“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.
What is this new alliance going to be called?
Intel and Apple…. hmmmmm…. how about “Nipple”… what does every one else think?
Could go nicely alongside the old SE/x (which was called the SE/30)
All very interesting speculation, but until the actual announcement on Monday, bootless in my opinion. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that OS X on x86 is the least likely scenario, given the horrible message it would send to developers. It’s more likely that:
• Apple may have contracted Intel to fab PowerPC chips;
• They may be announcing new non-Mac hardware which uses Intel processors (eg the controller in Xraid is made by Intel);
• There really is something to the speculation about WiMAX, in which case we may hear some exciting things about wireless home media products.
Ain’t speculation fun? No matter though, the primary attraction to me is Apple’s software, not their hardware. I could care less what silicon is hosting OS X, just so long as it runs well. Let’s put a lid on the breathless hypotheses and wait until Monday. Our heads will be free to explode then.
The question that everyone is asking is why would Apple announce that it will phase out PowerPC chips in favour of Intel two years ahead of time, creating chaos and confusion.
The answer is simple, they will not do it. Instead, they will release MacOSX for Intel (maybe certifying it for some systems) and wait for the demand of Intel versions to grow in order to convince developers to create two versions of the applications. At first, small apps (freeware, shareware and Apple applications will become available) and as demand grow, publishers like Adobe and Microsoft will have to follow. If there is enough traction Apple will release Intel workstations, otherwise they will stick with PowerPC. In order to avoid panic from the loyal Mac user base there will be some minor hardware updates based on PowerPC just to show commitment to the platform.
This is a big step because it means that Apple is willing to change from being a hardware company to become a software company. But then, Apple is getting closer to obtain a billion dollar annual revenue from software, so now it becomes a real possibility.
Anyone agrees?
I think they will use both Intel and IBM, once you get OSx running on intel (which won’t be that hard, remember its Unix under the skin) it will allow you to pick the best of both worlds at any given time. Why not be 2 sourced! And possibly may also allow OSX to run on any Wintel box.
If Apple switches to Intel, they might as well close up shop. You can already get a BSD based system on intel architecture of you use open BSD.
The only thing that makes Apple computers different is this… they offer POWER chips with a UNIX variant system at an individual consumers price.
At work we do alot of computational work on different machines, including POWER on AIX, POWER on LINUX and Intel on LINUX (which is alot like BSD.)
IBM machines are always superior to Intel machines because the IBM engineers consider the whole machine architecture (i.e. motherboard throughput, cache sizes, disk access times, etc…)
Dont through in the towel Apple!
Whoever said that Apple will get intel to fabricate POWER chips is wrong, because most of the design of power chips are property of IBM.
Anybody else notice that Intel got their first customer for their 18-month old mobile phone chip yesterday?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/03/intel_sells_register/
Coincidence? probably
pssst.. will gaming be better on the Mac if they run Intel?
you can already have this planned product (BSD on x86.) Its freely available: http://www.openBSD.org
Apple will go out of business if they do this. That is why I think the story is a sham.
ibm has very serious problems with g5.
intel has new processor that wow´d them at apple.
One must keep in mind the chessgame going on in the computer business world today.
Microsoft, which was successful because of the processors that Intel makes, has now with the release of the next XBox gone into competition with Intel and the computer companies that Intel makes processors for.
The new Xbox is basically a computer….that does not use Intel chips (it will use an IBM chip).
Is Intel (and the PC makers) pissed? No doubt.
How could Intel (and all the other computer box makers) get back at Microsoft?
Well, Intel could bring out a new high-powered processor chip that does some amazing things with MacOSX. (And will not work with Microsoft´s Longhorn).
Apple could sell its computers using the new INtel chip. (And, who knows, maybe IBM told Apple it can´t or doesn´t have the resources to develop the PowerPC for Apple computers anymore.)
Apple couple also start licensing its OSX to “PC” computer makers (HP -partner with iPOd, Sony, Dell, others..)
Lots of possibilities in this chess game where Microsoft has now, with the new XBox, started competing in the hardware biz with companies it sells its OS to.
If Steve announces on Monday or some other time in the near future, keep in mind it is war….against Microsoft.
Apple will introduce new machines that will use a brand new line of processors from Intel. It’s not going to be a variant of the x86, but rather, it will license the AltiVec/Velocity Engine from Apple, and it will have multiple cores. I forgot to ask my source at Intel if it’s going to be a 64-bit procesor. He says it will blow all the competition out of the water.
If Apple were to shift, what a slap in the face for Apple and us mac users after all these years of bagging Intels processors over the PPC architecture.
While everyones hopping up and down for more grunt, it’s not all about hardware. OSX still has latency issues, and software developers – well, I can imagine how happy they’d be recompiling their software yet again. Hell – most of them arent even using the Cocoa environment for development.
While it’s technically possible to shift, there are many hurdles that accompany Apples current business model. My guess? – if anything its embedded stuff with Intel – maybe WiMax or iPod related, or a new device.
IBM owns a number of patents involving PPC and has opened them up to all who will join Power.org ( http://www.power.org ). Apple and FreeScale also have access or ownership to many PPC patents as well. I’m not predicting, but Apple could easily announce it’s joining Power.org Monday and that it’s going to hire Intel to design and produce the chip. Steve has really got the PR going, so much for the lawsuits in January hurting Apple. Everybody’s going to be watching Monday to see what he’s got cooking.
My guess of each major possibility.
1- Apple announces new Dual-Core PPC chips from FreeScale in the laptop, Mac mini and eMac lines. (75%)
2- Apple announces the Antares Dual-Core 970-series chips from IBM in the PowerMac G5. (75%)
3- Apple announces it has retained Intel to produce a new line of PPC chips. (10%)
4- Apple makes a “switch” to x86 hardware. (5%)
5- Apple makes processor announcements. (1%)
Who knows? Maybe they are going to Re-Launch NextStep for x86.
An Apple switch, even a gradual one, would be a stab in the back of ever single Mac OS user and developer who gives two red cents of attention to the Mac OS. It would cripple Apple beyond repair overnight and throw all of the money spent on R&D and hardware compatability trvially to the wind.
Don’t believe it. Not on X86.
if Apple is going to use Intel chips, it won’t be the same chips that Apple has been putting down in the past. So, your sentiments that it will be a slap in the face after all these years of bagging-intel-chips- over-the Power-PC Chips is not valid.
Apple will introduce new machines that will use a brand new line of processors from Intel. It’s not going to be a variant of the x86, but rather, it will license the AltiVec/Velocity Engine from Apple, and it will have multiple cores. I forgot to ask my source at Intel if it’s going to be a 64-bit procesor. He says it will blow all the competition out of the water.
Can anyone say “New Coke.”
The Wall Street Journal is now confirming the CNET article concerning the time frame of the switch to Intel by Apple. That’s pretty much game over on the speculation going on here. Now maybe we can get notebook computers that are worth the price and desktops that have PCI Express.
It’s impossible for Apple to be putting Intel processors into Macs. Face it, Jobs is a businessman. If they put Intel chips in, then NOBODY will buy computers until the Intel Macs come out, because all the current ones will be out of date. So then they’ll have NO sales for awhile. Wouldn’t work.
I think we’re more likely to see a release of Mac OS X for computers with Intel processors. Imagine: Apple releases Tiger for Intel computers. Then the most modern operating system on the market that ANYBODY can use is Mac OS 10.4. Think of the RUSH people will do for that. EVERYONE will buy it, it will sell huge, and everyone will be using Mac OS 10.4. And Microsoft won’t have a response in Longhorn for TWO YEARS! Two years of being the best OS on the WIDE MARKET (and they’ll probably release AGAIN! before Longhorn).
The only disadvantage: Larger market share = more people making adware, spyware, and viruses. Cut the crap and admit it: Security through obscurity is not a myth. Mac might be more secure, but it’s not impenetrable.
MacTell anyone?
They have Laptops in house running OSX with the speed, graphics, and power management features currently not available to Apple. That and the architecture change will make Appple a corporate contender, finally. It must be hard for them to watch Dell sell crappy laptops, Towers and workstations at the same price Apple charges, when they know how well OSX runs on Intel Chips, and have known for a while. This really levels the playing field, now it really is just about the Operating system,and the fanatics have on less thing to rant about.
Lucky4u, Twenty Benson, Gackle,
The troops are making final preparations, checking and rechecking their equipment and weapons, memorizing their maps and battle plans, writing letters to their loved ones, awaiting final word from their General Eisenhow…err…..Jobs, for the “Go”.
The General, anxious about the weather conditions and opposing troop movements along the coast, realizing that the required opportune Window of the Moooooooon phase is closing fast, consults his Intel officers for assurances. The General knows that whence the order is given, there is no turning back….
Re: “Mac might be more secure, but it’s not impenetrable.”
Of course, it is not impenetrable, but if you have been reading the posts over the last few years, you would know that why and how it is most unlikely to ever become the problem that it is in Windows no matter how many copies of OSX there are out there.
Oh, what the hell, I will just copy over Seahawks two posts on the subject from March.
But, for God’s sake, read it and understand it. I am getting damn tired of repeating myself and of copying Seahawks excellent posts on the subject about the security through obscurity crap.
And if you don’t understand his explanation, then I have no clue how to help you.
Start of quotes from Seahawk, maybe he will post about this again, too
“”
There are over millions of OS X machines around the world for a virus to make the turn and visit you in minutes after you are connected.
To a virus a machine is an IP number, AND, as Macs can inoculate a Windows machine just passing the virus or trojan around without being affected the same thing could do a Windows machine.
A virus is – most of the times – just a piece of C or C++ code. It only happens that the code it exploits is Windows only but there is ABSOLUTELY NO TECHNICAL ISSUES to make a multi-platform virus and infect – if it can – whatever platform.
People – and you – when they try to figure out the situation they employ a VERY WRONG mental picture. They compare Windows – OS X usage as people at a stadium. The Windows stadium is full and the OS X almost empty. They reason that *obviously* if someone sneezes you are more likely to get the flu in the Windows stadium than in the OS X one.
What people do not realize is that there are NO TWO STADIUM. It is the very same crowded stadium for all of us, the internet, and each seat has an IP number. If someone sneezes only the ones with deficitary immune Windows system get the virus. Others could not care less.
The virus will visit EVERY AND EACH one at the internet stadium, and infect the weak ones, which happen to be as well the majority at the interned stadium.
Sure, there is the exponential nature of virus spreading that is directly related to the number of infected machines.
But the only difference due to the sheer number of machines around is the highest peak rate of infection. While Windows at highest spread suffer from an infection in a matter of seconds after first connection (MSBlaster had an average infection time of 29 seconds for an unprotected PC but had an rate in terms of hours at the beginning.
Well, maybe an OS X virus will infect you in matters of hours while connected but be sure of one thing: YOU WOULD AND WILL BE INFECTED if an OS X virus was released in the wild.
Numbers or market share in a very stupid justification that M$ PR took out of the hat to explain why they are so weak security wise.
They are weak because they can be attacked efficiently by a hacker exploiting a huge number of OS weaknesses, not because there are lots of machines.
If Windows was bullet proof they could be in the BILLIONS and not suffer from viruses.
Incidentally, even if you reverse the market share figures between Windows and OS X you STILL would get more infection on Windows than on OS X if OS X will hold against a successful virus the same rate of infection of BSD Unix – being practically that.
Quoting Seahawk on “security through obscurity” part two:
“march 26;
BriA: sorry, there is no ‘security through obscurity’. It is a misused term turned into a PR spin by detractors of the Mac relating it – wrongly – to market share. At least here let’s put things straight.
The term “security through obscurity” has no relation whatsoever with number of machines but to unavailability of a particular OS API. The security comes from the less know or not know at all details about an OS. If you do not know how it works then it is SECURE because it is OBSCURE.
Security through obscurity could be achieved even with a ball park of BILLIONS of machines online if the manufacturer and OS provider succeeds in not making the source code of the OS available and/or prevent reverse engineering.
This, obviously, is not at all the case with OS X, with its BSD Unix guts. Nothing could be more shining for a cracker than a Unix based OS.
In this sense, Windows is more obscure than OS X as Windows has some innards that are not publicly available while Darwin – the OS X guts – is an Open Source project. Nothing could be less obscure than OS X.
Having said this, ie, that “security through obscurity” is an IT nonsense when talking about anything Unix, OS X included, the security OS X enjoys, luckily for all of us, has truly nothing to do with OS X having a small market share. The only thing this will have an impact on is the infection rate at its peak should a virus for OS X emerge one day.
The inherent pre-condition to make virus making meaningful targeting a particular OS is how easy is to spread a virus. In order to do that the virus HAS to find the very same configuration machine after machine. If a slight change in what the virus NEEDS to find an a computer in order to infect it should be present then the virus operational mode would be undermined and probably prevent infection and/or spreading.
Now, Windows ensures that all and other PCs around are essentially the copy-cat installation of one another. On the Unix world this does not happen and it is inherent to Unix. Finding two Unix run machines with the very same configuration amounts almost to a miracle. This alone explains why on Unix and Linux the rate of infection is a single digit even at peak infection, roughly 5%.
On Windows it is well over 60%. This is what makes Windows the favorite target for crackers. Windows would sport higher infections with respect to OS X even if Windows market share was at 5% and OS X at 95%. Crackers would STILL go after Windows as they would get more machines infected there (both as absolute value and in percentage), hence more outcome, than with Unix or OS X.
Windows, thanks Bill, is the best ever anti-virus product of all: it attracts them all. With Windows around, a cracker would have to be stupid to go after another OS. AND this will not change even with a reversal of fortune turning Windows into a niche 5% market.
You want to infect lots of machines? Go after Windows, no matter the market share.
Am I the ONLY person who thinks this is total BS.
HELLO!!!!!
1. Intel is the largest flash memory producer in the world. C|Net made up a bunch of crap based on the statement “we have been talking to intel” or something like that.
2. Intel makes Wireless chips
3. Intel makes chipsets
4. INTEL MAKES MORE THAN ONE PRODUCT YOU BUNCH OF LOONEYS
“Am I the ONLY person who thinks this is total BS.”
No , there are probably a few others. Whatever you think does not change the facts…
From the Appleinsider new page:
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Saturday confirmed CNET’s report, stating that an industry executive “familiar with the matter” verified the schedule outlined in the story.
The schedule outlined in the story is:
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.
Read it for yourself.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1110
Man, I love that tune by… UH.. What’s the name?? Oh yeah.
HUMBLE PIE!
Yep, confirmed by the Wall Street Journal..
Home of Walt “praise all things Apple” Mossberg. There has to be some legitimacy to this news if the Journal is going to confirm it.
If there is a switch to Intel, (remember, I said “if”) the effort for developers would not be as much an one might think. If OS X doesn’t care much what processor it runs on then why would OS X applications have much problem. I could see OS X apps written for both processors on the same CD.
As far as people threatening to switch to Windows if Apple makes them go through another transition, what do you think Microsoft will be doing with Longhorn?
one thing for sure..what ever Intel and Apple brings == Apple will never allow a Intel Inside sticker to adorn the exterior of a Mac…Apple is about logo recognition and as a result you will never see anything other than a Apple on a Mac.
kenh: thanks for quoting me.
The only thing I wish to add is there is absolutely NO TECHNICAL ISSUES in writing a virus for BSDUnix or OS X. They both still have weaknesses known or yet unknown (being OpenSource it means lots of new development and pro-active cure to security flaws but sometime a new one may creep in). The problem in Unix (and OS X) is the automatic reproduction and spread of the virus.
There are white papers detailing how to write a virus for OS X (and Unix) and they work, your machine will be infected but it will be YOUR MACHINE. There is little chance that the virus would spread because (as for first infection) it NEEDS the active willing participation of a user logged in as root, installing the virus, setting the environment for it to thrive and send it to another machine that NEEDS another root user connected and COLLABORATING.
If it does not spread AUTOMATICALLY with NO USER INTERVENTION it is not a virus. It is a JOKE.
You may write jokes and pranks for BSDUnix and OS X but a virus a la Microsoft? Think again: too hard for too little, way much too little return (and it as nothing, truly NOTHING to do with market share).
As I said time ago, Windows enjoys much more Security by Obscurity than Unix. There are still areas of the Windows API that are not public while there is no Unix API that is undisclosed.
Remember the secret Windows API to bypass encryption? (it allowed law enforcement agents to read clearly every content of your hard drive on Windows, no matter the encryption algorithm and length of the key. That was an unknown API to the public (that is the real meaning of Security by Obscurity). Sorry, but whoever corrupted the meaning of it equalling it to market share was an idiot or a Microsoft paid tool. Only ignorant Joe Sixpack people (on IT and networking and how computers generally work) could gobble it (not having heard ever in their life the original meaning of Security by Obscurity).
And anyway, on some thread here, recently, a software survey estimated Mac presence to 16% of consumer users.
Enough market share for ANY virus writer to enjoy hefty returns in that the same survey tells that Mac users buy 30% more software than Windows users. They must make more money to me and be by far the best target. At 16% Macs online on average I am pretty sure I would get a fat rich one IF I COULD!
So sorry Russel, when OS X will have even an higher presence on the market so to really cut the CRAP of market share BS out of the equation, and still nothing comparable to Windows terminally ill situation vis-a-vis malware, then, probably, maybe, who knows (idiocy is with hydrogen the most common element in the Univers) someone, (not all: impossible because of idiocy) will finally admit it that the wrongly labeled Security by Obscurity was indeed a myth, and just one more FUD and MS spin to cover their own fallacies, OS X still enjoying stellar record – security wise – even with 5 times its current market share. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
If it does non spread, it is not a virus, it is a joke.
A switch to x86 is unlikely.
From the only voice of sanity on all things Apple/Mac, the Daring Fireball (http://daringfireball.net/2005/05/intelmania):
———————
…the obvious problem with this idea is marketing: the minute Apple announces they’re moving to x86 processors, sales of current hardware dry up. Who’s going to spend $3000 for a deprecated CPU architecture?
But they’d have to pre-announce the move in order to give developers time to recompile — and in some cases re-write portions of — their software. Apple couldn’t just spring the new machines unannounced; who’d buy a Mac that ran no existing third-party Mac software?
My advice is to pay no heed whatsoever to any Macintosh-to-Intel rumors that don’t address this issue.
———————
That pretty much sums it up for me….
stam: others have voiced already this opinion (without diminishing DF of course).
I do not see Apple switching to Intel, rather Intel joining Apple: them moving to a PPC architecture, adopting a CELL based new design, supporting Altivec, or all the above combined.
The announcement will rather be: “Intel has switched to Apple”, the coveted brand of the moment and the bandwagon everyone is now trying to jump in.
That would be a Job’s like might BLOW: All of the sudden all PC x86 based become obsolete and things of the past.
BOOOUUUMMM
Damn, seems like I may have to eat my words… even The Daring Fireball (http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel) is now entertaining the notion that there will be a full-blown switch to x86….!
We are doomed, doomed I say 🙁
1. M$ recently refused to do Windows for PPC, when IBM asked them nicely.
2. M$ is experiencing a malaise in bringing the next version of Windows to Intel.
3. Apple is quite able to bring the advanced OS X Tiger to the Intel World than M$ can bring a cut down LongHorn to the Wintel World.
4. Ding! Ding! Market opportunity for Apple to sell OS X into Wintel World while M$…dithers in sloth.
5. Apple’s core business is to do the “whole” computer; to keep control over the whole process. In the Wintel world, there is M$ doing the OS, Intel making chip, and the box assemblers.
6. Apple will not forsake IBM alliance.
7. Apple will embrace Wintel with a new separate line of computers, also running OS X. Compatibility between the two lines must be seemless, something that can be achieved, because Jobs has stated in the past that Apple maintains a parallel universe, as indemnity against failure.
8. Apple increases market share.
9. Apple doesn’t lose its own base of loyal customers and developers, while entices Intel loyalists to a more reliable OS X. Because compatibility between processors is maintained through Apple’s control of whole process, developers can develop reliable software on one platform stream and have it work seemlessly on the other stream. M$’s Office for Mac would work seemlessly on either stream, for example.
10. May the best processor win the most sales running OS X.
11. The above scenario would be a Win-Win for Apple and Intel. People would ask, “Why go with an oft delayed Window’s OS with all its troubles, when we have a much better OS X which runs on both types of machines?”
12. Apple and Intel announce PPC/Cell based chip with Altivec made by Intel
13. Intel announces that their expertise can bring PPC new generation chips to performance capabilities that will dwarf any other architecture.
14. Intel announces that regular PCs will also switch FROM x86 to the new generation chips from Apple/Intel in few years
15. Apple leads, PC world follows. Business as usual.
I do think that a combined announcement Apple-Intel is indeed possible.
I do not think ‘x86’ will have anything to do with it.
We will all see on Monday, and Jobs will once again make IT history, whatever the announcement will be. And it will be an innovation.
Jobs will announce on Monday that the eMac is now available with .2 GHZ more processing speed…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Oh…and there is a new iPod……..
Jobs will announce the new iPod by making a call on his new Motorola iPod phone…
To the naysayers, repeat this over and over until you remember it: “The world is not ending. There will still be Macs, and they will still be insanely great, no matter if they were powered by hamsters.”
If Apple really wanted to make an architecture move, it would not be that troubling. But it would be a phenomenal shift away from being a hardware company exclusively toward being mostly a software company with a hardware business. Let’s face it: everyone loves OS X, but not everyone gets as excited about good industrial design as many Apple owners. How many friends and co-workers do you have who really could give a rip about brushed aluminum, hidden hinges, etc. The answer is a lot.
Soo… if Apple decided to release OSX86 it would commodotize the Mac experience, which frankly I think would be a good thing. Good industrial design makes for a nice box, but let’s be honest here: wouldn’t you rather use (and rather a friend use) OS X on a Dell than Windows on the same Dell? I know I would. The more people using OS X is undeniably a Good Thing.
Apple could/would continue to sell computers, and frankly, I know I’d continue to buy them (and pay the requisite 10-15% premium) because I know they’re well-built with good quality hardware. But people for whom price is more of a factor could still run OS X. How could that possibly be a bad thing?
Actually, I don’t completely expect this to be the scenario, and of course we’ll find out tomorrow. But remember that at least it’s possible, and it’s reasonable if you accept the logic flow.
Remember also that NeXTstep was released for the x86 platform and had dual binaries for x86 and 030/040 platforms. For those who don’t know, the OS X we know and love today is a gussied-up version of NeXTstep.
Finally, remember that Steve has a unique gift of seeing the future and truly recognizing what’s Insanely Great. For some historical proof of this, check out this video of a considerably younger, longer-haired Steve demonstrating NeXTstep 3.0 circa 1990-91. That operating system WAS the future, and OS X has visible elements of it still today. See <http://www.openstep.se/jobs>.
Mac heads, Steve hasn’t led us astray yet, so trust his judgement. It’s a great time to be a Mac geek, so sit back and enjoy the ride.
Cheers
adam
Ironically enough, the Magic Word is “fine,” as in the way everything’s gonna be.
RELAX!!!! EVERYBODY!!!Steve Jobs is far smarter than those so call ” journalists”. Look at the quality of “journalism” of late, CBS, Newsweek?? Now CNET!!! If there is anything close to this stupid rumor is that Apple might introduce a Mac Mini with both Power PC chip and Intel chip inside so it can boot to either OSX or ” Swindle XP”. Look, everyone, the fact Intel introduced a Mac Mini look-alike recently isn’t enough clue of what uncle Steve might do?? Calm down!!! The dual OS Mac Mini is the next logical step to expand further into the PC market share!!
Apple is faced with some tough decisions.
– How can the Mac gain market share, 2% worldwide?
– How can Apple get costs down on new computers?
– Why would a Wintel user switch to a Mac? Hi cost and limited third party application support? Wintel user has iPod but still uses a PC.
– What’s next for the iPod? Does Apple want to produce more consumer devices? Video iPod? iMovie Store?
– How is Apple retail sales doing? Just iPods selling or are computer sales just as good? Apple is in the malls, do they need more hot consumer products.
– Could Apple offer Mac OS X for current Windows users or will they need to purchase a new computer? Apple could say something like, all computers made after Jan 05 with an Intel processor will be able to run Mac OS 10.4.x. Or will it be 10.5? =)
It will be interesting to see what transpires.
If Apple were to transition OSX to any new processor, wouldn’t the best starting point be the XServe? Most people who use those run either Apple code or Open source products. Quick to recompile.
Seems to me that starting a migration on the low-end just locks any potential purchasers out of Office:Mac, Photoshop etc. until the vendor comes up with new versions.
However, another theory I had was that Intel had developed something that can emulate a PowerPC with minimal speed drop. Now that would be interesting.
Seahawk,
Thank you for the informative posts. It is a shame that “computer gurus” like Kim Kommando (who my PC-using relative thinks is great) seemingly do not have such in-depth knowledge.
stam:
Halfway down, the Daring Fireball summed it all up:
“I can’t think of a single scenario, no matter how contrived, that both fits with what CNet and the Journal have reported and makes sense for Apple and its customers and developers.” http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel
Doesn’t sound like the big switch is being seriously entertained to me. Sounds more like all the reasoned opinions expressed by knowledgeable programmers, technicians, engineers, and marketers on this board.
Throughout these threads, petty spite against IBM is being championed as sound decision-making. Then there’s the absurd assumption that moving to Intel is going to automatically increase Apple’s marketshare and make it more competitive. The “Intel Inside” sticker is going to magically make Apple more attractive to businesses and consumers. Some Eric guy keeps claiming to know an Intel bigwig who confided in him (yeah right) that there’s this amazing PowerPC-compatible, non-infringing chip that Intel’s going to pull out of its ass. Can you say: “delusions of grandeur.” I knew you could.
Few have even considered the possibility that there is no performance gain to be had by switching architectures. Simply consider that Apple hasn’t even fully optimized OSX performance on the G5, let alone optimized it for x86 incarnations (Need proof? Why is Tiger faster on the same hardware than Panther was?… Anyone? Anyone?).
I’ve been scratching my head at some of the illogic (and lack of technical/business savvy) floating around. Steve Jobs may be petty, but he’s not going to cut off his nose to spite his face.
Here’s a quick preview of tomorrow’s post: “I told ya so.”
“Simply consider that Apple hasn’t even fully optimized OSX performance on the G5, let alone optimized it for x86 incarnations (Need proof? Why is Tiger faster on the same hardware than Panther was?… Anyone? Anyone?).”
This is indeed the case. GCC for example only started optimizing for the G5 with gcc 4.0 . They are just at the beginning.
OS X API is for the first time refined and stable in Tiger. Up to Panther the API changed and could get obsolete in the blink of an eye. Apple was warning developers that any Framework of library call could become unsupported in future versions. With Tiger for the first time Apple announced developers that whatever they will use of its API will not disappear in future version. Tiger is the first incarnation of OS X that is mature enough to promise a ‘stable API’.
Tiger has a rewritten-from-scratch new linker. Didn’t you notice the practically non-existent phase of “Optimizing …” phase when you install things? and it does not need pre-binding anymore.
These and the optimizations in the API and sys libraries make for Tiger being faster than Panther.
Concerning the move to x86, G5 is 64-bit. So Apple goes back to 32-bit now? If any it better be x64 (or x86-64) at least but an hybrid intel PPC with Altivec could be a possibility.
I have heard as well the new families of multi-core chips from Intel. Those might be a possibility as well.
AND, do not fear the FUD concerning I have to buy again all sw I had. Apple will take care that you would not need to do any of that.