This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple to Use Intel Chips?
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
Does this mean - (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, the Myriad code was pretty horribly written, and optimized to only compile well under Microsoft's Visual Studio environment. I was stuck on a horrid project porting the code to HPUX and Solaris using MainWin (which basically was a Win32 implementation on top of X11 / POSIX, a porting library for lazy companies that didn't want to invest time and effort in writing truly portable code or rewriting their UI code). Granted, HP's C++ compiler sucked -- it was AT&T Cfront based, and had to be told how to instantiate templates because it had dain-bramaged template support -- but even when we got this stuff working, it wasn't very performant.
Which brings me to another thought -- if Apple switches to x86 or Itanium, we might be in for similar performance surprises. Some code will obviously benefit from a native recompile, but other code might be more performant with a caching code translation mechanism.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to have a different CPU, clearly you're going to have different binaries. However, I'm not sure you need to be so flippant about it. Do you know about NeXTStep for Intel ? Do you know how hard it was for most companies to recompile their binaries for it? They opened up their projects, pressed "Build" in Project Builder, and it was done. That's how hard it was. The biggest problem was for folks who wrote binary data files ( the endian issue ), but that's pretty easily worked around or avoided, really. The hurdles Apple and it's third party developers would face to provide binaries for *any* gcc-supported CPU are not as huge as many folks seem to think
Yea, if you had a huge investment in current OS X software, you'd have to buy new copies ( more likely upgrades ) if you bought a different machine. That typically wouldn't be the case, though. I'm going to be using my current Macs for years. Most new Macintosh purchases ( like most new WindowsXP purchases ) require buying some new software.
However, just because it could be done doesn't mean it will be done. I just don't think they're going to start making Intel-based Macs any time soon- I can't think of a good reason. If they're in talks, it's likely to be about one of the many other types of non-CPU chips Intel makes.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fat Binaries my not solve everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Data storage is an issue but not one that is that complicated. In fact, it's not that painful to do endian swaps on x86-64 processors, for example, because there's a dedicated instruction in the ISA to do it. If the binary data files have an identifier in them (version number, etc.) then th
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware. If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware. If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.
Whatever. When Ferarri bulds a car with an automatic transmission, it's just an overpriced Taurus with a pretty body kit, right?
After all, what kind of crazy computer USER would buy a computer based on the USER interface? Everybody knows your decision should be based on whether the system is little-endian or big-endian!
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're wrong about this, simply because buying a Mac these days is a deliberate decision. People who just want "a computer" go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Office Depot and get a box with Microsoft(r)(tm)(c) Windows(r)(tm)(c) and Intel(r)(tm)(c) Inside(r)(tm)(c), because "that
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a computer professional. A router programming, server building, cable splicing, code hacking computer professional if you care at all. In college I used to build embedded systems and I've have more than my fair share or processor architecture courses.
When I go home, I just want to turn the damn machine on and have it do what I need it to do. And that machine is an iBook. I know it has a G4 processor running a 1Ghz, the memory bus, and most of the I/O architecture. My next desktop is going to be a Mac, because my wife, a professional computer teacher who specializes in Windows, feels the same way.
PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true. Apple has two edges. (1) Complete control of hardware and operating system. (2) Mac OS X. Neither of these are PowerPC dependent.
If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.
Also not true. An x86 Mac would not be yet another PC clone. Apple could keep much of its current proprietary design and ignore IBM PC compatibility. A computer's architecture is much more than it's CPU.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Insightful)
It was called "one-way" because if the PPC wished too hard, for too long, it would stay a 68020 forever! So Apple started writing software that would emulate the 68020 temporarily when the PPC was at risk.
When the Mac OS was all PPC native code (8.1? 8.5?), the one-way compatibility was turned off and all the PPC ch
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.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:4, Insightful)
You got it backwards. There are many closed architectures with one company dictating hardware and software. It is in fact the x86 that is unique in that multiple companies provide each part of the computer in an open architecture. And though this solution has it's problems, I think it has shown itself to be vastly superior to a closed system like the Mac.
Also keep in mind that if Apple where the dominating computer provider, they could probably had squished open source efforts like Linux in the cradle by closing specs and making new hardware incompatbile. The X86 may not be pretty, but I'd prefer it over a closed architecture any day.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Informative)
Err... The x86 chip architecture is NOT open. If you want to produce a clone of the chip, you have to license the technology from Intel. For example, AMD has a license [com.com] which allows it to produce microprocessors that are compatible with the Intel x86 CPUs.
PPC chips are at least as "open" as Intel's:
Apple, IBM, and Motorola collabo
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.)
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Informative)
500 bucks (Score:3, Insightful)
You WILL like it, and find a use for it, even if it doesn't become your primary machine.
Disclaimer: I use a Windows laptop for work and have a beloved G5 at home.
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, they could perhaps use some non-x86 intel stuff for portables devices where the PPC sucks up too much power. Remember that Intel is more than only x86
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Insightful)
No, perhaps not. However, in terms of marketing, Intel is way ahead of all other processors. The masses have been told to buy computer with "Intel Inside", they remember the crazy men in blue, and the guys in the bunny suits. Of course, they don't really know what "Intel Inside" means, but it's easy to remember and ask for. Consumers feel empowered by saying they want a computer with "500 megapixels memory, 60 googl
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean - (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It's not about CPUs (Score:4, Interesting)
Intel = Flash Memory God
iShuffle = Flash Memory MP3 Player
Re:Does this mean - (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel fabbed PPC chips? (Score:4, Insightful)
And if Intel were going to produce a CPU for Apple, why is the assumption x86? Mac OS X Server on Itanium, anyone?
Mostly likely, though, is that Intel's wireless chips are on the menu. WiMax is around the corner and we all know how Apple oh-so-loves to be on the bleeding edge of technology...
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.
Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Dvorak (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.
Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dvorak (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonsense. The Mac came with software that showed what a mouse can do--MacWrite, MacPaint. Microsoft Excel was available almost immediately. There is very little that a mouse does on modern computers that was not demonstrated in the software included in the very first Macintosh. The Macintosh took a while t
Dvorak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only one thing left to do! (Score:3, Funny)
Why do you want to tape a duck? Is that some sick animal bondage fetish you have? Some sort of Beatty-esque perversion, but with less hamsters?
Or... did you mean *duct* tape?
No... the animal bondage thing seems a simpler and more believable explanation.
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
They could quite reasonably switch architectures. Or even support and produce both. This was a new reality starting with OS X, and it's strange, but it's true. Pretty much every single bit of the Apple hardware stack could run on a different gcc-supported CPU with a simple recompile. Darwin X86 is totally doable. Device drivers would be the biggest problem, but... just switching out CPUs with a slightly different motherboard and keeping everything else the same should make writing device drivers unnecessary. What wouldn't work would be very old OS 9 applications, but the vast majority of stuff would "just work" with a recompile. The structure already exists to distribute multiple-target binaries in OS X. It's been done before, with NeXTStep, it could certainly be done again.
If they were to do this they would need a damn good reason, and thats whats missing, whats the *REASON*?
Very insightful, that bit. It almost makes up of for the rest of your post... what, indeed, would be the reason ? Unless there's some sort of cost savings, or we're talking about a non-PC device, I don't see it. But it certainly could happen.
Apple hardware is expensive for two reasons, one being volume, and the other being the fact that Apple actually does R&D. But R&D is not the major factor. If they could increase volume... I'm going to guess that's going to be a difference of more like $200 between Linux on Intel and Apple on Intel, and to the average user, it'll be money well spent.
I am among those who are 100% certain that somewhere, in the bowls of 1 Infinity Loop, behind several layers of locked doors, is a PC lab with Darwin, Cocoa, and major portions of the OS X software stack running on Intel ( or AMD ) hardware. It may never see the light of day, but the simple fact that you *can* compile Darwin for X86 tells me it's there...
O really? (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)
Re:Original source? (Score:3, Informative)
Requires a WSJ subscription, that's why.
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
Re:Apple Denies (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Why cheaper!? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a design issue, not a manufacturing issue.
And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?
It's commonly known that Apple keeps a version of OS/X for Intel current and ready to go if they should ever have to switch because of supply problems (which has always been a
Re:Why cheaper!? (Score:4, Insightful)
That alone seems like a good enough reason for this not to happen short of major disaster for the PowerPC platform. And with the dual cores well on the way, according to most sources, I don't see this as a major problem.
D
Probably False (Score:3, Funny)
New headline:
Erroneous Wallstreet Journal Article causes Mac Fans through out the world to riot. Killing 15
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.Re:Summary of issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is there always the presumption that a system with an x86 CPU will be PC compatible? Someone postulates that Apple may be considering using Intel CPUs, and everyone makes the giant leap of (il)logic that Apple is considering adopting the PC platform as a whole. It is entirely possible to use the same CPU in a totally incompatible system. Look at the Original 68000 based Macs. Were they compatible with the 68000 based Amiga? It is only logical to assume that were Apple to dump IBM and adopt (say) the Pentium-M as their new CPU it would be installed on a proprietary Apple motherboard, not a $40 Abit or Tyan from Taiwan.
Weird timing (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap (Score:3, Informative)
Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple)
Sigh - how soon they forget. Intel's ARM technology was acquired from DEC, not Apple. It was DEC's StrongARM that was "bought" by Intel as part of the settlement of the patent infringement lawsuit brought by DEC. Not just the rights to the processor and the architecture license, but the Hudson, MA chip fab that made the processors.
As far as I know, Apple has had no involvement in ARM.
Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple WAS a MAJOR developmental partner in ARM for the Newton - the processor line was GREATLY enhanced during the Newton run.
So was Sharp - probably shoulda googled before that statement!
Dvorak (Score:3, Insightful)
PCMag's John C. Dvorak predicted this...
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
In all seriousness, though....that article is a good chuckle. He was calling for Apple to switch to Itanium for Christ's sake, and then license OS X for non-Apple hardware with a Windows compatibility layer. Bwahahaha! Come now, John, how do you dream this shit up?
Equally hairbrained is his theory of a dual-processor PowerPC/Itanium machine; he seems to have the idea that they could just duck-tape two motherboards together and have it pick and choose which processor to run what executable on...clearly, he's using drugs.
If Apple does this (which I am extremely skeptical of at this point) I expect it will be at the very lowest end....completely backwards from what Dvorak predicted. The reason is simple: IBM's Power architecture is plenty fast, and they aren't going to get a performance improvement by switching to Intel. The only benefit available from such a switch is cost.
Move Along. Nothing to see here. (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a saying about hell freezing over and _something_ to do with Steve Jobs using Intel CPU's.... hmmmm.
I think these people misinterpreted the evidence for CPU's. Apple uses Intel chips in their computers NOW... just not CPU's. And for good reason:
1) Intel chips are NOT cheaper. Any difference is negligable.
2) They don't run faster (AMD keeps pace, but not Intel.)
3) They'd have to recompile every app made for one architecture to run on another.
4) They run hotter.
5) Steve doesn't like Intel CPU's.
6) Steve doesn't want to piss off Microsoft by being THAT agressive in their turf.
John Dvorak predicted it? (Score:5, Funny)
Not for Macs.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Airport Base Stations use (or at least they used to use) a 486.
iPod probably has (or will have) some sort of ARM chip in it.
The XNU Kernel has the ability to assign certain types of tasks to certain types of CPU. There is no reason why a Mac could not use both a PPC and an x86 in the same box.
Intel make kick-arse network chips.
Who said anything about these going into a Mac? (New product?)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moving toward standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially they're shifting part of the cost burden to IBM, while keeping their share of the profits intact, in an attempt to boost their sales.
Also, it could be an attempt to make sure that IBM, with its focus on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution, does not forget about Apple.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Funny)
ba-ZING!
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.
Re:Mod parent wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that what everybody wants from Apple?
An unwieldy leviathan with an hour battery life?
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.
Re:AMD? (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, if Apple wants to go x86 (which I
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.
Re:rumor? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cell (Score:3, Informative)
With proper coding, performance for something like Photoshop might be fabulous, but I doubt it would be efficient for general-purpose computing.
Straw man, meet the overrated rumor troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile none of your points address the obvious problems pointed out elsewhere: that Apple has denied the rumor (for the umptieth time), that Apple's a hardware shop that might not compete with Dells that could run the same OS, and so on. Breathless arguments on the level of "probab
Re:unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't. But it is considerably much more "on par" than the G4 ever was, and they weren't changing then, why would they now? It is almost impossible to emulate PPC on x86. I don't know if x86-64 is any better, it should be because of the added registers but it'd probably still run slow.
I'm sure apple has a drop-in ready box for running x86/Mac, but it'll essentially be the same box as today except for the CPU socket, at the same price (no, the CPU is a damn little part of the total box). How would that bring any new customers at all? Not to mention x86 OS X is so much easier to pirate than PPC OS X. Chances are if you are running OS X, you probably paid for it at least once every HW upgrade.
Kjella
Re:unbelievable (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.
Re:unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple ships G4 chips with low-end hardware (where price > performance) and laptops (where low heat & battery > performance). The PowerMac line has the desktop performance demons that are strong competitors to the latest Wintel offerings.
If PowerPC was truely competitive, Apple would have stopped shipping G4 chips a long time ago.
If Intel/x86 was truely competitive, they would have stopped shipping Celeron an
Re:Why doesn't apple use the Playstation3 chips? (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't any faster when it comes to general purpose functions.
Plus By the time it goes into mass production next year the standard CPUs will be much faster.