That said, it's more likely Apple is announcing a WiMAX deal with Intel, or they're going to license PPC to Intel to make. Switching to x86 could be done, but it will be difficult to manage the transition (even with Mac OS X's advantages over Mac OS 9). Then again, Apple handled a processor change fairly successfully with the 68k to PPC, so maybe they can pull that off.
But it's probably best to not second guess Apple on this, and just wait until the announcement comes out. Apple sure knows how to get people to pay attention to its developers' conference!
Re:Dvorak is bragging (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe it.. (Score:3)
I dont' even want to think about it
What is all the fuss about? (El Reg) (Score:5, Informative)
Apple shifts to Intel: What is all the fuss about [theregister.co.uk]
Apple to announce Intel 'Switch' - WSJ [theregister.co.uk]
Switching the Mac would be bizarre. Other product? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Switching the Mac would be bizarre. Other produ (Score:2, Interesting)
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?).
Re:Switching the Mac would be bizarre. Other produ (Score:2)
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.
Re:Switching the Mac would be bizarre. Other produ (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Handhelds? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wired article on Intel and DRM... vs Darwin... (Score:2)
I have to say that this is the most depressing reason for a processor switch ever.
As an Apple employee (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:As an Apple employee (Score:4, Funny)
You just can't go wrong with EXTREME! superlatives.
Prediction #3,452 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Prediction #3,452 (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno.
Let's say they figure they can do a good enough for twenty or thrity million bucks. That will by a lot of high end enginering talent. And Apple is one of the few companies that could muster these kinds of resources and potentially exploit the results in a way that would allow them to recapture this investment.
The thing is, even if they had the project all laid out, it's unlikely they'd do it for half
Re:Prediction #3,452 (Score:3, Informative)
Piss off Microsoft, like IBM did, and Microsoft will invent lots of new ways to break your software. You just can't keep up with such a moving target, even if Microsoft isn't actively trying to destroy you.
AMD, and other speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:AMD, and other speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing to debunk, because there's no news to report. This is still (until Apple says something) not much more than wild speculation. It's a shame that it has become the primary hardware news story at Slashdot since the weekend, but so far, there's been nothing to back it up.
It's like saying, "Of course I don't believe in chain letters, but I've sent it off to 20 of my friends, and I'd like you to distribute it too; just in case."
fact vs fiction (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:fact vs fiction (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, don't assume that a move to Intel means a move to x86.
Re:fact vs fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
But...
Why would Intel go this route. They have higher margins than any high-volume silicon foundry in the world. There are very few other companies that come close to that revenue. This approach wouldn't add much of anything to their bottom line. I don't think Intel would go for that.
It has to be either (a) Apple spooking IBM (a la Dell and the annual AMD bluff), or (b) Intel increasing their x86 proliferation
If indeed (b), the
Killer app (Score:2, Interesting)
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 t
meh, cell processors are not good enough? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
End of the world? (Score:2, Funny)
Why not an Intel PowerPC chip? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Why not an Intel PowerPC chip? (Score:3, Interesting)
which I'm not at all sure it is, why does everyone think it's going to be a CPU? Why not a co-processor, chip set or even something as simply as a network controller? There are all kinds of things that could be added.
NeXT used a custom Signal Processor on their machines. Apple could be thinking of something along those lines.
WINE, DRM, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Just something interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Just something interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
That'll certainly be a handy feature when dealing with Apple users.
Turning tricks on IBM? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Aren't CNet and ZDnet the same company? (Score:3, Interesting)
Alex.
The beginning of the end for Power Processors (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If they're gunna do it..do it now (Score:3, Informative)
Apple of PC bandwagon (Score:3, Informative)
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's Marketing Woes? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Picture (Score:3, Funny)
http://forum.macosx.nl/album_pic.php?pic_id=7142 [macosx.nl]
Apple has invested too much... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.Confirmed (via engadget) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
From Maccentral.com (Score:5, Informative)
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.
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
All is true (Score:3, Informative)
[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
Re:The most important question: Where is AsSeenOnT (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great news for Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Meanwhile Microsoft and Sony are using IBM PPC. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ok, here's my bit of rampant speculation... (Score:5, Informative)
Really? I guess my mind must be playing tricks on me; I was sure I had a copy of Microsoft Virtual PC 7.0 [microsoft.com] on my Mac...
Re:Ok, here's my bit of rampant speculation... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AMD is getting hammered (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoth the article:
AMD's processor business had another excellent quarter, posting record revenue and profit figures. Overall company revenue was $1.23 billion, slightly higher than the estimates of analysts polled by Thomson First Call. The processor business accounted for $750 million of that revenue in the company's first quarter, which ended on March 27.
So they're going to leave the field to intel when they have a 16.9% market share and have just posted record revenue and profit figures? I think not
press release from 8-K form (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:It's true MARKLAR EXISTS (Score:3, Informative)
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 equip