Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Apple is going to use Intel chips

  1. #1

    Default Apple is going to use Intel chips

    http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+I...3-5731398.html
    Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

    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. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

    IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

    The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.

    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 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. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)

    The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue. More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.

    Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.

    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.

    The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.

    IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.

    "I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.

    Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene/L.

    Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.

    Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.
    I would like to get a Mac, but if they're going to switch chip manufacturers then I'll just wait for the new models.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brackenridge, PA
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    This rumor comes up from "Tech insiders" almost twice a year and has since the late 80s/early 90s. Apple likely won't go to another platform. Note, the Cnet story has (and none of them ever do) good references, and all the people they quote are always in shock at the idea because it is sheer stupidity. Apple has a good thing going with IBM. If it went south, they wouldn't move to an x86 chip, because despite 64-bit extensions, they are still extremely cryptic, and aren't as good as their RISC counterparts. The Mac platform has been on some RISC varient or another since... well, forever. This will NOT change.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    302

    Default

    hmmm interesting. Untill i hear official news from apple, i don't buy it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Titus22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,051

    Default

    I heard this 2 years ago and it still hasn't happened

  5. #5

    Default

    You're all wrong, this time it's legit:
    Steve Jobs announced at the WWDC keynote today that Apple is switching to Intel processors. MacNN has live coverage. The bottom line is that Mac OS X for the last five years has been running on Intel, the switch is expected to be complete in two years, and Rosetta will allow PPC apps to run on Intel-based Macs, transparently. If you're using Xcode, it is small changes and a recompile; otherwise, you might be seeing a lot of work ahead of you. You will be able to order the 10.4.1 preview for Intel today.
    http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1752234.shtml

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brackenridge, PA
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Wow. Just wow! It finally REALLY happened. Reporters have been making up news about it since forever, and now it's happening. It's kind of hard to believe, but it sounds like Steve Jobs has his reasons (most of which seem well thoughtout). Apparently IBM has taken far far too long with a G5 that runs cool enough to fit into an iBook/PowerBook. Given Intel is putting SSE3, 64-bit extensions, and hyperthreading/dual core in ALL of their processors shortly, it sounds like this shift won't cause many performance hits. I'm curious to see what will come of this. Supposedly the beta builds of "OSX for Intel" can run on any hardware (given the proper drivers). This may change, or may not. Keep your eyes and ears open. This should be big.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    302

    Default

    I saw it on the news this morning and i was like w00t that kicks azz.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brackenridge, PA
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by :):):):) V2
    I saw it on the news this morning and i was like w00t that kicks azz.
    Well I don't know about kicking an ***, but it is a huge shift in focus for Apple. This also says one or two major things. First, For the first time since the 386 processor was released has their been a worthy successor. Second, IBM's G5 isn't as flexible as platform as IBM promised it would be. At least due to the custom nature of the Mac platform, this shouldn't hurt their users too much.

    I know a lot of Apple fans who will not be happy with this. I hope Apple finds a way to keep their OS on their hardware only. Apple has always had a quality kick. There are reasons (other than just price throttling) that their computers have always been a bit expencive. They are simply better than everyone else's (higher quality, more reliavble, etc). Mac OS X shouldn't be on every crummy decrepit whitebox from here to Flaflooga.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doktoratomic
    You're all wrong, this time it's legit:
    Steve Jobs announced at the WWDC keynote today that Apple is switching to Intel processors. MacNN has live coverage. The bottom line is that Mac OS X for the last five years has been running on Intel, the switch is expected to be complete in two years, and Rosetta will allow PPC apps to run on Intel-based Macs, transparently. If you're using Xcode, it is small changes and a recompile; otherwise, you might be seeing a lot of work ahead of you. You will be able to order the 10.4.1 preview for Intel today.
    http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1752234.shtml
    you :):):):):):):)! I was rushing to the boards so I could post this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mac Slash
    Steve Jobs has confirmed the rumors on stage at the Apple Worldwide Developer's Conference. For the past 5 years Apple has had a secret team building all version of MacOS X for Intel chips since the beginning. On stage, jobs demoed a version of OS X running on quad processor(!) 3.6GHz Pentium 4 machine. Developers will need to use XCode to build applications for both current PowerPC machines and Intel machines, which should debut or consumers sometime next year.
    http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1413259

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vtnwesley
    Quote Originally Posted by :):):):) V2
    I saw it on the news this morning and i was like w00t that kicks azz.
    Well I don't know about kicking an ***, but it is a huge shift in focus for Apple. This also says one or two major things. First, For the first time since the 386 processor was released has their been a worthy successor. Second, IBM's G5 isn't as flexible as platform as IBM promised it would be. At least due to the custom nature of the Mac platform, this shouldn't hurt their users too much.

    I know a lot of Apple fans who will not be happy with this. I hope Apple finds a way to keep their OS on their hardware only. Apple has always had a quality kick. There are reasons (other than just price throttling) that their computers have always been a bit expencive. They are simply better than everyone else's (higher quality, more reliavble, etc). Mac OS X shouldn't be on every crummy decrepit whitebox from here to Flaflooga.
    I think it's sweet. Inter rocks as well as mac does. They will think of something to make their OS platform based, trust me. With all the emulators that came out troughout the years no one really succeeded to get macOS properly running on a PC. They will probably change something about the chip, a tiny thing that will make it apple-only or something.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •