“If you think Apple is going to make the big switch, you would need to believe that Apple already has Tiger running on x86 hardware (likely), it does not see much of a future with the PowerPC 970 line (possible), and it believes switching to Pentium D and/or Pentium M systems would allow them to increase their market share (debatable),” Eric Bangeman writes for Ars technica.
“IBM is definitely committed to the POWER architecture that is at the heart of the PowerPC 970 used in the iMac and PowerMac. Witness the Power Everywhere play by IBM as well as the fact that all three next-generation consoles will be using CPUs based on the architecture. On the other hand, it seems that the PPC 970 has not worked out so well for Apple. Remember the now-infamous prediction by Steve Jobs in June 2003? 3.0GHz in 12 months. 24 months later and IBM is still only 70 percent there. Not only that, but cooling issues have left the PowerBook still using the bandwidth-throttled PPC 74xx (G4) line,” Bangeman writes.
“Intel would offer Apple instant brand recognition and credibility, an ample supply of CPUs, and even the option of marketing Mac OS X as an x86 alternative to Windows. While I’m quite fond of my Dual 2.5GHz Power Macintosh G5, the thought of having a pair of Pentium D 840s (or better yet, some dual-core Opterons) in there is intriguing. And don’t get me started on a Centrino Aluminum PowerBook,” Bangeman writes.
“On the flip side, it would require a big commitment on the part of its developers and might alarm some people who have made a significant investment in PowerPC Mac hardware. For the next few years, the company would likely need to maintain builds of Mac OS X for both architectures, as would application developers,” Bangeman writes. “At this point, I think it’s within the realm of possibility—even likely—but I’m not 100 percent sold. We’ll find out for sure after the weekend.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The fact that nobody can seem to fully accept the Apple Mac with Intel Inside story, tells just how big and historic such an announcement would be — if it happens. We expect there would be some major twists to an Apple-Intel deal, not a straight “all Macs will run on Pentiums by 2007” announcement from Jobs this Monday.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
MacDailyNews to present live Steve Jobs’ WWDC Keynote coverage – June 06, 2005
Intel in Macs?! How’s Apple CEO Steve Jobs going to spin that switch? – June 04, 2005
Apple to switch to Intel chips starting in 2006 – CNET [updated] – June 03, 2005
Anticipation, rumors build ahead of Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ June 6 WWDC keynote – May 27, 2005
Intel CEO Otellini: If you want security now, buy a Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC – May 25, 2005
Analyst: Apple-Intel rumor ‘hogwash’ (today marks 11th month that Jobs’ promised 3GHz G5 is late) – May 23, 2005
iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
i just don’t want an intel inside sticker ruining my next powerbook.. .
I like the “Intel will produce 970s for Apple” twist.
Three times the same story on one frontpage? Oh well, all the more opportunity to chat about it.
What would be so bad about ‘Intel inside’ on the outside of a Mac? Just because it is Windows’ preferred chip?
How about this scenario: MacOS XI runs on the Pentium VI, so does Windows 2010. Who of the two is going to be more stable and faster? Are there any fanboys here that are afraid to face that challenge? I’m sure Steve and Ive aren’t.
It’ll be historic, alright. A historic failure.
I want my next powerbook to be the fastest, bestest portable computer in the world, and I don’t care what Apple puts inside. Intel, Motorola, Genuine GM parts are all ok, as long as I can run OSX. I never look inside anyway.
Time will tell.
If this is all BS, C|net/news.com might as well close shop.
Go Steve!
Sat. June4th…The Enola Gay has lifted off.
WTF – Who cares? As long as I have Mac stability/security and state-of-the-art speed, I don’t care if there are dual gerbils running on the inside.
“Sat. June4th…The Enola Gay has lifted off.”
OMG. Monday is June 6th, the D-Day anniversary. Apple NEVER does keynote speeches on a Monday, it’s always Tues. or Wed. Maybe the invasion has begun…
agree with “mac user since ’85” and “red ripe apple”
I don’t care what is inside, as long as it runs better than anything else
ASLONG AS THEY DON”T PUT A DAMNED STICKER THAT RUINS THE AWESOME STYLE OF ALL APPLE COMPUTERS!
Intel inside will mean much slower Macs, at least at first. It means running software in some stupid emulation mode again. Remember the 68000 to PowerPC conversion? It means that Mac applications have to be recompiled, in some cases significantly rewritten. It means paying for stupid updates to go to a new platform, again.
I have clients that I’ve JUST barely convinced to stay on Mac after the classic to OS X conversion. Most argued that if we have to go through this kind of conversion, why don’t we just switch to Windows? You’d be surprised how many people think that way.
A computer running OS X on Intel is not a Mac and should be called something different.
This is going to be one big pain in the ass.
All you guys who don’t care what Apple puts inside, better rethink your statement. It’s the software stupid! Intel means a total rewrite for all your software, and several years of transition. A total disaster!
This would only work if all Windows software ran on the an Intel Macintosh without changing any code. And that seems unlikely.
It does seem unlikely, Teflon, but that doesn’t mean its impossible.
Please note that a chip is not a chip is not a chip.
x86 architecture is old and crufty. It is at the end of the road.
It is a testament to Intel that they have made it work as well as it does. That and upwards of $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
The rigid stack-order execution and limited page protection inherent in the x86 lead to specific Windows buffer overflow vulnerabilities. Do you *really* want that? Neither does Steve. I am quite sure he will be happy to stay with his “Superscalar Monster”:
“The design philosophy of the 970FX is very aggressive. It is not only a deeply pipelined processor, but it is also a very wide superscalar CPU that can theoretically sustain up to 5 instructions (4+ 1 branch) per clock cycle. The Opteron can sustain 3 at most; the Pentium 4’s trace cache bandwidth “limits” the P4 to about 2 x86 instruction per clock cycle.” —Johan De Gelas, AnandTech, April, 2005
I have no doubt that Apple and Wintel are cooking something up, but I absolutely guarantee you its not a CPU architecture change.
Just in case…does anyone have any good humble pie recipes?
If it is true, I think it is either going to be Intel producing PPC chips or that they have something new that would leave PPC in the dust and Steve doesn’t do dust.
Sorry
This just doesn’t make sense. One of the reasons for the lagging PPC clock speed was the switch to nanotechnology, and if I’m not mistaken, this was a roadblock hit by all chip makers. More work for diminishing returns, or something like that.
Unless Intel has NEW chip up it’s sleeve, something that is better and faster than x86, something ‘wtih legs’ as Jobs one said of the PPC chip, I just don’t see Apple making the big switch.
Slightly faster processors
Better supply
vs all the trouble this will be for developers, and
the risk that once THIS genie is out of the box, and Tiger runs on “off the shelf PC’s”, there is NO putting the genie back in the bottle…. declining hardware sales = just about the end of Apple as we now know it.
Yes, I’d continue to buy Mac’s, even with “intel inside” but I’d be selling my stock in Apple pretty fast.
Now, on the FLIP side… if Apple were to morph itself into a software only outfit… drop its sales of hardware, and become more like MS, then, and only then would this make much sense. But from a business standpoint, this type of transistion doesn’t seem like one you’d make because you wanted to… only because you had to. I don’t think Apple HAS TO, espically now.
Should we consider that the Apple/Intel collaboration might be in order to gain corporate and enterprise clients? One of the biggest hurdles Apple faces in the corporate environment is the fact that custom applications and suites would have to be ported to the PPC chip system. With an Apple OS using the Intel chip, the need for complex emulation would fall away, and an emulator such as virtual PC could easily be changed, or as one poster has mentioned maybe a “classic” windows environment. Maybe, software that currently runs on the x86 architecture will have no problem being used through an alternative OS with a built in windows emulator.
That, in my opinion, would be the only feasible and locigal reason why we would see OSX on an Apple/Intel machine.
M. T. MacPhee wrote:
“I am quite sure he will be happy to stay with his ‘Superscalar Monster'”
The problem is his monster isn’t superscaling. I’d be more than a little unhappy at having to eat the 3GHZ promise because a vendor couldn’t deliver. Esp. when that vendor seems capable of fast new chips for gaming consoles.
It’d be awesome if Intel would design and build future desktop & laptop PowerPC’s (or something compatible enough to run Mac software). But I’m not holding my breath.
> M. T. MacPhee: x86 architecture is old and crufty. It is at the end of the road.
If by “old and crufty” you mean faster than Macs, then you are only mostly correct.
I’m with the dude who said “I don’t care if it runs dual-gerbils”. If this move is progress then so be it.
Intel is an awesome channel partner.
> M. T. MacPhee: x86 architecture is old and crufty. It is at the end of the road.
If by “old and crufty” you mean faster than Macs, then you are only mostly correct.
I’m with the dude who said “I don’t care if it runs dual-gerbils”. If this move is progress then so be it.
Intel is an awesome channel partner.
> M. T. MacPhee: x86 architecture is old and crufty. It is at the end of the road.
If by “old and crufty” you mean faster than Macs, then you are only mostly correct.
I’m with the dude who said “I don’t care if it runs dual-gerbils”. If this move is progress then so be it.
Intel is an awesome channel partner.
I don’t care what processor is in my Macintosh. Whatever it is, as long as it is the best computer syste (hardware, OS, sofware, industrial design, performance), it really doesn’t matter.
And BTW, Intel inside does not necessarily mean x86… Just as IBM no longer means x86 PCs.
This could simply be another chip supplier for Macs – as in IBM/Moto/Intel. Not so long ago, buying a Mac had little to do with who put the chip in – it was part of the small-print.
OR – It could be Apple’s anticipated foray into somehow enabling OS X for the Wintel crowd.
If Apple is EVER going to take a giant leap forward and storm the Windows territory it HAS to be NOW, Microsoft only has a tattered and creaking OS to fight back with and nothing on the horizon for at least 18 months. I wonder if Redmond’s recent (and surprising) advertising blitz for its ageing platform has anything to to with THEM knowing what might be about to hit them?
Ok, here’s the deal. Lets say I want a Mac, but in 6 months new machines are coming out with Intel processors rendering my machine and its software obsolete. Why would I buy a Power PC-based machine anticipating a changeover to Intel, even if it’s a year and a half down the pike? Something is weird here. An announcement to go to Intel processors needs to have great incentives and flexibility to appease those who want to buy a new Mac in the next 2 years. This will be interesting.
The question here is;
Why would Apple switch to a slower and outdated CPU (x86 made by Intel) over the faster more up-to-date CPU (PowerPC made by IBM)?
That’s like a major step backwards if you ask me.