Slashdot Log In
Apple to Use Intel Chips?
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon May 23, 2005 08:25 AM
from the circle-round-round-and-again dept.
from the circle-round-round-and-again dept.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Dvorak (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.
Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Dvorak (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
O really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aw, jeez... (Score:4, Funny)
Why move now? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is quite worthless (Score:5, Interesting)
Original source? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple Denies (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2005/05/23/apple _denies_intel_rumour [techsmec.com]
e ing-intel-chips.html [pcpro.co.uk]
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/apple-denies-ey
http://www.dvhardware.net/article5037.html [dvhardware.net]
Of course, one could argue that Apple wouldn't want this news to be leaked
The Register says not. (Score:4, Interesting)
The conclusions are: Apple already use a lot of non PowerPC chips (iPod, AirPort base stations), so these talks may well have nothing to do with Mac's. Also, it could be a scare tactic to make IBM a bit more eager as a chip supplier.
I hate to like this idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why cheaper!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.
And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?
Unless Apple thinks that neither IBM or Motorola are ever going to catch up, I just can't see them justifying the huge cost of a major architecture change like this.
- Peter
What really happened ... (Score:5, Funny)
Predicting the future ain't what it used to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Summary of issues (Score:5, Interesting)
- It's just Apple trying to get better terms/service from IBM (think Dell's "talks" with AMD)
- It will be the death of Apple's hardware division
- Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs
- Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term) will mean a revenue-less expansion of the install base
That said, Apple's done some strange moves in the past. If PC users can just buy OS X86 for $99, they might give Mac a try. It wouldn't take that high conversion rate for OS software profits to easily replace hardware profits. I'd bet that Apple makes nearly as much profit on a sale of Tiger as it does on the sale of it slower-end machines.Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that this will be for a new ARM processor for the iPod - the custom chip is probably too weak for advanced features.
Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -
Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple) - this is the processor in the majority of PocketPCs, Palms, and GPS units. So - this Intel processor is most likely for a new device or even the iPod.
Also take into account that USB2.0 chipsets are currently made by Intel (and others) and that Apple uses Intel chips in the XServe line for RAID I/O.
Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap (Score:5, Informative)
100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -
You couldn't be more wrong. 100% of the next-gen console gaming world will be in the next year and a half, however, everyone who plays handhelds (nintendo ds, gameboy advance, sony psp etc) and all us PC gamers (of which there are considerable numbers) will still be using other chips besides PowerPC/CELL
Parent
John Dvorak predicted it? (Score:5, Funny)
Intel are more than just processors (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't imagine why Apple would want to move towards x86 hardware, but there are many reasons why I can see Apple and Intel having a lot to talk about.
Oh, for Pete's sake.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple buys a bunch of parts from many companies, including Intel. If Apple execs are meeting with intel execs, its' just as likely to be about ethernet controllers or wi-fi transceivers.
-jcr
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Informative)
Cheaper because of Intel? I doubt it. Even if Apple does start using x86 - or more likely x86-64 - they would still likely use their own controller chips (Note that Apple uses a single, integrated controller rather than a north/southbridge approach) and custom boards.
It's not impossible that Apple will switch to Intel processors. We already know they keep a copy of the OS up to date on Intel hardware, and even released Darwin x86. The problems come from all the things they would leave behind:
Compatibility - The PowerPC architecture emulates x86 better than the other way 'round. To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC. This would cause old software to run like death.
VMX - Much of Apple's current power comes from the AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine available on the G4 & G5 processors. It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro. Unless Intel tacks on a VMX unit, I don't see Apple switching.
Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
- Quark Xpress might take ages (again, remember how long OS X version took).
- Microsoft might actually not want to release office at all.
(actually maybe they could convert things on the fly and then cache the results, sort of a better emulation process... there is some mention of something along those lines on macrumors.com. It'll be a bit like running Java bytecode. They could then profile the things on the fly and optimize the most used parts of the program... JVM do all sorts of clever trickery nowdays.)
Anyway this is all purely hypothetical. Apple's not moving to x86 CPUs. As other people said, it's probably some random chip they might want from Intel.
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Very few people build their own computers. Most buy a box from their local computer store, or order it online from a company like Dell.
Also, no one would run OSX on a standard PC. Just like no one runs BeOS, or ran OS/2. An x86 Apple would probably be a proprietary Apple with an x86 in, and no one would care. Just like no one cares that there is a PowerPC in them today.
Parent
Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac would die the day the CPU would be the same as in a generic PC. Not from a architectural standpoint, I think they could make it happen, but marketingwise.
Parent
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someone who doesn't want his Tech support calls forwarded to Bangalore? (Not that I don't have my complaints about Apple support, but at least I could figure out what everyone was telling me, leaving out the ambiguity of figuring out whether they really sucked or whether I just thought they sucked because I couldn't figure out what the hell they were saying.)
Parent
Re:Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have to buy OS X and all the software you'd run under OS X.
C'mon, dude. The Mac mini is only $500. Apple has put out a product that seems to address your complaints about "a whole bunch of expensive hardware" as a barrier to checking OS X out, and yet you still complain about the barrier that's no longer there.
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Insightful)
The second that Apple moves into the market with OS X for x86, MSFT is going to pull Office and render OS X basically useless compared to Windows. Yeah, there are open alternatives that sorta work but in the real world people want to use what they are comfortable with. Unfortunately that's Office.
MSFT knows that if they pulled Office for OS X that Apple could easily release OS X for x86 and enter a new competitor into the OS market.
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
PCs and Apple's have an "architecture" defining how the chips are strung together, how expansion is expected to work, how the interrupt controller works (and yes, which interrupt certain hardwired devices are on), etc. Unlike Apples, for the PC it's not one but many standards defining their function, not one of which defines how the processor should work. Worse still, it's essentially defined as "Be backwards compatible with an PC AT from 20 years ago". No single company really owns it, although many would like to. Even the evil empire has relegated itself to "putting up with cooperation" in this regard.
I find it more likely that Apple will define their own computer architecture using Intel chips. Maybe they will do their own north bridge, in fact much of the traditional PC architecture is emulated in this device, and changing it with something else would make an incompatible system. Let's not forget that much of PC legacy crap is software as well as hardware. If Apple throws all that out the window, they may as well have defined a new Intel based system. You aren't going to install windows on it, nor will you get a regular x86 build of linux to come close to working.
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
In that respect, it may be easier for Apple to switch to an entirely new CPU architecture than you might think. The additional support wouldn't be dramatic, it could continue to have a lot in common with the rest of their systems (which heavily use USB and IDE, PCI and AGP, etc), making the CPU and a few other minor details the major changes. It certainly wouldn't need a dedicated department of any serious size to support this version of OS X, it'd just be an additional platform to test the recompiled version upon.
This is, of course, assuming we're talking about Intel chips being used in Macs (with an OS X compiled to run on it) and not a generic version of OS X being developed that'll run on IBM PC clones, which is an entirely different issue.
Parent
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping my feet on the ground here: No.
We will see Windows on PowerPC long before we ever see the full OS X on x86. There's absolutely no advantage to changing platforms at this point.
Sure, the Intel/AMD world looked very attractive when Apple was relying on Motorola and lagging way behind in CPU speeds, but current PowerPC technologies from IBM are outstanding. The G5 is a terrific chip. Multi-core PowerPC chips offer a great deal of promise in the very near future.
If Apple does move away from the G5 archetecture, it will be to go to Cell chips, not Intel-64.
Parent
Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Punditry (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Telling people what they already know or are being told by other credible sources.
(2) Being considered a credible source.
(3) Thinking of arguments that sound good suporting what everyone thinks is going to happen.
If there is a bit of recursion going on here, it's simply because the basis of credibility is so flimsy. It also means that credibility is self-reinforcing, which means the hardest thing about being credible is getting on the credibilty gravy train. Which is good, because there are limited spots avaiable.
Mr. Dvorak used a time honored method for obtaining credibility of getting in early, on the ground floor.
From a technical perspective he's a bit late on the Mac/x86 speculation though, which has been rife for nearly twenty years now. However, this is actually a highly sophisticated bit of punditry timing. Apple had been off the punditry radar screen for nearly a decade at the time. You simly cannot excercise punditry on something nobody else is thinking about -- novel ideas have no basis for sounding credibile (see above).
However, by 2004, it was apparent that Apple was no longer irrelevant, that it had not only stopped the bleeding but had built a successful business, established valuable and powerful brand identity, and had reasserted its influence as a design leader, not only in the computer field, but beyond. So people started thinking about Apple again. And, in the same way that old English roads still bear the ruts of Roman chariots, their thoughts naturally fell into the grassy ruts of the MaxOS x86 idea.
Mr. Dvorak's 2004 prediction bears the hallmarks of expert punditry. First the conclusion is public property so well broken-in that nobody is apt to mind if it takes a bit of additional abuse. Secondly , of course, is the exquisite timing that only an ear planted firmly on the ground of public opinion can execute, falling on the heels of Apple's successful iMac by a mere six years. This is probably, ifyou will permit me a bit of nelogizing, the minimal period needed for effective punditric credibilogenesis. Any shorter and you're talking about something that nobody is thinking about yet -- disaster. Any longer and all the good theories for what everyone expects to happen will have been taken, and the whole idea will have to be put back on the shelf for five or more years.
Parent
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Funny)
ba-ZING!
Parent
Mod parent wrong (Score:5, Funny)
This is false! Kids, listen: If you want to get laid, buy a Powerbook, get some black-rimmed glasses and a dog-eared copy of a Thomas Pynchon novel, and go find a good coffeehouse near a university. Grab a table near a napkin dispenser. Do not open the Powerbook but place it conspicuously on the table in front of you. Pretend to read the novel. Make eye contact with the grad student across the way and smile.
If things go well, she will decide that she needs some napkins, and while gathering them together will accidentally drop some on the floor. Help her pick up the excess paper and make a stupid little joke, something like "Oops, there go some trees." She will then say something like "I love Pynchon" at which point you reply "Have you seen Zak Smith's illustrations [themodernword.com] for Gravity's Rainbow?" You will then open the Powerbook and visit the site via a bookmark in a folder named 'Diversions'. It is important that she not see the folder marked 'Linux stuuf' or 'pron'. Spend the next thirty minutes saying things like "I really do think media is ultimately the message" etc. If you successfully complete this sequence of steps, sex is all but guaranteed.
Parent
Re:Mod parent wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that those are large fans that aren't spinning at full speed.
They keep the computer as cool as it needs to be while being much quieter than the 2-3 fan PCs with fans spinning their lil' hearts (motors?) out.
Parent
Re:rumor? (Score:5, Interesting)
And maybe they won't be used at all. The WSJ says they are in talks that "could" lead to using Intel chips. It's known that at least one version of Apple's OS was up and running on an x86 chip, in the same way that Microsoft had Windows up and running on a PPC architecture. It's also known that Apple talks a lot.
I'd say the chance of a complete platform shift is slight, as backwards compatibility from x86 to PPC would be a nightmare. But Intel supplying PPC chips to Apple, after the years of languishing Apple went through before IBM could deliver a G5? That's a lot more likely.
Parent
Re:unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed at how many people still think that any performance gap (real or perceived) actually matters. The majority of your PC's performance now comes from the size of the bus, the transfer rate of your disks, and how much memory you have. No one really *needs* a 5GHz processor to run a wordprocessor, email client, MP3 player, or even something more intensive like a graphics editor, video editor, or sound studio. Even games now rely far more heavily on the GPU than they do the CPU.
Parent