Stop the presses: Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it’s scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel’s microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.
Apple to drop PPC for x86?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This CANNOT be true … i can’t believe it …
If it is true, the MacOnLinux project just got about 3 billion times more popular …
and i just got a mac mini and now it’s gunna be useless in a couple of years or less maybe………
Why? Did IBM tried to screw them or something? Honestly, I don’t see _any_ advantage in doing this.
Then again, until it’s announced, I’ll take this with a grain of salt.
I wanted to buy a Mac Mini – should I wait now, or what?
Do you think that an x86 Mac Mini be loud and noisy?
>Did IBM tried to screw them or something?
Jobs told two years ago in WWDC that “next year we will have a 3 GHz G5” and IBM was not able to deliver that. Also, the big kicker was the fact that it was impossible to fit a G5 on a laptop, where laptops are best sellers for Apple. So, yeah, IBM did screw them, it promised them stuff that they couldn’t deliver.
Given a motherboard with two BIOS chips (had one from Gigabyte at one point) and the possibility to put Apple’s boot ROM in one of them, switching between Linux and OS X at boot time may be feasible.
“CNET has learned” is the only evidence given. No support whatsoever.
Until there’s something more than that, this is yet another unsubstantiated rumour.
PPC is soooo superior to x86! And Mac OS X keeps getting better and better! How could this be true?! I think I gonna go kill myself
(
amd chips are better than intel’s.
You’re right that there is little evidence besides the “CNET has learned” statement but CNET would really be shooting itself in the foot if it were to put such a bold title as “Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips” without any legit evidence to back it up. Then again, recent events have shown us that even so-called accurate sources make mistakes so I guess we’ll just find out for sure on monday.
This is right down his alley… “Oh – and one more thing… since IBM can’t deliver their PowerPC processors – we’re switching to Intel processors!”
It will be very interesting to see if this turns out to be true. I’m sure that Steve is very mad at IBM for not keeping their promise to deliver 3GHz PPC parts on schedule. Don’t f–k with Steve.
Since everyone else is switching to PPC (Motorola, Sony, etc.) this sounds like a stupid move for Apple. It will dead end all the current products. And just when Apple seems to be hitting on all cylinders.
BIG Mistake. If they are going to go with anyone in the x86 arena, it should be AMD.
1. Apple will be a coup for Intel, and will be a large customer for Intel, but not larger than say HP, Dell, etc, whereas with AMD, they’d be a very large (if not the largest) customer, and it would be in AMD’s best interests to keep them happy. As one of AMD’s larger (if not the largest) customers, Apple would have some pretty good leverage with AMD. Also, Apple’s volume would increase AMD’s volume, meaning in theory they could potentially lower the cost per unit as production ramps up even more than it does now.
2. Intel is known for power hungry and very HOT temperature CPUs, AMD is known for meeting or beating Intel with less power and cooler temperatures (OK, so that wasn’t always true, but it is mostly true now days).
3. Look at the Anandtech article comparing X86 and PPC. At the processor level, the Intel Xeon and PPC were pretty close in a lot of the stats, but in most of the tests, the Opteron walked away from both of them. AMD would give a very clear performance gain to Apple.
That’s just 3 reasons off the top of my head. I hope Apple doesn’t do this. I really like the Power PC, but if they are going to leave IBM, it should be for AMD, NOT Intel.
@ Wrawrat
Simple as this. Mac & IBM just can’t get along. Making G5 processors is not profitable for IBM. Too few Macs get sold per year. IBM is not interested in wasting resources in designing and producing new or current chips for Mac.
Going to x86 will also give them the opportunity to port Mac OS X to x86 where there are many more users.
@ Human
You should wait a bit longer to get more information. Mac may phase out support for “older” products (ie: current Mac Mini) after 4-5 years (maybe sooner) or they could keep making software for ibm based processor systems and continue to make money. Question will be if it is profitable to Macintosh to make software for G5 & G4 systems.
Intel processors suffer from heat & need lots of cooling, especially the P4s.
If Mac OS X is made available to all x86 computers then you could buy any system & purcahse Mac OS, but Mac may only make it run on their x86 computers.
This most definitely won’t be a move to standard, open PC architecture, so don’t start drooling over cheap, commodity hardware just yet. I’m not even convinced that this will necessarily be a move to x86. Itanium Lite(tm), anybody? Anyway, it sounds like maybe Steve-O might want to retool the kernel foundation of X rather than jump hardware platforms if he wants to do more than self-destructively spite IBM.
Well, I guess you’re right, but going with the “enemy”? Apart from the processor, a Mac is pretty much a PC. Now, if both are the same…
Then again, they never said if they were going x86. Intel might supply them a new architecture, although it would extremely unlikely.
>Hahahahahaha, your elitest Operating System will be
> mass pirated just like everything else.
No, it won’t. Apple would NEVER go for a generic-PC route. It will be a proprietary-style x86 machine, where Win/Linux CAN run on it, but OSX won’t run on other PCs. It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs. It is suicide to try to support all this hardware out there, Apple will only add support for the proprietary Apple PCs.
It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs. It is suicide to try to support all this hardware out there, Apple will only add support for the proprietary Apple PCs.
I just can see Apple nerds right now saying our “Macintosh” is able to run a special proprietary BIOS, which makes it run twice as efficient — it is not the same as your POS E-Machine.
Intel does not only make x86 processor’s, and there no reason a intel-apple partnership should be about a x86 processor. But still, I think those rumors (they are just rumors, right?) are false… there’s no good reason for apple to switch to intel IMHO…
This could be a great springboard for tech that Intel is drooling to peddle but will have a hard time breaking into the PC market. Namely, EFI instead of old legacy BIOS, and NGSCB(??) (whatever, you know I mean Palladium). That’s right, DRM up to the gills on a new, clean hardware model. It would help them push the same tech much more easily to the PC world 1-2 years later once it’s been established on ~5% of the market.
I cannot help but think this is just rumor mongoring. Grandted Apple makes some profits on hardware, the main attraction is the software.
GSY brings up points where I share similar thoughts. Intel would not be a long-term solution for Apple. AMD might be as the points GSY brings up. But aren’t some AMD chips also co-developed by IBM and/or manufactured by them? The only thing I might see happening is if Apple dumped Motorola for Intel or AMD for its notebook line of systems. IBM, imo, is only “screwing” Apple in the notebook line by not getting siginificantly faster chips.
I literally just ordered my first ever Mac today – an iMac G5. While on the one hand I might feel cheated in terms of the hardware change, I think I’m going to keep it. I am so fed up with Windows, I cannot use it anymore. Unless something really drastic happens on Monday (which I doubt), I am keeping the iMac.
My first thought on reading this was,
“This the beginning of June, not April”. While this is indeed quite possible, it seems extraordinarily unlikely. Time will tell.
I’m sorry, but where does it say that apple is moving to x86 processors? It does mention Intel, but it says nowhere that it has to be x86 !!! There is just one irrelevant speculation in the whole article:
“One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel’s Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.”
Why do people (and even the author) automatically assume that Intel = x86 ???
Apple for sure isn’t aiming to make OS X compatible to the x86 as we know it. They wouldn’t sell hardware then.
… this are pure negotiations tactics.. very smart from those apple guys. hehe
I guess I’ll quit on my decision to switch to a mac
I can’t wait to see the Macintosh fanboys blow their chunks over this because that’s all they have time to ever do! But they get so crazy when anything about Windows touches their Macs! Well, let’s get real because I am a UNIX guy and I manage a huge bank and its infrastructure and there is nothing else like the power of a fully loaded mothership of UNIX love! We use OpenBSD and FreeBSD and we keep hackers out of their accounts and the customers too sometimes! We don’t play with ourselves when it comes to security.
If Steve Jobs says it’s a golden shower then it must be, and I’ll be first in line to feel the love! Go Apple, go!
P.S. Check out my bloglog!!! http://www.bilano.biz/ where I blog about Internet security matters and school the schoolers even!!
Intel’s already failed miserably at selling it and last I heard they decided to begin ending it? Anyway, Apple would likely just put a bit of code on a ROM and make the OS need that code to run; then make it try to write to the ROM (so you can’t fake it with something that’s writable).
Since x86 hardware is cheaper, and more avaliable, this could mean:
– Cheaper Machines
– Used PPC Macs would became cheapear than ever
– More upgrade choices
– More compatible hardware
– No more Mac-Specific Video Boards
– Wine and Cedega running on OSX!
– MacOSX running on vannila PCs
I’m really not bying into this. What about Mac Office for OSX. Who would produce their office suite? Not Microsoft, if they switch.
“Apple for sure isn’t aiming to make OS X compatible to the x86 as we know it. They wouldn’t sell hardware then.”
Hmmm…there are other processors out there. Or it could be a custom job (easier to do in this day and age of core ‘cells’).
why not AMD but Intel?
i mean if anything Apple should switch to the cell. Otherwise I believe we may be screwed forever with x86 an unvirtualisable scatterbrained eccentric cpu isa.
1) No IBM != x86 necessarily.
2) Apple will never again allow MacOS on commodity hardware.
3) Intel has plenty of tech that is not standard x86 PC stuff.
4) Apple will want this to be as closed and proprietary as possible.
Also,
5) AMD has virtually no non-x86 CPU tech.
6) AMD works with IBM, and Steve hates IBM for ‘betraying’ him.
7) x86 and PPC (by default) are endian reversed. Apple will want to old saved data to be as easily accessible as possible by recompiled or emulated apps.
Do you think they will port Office to OSX/x86 ?
Doubt it.
How they manage to say Apple has used IBM processors since 1994 is rather humorous. Try Motorola. Then IBM. To say they used the PowerPC Consortium designed chipsets since 1994 would be more accurate.
For those who don’t have Darwin x86 8.01 and/or 8.1 installed you really need to check out the source:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.1/
Draw your own conclusions.
While IBM has been facing some difficulties achieving its performance goals with the PowerPC 970-based processors found in Power Mac G5 systems, the company is driving ahead with plans that will dictate the PowerPC’s direction into the next decade.
http://thinksecret.com/news/0506quasar.html
This is crazy, if true. I STILL think that Apple will have Intel license produce some kind of PPC chip. Nowhere does it say, assuming the news piece is indeed correct, that Apple is looking to make a switch to x86, just “Intel Microprocessors”.
If it does turn out to be licensed PPC production and developement by Intel, then the move makes a lot of sense. But if they decide on going with an x86(-64?) CPU from Intel, then Apple can kiss me goodbye, they could at least have gone with AMD if that’s what they’re going to do.
-mojo
” Going to x86 will also give them the opportunity to port Mac OS X to x86 where there are many more users. ”
No this is incorrect, their is currently more users on the Mac platform right now since there are zero people on the Mac-x86 platform.
No mac running an intel chip would be compatible with current PCs.
They would be like current macs, but different CPUs.
Still, this isn’t going to happen. Apple may have something coming out with more intel chips, but they aren’t switching their computers to intel or anyone else anytime soon.
It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs.
I give it a week, maybe too, tops, before somebody figures out how to break it.
That said, commodity x86 machines would be an untapped market for Apple. I’d gladly pay $130 every year to get a new copy of OS X, just like the Mac folks do.
Maybe Apple has a new product!
most people seem to think apple moving to intel means they’ll be using the x86 cpu and maybe they will, maybe not as some people have already. however everyone so far as forgotten what apple do,they take an idea and move with it, they create their own product that is usually unique. with that said, whats stopping apple from making a new machine (even if its using the x86 cpu) and creating a custom motherboard, rom chips and anyother little custom ideas that’ll revolve around the x86 cpu. also, with the pearpc project whats stopping apple from using that as part of their new ‘old world’ ppc mac emulator if they did decide to move mac os x to the x86 cpu?
sorry for the lack of caps, my keyboard sucks
Interesting. I’d say that this is gonna happen. Pre-G5 release, there were rumours about Intel, AMD and IBM. The hot money was on IBM. Why move to Intel? mmm let’s see:
1. cheaper hardware
2. smaller form factor for chip, less heat etc
3. Compatibility via cpu platform should make a larger pool of software start to become available for the Mac platform.
4. Possibility of OS X for x86 is highly likely imho, but the o/s price will be set very high – whilst the OS X Mac version running on specially selected and limited hardware will be much cheaper. And we’ll see that Apple will palm off all hardware support/driver support for the x86 OS X version to the hardware manufacturers.
5. Will stall some Linux development as people contemplate using OS X on x86 than Linux – great way to stave off the increase in Linux users that has been relegating Apple to #3 in the operating system stakes. The average person will pay more money to be an o/s from a ‘reputable’ company like Apple, especially when it’s perceived as ‘just works’.
This has been brewing for quite some time – Intel has been relatively quiet for at least a year now, almost like it’s been distracted by something else. I suspect working on motherboards, rom chips and cpus for Apple
Now – does Apple keep the higher prices for its Macs, or does it drop and compete?
Dave
With the XBox 360 using PowerPC 970 processors, IBM’s chip business is going to expand like crazy in the next few years. That’s why I don’t believe this announcement. In the next year or two it is going to be much cheaper for IBM to make PowerPC processors with the XBox standardizing on the same line that Apple uses.
Ha, and all you thought it was all rumors! Well apparently theres some pretty credible people standing on these claims, well see if Apple, IBM and Intel follow through. In the mean time its not that big of a deal to the developer point of view. Apple will have to join the other BSD and Linux distro’s in constructing a multiplatform update system and cross compiler setup for XCode. Porting things over won’t be hard since all the low level stuff is encoded for you via the modern “compiler” and anyone foolish enough to make their code dependent on endianness deserves what they get. Just another shift in the currents, the world will not end Mac zealots and Windows fanboys.
Even though this is on CNet, I’m still not convinced. As the article mentions, Apple made a shift (almost 10 years ago) from the 68K processors to the PowerPC. It doesn’t make sense to have yet-another architecture change so soon – unless they’re going to x86-64 or a Intel PPC clone CPU, as some have speculated.
I guess I’m going to wait on that Macintosh I’ve been wanting for so long.
Of course, there’s always PearPC, too. 8)
I don’t see why not. If they did it’d be the first time Microsoft has been truly shy about porting across cpu platforms.
piracy among mac users is just as bad, if not more so, as the pc users. just check out some of the mac software sites or file trading programs.
You can get anything.. any of the 3 software tiles for the mac! hahah :p
You wrote: “I give it a week, maybe too”
BUT – just look at the XBOX which is basically commodity hardware, but it still is very difficult and it took a very long time to get Linux running on it.
Perhaps they will introduce some new Wimax
http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/
maybe its hype maybe not, but i hope apple carefully manages their brand well through this. I don’t wanna see another ford jaguar incident (jaguar = ford).
I can see it as bad and good. He is my reason for Intel being a good choice.
CPU or hardware has always seemed to be an issue for Apple. Whether true or perceived it seems they have always been a little behind. When PPC came along it was hyped as far superior then the 68040’s.. but when they hit and apps were opptimized it seemed more like just a natural speed bump not a huge difference. They went through quite a bit for that change.
If Apple is indeed planning on doing another CPU change then I believe that going with the biggest player (the ‘standard’) is the only choice. If they were switch to SPARC as some have suggested or even Alpha (one of my favorites) they would be in the same spot but with a different vendor.
Perhaps they are going to take this opportunity to end the CPU battle now. And just focus on the OS.
It also seems that Apple could be a pretty big customer for Intel. I dont know the numbers but since WinTel system are made up of many venders, it seems that Apple could be a big single customer.. which hopefully would insure that they are always on the cutting edge of processor development with Intel.
But, I hope they have OS X really optimized for Intel..cause there wont be any more excuses why Windows is faster or slower then Mac.
My money is on Apple announcing they’ll be using Intel’s XScale CPU’s in future iPods. I’m assuming the XScale cpu’s are much faster than the ones in the current iPods and could be used to decode video files. They’ve been rumoring video iPods for awhile. Handling video would need a high performance but low power cpu.
“This powerful 64-bit Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) architecture gives a performance boost to many applications including motion video, graphics combined with video, image processing, audio synthesis, speech synthesis and compression, telephony, conferencing, 2D graphics, and 3D graphics.”
http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/251669.htm
This would be a good move for Apple. I picked up one of the mini’s as soon as I could process an order on-line when they were announced. It’s been a worthwhile investment and prior to this bit o’ news I was planning on upgrading to a G5 this Christmas. Now I think I’ll hold off and wait.
I wonder how many other people will be doing the same thing? This could either hurt hardware sales until the Intel stuff comes out or there could be a rush of all the IBM fanboys rushing out to get a G5 while they exist.
All in all this will be (if true) a great move by Apple as it gives them a better chance at survival. The crossover will be a bit brutal but it’ll pay off in the long run for sure.
Think about it. What if CNet’s “source” simply stated that ‘Apple to use Intel chips’, and the rest is speculation?
Why think that chips = CPUs? Intel makes more than just CPUs. Maybe a change in chipset (do Apples use chipsets? *shrug*) or maybe the same networking chip as used in the Intel Centrinos.
Guess we’ll have to hold our breath until Monday.
I think the Chips from Intel could be Intel’s HD Audio solution
If this were in fact to be done (I’m still skeptical), wouldn’t apple make some sort of rom image that will be required to boot the OS like they do already on their current PPC computers?
If not then I think I’ll be buying a copy of Mac OS X when its X86 compatible, it would be cheaper than having to buy a whole new computer.
I say Intel will be a PowerPC licensee.
That theory follows IBM’s opening of the power architecture and their PPC everywhere philosophy.
Shouldn’t the x86 die off in favor of the Power chips? I don’t own a mac and never did but I think the PPC platform is or at least should be better.
At this point, it’s just theoretical cleanliness. You’re talking a few million transistors in the front end — that’s the whole cost for decades of backwards compatibility. Could, say, the x86 architecture be cleaner? Yeah, sure. The 64-bit prefixes in AMD64 are pretty ugly, for example. But cleanliness really doesn’t matter unless you’re a compiler. The CPU core itself (the RISC part) is quite clean (especially the Opteron), the system architecture is clean (with Hypertransport and PCI Express), and the things are fast and cheap.
In any case, PPC was never as clean an architecture as the Alpha. Alpha lovers have reason to lament, not only were those processors powerful, but the architecture was nice and the systems were well-designed. PPC was never that conceptually pure.
Its also interesting that nobody ever mentions the good things about x86. For example, the fact that memory-operand instructions and complex addressing modes save quite a bit of cache space compared to RISC code. With memory getting ever slower, this advantage is nothing to sneeze at.
I’m betting this has a LOT to do with the powerbook. Apple has been on G5 for 3 years now and there’s still no Powerbook G5. Enough is enough.
that sure seems a lot more likely than apple switching to an x86
I’ve been pondering the Apple situation during the last few months, and here are my opinions:
– Apple is a hardware company which makes a few apps (iLife, OSX, FCP) to help sell hardware. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same under x86, even running Windows.
– Apple stem to increase their profits if they become a x86 distributer, with elegantly designed hardware, running the iLife suite of software under WINDOWS.
– their market share (and profits) would jump from 3-5% to 10-20% if they switched CPU and operating systems.
– there is a market for elegant boxes under x86. In the end, people follow the software. The software exists for x86. Only a subset exist for PPC.
– Freescale and IBM are unable to deliver wanted CPU’s to Apple. This hurts their hardware business.
I personally think that Apple should have made this decision during the Motorola G4 days. But I guess it’s never too late.
This is the only way Apple can survive.
What if, following IBM’s decision to open up Cell, Apple is just contracting Intel to fabricate Cell CPUs? Now that Intel no longer manufactures console processors and has in any case spare fabrication capability, this makes the most sense to me. They (Intel) pay no design royalties, get a fairly stable revenue stream, and don’t loose too much face over not using in-house design. Everyone can just say, “IBM fabrication facilities just couldn’t keep up”, and no one gets burned too badly.
how ironic, just a few hours ago there was an article praising the g5, and now apple wants to move away from it. i think that the changes are happening to quickily. apple just released tiger a few months ago which is supposed to the first 64bit version of os x and can take advantage of the g5, now they are going to throw all that away.
Yeah, I agree. This sounds more like Apple is trying to get a better deal out of IBM. Microsoft says they’ll be shipping 4GHZ PPC-based IBM chips by december. We know they tested the PPC970 at higher clockrates. It doesn’t make sense that Apple doesn’t have 2+Ghz PPC970 laptops by now… Of course Altivec seemed like a bit of a hack, that might have fscked things up. And AMD isn’t scaling either. They’re only hitting about 2.6Ghz. But they’re both keeping up with Intel’s 3.8s.
But I think they’re working out deals on these custom design chips and the deals aren’t going so well… that would be my guess.
I don’t believe it… Why the heck would anyone go Intel? If Apple had any sense, they’d partner up with AMD and replace the G5 with a super cool dual dual-core 64bit AMD system! Four cores in one box!
We’ll definitely have to wait until Monday to see what Apple does, which is convenient for News.com since it’ll drive a lot of hits to their site. The cell approach might be what really drives the Macintosh into the high end market and could be a crippling blow for some of its competitors from Sun, HP and even IBM. There’s just something fishy about this whole thing, and it seems like News.com is sorta taking a page from Dvorak’s play book and writing up stories that it knows will get a lot of hits, even if they’re semi-trollish.
Why now of all times for Apple to switch, right when their marketshare is modestly growing? That’d just be suicide at this point; I’d expect this if they were actually losing users right and left, but not while the iPod and other products are the hottest things out there.
Some more reasons why I think this is BS, http://www.blindmindseye.com/2005/06/03/apple-may-be-crazy-but-they…
Its also interesting that nobody ever mentions the good things about x86.
The x86 architecture does have a lot of complex and annoying idiosyncrasies. The upshot is that AMD has cleaned up a lot of the most annoying ones in x86-64. (Segmentation: eww)
For example, the fact that memory-operand instructions and complex addressing modes save quite a bit of cache space compared to RISC code. With memory getting ever slower, this advantage is nothing to sneeze at.
Would you clarify what you mean by this statement? I actually interpret this the opposite way. I’m not interested in starting a RISC/CISC war, but I was under the impression that the x86 ISA actually made ITLB issues more difficult to understand. This confusion being due to the fact that they have a variable-length instruction format. In order to align instructions on a page for better performance (of a loop, maybe) it’s now more difficult since you have to figure out exactly what length each particular instruction is and that may change depending upon what addressing mode and argument format you’re using.
To be fair to x86, AMD and Intel have done a fabulous job of optimizing things under-the-covers. Their processors have better branch prediction and prefetching strategies than a number of their RISC competitors.
Apple isn’t a hardware company, they are a design company.
They profit on their slick designs. People are willing to pay a premium for their inferior (more expensive, less capable) products because of their design. Design being integration and looks.
Imagine if their products were based on the same commodity platforms that the rest of the industry uses, then they’d be slightly more capable, and if they charged the same ammount, they’d have more profit. It is a shame that they are talking about intel so soon, but I’m sure if it’s true, it will be x86 and not some ppc by intel, but a nexgen platform which I’m sure has intel all caught up. it would be nice if apple starts with a legacy free platform, but bios is very hard to get rid of, apparently…
Also, apple will be happy to offer no support for winXP users that pay lots of money for apple x86 laptops and very glad to offer no support for ppl with dells that want the full MacOSX experience.. I expect apple will be beefing up their mac.com infrastructure…
Also, the big kicker was the fact that it was impossible to fit a G5 on a laptop, where laptops are best sellers for Apple.
I kept on saying that Apple was getting creamed with their underpowered laptops. I don’t expect Apple to start shipping monster desktop replacements anytime soon, but at least they now have the option.
I think IBM has its hands full with the new XBOX 360, Playstation 3 and Nintendo Revolution. There is more moneu in this market right now that IBM doesn’t care about Apple anymore. So, now Steve really has to look for the masses. I guess he has no choice. Very sad for Apple. I would prefer AMD.
But personally, at this point, I don’t care if Apple runs on x86 computers. I just want to see OS X kicking butt everywhere
and there is a huge market of unhappy Windows users waiting for this moment.
Money talks!
-2501
apple had no choice. vast majority of comps they sell are laptops and based on the latest power consumption figures, it looked like they would never get a G5 laptop. that one reason is enough to dump IBM. intel is working on a new chip that is based on pentium 3 and is dual core, and i speculate that that’s what got jobs interested.
Maybe Intel has a processor that is similar to PPC architecture???
Don’t assume x86.
An Arm processor. Isn’t Intel the biggest company out there that makes them?
Me thinks that the move to Intel chips means that Apple’s had it with IBM’s southbrige and is moving to a Centrino/WiMax/HDAudio based intel chip.
It’s just a change of CPU, Apple will use the DRM on the new cpu’s or some other scheme to keep people from being able to build their own Apple clone.
>> It is suicide to try to support all this hardware out there, Apple will only add support for the proprietary Apple PCs.
that is the oldest and easiest excuse to debunk. Apple doesn’t have to support the hardware, the hardware vendors write the drivers and support so they can sell them! In like manner, Windows doesn’t support the hardware out there, the hardware makes themselves support Windows. All OS’s whether its Apple, Linux, or Windows then have lists of known hardware that they know to work (HCL’s).
Intel CPU != x86
Something like that.
This just shows how close-minded and ignorant most people here and at CNet are. Apple starts talking to Intel about processors and everyone assumes they’re discussing x86 processors.
Intel does a lot more than that, and that means there are a lot of possibilities. Apple might even do something more realistic than a massive architecture shift and ask Intel to license the PowerPC from IBM (perhaps even fronting the licensing fees).
Intel has massive fabrication capability, and this would mean the end of PowerPC yield problems. Intel makes ARM processors, and IBM makes PowerPC chips. Both are popular for embedded work. Intel must view PPC as a thorn in their side for embedded processor sales. Such a deal would let them sell to pretty much everyone, and not just the companies that want ARM.
you may have a point. is the Mac even the best selling piece of Apple hardware anymore? i suspect for # of units shipped (not revenue), the iPod is ahead of the Mac.
and i agree that for pure volume, the next gen game consoles are going to be off the charts, they may kill the PC for most people
No, not really. Microprocessors are a lot different today that they were in the early 90s. You could take an x86 set and add extensions to run x64 apps, I’m sur eyou can do this with ppc as well as POWER had PPC extensions I think.
It really does not matter in my opinino and i dont think the instruction sets make all tha big of differences anymore. Hell, Transmeta’s stuff is all digitalized now–hard software based.
The question is– what’s the big deal?? Why doesn’t IBM soup-up an x64 processor and use it.. I am sure if they add enough features it can be as good as POWER. Existing customer base and stubborness. It also would make them not different from intel and amd.
What does this mean for apple? WELL, they will have to use some hardware to run ppc apps on their x86 cpus.
What would be the plus? Cheaper parts. They won’t be different, they will just have to hope their OS is what draws people in. They are betting alot on their OS and their customer base that wants to get away from the wintel stuff will freak out.
Design your own processors and have a company like IBM or fujitsu manufacture them like Sun, HP and SGI do. IT’s probably a hell of a lot better than just buying the chips. Take it into your own hands.
BUY OUT SUN!!! and switch to the SPARC!!! and get one of the most cool design teams in the world
so, apparently the only thing different is the apple ROM and the OS that will only run on apple’s rom.. and apple’s rom’s can’t be used in other OS’s…… good luck
>> Apple isn’t a hardware company, they are a design company.
somewhat true, they produce designs which are outsourced for manufacture….but the same can be said for 95% of “hardware” firms.
most networking, storage and systems firms outsource manufacturing. a few still do it in house, but they are the old guard.
point is, Apple depends mostly on hardware for revenues, so they are a hardware company
I am part of the “Apple will never use…” chorus, and I don’t fucking care which chip from whatever company Apple uses. They can use intel for all I care. But one thing is certain, they won’t go for a generic-PC route, as that would kill them. They would go out of buisness. No, you’re not going to run OS X on your (D/H)ell, so keep using your stardock pos ripoffs and stop trolling.
This is hilarious, it’s like Apple has a performance persecution complex. The one time they decide to switch processors, instead of going with the performace king (AMD), they go with intel. Priceless.
NOTE: I did not say x86. AMD64 is better than itanic and XScale is not even in the same league
Well said Andreas, thanks. The guy was terribly rude for no good reason.
BeOS came to x86 from PPC as well, and they did the mistake to try to support the “generic PC platform”, and that really killed them. It’s _impossible_ to support such a vast amount of third party hardware. No, Linux is not successful either: look at ACPI, web cam, WiFi firmware out of the box support. It’s just can’t happen because third party manufacturers release stuff FASTER than one can write drivers for (even if you have the specs). Windows doesn’t support everything out of the box either without manufacturer’s drivers. And I don’t see all these manufacturer’s running behind Apple’s 2% of market share.
So, no, Apple won’t go the “generic PC” route. They will create BRANDED proprietary Apple PCs. This is what they always did and will continue to do so. The fact that will have an Intel chip in there makes no difference ultimately.
I’m afraid apple wouldn’t go to arm, it’s only an embedded processor.
I’m sorry, but all you people who think Intel will make their own PowerPC chip for the Mac have your heads firmly planted up your backsides. PowerPC, along with Sparc, is one of the few remaining architectures competing with x86/x64. Moreover, Intel and IBM are fierce competitors in the CPU market. The last thing Intel would want to do would be to do anything to legitimize the Power architecture. They’re also in the middle of a transition from 32bit chips to 64bit chips. The idea that they’re going to put aside space to manufacture Power chips in the midst of this seems highly unlikely.
Besides, even if they were to do such a thing, how would that put Apple in a better position? The primary complaint with IBM is that they aren’t being responsive enough in enhancing the PowerPC both in terms of performance (GHz) and power consumption for ultra-mobile form factors. If Intel were to manufacture Apple’s chips, they’d have even *less* incentive to bother improving the architecture as it’s one of their competitors.
Here are the possibilities as I see them: (a) this whole story is BS and rumor-mongering; (b) Apple will be using Intel chipsets, but continue to use PowerPC chips [as someone else pointed out]; (c) Apple will use ARM or xScale for some sort of device; (d) Apple is moving to x64. Of these possibilites, (a) and (d) seem most likely. (b) doesn’t seem realistic just because I’m not inclined to believe Intel chipsets work well with other CPU architecture (though hardware people please feel free to call me out on this).
i personally cant wait
Apple would NEVER go for a generic-PC route. It will be a proprietary-style x86 machine
Never say never. At the very least this could be the start of Apple licensing deals again. And if Apple could ever figure out a way to curb piracy (har har) I wouldn’t be surprised to see OS XII DVDs on the shelfs one day for the vanilla PC
Perhaps Steve Jobs has dropped his objection to 3rd parties making Macs or bundling OSX – it’s evident by the fact that Steve has allowed HP to make iPods and Motorola to use the iTunes software.
Steve also knows how to compete in a crowded field – iPod/Tunes basically kicked Rio’s, Creative’s, Sony’s collective ass’es in the digital music field and so he has a plan to kick Dell/HP/IBM’s ass in the PC field.
As soon as you have a solid UNIX coming to x86, people will lose interest in Linux, Solaris & FreeBSD and they will basically be relegated to the niche OS fields they started out as.
As soon as you have a solid UNIX coming to x86, people will lose interest in Linux, Solaris & FreeBSD and they will basically be relegated to the niche OS fields they started out as.
I was thinking the same thing. OpenSolaris comes out this month. This could be a preemptive strike to permanenty relegate linux, solaris, bsds to the server closet (at least in the first world).
And then they get even more compatibility with the low-end stuff that is running on servers OSs like linux, solaris, BSD.
I am sure there is a deal of some sort with Intel, but not for CPUs for their flagship computers… I am with a few others who have mentioned that it is probably for the iPod. The hardware that is really making Apple some $$$ right now.
That being said, if it DOES end up being CPUs for their desktops and/or laptops… it would be wayyyyy cool if they had been working with Intel already and have come up with some awesome NEW architecture.
C|Net wouldn’t have ran this story without confirming first. I confirmed that part alright.
Besides the G5 problems that Apple was having with IBM, I’m wondering if some of Apple’s technical leads know something about Intel’s upcoming processors that the rest of us don’t.
Now CNet and Stephen Shankland has made my list of stupid journalists who like to sensationalise everything. There is no logical reason for Apple to switch to x86 on their desktops. The x86 architecture is aging and lives only on life support now from AMD and Intel who are desperate to keep it going. MS is planning their escape route with .Net (if they get their act together), or by modifying Virtual PC.
The best outcome from this story is probably just the news that Apple may be using the x86 chips for some new device we don’t know about (which is odd, they could just use Motorola who beat Intel at embedded every which way to Sunday), but for the desktops it’s just plain silly.
The x86 architecture is aging and lives only on life support now from AMD and Intel who are desperate to keep it going
Hehe, like we haven’t been hearing that for the past 15 years. Yeah, you’re bitter, but you have to come up with something better than that.
That skepticism remains. “If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned,” said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. “I don’t know that Apple’s market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers” and more software partners, he said.
Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola’s 680×0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. T
The big difference is that you don’t have massive amounts of code written in assembly language anymore. Even the Altivec software would most likely have SSE2 equivalents from vendors.
Lol. This is fun.
Welcome to the dark side Apple fanboys!
Next Apple will license Windows from Microsoft and you’ll be all happily thumping away in Internet Explorer, with adware showing you planty of “relevant” ads of what you should buy.
Well, let’s hope not.
It’s more likely that Mac hardware (bios) and OS/X will get cracked the same day it’s released (or sooner) and we’ll have a mass exodus from Windows to Mac OS/X.
Umm, juicy! Mac OS/X running on a $299 Walmart box.
> Intel’s upcoming processors that the rest of us don’t.
Nope, I doubt if there’s anything new from Intel except EMT64s. Itanium turned out to be a stinker. Intel’s going to ride x86/x86-64 as long as it has legs (oh say for the next 15 years).
>Mac OS/X running on a $299 Walmart box.
dream on.