“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
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