“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
“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.