• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Oh snap! Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
teiresias said:
Exactly, I'd migrate to OSX in a minute (well, probably do a dual boot WinXP/OSX config for the VERY few PC games I play) if it were available, no way I'm paying for a MAC for it though.

And I suspect alot of people are in the same boat. Apple should capitalize on that. But I guess that would be the end of alot of fierce LOL APPLE VS TEH PEEPEECEE debates, and we can't have that. What could possibly fill such an Internet forum vacuum?
 

Laurent

Member
noneis said:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208161229.shtml

Steve Jobs reveals in a recent in-depth interview he did with Fortune mag that “three of the biggest PC makers” are trying to convince him to license OS X for use in their machines, because their customers are “sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn.”

This likely has more to do with the ability to run os x on a pc, and less to do with apple switching their hardware right away.
From MacRumors... Interesting...
 

teiresias

Member
tedtropy said:
But I guess that would be the end of alot of fierce LOL APPLE VS TEH PEEPEECEE debates, and we can't have that. What could possibly fill such an Internet forum vacuum?

Not really, the minute someone found a PC config that OS X had issues with or crashed under there would be a whole new war going on. "See, OS X is no better than Windows!!!!!!" "You PC, you die now, no say bad of OS X!!"
 

AB 101

Banned
Shogmaster said:
Apple will probably go latter because it's pussy and can't support all them hardware variations.


Not if Apples X86 hardware is the only one that runs an X86 version of Mac OS X.
 

pestul

Member
I'd just love for Apple to come out and release a full-fledged alternative to Windows/Longhorn for PC down the road. Of course an undertaking of that magnitude would probably take at least a couple years of programming.
 

ckohler

Member
OSX compiled for Intel! Now I'll be able to run OSX and it's library of competing third party apps on my inexpensive home built PC! Hmm.. wait a minute... it seems that every third party app ever written for OSX will have to be recompiled and/or repurchased before they will work on the Intel version? Damn, that sucks.

Well, surely Apple made it so I can run my existing Windows programs in Intel OSX, right? That way I can have the slick OSX inteface over top my expsiting apps right? What's that? Microsoft won't license it's craptacular, antiquated DLL and registry components to Apple since OSX is a direct competitor to Windows now? Double damn.

Oh well, in the very least I can now run OSX itself and all it's bundled iApps on my cheapy homebuilt PC. I'll just need to find about three or four random and obscure PC device drivers written specifically to work in Intel OSX. Hmm... it seems none of these PC manufacturers have bothered to write any! Surely that never-heard-of-before company that made the never-heard-of-before embedded sound chip in my Intel motherboard was *eager* to jump at the opportunity to write a whole new device driver for the Intel version of OSX, right? No!? God damn it!
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Why would they want to? Intel's chips have been sucking total ass for the past year or so.
 
ckohler said:
OSX compiled for Intel! Now I'll be able to run OSX and it's library of competing third party apps on my inexpensive home built PC! Hmm.. wait a minute... it seems that every third party app ever written for OSX will have to be recompiled and/or repurchased before they will work on the Intel version? Damn, that sucks.

Well, surely Apple made it so I can run my existing Windows programs in Intel OSX, right? That way I can have the slick OSX inteface over top my expsiting apps right? What's that? Microsoft won't license it's craptacular, antiquated DLL and registry components to Apple since OSX is a direct competitor to Windows now? Double damn.

Oh well, in the very least I can now run OSX itself and all it's bundled iApps on my cheapy homebuilt PC. I'll just need to find about three or four random and obscure PC device drivers written specifically to work in Intel OSX. Hmm... it seems none of these PC manufacturers have bothered to write any! Surely that never-heard-of-before company that made the never-heard-of-before embedded sound chip in my Intel motherboard was *eager* to jump at the opportunity to write a whole new device driver for the Intel version of OSX, right? No!? God damn it!

Yep. Either way, it's shitsville for Apple. Make a proprietary rig out of Intel CPU and forever remain below 5%, or go for all the hardware variation and have the headache of compatability and stability like MS does, negating all their stability advantage.

Too bad IBM doesn't care to play ball with Job's idle threats. IBM could care less with all the console chips they are making. :lol
 

ckohler

Member
Shog... seriously dude... you need to realize for once that Apple doesn't *need* more market share. You can't keep playing that card. Apple has been turning out higher profits quarter after quarter for almost a decade now and that with their paultry 5% or the market.

More market share to Apple simply means more income on the bottom line. They don't need it to survive as you seem to think. Hell, by your logic, they are in Shitsville as as much as Mercedies Benz is in Shitsville... which is not being in Shitsville!
 
ckohler said:
Shog... seriously dude... you need to realize for once that Apple doesn't *need* more market share. You can't keep playing that card. Apple has been turning out higher profits quarter after quarter for almost a decade now and that with their paultry 5% or the market.

More market share to Apple simply means more income on the bottom line. They don't need it to survive as you seem to think. Hell, by your logic, they are in Shitsville as as much as Mercedies Benz is in Shitsville... which is not being in Shitsville!

Riiiight.... Keep telling that to yourselves and maybe you'll eventually be convinced.

Funny how everything is honky dory at less than 5% but every Mac whore goes out of their way to convert people, and Apple's official matra is "switch". Contradict much? :lol
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Wouldn't/Won't there be MASSIVE software issues migrating Mac software over to x86? Backwards compatability??
 

AB 101

Banned
Shogmaster said:
15322312588.jpg


:lol

Your Photoshop skills=shock and awe.
 

Laurent

Member


An Intel based Macintosh?

Rumors of Apple switching to an Intel based processor pre-date the existence of this site. The earliest reference in our archives comes from March 15, 2000 (this site was founded in Feb 2000). For some perspective... a rumor roundup for WWDC 2000 (5 years ago) included rumors of "Intel-based Macs".

Analysts also "urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp" back in July 2002. Steve Jobs replied that they had to finish the OS 9 -> OS X transition first but "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent."

After the transition to Mac OS X, Apple was reported to have kept an OS X on x86 side-project known as Marklar. The original article described Marklar as a "fall back plan" should the PowerPC fail to deliver.

The PowerPC was undergoing slow development during that time, until IBM took over development and Apple announced PowerPC G5 based PowerMacs in the summer on 2003.

In fact, IBM bragged in an internal memo that while Apple considered moving to Intel at that time they went with IBM's PowerPC G5 (970) because Apple felt the transition would be too difficult:

While Intel is aggressive in achieving its performance and speed goals, Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term. Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform. These massive software changes were something that Apple wanted to avoid, and IBM had the solution."

Despite this, Apple/Intel rumors continued to surface (Sept 2003).

Most recently, The Wall Street Journal posted rumors citing "two industry executives" that Apple will agree to use Intel chips. Due to the long history of this topic, this rumor was largely dismissed. However, on Friday, CNet posted a report claiming that Apple will be announcing a plan to switch its computers to Intel based microprocessors on Monday at WWDC. The gradual transition would take place starting in mid-2006 and last until mid-2007.

So what's different this time?

The most striking aspect is the origination of rumors from more traditional news sources (CNet and the Wall Street Journal). In the hierarchy of rumor sources, these news sites are traditionally highly accurate as they tend to be more selective about their stories than dedicated rumor sites. As a result, the likelihood that these rumors are true is high. By our records, CNet has only made one major rumor misstep in Jan 2003 claiming the release of new Digital Media Device at MWSF 2003.

That being said, it doesn't answer the many other questions that stem from such a transition. Questions such as emulation layers, current PowerPC Mac sales, developer migration, end user confusion and more. As well, Steve Jobs was recently asked about the possibility of switching to Intel and reportedly "Jobs basically said no."

Stay tuned to the WWDC Keynote on Monday, June 6th at 10am. We will provide live coverage of the event and have dramatically expanded our delivery resources to provide the best Keynote coverage experience.

————————————————————

So that's basicly it... I think there's a good chance of something big happening tomorrow...
 
Shogmaster said:
Riiiight.... Keep telling that to yourselves and maybe you'll eventually be convinced.

Funny how everything is honky dory at less than 5% but every Mac whore goes out of their way to convert people, and Apple's official matra is "switch". Contradict much? :lol

Not every company needs to control a large portion of the market to make money or be successful. This is the thing with all of you Microsoft dudes, it's either control a large chunk of whatever industry you're in or get out, because it's not worth it.

As a former PC user, I always tell people they should switch to Mac. It's not because I want them to take over Microsoft, it's because life is a lot easier on a Mac. The whole switch concept is based upon the idea of a computer that works in sync from the inside out. You can't get that kind of use out of a Windows machine right out of the box, and even with 3rd party software, it's still a pain in the butt.
 

pestul

Member
kitchenmotors said:
As a former PC user, I always tell people they should switch to Mac. It's not because I want them to take over Microsoft, it's because life is a lot easier on a Mac. The whole switch concept is based upon the idea of a computer that works in sync from the inside out. You can't get that kind of use out of a Windows machine right out of the box, and even with 3rd party software, it's still a pain in the butt.
Guys like me live for that kind of stuff though. I do agree with you in essense that there are a lot of PC users out there who probably should be on a Mac.
 

Laurent

Member
pestul said:
Guys like me live for that kind of stuff though. I do agree with you in essense that there are a lot of PC users out there who probably should be on a Mac.
"But Macs aren't compatible" a grandmother would say...
 

shantyman

WHO DEY!?
The more I think about this the less sense it makes to me. AMD seems to be a smarter choice- AFAIK they are leading the way with 64 bit chip design, and Apple partnering with them would allow them to at least try to challenge the dominance of Wintel. Of course if X is actually ported to x86 then Apple could use AMD chips in theory later on down the line.

I'm sure tomorrow I'll understand (if it is true).
 

pestul

Member
shantyman said:
The more I think about this the less sense it makes to me. AMD seems to be a smarter choice- AFAIK they are leading the way with 64 bit chip design, and Apple partnering with them would allow them to at least try to challenge the dominance of Wintel. Of course if X is actually ported to x86 then Apple could use AMD chips in theory later on down the line.

I'm sure tomorrow I'll understand (if it is true).
Unless AMD has changed it's stance from last year, they have never really had intentions of becoming the dominant desktop chip manufacturer (in terms of volume).
 

Macam

Banned
pestul said:
Unless AMD has changed it's stance from last year, they have never really had intentions of becoming the dominant desktop chip manufacturer (in terms of volume).

AMD's Grand Ambition: Half Of The Processor Market By 2015

50% marketshare would be quite an accomplishment for AMD and does seem like a plausible 10-year goal. However, AMD needs to get on the ball with marketing and fab production to even come close to those numbers:

"There's no reason why we shouldn't aspire be a third of the market in the next two or three years," Hector Ruiz, chairman, president, and CEO of AMD, told InformationWeek recently.

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=24361
 

DMczaf

Member
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQUIRER has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models.

The Intel chips are almost assuredly going to start with a mobile part, probably Yonah, then on to Merom. Both use the same FSB technology, but Merom is faster so the switch will be a fairly painless one. The markets pointed out by CNet back up the idea that Yonah will start it all off, then Conroe and Woodcrest will take over. These sure are interesting times.
 

Polari

Member
Apple could always sponsor WINE for Windows compatibility. Sure, at the moment it is FAR from a perfect solution, but with the proper corporate backing it could go alot further. Currently they'd at least get Photoshop and Office (not that they don't already have them, but who knows what will happen with this switch?).

Will also be interesting to see if they implement a Linux compatibility layer, ala Solaris and FreeBSD. On PPC it wouldn't have been particularly useful, but for servers on x86 it's an entirely different story.
 

Phoenix

Member
Shogmaster said:
Intel would never bother investing in that kind of venture for mere 3% of the market.

Intel already makes a wide variety of RISC chips. They don't just make Pentiums. Hell Intel has chips that it makes or has plans to make that don't even have customers yet.

And indeed if they had any sense and wanted to ship volumes of chips they would look at the more advanced RISC architectures which are in, I don't know, ALL of the upcoming consoles.
 
Phoenix said:
Intel already makes a wide variety of RISC chips. They don't just make Pentiums. Hell Intel has chips that it makes or has plans to make that don't even have customers yet.

That's all fine, but to invest in manufacturing a RISC architecture that they don't have significant stake in, or outright own the IP of, forgeddaboutit!

And indeed if they had any sense and wanted to ship volumes of chips they would look at the more advanced RISC architectures which are in, I don't know, ALL of the upcoming consoles.

And I guess IBMs just gonna hand that to Intel? A Fathers day gift was it?
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
i hope this is apple saying "now that everyone owns an ipod lets get everyone to buy macos"

sorry mac haters, macos is juicy.
 

Phoenix

Member
Shogmaster said:
That's all fine, but to invest in manufacturing a RISC architecture that they don't have significant stake in, or outright own the IP of, forgeddaboutit!



And I guess IBMs just gonna hand that to Intel? A Fathers day gift was it?

Read this to get an idea why Intel would and always has cared about increasing its volume. Intel already has designs for a variety of RISC chips, some of which may have been interesting to Apple to get it out of its current rut with PowerPC. They've been trying to sell manitoba (for example) FOREVER and just found a buyer.

At this point, the sky is pretty much the limit with what may come tomorrow. Both companies are in positions where they may make long term strategic moves that defy conventional wisdom.
 

Phoenix

Member
Shogmaster said:
That's all fine, but to invest in manufacturing a RISC architecture that they don't have significant stake in, or outright own the IP of, forgeddaboutit!

And I guess IBMs just gonna hand that to Intel? A Fathers day gift was it?

IBM doesn't own RISC architecture. Hell they don't even own Altivec. Altivec is just another variant of SIMD style instructions sets, and guess what. Intel has one too as does AMD :D

Can't throw anything out. If Apple is feeling the squeeze to swap chips, they wouldn't have issues adding a new SIMD engine under the hood. The had to do the same thing to move to the PowerPC G4+ architecture anyways.
 
I honestly can't see Apple providing OSX for any Intel chip. However, if they were smart, they would get Dell, HP, etc. to offer OSX and Windows.
 

golem

Member
imo this is the right time to take the fight to windows... it will be really interesting only if they open up MacOS to all x86 comps.
 

Phoenix

Member
f_elz said:
I just don't wanna see OS X pirated :(

Heh, you're kidding. OSX is one of THE more successfully pirated operating systems out there as it has no serial number (unless you're using the server version).
 
Timbuktu said:
Aren't they all just from the same source? they all say 'according to CNet...'

recitation or not when the first source fails they all go down

so they better have it right, I'm thinking they just posted it not to miss the boat and source CNet just incase :D
 

Prospero

Member
If it's true that Macs are switching to x86, do I--

1. Buy one of the last Macs with a PPC chip to come off the line, because I'm certain that the first-gen x86 Macs will be crap? Or--

2. Wait until the second-gen x86 Macs, because I'm certain that the first-gen x86 Macs will be crap?

It seems like the "never buy rev. A" rule for Macs will apply in spades here.
 

Phoenix

Member
Prospero said:
If it's true that Macs are switching to x86, do I--

1. Buy one of the last Macs with a PPC chip to come off the line, because I'm certain that the first-gen x86 Macs will be crap? Or--

2. Wait until the second-gen x86 Macs, because I'm certain that the first-gen x86 Macs will be crap?

It seems like the "never buy rev. A" rule for Macs will apply in spades here.

Well considering the timeframe of the rumored move (2006-2007), unless you plan to wait around 2 years - you'll want to just get a PPC G5 machine. UNLESS we're talking about laptops. The Powerbook line is in serious serious trouble. Without a power efficient, and cool G5 CPU too run the show - Apple's laptop group may have simply run out of time because without a G5 or better in their mobile pipeline, their laptop time goes onto lifesupport. If anything I would expect to see Powerbooks and MacMinis roll out first with Intel tech. The former because it is desperately needed... the G4 line no longer has teeth, and the later because they can test the waters and move volumes of machines without serious risk.

One thing VERY interesting is that Intel was talking a LOT about DRM lately and came out publicly and said that it wasn't going into their Pentium line or their Mobile Centrino line. Perhaps the DRM is to give Jobs his hardware lock for OSX Intel machines.
 
Top Bottom