CNET News: Apple to drop PowerPC chips? - Page 3

Well, you're using far-future-speak here. Currently Office does run on Tiger. Will MS run out and pull all the copies off the shelf? Anyway, I was just having some fun.

I think if intel were to start fabbing PPC chips for Apple it would make sense to start at the low end like the article says. This would give intel a chance to work out kinks in their manufacturing process before moving to high end powermacs and whatnot.

Intel CEO says Macs are a good alternative.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05...ini_buy_apple/

yeah, kinda like a BMW on a Toyota chassis...

... and i'd assume Apple support of HyperTransport is out the window now.

Look, all of the news for the past two weeks points to an Apple/Intel partnership.

it is common knowledge that the Microsoft/Intle partnership has gone south and MS is looking like jumping on the IBM bandwagon-actualy even going so far as endorsing AMD over Intel for Windows 64.

Intel is smarting and Apple is smarting from IBMs decisionto favor the game consoles as they will surely bring in more revenue since combine, they will sell around 200 million units in 5 years vs 10 million (on a good day) in the same time frame.

Apple not beign on the Power.org partner list is telling as is the Intel CEO basically calling Windows junk and telling people to buy a Mac if they want security.

This points to Intel in a Mac. Which Macs? We don't know. What kind of Intel CPU? X86 (unlikely)? IA64? PPC? Somehting new? We have no idea, but we sure will next week. Not only wil Jobs inform the crowd about Intel, but you can be sure he will not do that without a product to show for it. We wil be able to buy an Apple branded, Intel centered hardware product withing 3 months time. It might be a Mac and it might be something else. A little smaller and a little sleeker. Like an Apple tablet/PDA. although I am really just hoping for a G5 Powerbook.

Where the heck is the ThinkSecret guy on this?!!

How about a little device created by Intel that is "not competing" with the Mac mini?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_vs_mini/

Just what I have been wondering.

Two scenarios:

A) the whole thing is bogus so they dont report it.

or

B) They have no clue because Apple fired their sources. and/or they are too scared because Apple will sue them to death.

Exactly!

I really doubt this is going to happen. Just another rumor. And for those of you that think Apple will stop making hardware and concentrate only in software, WAKE UP!
One of the marvels of Apple is their hardware and design of their machines that kick ass any competitor out there. Maybe Apple doesn't have the fastest chips out there but come on their machines are beautiful and more reliable in comparison to the others. They are Apple's biggest pride.

If they were to phase intel chips into the mac line starting at one end (the bottom apparently) and moving to the other, wouldn't that mean they would have to immediately offer an OS X for intel AND an OS X for mac and continue to develop these to OS platforms in parallel? I know nothing about programming, but this would seem daunting in terms of man power, economics and customer service (when all the lay-people call up not knowing which version they have and which drivers they need, etc.) It would seem an across-the-hardware-line switch to intel chips would be less chaotic.

GOOD catch Ex.


SEE !!! I told you, I was the ONLY guy arguing in the "Apple could use Intel" article thread that it would be good for Apple to do BOTH !!!

Jobs always hated IBM anyway.
Ever since Jobs came back Apple ALWAYS does what I tell them...


I can't wait for the PIXAR "MIND CONTROL MOVIE !!!"

Wired had an article on this, a much BETTER one, which said THAT INTEL SAID it would cost $900 to make a clone of a Mac mini.

It was the best commercial for the Mac mini I have seen.

Now look at this you trouble makers, you are keeping the guys at Mac Rumors up ALL NIGHT LONG !!!

http://www.macrumors.com/

Making OS X work on Intel is no problem if they've used good coding practices. The user/driver issues are what I have been saying will cause real problems. Supporting two simultaneous platforms would be extremely confusing to the user. "It works on my Mac, why won't it work on yours?"

My first reaction is that with my new G5 2.0 dually,
I'm glad to now own one of the last real PowerMacs.

The CNet article indicates that Apple will first use an Intel processor
in their products like the Mac mini by mid 2006.

What I think we'll actually see is a replacement for the G4 series across the board using the dual core Pentium D ported to OSX in a new line of consumer models.

What I hope to hear from SJ next week is that they have designed an entirely
new motherboard and system architecture to take advantage of Intel's Dual Core extreme chips for their Pro workstations
Running OSX on those systems may boost the efficiency by leaps and bounds
over similarily equipped models running Windows 64.

I can't imagine that SJ would consider a move to Intel chips unless he knows
beyond any doubt that running OSX on these systems will kill ANY system running Windows period!

I'm sure that Intel also can't ignore the shreeks of consumers who are sick to death of Windows security issues.

That word transition should not be ignored.

Keep in mind that both consumers and the enterprise will be forced one way or another to transition away from Windows XP in the near future and it could just be that Intel would rather put their faith in OSX rather than risking everything on yet to be released Longwait.

My first reaction to this news is EEEK!
but I suppose I should reserve judgement until we hear what's in store
from SJ himself.

Here's to the crazy ones



Here's to the crazy ones.

The misfits.

The rebels.

The troublemakers.

The round pegs in the square holes.



The ones who see things differently.

They're not fond of rules.

And they have no respect for the status quo.



You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,

disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.

About the only thing you can't do is ignore them.

Because they change things.



They invent. They imagine. They heal.

They explore. They create. They inspire.

They push the human race forward.



Maybe they have to be crazy.

How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or sit in silence and hear a song that's never been written?
Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?

We make tools for these kinds of people.



While some see them as the crazy ones,
we see genius.

Because the people who are crazy enough to think
they can change the world, are the ones who do.



From Apple Computer

Go away.

Exactly right. For Apple to reset OS X for an intel chip seems risky at best but to transition the switch and therefore set themselves up for simultaneously chaperoning two OSs seems insane--a customer service and technological nightmare. I would think the myriad problems the average user would experience would quickly translate into OS X gaining a new, less "user-friendly" rep.

A change as big as going from PPC to X86 would take a long preparation, but these talks with Intel have not been going on for long. If true, we wouldn't find out about it for another year, at least.

On the other hand, go over to the AppleInsider thread and read what Programmer has to say. It sounds like a PPC from Intel might not be that hard to do.

If IBM can remake altivec, who'se to say that Intel can't remake/fab/design a ppc-compatible proc?

HERE'S TO THE CRAZY ONES...

All of your skepticism's have no basis in reality, according to Apple.

Since the early days of OS X there have been rumors of an Intel version that was said to run well.

Of course NeXT ran well on Intel and much of OS X was built from NeXT.


The only real beef programmers have is the "drivers" issue and there's this interesting little driver tech formerly called Rendezvous.

If they have managed to pull their magic with that there won't be any drives issues, there won't be any configuration issues either !!!

Then there are the stories from Intel cited in this thread that OS X in running well on Intel in labs.

I think Tiger represents the pinnacle of functionality for the OS and trying to move beyond this could be a mistake, it could just lead to change for the sake of change and not improvement.

Therefore Jobs is finding something to keep his teams busy, Mac OS Xntel should keep them busy for a little while.

You guys that have a stake in Win/tel and give lip service to Macs, well, you are about to loose your stake !!! HA HA HA !

Here it is right here, the chip set to run MY DISPLAY !!!

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/...convalleyw.php

"From press release dated September 20, 2004:

Building on the success of the VC01, Alphamosaic is now sampling VC02, the world's most advanced mobile multimedia processor. The VC02 can display video on 3.5 inch color LCDs and capture 8 megapixel images, making it ideal for watching TV, making videos or taking studio-quality photos on a cellphone."

And...

"Broadcom says the chip uses very small amounts of battery power and "excels in high-quality 3D graphics performance with the capability to support pixel shading and volumetric lighting with low power consumption, making it ideal for use in mobile gaming applications and comparable in performance to home consoles.""

MACchine aka Bill Gates?

Mac/tel is bad for 2 reasons despite MACchine ranting.

• The licensing of the Mac operating system was a failure on G4 systems. Apple found out that I could not survive just as software company.
• The move of NeXT to Intel put the nail in NeXTs coffin until Apple resurrected it.

Apple needs to keep its operating system on unique hardware or it will lose too much revenue. Too many developers and customers will lose faith in the stability of the Mac platform in a switch to a Mac/tel machine. Look at how many years it took Quark to release a MacOS X update. A switch to Advanced Micro Devices would be more likely. Apple needs an advanced 64-bit processor. AMD's floating point capabilities are much greater then Intel's. The Opteron is a much better choice for a graphics-intensive OS like MacOS X. Unless Apple believes that IBM's Commitment to the PowerPC is fading the switching to Intel while the G5 sill has room for development is extremely unlikely.

eWeek has a better reputation then c|net. :P
Rumor Says Apple May Ditch IBM for Intel
Apple's Talks with Intel Raise Eyebrow
Latest News Analysts: Dual-Core PowerPC G5s Due for Apple
Old news Apple Explores Use of Intel Chips for Macs
A q u a M a c

Says mid-2006 for low end models to get the intel chips, could we be expecting Os 10.5 then then?

? Actually if you remember there were never G4 clones. The clones were developed as far as the 604e, and were killed when G3 systems were introduced.


Hmmm. All the business downsides of a x86 transition without any of the business advantages. Sounds good to me! Even worse, since Intel is a much better match in Laptop CPUs, which is really where Apple is currently crippled; and more importantly where industry growth is strongest.

Intel...

The Final Frontier...

I think if this happens we will have a transition phase or perhaps Apple could sell Intel next to ppc.I would like to see Apple make OSX for PCs. There are many ways to organize a transition and apple has through the years done a good job. Remember Microsoft made its billions on Software and has lost money on its hardware. Apples real strenth is its software its hardware though designed very well has had ho hum performance due to Stagnated Motostink and do they really care IBM!

You mean since it ceased to exist?

Thoughts....

First on the IBM OS/2 issue. As I recall Microsoft was originally codeveloping OS/2 and jumped ship on IBM to come out with Win 95 and Windows NT. When OS/2 came out it was said to run Windows software better than Windows, for this reason developers didn't develop OS/2 specific programs. Without the developers the OS died. The software and developer support is key for an OS to survive, it doesn't matter what hardware it is running on.

That does pose a problem for Apple in the high end, and that might be why they may choose to transition the low end products first, and that is Microsoft Office. Of course Apple does have advantages as well, especially on the low end where most of the "neccessary" apps are bundeled with the computer. If Apple can't get Microsoft on board then they have a real problem in the Pro end, but less of one in the consumer market.

There are other developers of course, and one of them that is key for Apple is Adobe. But then Adobe is setting themselves up to go head to head with Microsoft in certain markets such as Web development. This might work to Apple's advantage. Also Apple has most certainly been talking with Adobe and other key developers about any switch that may be anounced. Still it will take time to optamize code for Adobe's application library, which is larger now that they bought Macromedia, so it make sense to go slower with the switch for professional systems.

The other problem that I see is how many platforms (and varients there of) will developers be willing to support? The software at minimum would need to be recompiled for the new platform, and preferably optamized for it as well. I'm not a programmer, and don't have much experience with UNIX outside of OS X so I don't know how much "work" it takes to get a UNIX from on platform to the next. However there are a number of UNIX Apps that were recompiled by early adopters, and there is the whole X11 (?) windowiing app that Apple has to run X windows Apps, so it can't be too hard to at least get them running even if they don't take full advantage of the hardware. That was also one of the key points that they made when Apple started developing OS X, it's portability. I'm sure that the programmers here will flame me on this, but IT doesn't seem like it would be that much more work for developers to support another processor in their code, especially since a lot of these developers already have their programs coded for both platforms anyway so they know how to optamize the code for x86 and might be ablt to just graft some of that code into the Mac version of their code base from the windows.

The last software issue is the install, and Apple has successfully done that with FAT bionaries before to make it seamless to the user.

On to hardware.

As other's have pointed out the article does not identify x86 as the chip that Intel would be providinig for Apple. Recient news and developments of IBM initiatives with the Power PC might point to another scenerio:

IBM to broaden PowerPC licensing

...Under the foundry program, IBM will offer to manufacture the chips for licensees at its facilities. It also intends to allow licensees to manufacture the chips elsewhere, a company representative said...

Also:
IBM opens up its Power line

These two developments could point to Apple "licensing" and a PPC core, and customizing it then taking the design to Intel for fabing. Isn't that what Sony is doing with Cell, having it fabed by someone other than IBM?

The other possibility of going with a Intell developed chip also opens up avenues for Apple in the form of partnerships, like the one they have with HP (who rumor has it does not like Microsoft much) for the iPod. Apple still keeps controll of the software, only making it work on a 64 bit Intell chip, and adding in some other software tricks to keep it from running on generic computers. They license it to HP and maybe a few others, Sony?, and they gain partners in their battle against Microsoft.

Opteron and G5 set ups are practically the same. Hypertransport is used also. the only issue is that look at the prices of an Opteron system. there is no cost advantage compared to Intel. an Opteron based PM would cost the same or more than the current G5.

It looks like CNET has provided something to keep the discussions lively until the WWDC keynote. Maybe Intel will modify the mobile Pentium M with a PPC front end and AltiVec for things like the iBook and Mac mini. I haven't given up on the 970MP appearing in a new quad workstation class Mac.

IMHO, if Apple goes through with this, sell your stock now; because it will be worthless in less than 3 years. That is how long, on the outside, Apple would last in a software only battle vs Micro$oft. I know the reason I bought my Mac was as much for the hardware design as for the OS X. So what would we have to look forward to, OS X running in those 'ricer' ATX cases??

And if they are serious about this, why Intel? They would be using the most expensive, most archaic architecture and most power/heat inefficient x86 CPU's. AMD would be a much better choice, IF they were actually going to switch.

My prediction - Intel will produce a RISC chip for Apple that is not PPC, but really close (just different enough to avoid legal trouble). Apple will bundle this with a DSP that translates the PPC instruction set to the new processors machine language.

Any re-compiled application will use the new processor directly, while legacy applications will get piped through the DSP. The DSP will not have to do that much because the Intel processor's instruction set will be designed for easy translation.

Wow. And not so long ago people were complaining about how unstormy it was prior to WWDC.

The only way I see Apple moving to Intel is if CEOs of Intel, Dell, HP, Gateway and Acer are standing up there with Steve at the WWDC keynote and promising that they will be shipping Mac OS X for Intel by the time Xbox 360 comes out this fall, or at least a converged home device to compete with Xbox and PS3.

Probably! Having to run the same cheap 3Ghz hardware as those proles would be such a let down - what would the neighbours think?!


Better to go with Intel first. If Intel become a pain then Apple could always Switch to AMD. Going with AMD first and Intel might not like being second in line.

Pentium M is expensive but neither archaic nor generate lots of heat, indeed much less heat than a G5 . And on the roadmap there is Yonah.

oops duplicate post deleted

If I had to bet, my money would be on this explanation.