Apple Switching To Intel Chips In 2006 1427
telstar writes "According to C|Net, Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems. This change was rumored last month. The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech." From the article: "Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines."
April Fools? Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose C|Net could be right, there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel, but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever.
not just processors... (Score:2, Interesting)
The sky is falling! (Score:3, Interesting)
MacOSX on x86? (Score:4, Interesting)
68k emulation easy, but what about PPC emulation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange Days... (Score:2, Interesting)
I can hardly wait until tomorrow to see what other strange things are afoot.
New device (Score:5, Interesting)
Even that seems like a bit of a stretch to me as I suspect the reality is more like Apple will be using Intel chips in a potential variety of new areas. Chips for networking and WIMAX for example. Or.....given the performance of Intel mobile chips relative to Motorola chips, perhaps as a warning shot across the bow of IBM, Apple will announce that Apple portable systems like Powerbooks will move to Intel chips. Even though I am quite the Apple aficionado, I have to admit that Intel is doing some pretty impressive portable CPUs. Near future plans for Intel portables include built in WiFi and dual cores. However, I realize that this would introduce more than a little difficulty for developers who have a "portable OS" and a "desktop OS" which would suck.
So....perhaps what is really going to happen is that Intel will produce a "portable" PPC chip for something new? Something like a new Newton? If I recall correctly, my Newton 130 ran an ARM chip, and I believe that Intel has the license rights to develop ARM based CPU cores..... Oh please oh please oh please.....
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple vs IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Overlooked points... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Apple will never let MacOS run on an open platform/commodity hardware again.
3) AMD has virtually no non-x86 CPU tech.
I predict that Intel will either manufacture a Cell derivative or a big-endian, possibly non-x86 propreitary CPU and chipset.
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the DRM was the clincher for Apple.
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
eWeek says the Intel rumor is wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823282,00.a
Analysts: Dual-Core PowerPC G5s Due for Apple
Building a G5 PowerBook could be an aesthetic challenge for Apple. The G5 chip tends to consume more power and produce more heat than the G4. Hotter, more power-hungry chips tend to require a thicker, more spacious chassis and larger, higher-capacity batteries--all of which might lead to a more portly PowerBook.
But, analysts say, versions of the 970FX technically already fit into the power envelope needed for Apple to offer a mid- to full-size laptop in the 5-7 pound range. At the moment, two of its three PowerBook G4 portables weigh in at over 5 pounds.
Aiding portability, IBM has also added a power-management feature to the PowerPC 970FX. Called PowerTune, it can cut the chip's clock speed, therefore lowering its voltage, in order to save on power.
Therefore, a 1.8GHz PowerPC 970FX would be a good choice--it would top the current G4 processor--but power management might still be an issue in some other ways.
The 1.8GHz chip "might be 35 watts or something like that. There are plenty of 35-watt [notebook] processors out there. The big problem is you want to get average power [consumption] to be a lot lower. That relies to a large degree on software management," Glaskowsky said. "If I had to pick a reason why it hasn't shown up yet
Still, not everyone believes that the Power PC 970FX makes a great notebook chip.
"Right now, from IBM's perspective, the [PowerPC] 970 is a pretty competitive part, but they definitely lack a low-power version," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of the Microprocessor Report, in San Jose, Calif. "The question is, can you get it low enough--25 watts to 35 watts--in order to get it into something sleek enough for Apple?"
To arrive at the right mix of frequency and performance, Krewell suggests that IBM and Apple might need to consider creating a new G4-G5 hybrid instead of delivering a low-power 970.
"The best route would be to develop a new [processor] core that's somewhere between the G5 and the G4," Krewell said, "But that's a significant design undertaking
Apple could also adopt a multicore G4 derivative from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., once the chip arm of Motorola Inc., for its portables, Krewell said.
"That's still a 2006 thing
Representatives from Apple and IBM declined to comment for this story. A Freescale spokesman did not return a call.
Editor's Note: This story was updated to reflect the fact that an Apple representative returned a phone call to eWEEK.com but declined to comment.
Re:AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:AMD (Score:4, Interesting)
This is of course only my opinion but here's how I'm thinking.
1) AMD has the performance edge for x86
2) I _think_ they are more 64 bit centric than the Intel afterthought 64 bit processors (but don't quote me on this).
3) AMD has 64 bit laptop chips (I think).
4) AMD are more energy efficient, at least on the desktop.
5) AMD is not Intel and therefor has less "Wintel" over itself. AMD is "different". Apple likes being different.
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they outright say that Mac OS would be on x86, or just on an Intel chip? If it's on a non-x86 Intel chip, I'm thinking one of two things:
a. Intel's going to be making PPCs. Isn't PPC an open spec?
b. Apple's switching to ARM. However, could Intel get XScale to, umm, scale?
Transitive Technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
If the claims about Quick Transit are true, and there is no reason to believe that they are false as evidenced by the product's success runix MIPS code on Itaniums (see here [intldeveloper.com]), then we should actually see a performance increase for PPC applications (not recompiled) running on OS X x86.
If you were Steve and your apps (as well as everyone elses) ran unmodified on intel hardware faster than it ran on your own, you would probably build some boxes based on intel as well.
There may actually be no need for developers to recompile anything. With Quick Transit built into the OS (let's assume it becomes part of OS X), it would be possible to target x86, PPC or even other architectures and yet run at essentially full speed on any deployment architecture. I know this sounds a bit wicked. It did to me as well. I am sure there will be a bit of a performance and memory hit when your applications are not native, but those hits may be completely overwhelmed by silicon horsepower.
If done properly, this could be a very good move for Apple.
Thoughts on OS X on x86-64 (Score:3, Interesting)
== On having two architectures to support (x86 and PPC) ==
So a developer has to compile for two targets, optimise for two targets and ship fat binaries? What will that do to development costs, and ease of development for the platform? What if a developer like Adobe decides to only support PPC development, and tells the x86 customers that they support Windows on x86 and that's it?
And then there are Apple's own issues. They've got to effectively double their Mac hardware R&D to support the two completely different architectures.
And what do they gain?
== On Everyone and Their Dog Switching en masse ==
When I talk to people, they buy a PC because they don't know about Macs. When they do know, they often go PC anyway because they're used to it. There's also pricing. Apple's machines do come at a premium, although I maintain that the iBook line is nicely priced (well, it was when I bought this one a year ago).
Suppose Apple sells a box with an Intel inside. For starters, why would the cost drop? A powerful Pentium is not so much cheaper than a G5. The other components are similar enough. Maybe Apple would use PC motherboards? So why would anyone buy their hardware from Apple?
I don't see any evidence that hordes of PC users are going to drop Windows just to get OS X on x86. I see lots of people on hobbyist sites say that they'd buy it, but they're a tiny minority of a large market. Would that translate to actual sales, or would there be a reason why many of them still wouldn't buy it? What about piracy? How many people would 'try it out' for an extended period of time and never get around to purchasing the boxed copy?
And make no mistake: to make up for the lost hardware sales, Apple would need hordes of switchers to buy those shrinkwrapped boxes. If sales aren't what they hope, there goes the business.
That's a point to remember too - if a CPU switch goes wrong, that could pretty much screw the company. A few billion in red ink, combined with potentially facing near-zero sales when you give away your flagship OS (I'm thinking software piracy and commodity x86 hardware here) and we'll see Apple closing its doors. Some mistakes can only be made once.
==On Software==
I mentioned earlier that developers would likely have to support two completely different architectures, even in the 'best case' of Apple going entirely to x86. There's a legacy of PPC Macs out there that you have to sell to, after all.
That means that initially, there would be zero third party applications for OS X on x86. Not a single one. Maybe iLife really *is* all you need, perhaps with iWork. Over time, new apps would come out, but who would buy the new OS in the first year? That would be a hard sell to Herb and Judy Customer. "Sure, there's nothing you can do with it now, but give it a year or so and... Wow!" (I'm exaggerating of course, but you can go only so far with the iXxxx software before you itch to run something else.)
And what of the developers? I mentioned in an earlier post (not well stated though) that this would be the last straw for them. I'll modify that to "last straw for some of them." They have to learn new optimisation techniques, recompile all of their existing code for the new platform and re-release it - and that's the best case for consumers! Realistically we'll see more developers follow the Adobe and Quark path of holding off for 12-24 months for no apparent reason, and only when the market is safe, releasing their product as a new version with new features for the new platform.
The cost for any app being developed will increase. Not by double, as this would encourage more platform-independant code (well, CPU-independant at any rate), but there would be a definite increase. Who will pay for that? We will! Hooray! Software price rises!
And what if the developers simply say that the OS X platform is too unstable? After all, in five years we've seen a lot
Intel for mobile, IBM for workstation (Score:3, Interesting)
Read carefully. Do the research. It sounds nuts, but this might just be the key to this craziness.
Re:Any Evidence At All? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I have no evidence if we have Intel based Macs hiding anywhere. But, I do have evidence of the next PowerMac (yah, yah we just speed bumped them). But, it means at least one more generation of PowerMacs that are 970 based.
Now it could be we are switching to Intel chips and when I walk in Monday, I will learn all my work has been for naught. But, I think since I have access to a PowerMac unlike any other, I should also be allowed to know about a platform switch, but who knows.
Re:This obviously means no Powerbook G5s (Score:3, Interesting)
(see the 'non-existant' stories about the capacitors on those things, and the temperature readings)
Oh, and apparently the new G5 towers have even more temperature sensors - those chips run *hot*.
And to think that I was tossed between potentially buying an iBook or a Thinkpad (or whatever Lenovo will call it).
Re:It is NOT official (Score:3, Interesting)
Giving up on hardware? (Score:3, Interesting)
This would be the beginning of the end for Apple as a *hardware* company. They could then focus on iPods, software and the like.
-Charles
Re:Or not (Score:5, Interesting)
The mathematical number 9533.24 cannot be represented exactly as a double-precision number, because 9533.24 expressed in binary has a repeating string that goes on forever. It is 10010100111101.00111101011100001010001111010111000 01010001111...
When you round it after 53 bits, you have 10010100111101.00111101011100001010001111010111000 0101, or 81889908046875/8589934592 or about 9533.2399999999997817.
Similarly, 215.10 is 11010111.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011 00110011001...
Rounded to 53 digits, that is 11010111.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011 0011 or 7568158436307763/35184372088832 or about 215.09999999999999432.
The difference is exactly 327852904935829005/35184372088832 or 10010001100110.00100011110101110000101000111101011 1000001101 or about 9318.1399999999997874.
However, you cannot represent the difference in double-precision, because it requires too many bits.
The result of a subtraction instruction is rounded, and you get 640337704952791/68719476736 or 10010001100110.00100011110101110000101000111101011 1 or about 9318.1399999999994179.
(Caveat: I produced the above numbers with some quick Maple commands. They could be off a bit, but the concepts are correct.)
It might be nice if calculators intended for the general public used decimal arithmetic internally. (But it still would not be able to exactly calculate 1/3 * 3. There will always be limits to mathematical correctness.) But that is an issue of application design; it has nothing to do with correct floating-point results, as mentioned in the post you responded to. The floating-point arithmetic here is correct.
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading this news made me physically ill. The last time I was this nauseated after reading an article was when Microsoft bought Bungie, my favourite videogame company.
After thinking about it, I realized the same thing. TFA didn't say that apple was switching to Pentium or Xeon or any other x86 processor, just intel branded chips. It's entirely conceivable that either Intell will create a new PPC chip (although how they'll crank one out in a year is beyond me), create a new chip altogether (again, in one year?!), or simply piggyback Altivec onto one of their existing designs (i dunno how good of an idea that is).
I suppose it's most likely that Intel will pop out a mutant chip that resembles something like the bastard child of their current crop of high-performance x86 processors and the current G5; a chip with extra registers, the Altivec vector unit (or multiple units), and some extra instructions (like that spiffy sqrt instruction that the G5 has).
I guess the only thing left to say is "don't knock them until you've got the details."
But I really don't think this is good news at all. I see dark clouds on the horizon.
Re:Any Evidence At All? (Score:4, Interesting)
The technical issues really aren't that insane. Most high-level code PPC is only a recompile away from working on an x86. Development tools could easily support compilation to some sort of fat-binary (see: 68K-->PPC transition) or dual-binary scehe,.
The only technical sticking point would be Altivec code. Lot of manual work to translate it to SSE1/2/3. However, if Intel could support the Altivec instruction set in hardware... it could be a fairly seamless transition for developers. The technical aspects of supporting it in hardware wouldn't be too hard; I think the only challenges would be legal (patents, etc).
If
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
c.) Itanium
However, I think it is most likely they will go to x86. Mach already runs on it, so it would seem like the path of least resistance (in terms of migration.)
easy to trace (Score:5, Interesting)
- IBM bends over and hands them the PPC970.
- Jobs publicly trumpets that the chip will hit 3GHz in a year's time.
- Jobs gets humiliated by the fact they didn't even come close and still aren't there after 2 years.
- Jobs throws constant fits and IBM suddenly considers using their tech for more gracious customers... say, game console manufacturers
- Jobs get jealous of the attention paid to said console manufacturers
- Jobs delivers an ultimatum, IBM calls his bluff, and Jobs is suddenly looking elsewhere for the future of his platform.
Sound crazy? Consider the Altivec debacle and how IBM backed away from the AIM alliance after that. Consider Moto's redirection to embedded processors (hello game consoles) and Jobs' resultant fishing for new tech. Jobs may be running out of corps that will put up with his, uh... particularly demanding negotiation skills. Then again, maybe Monday will bring a nice surprise... a choice of chips for the Mac platform. Here's hoping.
Re:This obviously means no Powerbook G5s (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget that this transition will likely be taking place from mid-2006 (low end) to mid-2007 (high end). From the article [com.com]:
That likely means (for the high end) some next-generation Intel CPUs like Merom [endian.net] (notebooks) and Conroe [endian.net] (desktops). On the other hand, the PowerBook seems to be the Mac most in need of a modern CPU, so I can't see Apple waiting for Merom (due H1 2006) or a low-heat G5. If these crazy "Intel inside Mac" rumors are true, I think Apple would want Yonah [endian.net] (dual-core 65nm Pentium M) inside the PowerBook.Re:Transitive Technologies (Score:2, Interesting)
Aside from this, CPU registers are heavily renamed (remapped) to a whole host of hidden registers to improve parallelism. Essentially, the old AX, BX, CX, DX register model is is simply the public representation of the CPU architecture, while behind the scenes things are very much more RISC like in their implementation.
In any case, given the 0.5 GHz to 1.5 GHz advantage that Intel CPUs have over the current PPC chips, it's entirely likely that native PPC code written for OSX could run quite well on a JIT compiler on x86. In fact, there was an article on
How could JIT compilation beat an optimizing C compiler you ask? Because JIT compilers can actually watch the code run, and can then re-optimize frequently used code on the fly. In contrast, a traditional optimizing compiler has to do all of its optimizing up front before the code ever runs, which limits the amount of performance improvement that it can achieve.
P.
What will Apple developer think about this? (Score:2, Interesting)
This Makes Complete Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Two years ago Steve Jobs said, "We'll be at 3GHz next year!". Next year came, and they were 2.5GHz with excuses. Now a year later they're at a whopping 2.7GHz. It's embarassing, even if it isn't a real issue.
2. Apple doesn't need more difficulting in getting products built and delivered on time.
IBM has thus far not been as reliable as Intel in getting processors out the door quickly.
3. We already knew that OSX worked on Intel, as it had been reported many times that Apple had a working port in-house.
4. Adding "Intel" to the Apple ads will help legitimize Apple computers to some of the people who assumed Macs were just second-rate computers.
Average consumers don't know PPC. They do know Blue Man Group and "Intel Inside". Incidentally, that's why I believe Apple didn't go to AMD, even though AMD has a better product (in the Opteron).
5. Lastly, it's a stock-boosting move.
Every few years tech companies must reinvent themselves, replace their CEO, or otherwise make a radical change. Just look at AAPL closing price, and then compare it to tomorrow's (which is actually today's now!) price.
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they really do move to x86, just how long do you think it would be before somebody ports MacOnLinux and OS X starts popping up on any generic PC you want?
Re:Transitive Technologies (Score:2, Interesting)
P.
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:2, Interesting)
IBM has been focused on the Cell and XBox 360 chips, while the g5 has stagnated. I'm sure Intel was burned by the xbox 360 choosing IBM, and would like to get that xbox revenue stream back. This seems like a smart way to start. I'm fairly sure that Freescale would love to give an altivec license to intel.
As a big time Myth and Myth II player in my young adulthood, I too was really bummed about the whole Bungie buyout, and initially this had me pretty bummed too. But with computers, my biggest problem was with Windows and the software, not necessarily the hardware. The x86 ISA is probably the least attractive ISA out there, and if intel can get out from under it by writing to a ppc ISA I'm okay with that.
The Proof is in the News Cycles (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Intel pre-announces, e.g. 18 months away, a dual core laptop chip. The last time they made a move like and pre-announced a product days before a "SteveNote" was right before the G5 announcement.
2. Intel demo'ing the Mac mini knock-off over the past couple of weeks.
If Intel had a deal with Apple, they would never be pulling this type of PR which would anger Jobs to no end. This, for me, is the smoking gun.
I suspect Apple has some very big things up their sleeve, and they are still burned about the leak over the Mac mini, so they are doing some misdirection at the expense of Cnet. (Cnet has never been very pro-Apple.)
Jobs at D3 said they have a huge year coming with breakthrough products, and since most leaks seem to happen a few days before the "SteveNote" what better way to keep people pre-occupied than with an outrageous rumor like this to distract the media and rumor mongers.
I think this is misdirection, pure and simple.
Co-processor? (Score:3, Interesting)
This leaves Apple with a hole in it's marketing. If Apple does launch a Mac with an x86 in it, I'm betting it's there as an addition to the G5s, and being effectively a hardware accellerator for an own-brand 'Virtual PC'. It wouldn;t be the first time Apple has done this.
A cheap, headless x86 coprocessor in a Mac Mini sized box that lives on the other end of a firewire cable could be a very interesting proposition.
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:2, Interesting)
April Fools: Apple raises the Itanic (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Stevie will put an x86 processor at the heart of a Mac because it'd basically open the door to clones and homebrews of white-boxes running MacOS. Apple wouldn't dare give its users that much freedom.
No, we're talking ITANIC, baybe!
It makes logical sense, and it's a match made in heaven. AMD64 killed Intel's Itanium game plan in the short term causing sales of the machines to make a huge belly flop, plus it killed Intel's long term plans of eventually replacing the x86 with Itanium rather than slapping on 64-bit capability to the x86 architecture, which AMD did anyway and Intel was forced to adopt.
Intel sure as hell won't let billions of dollars of R&D for this new processor to go down the crapper. The solution? Move the processor to a different platform!
Intel can simply offer its wares to other architectures like the Mac. Plus, Intel has the fabs to make sure that Apple won't be starving for chips, which is a problem Apple constantly griped about with Motorola and IBM.
It'd also give Microsoft one more reason to fear Intel. If Intel is playing both sides of the PC vs. Mac war and suddenly becomes smitten with Microsoft (as they're reported to be lately), Intel would be in a position to play dirty.
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:1, Interesting)
Not really. At this point, I'm pretty sure that Apple expects people to rip off their designs. The iPod and the iMac and Mac OS have all been ripped off in some form or another many times over.
But then Apple likely doesn't mind unless these competitors get TOO close to the Apple design. After all, those manufacturers are simply copying last year's designs. Like it or not, Apple is the only major company on the leading edge of design. Everyone else merely follows their lead.
Re:No Worries. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I can assure you that someone who started developing for the Mac with OS X did not develop Carbon applications. (based on the old os 9 technology).
These applications would be Cocoa-based applications and they would be very easily ported to Intel OS X.
Might not be all at once (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
My physically ill part is in regard to all the headaches that will ensue because of the shift and the possible problems that it's going to cause software developers.
Also, I hate it when apple, or anyone else for that matter, invest so much time into something only to drop it for something else. After shoving this "G5s are the fastest chips on earth" crap down my throat, they're gonna jump to some other platform?
I compare this to your mom getting a sex change after birthing you.
Big prob...IBM owns patents on SOI process (Score:3, Interesting)
Kinda leaves Apple in a funny spot. AMD worked with IBM to come up with the process for 90nm SOI/SS at their Fishkill plant which is used in G5 and AMD's chips. I really, really don't see Apple switching to Intel for anything. The reason IBM cannot supply enough G5's is that it is a really hard chip to make. Now, IBM could cross license AltiVec to AMD and AMD could design a dual core AMD64 ISA based chip with it. That would be interesting, an AMD64 chip with AltiVec and no SSE2/3...
That would fix two big issues with the G5...memory latency and production capacity (it's a slightly less complicated chip...although much bigger and more expensive die-wise). Also, both the Fishkill plant and Dresden plants can make such a chip...in addition, AMD has a new fab (FAB36) due to open in a year (for 65nm production). Very fun, but I give this near zero probability.
This is my point exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
I have also paid a lot for the software I have. How long will adobe and Microsoft support the powerPC versions of their software once Apple goes Intel? I now feel like the lifespan of my machine is seriously degrading. I don't like it one bit.
Re:easy to trace (Score:5, Interesting)
- IBM and Apple sign a multi chip agreement with very specific clock speed, power usage, production quantities and target dates built into the contract. the first chip is the PPC970.
- Jobs and IBM publicly trumpets that the chip will hit 3GHz in a year's time which is actually well below the contractual promises IBM made.
- Jobs and IBM get humiliated by the fact they didn't even come close and still aren't there after 2 years.
- Jobs throws constant fits and points out that IBM has missed every metric they contractually promised to meet. Jobs also points out that the way the contract is structured that Apple now has a right to a significant chunk of IBM IP and the right to shop for a manufacturer who is able to produce any and all of the chips under the original agreement.
While this is unfolding, IBM has been making the same pie in the sky promises to Sony and MS. As with Apple, IBM begins significantly scaling back the promises made to Sony and MS.
- Jobs get jealous of the attention paid to said console manufacturers
- Jobs exercises the options available and IBM gets taken to the cleaners.
I will restate. The contract Apple has with IBM has a "Moto" contingency. There are extremely tough provisions in the contract that Apple insisted upon to prevent another Motorola scenario from happening. IBM had no problem with the provisions because they were positive the could beet the goals by two in half the time. IBM fucked up badly.
Apple now owns a large amount of PPC IP and Intel will now be manufacturing and designing PPC chips.
One last comment on the Altivec "debacle." Considering that 99% of the chips IBM will manufacture over the next five years will have Altivec or a close derivative, the debacle is IBM's blindness to the importance of vector processing for so long.
Re:easy to trace (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would Intel put more into PPC than IBM? If Apple is going to switch to Intel chips, they aren't doing it because they think Intel will be a great champion of PowerPC.
First of all, Intel is not going to do anything that could jeopardize the x86 line. Dilluting the market (by increasing the number of PowerPC's in production) will not help Intel, even if they're selling them.
Second, why would Intel be able to improve the PPC more quickly than IBM. Switching horses in the middle of the stream is not the solution. Intel would need to hire engineers to develop PPC. They would need to get managers and execs to take ownership. They would need to divert resources away from x86. Not going to happen.
Re:easy to trace (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple as that. PPC is a superior tech to Pentium, but IBM isn't nearly as good at actually making the chips themselves.
Intel can reliably take the PPC design and make chips which are much faster with far fewer rejects in the batch. The only thing which was stopping them was not having the PPC design.
Plus, with Apple simply handing Intel a design and saying "make these for us", it will probably be cheaper enough that Apple can spend R&D money of their own on improving the chips.
This will be a huge win for Apple.
Re:easy to trace (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, microsoft is moving the X-Box over to IBM, so thats potentially a lead in to win back the CPU for the X-Box as well, something that Intel cannot do with the X86 architecture.
So lets see,
Once customer definite, plus one possible customer. Apple plus Microsoft.
No, that wouldn't be a big enough market to make intel consider switching, surely not.
My 2c
Michael
Re:easy to trace (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, Intel is not going to do anything that could jeopardize the x86 line. Dilluting the market (by increasing the number of PowerPC's in production) will not help Intel, even if they're selling them.
Ah, but as it is, Intel is locked to Microsoft. Who has been courting AMD. Maybe Intel wants to diversify out of the WinTel alliance themselves, in case Microsoft starts seeing other CPU partners? Or, at least to have options that they can negotiate with?
Perhaps Intel has been convinced that the market is right for Apple to regain some marketshare. If those number are in, Intel may be seeing a gap with which they can get out from under the thumb of Microsoft.
I will concede that your other point is interesting--that it's hard to imagine that Intel could make better PPCs than IBM; and Intel has had troubles of their own in moving to a 90nm process, IIRC. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that Intel is more likely to make PPCs than Apple is to move to x86.
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
Re:Any Evidence At All? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's sad that you're so contrarian that you don't believe the bleedingly obvious, which is that he did indeed work for Apple. He's since been fired. What gave him away was mentioning that he wrote the documentation for launchd. That was a very short list.
(Yes, I work for Apple -- no, I don't know anything, so don't bother asking. What I know about ASOTV comes from the grapevine.)