Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips **Updated 6/7** x86 Mac systems *should* run Windows

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
How about if Intel makes an Itanium chip for Apple? That would allow Apple to remain segregated from PCs and allow Intel to finally start pushing IA64 into the desktop space. Makes sense strategically for both groups, Intel gets to increase market penetration of the Itanium and Apple gets to use Intel's manufacturing capabilities.

IA64 is a broken architecture. Apple adopting that would be like buying a sunken submarine to replace your Honda Civic as your daily driver.

You make this statement thanks to your extensive knowledge of CPU architecture, right? Obviously you know so much more than dozens of Intel and HP engineers with PhDs in electrical engineering and hundreds with Master's degrees. To think, if Intel had hired you years ago, the whole IA64 architecture would have been avoided and you would have saved them hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[silverpig]

OSX + x86 = :thumbsup:

I'd love to run it on an A64 if possible. It might mean some hard times for the linux distros though.

 

[jpeyton]

This makes a ton of sense if you think about it. I guarantee you guys that Apple is doing this because of Yonah.

Yonah = Dual Core Pentium M. Intel will likely make a few tweaks to beef up the FPU by the time it's released, in addition to EMT64, DDR2, and faster FSB support. Right now, Yonah is scheduled for an early 2006 release, which is right in line with Apple's roadmap.

Pentium M is clock for clock nearly as fast (and in some cases faster) than the Athlon 64 in a lot of applications and games. Yonah will be an impressive performer, probably in line with Athlon 64 X2, but MUCH cheaper. And Yonah will be able to power everything, from their Powerbooks, to their fanless Mac Mini, iMacs, iBooks, and think about dual high-clocked Yonah for the Powermacs (4 cores!).

 

[Shawn]

how could they switch to a x86 processor w/o making all their previous software incompatible?

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Shawn
how could they switch to a x86 processor w/o making all their previous software incompatible?

emulation though it's going to be difficult to see how well it runs. I have a feeling those in the video editing dept. are going to stick with their current systems until apple patches older software to take advantage of X86 architecture.

 

[Chrono]

Hello, FREEBSD, DARWIN, LINUX, all run on Intel cpu's fine.

 

[feelingshorter]

wow..

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: Chrono
Hello, FREEBSD, DARWIN, LINUX, all run on Intel cpu's fine.

None of those have the same API's as Mac OS X. The Darwin part of OS X is easy to port, its all the GUI libraries that will be a bitch and a half. Unless they developed an x86 build along with the PPC, it will take them a long while to port all of the Cocoa API to something compatible with x86.

I don't see Apple switching to x86, whether Intel, or AMD. Now if Intel decides to start producing PPC chips, that is a different story, but also another far fetched one.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
boooo

should have went with AMD

booooo the dark side

I thought so too ..

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Shawn
how could they switch to a x86 processor w/o making all their previous software incompatible?

emulation though it's going to be difficult to see how well it runs. I have a feeling those in the video editing dept. are going to stick with their current systems until apple patches older software to take advantage of X86 architecture.

Emulation is not necessary...


I know that Mac OS X ran on commodity x86 hardware with few major problems as of two years ago...my cousin worked at Apple in R&D.

Remember that ALL of Mac OS X is coded/designed to compile with GCC...Darwin already runs well on x86 hardware. FreeBSD runs great on x86.

Any and all developers who use Xcode to do their coding for Mac are using and compiling and debugging their code using GNU compiler tools. In theory, a few changes to the make files is all that is required to have a working x86 binary using GCC.

Using GCC has given Apple freedom to jump hardware platforms...think of the diversity of FreeBSD or Linux.

I'll wager that, if Apple had to, they could go gold with Tiger on x86 in as little as 3-4 months.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: Chrono
Hello, FREEBSD, DARWIN, LINUX, all run on Intel cpu's fine.

None of those have the same API's as Mac OS X. The Darwin part of OS X is easy to port, its all the GUI libraries that will be a bitch and a half. Unless they developed an x86 build along with the PPC, it will take them a long while to port all of the Cocoa API to something compatible with x86.

I don't see Apple switching to x86, whether Intel, or AMD. Now if Intel decides to start producing PPC chips, that is a different story, but also another far fetched one.

Um, it's right there in the article. What part of it do you not understand? You can get pwned officially on Monday when it's announced. Now I guess they can use the PowerPC moniker again lol.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: Chrono
Hello, FREEBSD, DARWIN, LINUX, all run on Intel cpu's fine.

None of those have the same API's as Mac OS X. The Darwin part of OS X is easy to port, its all the GUI libraries that will be a bitch and a half. Unless they developed an x86 build along with the PPC, it will take them a long while to port all of the Cocoa API to something compatible with x86.

I don't see Apple switching to x86, whether Intel, or AMD. Now if Intel decides to start producing PPC chips, that is a different story, but also another far fetched one.

Cocoa, Quartz, and the rest of Apple's libs are compiled with GCC...hence it will compile without too many problems on most platforms supported by GCC. Again, think of how easily GTK or QT API's compile on a variety of different Linux platforms (in particular, think of source based Linux distros like Gentoo). Same GTK code (or 99.9% thereof) compiles on x86 and PPC with minimal fuss.

The switch would not be that difficult from a code development perspective.

As others have mentioned...the lack of a laptop ready G5 is really hurting Apple right now and IBM has been screwing apple over in that regard.

 

[digitalsm]

If this does go down, you guys are idiots to think they havent been working on switching all their apps over, or have a business plan. I have a feeling Apple is going Intel, so Apple can get Dell prices, and push their "superior styled engineered" products with an alternative to Windows. Linux will never challenge Windows, OSX most certainly can. Apple could easily gain a lot of market share in both hardware and software. Apple had done a good job at digital convergence, and marketing, where as MS hasnt.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This makes a ton of sense if you think about it. I guarantee you guys that Apple is doing this because of Yonah.

Yonah = Dual Core Pentium M. Intel will likely make a few tweaks to beef up the FPU by the time it's released, in addition to EMT64, DDR2, and faster FSB support. Right now, Yonah is scheduled for an early 2006 release, which is right in line with Apple's roadmap.

Pentium M is clock for clock nearly as fast (and in some cases faster) than the Athlon 64 in a lot of applications and games. Yonah will be an impressive performer, probably in line with Athlon 64 X2, but MUCH cheaper. And Yonah will be able to power everything, from their Powerbooks, to their fanless Mac Mini, iMacs, iBooks, and think about dual high-clocked Yonah for the Powermacs (4 cores!).

I think your right on with your assessment. Also...AMD is great for chips. But what about for chipsets, wireless, HD audio, so forth?

Intel is nearly "one stop shopping" for system design. Intel can furnish Apple with chips, the chipset (if not the MB complete), wireless, audio, and so forth. AMD, for all their merit, cannot.

If Apple is going to go x86...Intel makes more sense as a business partner. Albeit...not necessarily on the basis on CPU performance alone.

 

[Kipper]

I hope Steve Jobs has a flak jacket for his WWDC keynote Monday.

Of course, you have to remember that Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel, dismissed these stories as rumors, and that was to the WSJ I believe. This would be a major coup for Intel if they pulled it off.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This makes a ton of sense if you think about it. I guarantee you guys that Apple is doing this because of Yonah.

Yonah = Dual Core Pentium M. Intel will likely make a few tweaks to beef up the FPU by the time it's released, in addition to EMT64, DDR2, and faster FSB support. Right now, Yonah is scheduled for an early 2006 release, which is right in line with Apple's roadmap.

Pentium M is clock for clock nearly as fast (and in some cases faster) than the Athlon 64 in a lot of applications and games. Yonah will be an impressive performer, probably in line with Athlon 64 X2, but MUCH cheaper. And Yonah will be able to power everything, from their Powerbooks, to their fanless Mac Mini, iMacs, iBooks, and think about dual high-clocked Yonah for the Powermacs (4 cores!).

I think your right on with your assessment. Also...AMD is great for chips. But what about for chipsets, wireless, HD audio, so forth?

Intel is nearly "one stop shopping" for system design. Intel can furnish Apple with chips, the chipset (if not the MB complete), wireless, audio, and so forth. AMD, for all their merit, cannot.

If Apple is going to go x86...Intel makes more sense as a business partner. Albeit...not necessarily on the basis on CPU performance alone.

And you forgot one thing. PRICE. Intel could easily give Apple Dell prices.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This makes a ton of sense if you think about it. I guarantee you guys that Apple is doing this because of Yonah.

Yonah = Dual Core Pentium M. Intel will likely make a few tweaks to beef up the FPU by the time it's released, in addition to EMT64, DDR2, and faster FSB support. Right now, Yonah is scheduled for an early 2006 release, which is right in line with Apple's roadmap.

Pentium M is clock for clock nearly as fast (and in some cases faster) than the Athlon 64 in a lot of applications and games. Yonah will be an impressive performer, probably in line with Athlon 64 X2, but MUCH cheaper. And Yonah will be able to power everything, from their Powerbooks, to their fanless Mac Mini, iMacs, iBooks, and think about dual high-clocked Yonah for the Powermacs (4 cores!).

I think your right on with your assessment. Also...AMD is great for chips. But what about for chipsets, wireless, HD audio, so forth?

Intel is nearly "one stop shopping" for system design. Intel can furnish Apple with chips, the chipset (if not the MB complete), wireless, audio, and so forth. AMD, for all their merit, cannot.

If Apple is going to go x86...Intel makes more sense as a business partner. Albeit...not necessarily on the basis on CPU performance alone.

And you forgot one thing. PRICE. Intel could easily give Apple Dell prices.

TRUE that.

 

[ElFenix]

apple would most likely require a motherboard ROM in order to run their OS, like they currently do, to keep people from just installing it on their computers.


expect the taiwanese hackers to have a pci version ready the week before it comes out.

 

[Darien]

Pentium M PowerBook = sex

 

[RU482]

ignorance runs rampant in this thread, yes

 

[Nitemare]

When has Jobs ever made an intelligent decision?

 

[Darien]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When has Jobs ever made an intelligent decision?

Look at Apple before Jobs came back in, and look at it now. I think he's made a few good decisions.

 

[silent tone]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This makes a ton of sense if you think about it. I guarantee you guys that Apple is doing this because of Yonah.

Yonah = Dual Core Pentium M. Intel will likely make a few tweaks to beef up the FPU by the time it's released, in addition to EMT64, DDR2, and faster FSB support. Right now, Yonah is scheduled for an early 2006 release, which is right in line with Apple's roadmap.

Pentium M is clock for clock nearly as fast (and in some cases faster) than the Athlon 64 in a lot of applications and games. Yonah will be an impressive performer, probably in line with Athlon 64 X2, but MUCH cheaper. And Yonah will be able to power everything, from their Powerbooks, to their fanless Mac Mini, iMacs, iBooks, and think about dual high-clocked Yonah for the Powermacs (4 cores!).

I think your right on with your assessment. Also...AMD is great for chips. But what about for chipsets, wireless, HD audio, so forth?

Intel is nearly "one stop shopping" for system design. Intel can furnish Apple with chips, the chipset (if not the MB complete), wireless, audio, and so forth. AMD, for all their merit, cannot.

If Apple is going to go x86...Intel makes more sense as a business partner. Albeit...not necessarily on the basis on CPU performance alone.

And you forgot one thing. PRICE. Intel could easily give Apple Dell prices.

TRUE that.

Dell sells around 10 times as many systems as Apple. Dell has a decent server business using expensive xeon CPUs, apple does not. Why would Intel want to slash their prices for Apple. It's apple who needs Intel.

This sort of talk is funny. If you take a look at the mac fanatic sites, there are a variety of theories about how an Intel and Apple collaboration will bring out redesigned CPUs with altivec, high-performance chipsets, new PPC chips. How did Intel get along for the past decade without Apple? There's also the obligatory, Apple can now overtake Microsoft now that they can run on commodity hardware.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
WHAT IS NEXT???? SKYWALKER66 GETTING A GIRLFRIEND?

:shocked:

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: istallion

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This makes a ton of sense if you think about it. I guarantee you guys that Apple is doing this because of Yonah.

Yonah = Dual Core Pentium M. Intel will likely make a few tweaks to beef up the FPU by the time it's released, in addition to EMT64, DDR2, and faster FSB support. Right now, Yonah is scheduled for an early 2006 release, which is right in line with Apple's roadmap.

Pentium M is clock for clock nearly as fast (and in some cases faster) than the Athlon 64 in a lot of applications and games. Yonah will be an impressive performer, probably in line with Athlon 64 X2, but MUCH cheaper. And Yonah will be able to power everything, from their Powerbooks, to their fanless Mac Mini, iMacs, iBooks, and think about dual high-clocked Yonah for the Powermacs (4 cores!).

I think your right on with your assessment. Also...AMD is great for chips. But what about for chipsets, wireless, HD audio, so forth?

Intel is nearly "one stop shopping" for system design. Intel can furnish Apple with chips, the chipset (if not the MB complete), wireless, audio, and so forth. AMD, for all their merit, cannot.

If Apple is going to go x86...Intel makes more sense as a business partner. Albeit...not necessarily on the basis on CPU performance alone.

And you forgot one thing. PRICE. Intel could easily give Apple Dell prices.

TRUE that.

Dell sells around 10 times as many systems as Apple. Dell has a decent server business using expensive xeon CPUs, apple does not. Why would Intel want to slash their prices for Apple. It's apple who needs Intel.

This sort of talk is funny. If you take a look at the mac fanatic sites, there are a variety of theories about how an Intel and Apple collaboration will bring out redesigned CPUs with altivec, high-performance chipsets, new PPC chips. How did Intel get along for the past decade without Apple? There's also the obligatory, Apple can now overtake Microsoft now that they can run on commodity hardware.

If you don't understand why Intel would be in such a tissy to net a big deal w/ Apple you don't understand a few things about big business.

The first and foremost job of senior management in any publicly traded company is MAKE THE STOCK GO UP.

Stocks are bought and sold more often than not on sex appeal these days...a relationship with Apple enhances Intel's sex appeal...stock goes up. CEO and Board of Directors get a nice big bonus...savvy?

In this move, Intel would also be laying a big blow to a competing hardware platform...IBM's PPC venture.

Last...if this move is for real it is probably about more than just CPU's. Design, chipsets, MB's, possibly direct profit sharing may be part of the deal. Also, Apple is working their way deep into the digital lifestyle/home nich. Intel would love to the the chip business for all the future ipods and other things Apple has planned for the future.

Does Intel NEED Apple...hell no.

Does Intel WANT Apple's business...Hell yes, and for good reason.

As far as Apple vs. Microsoft -- Apple has a long way to go before MS starts to worry much.