or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel-based Macs coming soon? - Page 4

post #121 of 434
Quote:
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. [/B]

The term "with the matter" tells me a lot because using the term "with the matter" doesn't say "with the matter of the switch from PPC to x86". It tells me that it could mean a million things or nothing at all and this "industry exec" could be anyone in the industry AHEM and how big is the PC industry?
Not to mention who is to say that this is or isn't the same "industry exec" that CNET got a hold of? (like I stated before).
post #122 of 434
i call head fake. i've had some time to sleep on this, and i feel that the Intel discussion is mainly about a possible TabletMac, but this is just very preliminary discussions.

a clear IBM-centric strategy will be revealed on Monday. bring on the next-gen CPUs, Apple and IBM will see us Mac fans through to the end of the decade.

i could be wrong, but this is my feeling at the moment.

also my feeling is Nadal will win the French Open.
post #123 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
It actually doesn't say anything about Intel it says Pentium. I'd say the chances are high that future Macs will not be running a Pentium chip as we know it... but rather a brand new Intel PPC chip designed specifically for Apple.

Chances? What kind of chances? Why would Intel invest all the money needed to develop and fabricate a PPC chip just for Apple? They're not a big enough customer for all that.

It's x86 or bust.
post #124 of 434
I think there must be a grain of truth in this rumor, especially to get this much press (albeit potentially inaccurate press).

A new device must use some intel chip. This would satisfy these claims but still root primary Mac development in PPC land. The new machine could run OS X, Dashboard, some media and other Apple apps, and XCode could compile for it.

I dunno. This whole drama is the most primetime coverage I've seen for the issue. I can't wait to see what's announced Monday


Edit: spelling
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #125 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Yes, I hate the x86 ISA and think it sucks. ... If the "X on x86" is the real path Steve has chosen, he is going to have some fancy footwork to do.

Of course he likes doing fancy footwork. I think a lot of Mac users are still unhappy that the MacOS 9 to 10 conversion was a lot more expensive than they expected. And here he expects people to buy all new software again? Corporate loyalty works both ways, Steve.

Intel won't make a PPC, you guys can give that up. They make Pentiums and ARMs. (Didn't the Newton use an ARM?)
post #126 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Xool
I think their must be a grain of truth in this rumor, especially to get this much press (albeit potentially inaccurate press).

A new device must use some intel chip. This would satisfy these claims but still root primary Mac development in PPC land. The new machine could run OS X, Dashboard, some media and other Apple apps, and XCode could compile for it.

I dunno. This whole drama is the most primetime coverage I've seen for the issue. I can't wait to see what's announced Monday

This would certainly answer the "Apple volume is insignificant" charge. A consumer device, with the same kind of sales as the iPod would mean an awful lot of processors, even to Intel. The fact that it would be branded Intel would mean as little to users as the ARM/PortalPlayer chips in the iPod.

Announcing it at a developers conference is an interesting choice. Whether it's relevant to the audience is unclear, and past announcements seem to suggest WWDC has become the summer keynote venue that MacWorld New York used to be, and not just the domain of OS revelations.

If it is somehow relevant, then perhaps it's an extension to the iPod concept, and now there's enough processor and user interface to have developers write applications for it. iPod with a keyboard? Pen interface? Something?
.racecar.
Reply
.racecar.
Reply
post #127 of 434
Just to add a couple of wild thoughts here. Probably way off base but then probably so are the WSJ, CNet and that tit Thurrot. Bearing in mind they are usually 100% back asswards wrong, I thought I'd turn this rumour around.

So, I reckon Intel are going PowerPC. ;-)

My 'reasoning'.

Microsoft's Xbox 360 chips are supposedly being manufactured by other fabs besides IBM's East Fishkill plant. I'd guess Sony too. At the level of production they'd need for millions of consoles, they'd have to manufacturer them somewhere else. Maybe Intel is fabbing them?

Secondly, Apple is notably absent from signing up to the Power.org consortium as for that matter are Motorola/Freescale. I've been wondering why? Surely they'd be founding members? The technology is supposedly licensable to others. What if Intel became a Power licence? What if the talks between Apple and Intel have been to persuade Intel to join the Power camp, not to persuade Apple to join the Intel camp?

Think how many Xbox, Sony PS3 and Nintendos will ship in the next few years without Intel chips in them. Think how many of those consoles will be used instead of slower PCs. Can you imagine Intel NOT wanting a piece of that?

The X86 has stalled. Intel have been trying to move away from it for 2 decades at least but continually fail as their traditional customers see no benefit. With Apple, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, Intel has a large customer base to tap.

There's no advantage for Apple to move to X86. There's every advantage for Intel to move to Power.


If Intel's CEO appears on stage with Steve and announces the new Intel G6 PowerPC, you can all thank me for my wild punditry. ;-)
post #128 of 434
Quote:
originally posted by aegisdesign:
There's no advantage for Apple to move to X86. There's every advantage for Intel to move to Power.
If Intel's CEO appears on stage with Steve and announces the new Intel G6 PowerPC, you can all thank me for my wild punditry. ;-)

As unlikely as this is, if you are correct, I think most of us would be VERY happy.
post #129 of 434
I for one welcome our Intel-produced microprocessor overlords.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #130 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by bandalay
This would certainly answer the "Apple volume is insignificant" charge. A consumer device, with the same kind of sales as the iPod would mean an awful lot of processors, even to Intel. The fact that it would be branded Intel would mean as little to users as the ARM/PortalPlayer chips in the iPod.

So we're now reaching that, not only is it a new device, not a mac, but it's somehow going to have the same kind of sales as the iPod (no problem, I'm sure, since its got an Apple logo on it, right!), and this is somehow going to answer some "volume is insignificant" charge? Well, Apple's marketshare in COMPUTERS is insignificant. A new consumer device isn't going to help that. Only if its running OS X, and software written for it will just work on Macs will it get some more software written for Apple (and despite everyone saying "its just a simple recompile", the problem is getting the developers developing for x86, say, to recompile it for PPC. Or vice versa. Developers will only do it if there's money in the activity. Regardless of how easy it is. There's support issues, testing issues, etc. Its not just "Recompile and send it out".

Oh, and is this switch to Intel going to magically get us drivers for all that windows only hardware out there? I'm tired of having to make sure a peripheral says "OS X support" when looking for a new printer, scanner, camera, etc, etc, etc.

Hey, and maybe all of this is being done so Apple can finally dump Fairplay and license WMA so they can get all those great subscription services to work with iTunes and the iPod. Did you think of that!????
post #131 of 434
BTW, the Wall Street Journal may have the exact same source as CNET, so a confirmation isn't necessarily an independent confirmation.
post #132 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
The term "with the matter" tells me a lot because using the term "with the matter" doesn't say "with the matter of the switch from PPC to x86". It tells me that it could mean a million things or nothing at all and this "industry exec" could be anyone in the industry AHEM and how big is the PC industry?
Not to mention who is to say that this is or isn't the same "industry exec" that CNET got a hold of? (like I stated before).

No, "With the matter" is referring to the second half of the sentence which goes on to say "the schedule outlined in the story." Meaning the source is confirming that 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.

How reliable this source is, we have no idea, BUT it does say specifically that Apple is moving to Intel chips for it's CPU's (Mini's and Powermacs.)

It also says nothing about x86 which in my opinion means this will be a new chip. Whatever chip this is it has to be able to support OSX in 64bit...x86 seems like an unlikely candidate.
post #133 of 434
Quote:
originally posted by solsun:
It also says nothing about x86 which in my opinion means this will be a new chip. Whatever chip this is it has to be able to support OSX in 64bit.

For the love of G-d, let's hope you're right. I for one am not so confident ... The more I read about Jobs, the more I've come to believe that Steve enjoys a good roll of the dice.

Finally, I wonder how the engineers at Apple will greet the advent of a x86 Mac if that is in fact what we're looking at. We've talked to some degree in the last day about how loyal Mac users and other consumers would respond to OS X on x86, and the pain in the a@s for developers, but I wonder about the folks who do the work itself at Cupertino.
post #134 of 434
Maybe Apple is going to ship Macs, maybe even all macs, with PPC and x86 chips inside, like the old Quadra 610. Or a multi-core chip that contains both architectures on a single chip.
post #135 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric_Z
Oh yes you would. It'd require a bit of effort from the MOL guys, but it will be very doable.

You have no idea at all. Don't just say that.
post #136 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by scavanger
AMD's chips have been getting a steady speed increase. The next chip in the FX series is expected to be a 2.8ghz.

I'm not sure what dual core chips your looking at the the Athlon 64 X2's are running on par with the single core chips...

Really? Where didiyou read that?

The dual chips run 10-15% slower than the singles. Go to Anand, for example and find out for yourself.
post #137 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean


Check it out here on how many platforms Linux runs currently, and then make such statements.

Portable doesn't mean that Linux isn't available on other platforms. Photoshop is available on other platforms, yet it isn't portable.

Portable means that the binaries are useable unaltered across other platforms. The key word here is unaltered.

A number of programs written for one Linux distro isn't always usable in another without a recompile, or different libraries. That's what Posix compatibility means. Look it up.
post #138 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
...


Linux is POSIX compliant. Look it up.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #139 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Linux is POSIX compliant. Look it up.

No it's not. Only partly. As is OS X.
post #140 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No it's not. Only partly. As is OS X.

Fine.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #141 of 434
melgross: 1, geneclean: 0
post #142 of 434
Monday, Pentium D here we come.

I can't wait, finally Apple is "doing the right thing". Ever since the mac has been in existance there has always been problems with getting enough processors, or enough speed out of the chipsets. At least in the future Apple will be able to be on-par speedwise with the windows world.

It will shift industry focus away from the hardware, and onto the "user experience" an OS provides. This should be the final big step to push OS X onto desktops everywhere.

Steve's legacy will be big ;-)
post #143 of 434
I for one welcome our Pentium overlords....

wait a minute....




NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!
post #144 of 434
I can now confirm that it is possible that Bill Gates is C|Net's source for Apple on Intel rumours. In a statement earlier today, he hinted that he might want to confuse and enrage Apple fans this weekend so they are not focused on Steve's upcoming announcements.

Bill Gates was reportedly acting on behalf of Michael Dell, in retaliation for Apple's refusal to license stock hardware designs.

Further investigation has revealed C|Net was paid a sum of $150,000 to publish this story as a news piece.
post #145 of 434
Quote:
originally posted by webmail: Steve's legacy will be big ;-)

Steve's legacy already IS big.
post #146 of 434
PEOPLE LEARN TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER OK NOW QUESTION STEVE JOB
HAS ACOMPANY CALLED PIXAR ,WHAT KIND OF SERVER HE HAS ?
NOW THE POWERFUL G-4 WICH I STILL HAVE LOVE AND HATE .WE LIVE IN A EVER CHANGING WORLD AND CONSIDERING THE OS SYSTEM ,HARDWARE
SORTFWARE AND THE NEED FOR MORE SPEED AND THE MULTI TASK THAT WE WANT FROM A SIMPLE MACHINE MAYBE STEVE JOB IS THE MESSIAH AND EVERYTHING YOU DREAM IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NOW IMAGINE IF YOU WILL
WHAT WONDERFUL THINGS CAN THIS CHANGE AND WHAT NOT SO WONDERFUL THINGS TOO SO PEOLPE ANSWER THE QUESTION AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE EVER HAPPY
post #147 of 434
Brilliant stuff ...
post #148 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by studiotoo
PEOPLE LEARN TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER OK NOW QUESTION STEVE JOB
HAS ACOMPANY CALLED PIXAR ,WHAT KIND OF SERVER HE HAS ?
NOW THE POWERFUL G-4 WICH I STILL HAVE LOVE AND HATE .WE LIVE IN A EVER CHANGING WORLD AND CONSIDERING THE OS SYSTEM ,HARDWARE
SORTFWARE AND THE NEED FOR MORE SPEED AND THE MULTI TASK THAT WE WANT FROM A SIMPLE MACHINE MAYBE STEVE JOB IS THE MESSIAH AND EVERYTHING YOU DREAM IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NOW IMAGINE IF YOU WILL
WHAT WONDERFUL THINGS CAN THIS CHANGE AND WHAT NOT SO WONDERFUL THINGS TOO SO PEOLPE ANSWER THE QUESTION AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE EVER HAPPY

Dear studiotoo,

Please consider a remedial online etiquette class at your earliest convenience. Proper employment of grammar, punctuation and capitalization will lead to people actually bothering to read your drivel, and might even compell them to respond.

Thanks.
"I have a dream, that one day, my posts will be judged by their content, not their spelling."
Reply
"I have a dream, that one day, my posts will be judged by their content, not their spelling."
Reply
post #149 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by studiotoo
PEOPLE LEARN TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER OK NOW QUESTION STEVE JOB
HAS ACOMPANY CALLED PIXAR ,WHAT KIND OF SERVER HE HAS ?
NOW THE POWERFUL G-4 WICH I STILL HAVE LOVE AND HATE .WE LIVE IN A EVER CHANGING WORLD AND CONSIDERING THE OS SYSTEM ,HARDWARE
SORTFWARE AND THE NEED FOR MORE SPEED AND THE MULTI TASK THAT WE WANT FROM A SIMPLE MACHINE MAYBE STEVE JOB IS THE MESSIAH AND EVERYTHING YOU DREAM IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NOW IMAGINE IF YOU WILL
WHAT WONDERFUL THINGS CAN THIS CHANGE AND WHAT NOT SO WONDERFUL THINGS TOO SO PEOLPE ANSWER THE QUESTION AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE EVER HAPPY

to which i say.... wtf mate ?
post #150 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No it's not. Only partly. As is OS X.

STFU

POSIX is not an ABI. Linux, the BSDs, Solaris, Irix, etc are all Posix compliant.

You can have source portability and binary portability. POSIX is about source portability. There are other standards as well - check R. Stevens' "Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" for details.

Now stop spreading manure.
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
post #151 of 434
Why are we up so late?
post #152 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by UnixPoet
STFU

POSIX is not an ABI. Linux, the BSDs, Solaris, Irix, etc are all Posix compliant.

You can have source portability and binary portability. POSIX is about source portability. There are other standards as well - check R. Stevens' "Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" for details.

Now stop spreading manure.

If you stopped sitting it your information would smell better.

The kernel is Posix compliant. But the distro's are not.

What some here forget is that there is no such thing as a Linux OS. That would like saying that there is a Mach OS because OS X has a Mach kernel.

The distro's are the OSes, and they are not fully Posix compliant.
post #153 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
melgross: 1, geneclean: 0

Because I let go, seeing as he/she doesn't really know what it means to be POSIX compliant, does not mean that she actually scored any point in this debate.

In any case, GNU/Linux is POSIX compliant and is the only OS that runs on as many as 10 different architectures.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #154 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Because I let go, seeing as he/she doesn't really know what it means to be POSIX compliant, does not mean that she actually scored any point in this debate.

In any case, GNU/Linux is POSIX compliant and is the only OS that runs on as many as 10 different architectures.

He.

I actually do understand this. It's somewhat more complex that you seem to think it is.

GNU does a pretty good job at compliance, and they adhere to most of those standards, as does OS X. But as you can see from their own page, even though they define the Posix standards that they do adhere to, even they say that;

"In general the GNU C library supports the ISO C and POSIX standards."

In general

http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html

As I've said, they do a pretty good job, but support is not complete. This doesn't mean that it won't be in the future.

Other distro's are less in compliance.
post #155 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by studiotoo
PEOPLE LEARN TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER OK NOW QUESTION STEVE JOB
HAS ACOMPANY CALLED PIXAR ,WHAT KIND OF SERVER HE HAS ?
NOW THE POWERFUL G-4 WICH I STILL HAVE LOVE AND HATE .WE LIVE IN A EVER CHANGING WORLD AND CONSIDERING THE OS SYSTEM ,HARDWARE
SORTFWARE AND THE NEED FOR MORE SPEED AND THE MULTI TASK THAT WE WANT FROM A SIMPLE MACHINE MAYBE STEVE JOB IS THE MESSIAH AND EVERYTHING YOU DREAM IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NOW IMAGINE IF YOU WILL
WHAT WONDERFUL THINGS CAN THIS CHANGE AND WHAT NOT SO WONDERFUL THINGS TOO SO PEOLPE ANSWER THE QUESTION AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE EVER HAPPY

. . . no . . . yes . . . water bottle . . . cleopatra . . . marlboro . . . Intel.

post #156 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why are we up so late?

Because this is like, the biggest newserr, rumour, like, ever.

Yeah.

post #157 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Apparatus
Because this is like, the biggest newserr, rumour, like, ever.

Yeah.


Well, maybe we should be allowed to vote on this.
post #158 of 434
Don't flame me for this, I don't know all too much about processor architecture, but could Intel be building a Cell processor for Apple?

Bear in mind I don't know much about Cell other than it is "f***ing awesome" and that it needs to be modified (?) somehow to work good. Just throwing this out there as I haven't seen it mentioned.
Daniel Tull
Reply
Daniel Tull
Reply
post #159 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by danielctull
Don't flame me for this, I don't know all too much about processor architecture, but could Intel be building a Cell processor for Apple?

Bear in mind I don't know much about Cell other than it is "f***ing awesome" and that it needs to be modified (?) somehow to work good. Just throwing this out there as I haven't seen it mentioned.

There's been a lot of discussion about this on the tech sites such as Arstechnica.com. Check out articles by "Hannibal" and others.

I'm not sure if Intel would be able to do this though. It seems to be a Sony IBM thing.
post #160 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by studiotoo
PEOPLE LEARN TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER OK NOW QUESTION STEVE JOB
HAS ACOMPANY CALLED PIXAR ,WHAT KIND OF SERVER HE HAS ?
NOW THE POWERFUL G-4 WICH I STILL HAVE LOVE AND HATE .WE LIVE IN A EVER CHANGING WORLD AND CONSIDERING THE OS SYSTEM ,HARDWARE
SORTFWARE AND THE NEED FOR MORE SPEED AND THE MULTI TASK THAT WE WANT FROM A SIMPLE MACHINE MAYBE STEVE JOB IS THE MESSIAH AND EVERYTHING YOU DREAM IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NOW IMAGINE IF YOU WILL
WHAT WONDERFUL THINGS CAN THIS CHANGE AND WHAT NOT SO WONDERFUL THINGS TOO SO PEOLPE ANSWER THE QUESTION AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE EVER HAPPY

Why do fuckheads like this only ever show up on AI?
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?